3535 Grand Ave S

Calhoun-Isles, Cedar-Riverside, Longfellow, Nokomis, Phillips, Powderhorn, and Southwest
PhilmerPhil
Moderator
Posts: 1197
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 11:38 am
Location: SOUP: SOuth UPtown

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby PhilmerPhil » June 21st, 2015, 9:56 pm


twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5928
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby twincitizen » June 22nd, 2015, 7:09 am

So there's actually two separate things going on here:
1. The crazy person from Present Moments across the street, who simply hates the building and is willing to flush their money down the toilet on an appeal. I wouldn't worry about this too much. They did the same thing in 2012 when the previous project was approved and the appeal was denied.

2. The Planning Commission denied two setback variances for the parking lot. The developer is asking to reduce the setback for the parking lot (from the side lot lines) from the required 5 feet down to 2 feet on the north and 3 feet on the south. The Planning Commission approved the project and all other requests, but denied those two variance requests. The developer is now appealing that decision to the Z&P Committee. Bender was not at the Planning Commission meeting, so I'm not sure which way she's leaning on those two variances.

I really don't think there is any cause for worrying about the crazy person. The project has the support of the neighborhood group and it is just too much common sense to fill in this vacant lot with a reasonable 3-story development. The bigger question is whether the Z&P Committee will opt to overturn the Planning Commission's decision denying those setback variances.

PhilmerPhil
Moderator
Posts: 1197
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 11:38 am
Location: SOUP: SOuth UPtown

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby PhilmerPhil » June 22nd, 2015, 7:36 am

twincitizen wrote:The project has the support of the neighborhood group and it is just too much common sense to fill in this vacant lot with a reasonable 3-story development.
While I'm more amused with and not really worried about that Tran Muehler guy, the neighborhood did vote 12-10 to deny all variances. Technically the neighborhood does not support the project, although it seems that's just due to Tran organizing a few of his buddies to join him.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby Wedgeguy » June 22nd, 2015, 8:59 am

Watched the video last night and was amazed how ill prepared some of the speakers were. I like how the one commissioner said point blank that we have to have tangible and legal standing to refuse this project. Emotions do not count in that aspect of the game. The people brought up valid points that the city will have to address, storm water, possible parking issues. It was a good lesson on what can or can't be used as a point of trying to stop or change the project. The price point issues was enlightening in it should give future groups trying to push their agenda as to how far legally the city can make someone build below rate housing. Thanks Phil, that was most enlightening!!

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7528
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby mattaudio » June 22nd, 2015, 9:02 am

Painful to watch.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5928
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby twincitizen » June 22nd, 2015, 10:01 am

PhilmerPhil wrote:
twincitizen wrote:The project has the support of the neighborhood group and it is just too much common sense to fill in this vacant lot with a reasonable 3-story development.
While I'm more amused with and not really worried about that Tran Muehler guy, the neighborhood did vote 12-10 to deny all variances. Technically the neighborhood does not support the project, although it seems that's just due to Tran organizing a few of his buddies to join him.
Did the Housing Committee (of Lyndale n'hood) vote to support it then? The letter you forwarded me seemed to indicate that there was neighborhood support.

PhilmerPhil
Moderator
Posts: 1197
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 11:38 am
Location: SOUP: SOuth UPtown

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby PhilmerPhil » June 22nd, 2015, 10:23 am

Yes, the Housing Committee did support it prior to the full neighborhood vote.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5928
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby twincitizen » March 12th, 2016, 5:20 pm

Site has been graded and there's a bobcat and small construction trailer on site. Looks like this is finally about to get underway

PhilmerPhil
Moderator
Posts: 1197
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 11:38 am
Location: SOUP: SOuth UPtown

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby PhilmerPhil » April 14th, 2016, 6:39 pm


twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5928
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby twincitizen » May 12th, 2016, 7:39 am

http://finance-commerce.com/2016/05/lan ... t-project/

This is well underway. They made a slight change to add brick to the front facade only.

Image
Image

Photos courtesy of Finance & Commerce

RoundaboutTCities
Block E
Posts: 1
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 11:23 am

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby RoundaboutTCities » May 12th, 2016, 8:02 am

Though to some persons ANY building is fine and better than none, Hundreds of Majority in most Neighborhoods prefer Responsible appropiate Building with Planned parking for All tenants and Spaces for customers On street. Two businesses at 35th Grand location have done Very well for over THIRTY Years they deserve Respect Consideration for many Contributions to all of South Mpls indeed the World as herb shop Present Moment has done ! Thanks if U read this, from a six year former resident Patrick Hoping not too many Problems to come

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby RailBaronYarr » May 12th, 2016, 8:40 am

twincitizen wrote:http://finance-commerce.com/2016/05/lan ... t-project/

This is well underway. They made a slight change to add brick to the front facade only.
I was really surprised with the discussion at the Planning Commission on this. They eventually settled on approving the site plan review as requested (Staff recommended approval but with the new material on all sides, not just the front), but not after quite a bit of kvetching. Commissioner Luepke-Pier had a problem with the front of the building being treated like a gem and the sides and back like garbage, didn't want to set that as a precedent. Setting aside how much the CPC should be a design review board (another example, Comm. Slack talking about the brick making the building look more monolithic), this practice is very common across the city. Many 100+ year old apartment buildings have really nice brick and detailing on the front and very generic/cheap brick with no details on windows on the sides and back. I'd even say many single family homes are treated this way; not very often people spent money on flourishes that face a side or back yard. Precedent has been set ages ago. Anyway, it passed, so nothing to really worry about. Just wanted to bring it up.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4562
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby FISHMANPET » May 12th, 2016, 9:24 am

The very building in which Luepke-Pier made that comment demonstrates it: the exterior of City Hall is gorgeous stone while the interior courtyards are dirty nasty cheap brick.

User avatar
Mdcastle
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 761
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby Mdcastle » May 12th, 2016, 9:34 am

We kind of got away from this for a while, a lot of the mid-century ranch houses and ramblers except for maybe some brick or stone under the picture window one side was about the same as any other side, but now the typical Shakopee McMansion has all sorts of gables, stone veneer, and pillars on the front, and the other three elevations are unbroken vinyl siding

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7528
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby mattaudio » May 12th, 2016, 9:36 am

I was really disappointed in the CPC at the last meeting. Just saying.

UrsusUrbanicus
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 109
Joined: February 13th, 2014, 2:08 pm

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby UrsusUrbanicus » May 12th, 2016, 1:13 pm

Mdcastle wrote:We kind of got away from this for a while, a lot of the mid-century ranch houses and ramblers except for maybe some brick or stone under the picture window one side was about the same as any other side, but now the typical Shakopee McMansion has all sorts of gables, stone veneer, and pillars on the front, and the other three elevations are unbroken vinyl siding
And people sink themselves into a third-of-a-million dollars in debt for the privilege. SMH. Would removing the various constraints on housing supply, many of them regulatory, make it once again feasible for developers to offer moderate units of thorough quality at moderate price points?

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3803
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby seanrichardryan » May 12th, 2016, 5:37 pm

Mdcastle wrote:We kind of got away from this for a while, a lot of the mid-century ranch houses and ramblers except for maybe some brick or stone under the picture window one side was about the same as any other side, but now the typical Shakopee McMansion has all sorts of gables, stone veneer, and pillars on the front, and the other three elevations are unbroken vinyl siding
Off-topic, but yeah, it's getting bad out there:
A corner lot on 61st & Ithaca in Plymouth
Image
Image
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

Archiapolis
Foshay Tower
Posts: 815
Joined: November 2nd, 2012, 8:59 am

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby Archiapolis » May 13th, 2016, 7:43 am

UrsusUrbanicus wrote:
Mdcastle wrote:We kind of got away from this for a while, a lot of the mid-century ranch houses and ramblers except for maybe some brick or stone under the picture window one side was about the same as any other side, but now the typical Shakopee McMansion has all sorts of gables, stone veneer, and pillars on the front, and the other three elevations are unbroken vinyl siding
And people sink themselves into a third-of-a-million dollars in debt for the privilege. SMH. Would removing the various constraints on housing supply, many of them regulatory, make it once again feasible for developers to offer moderate units of thorough quality at moderate price points?
Could you expand on this? What constraints are you talking about? I'm trying to understand the point that you are trying to make.

User avatar
Mdcastle
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 761
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby Mdcastle » May 13th, 2016, 10:21 am

No matter what happens, it's not going to be possible to build anything but McMansions unless we address some of the policies constraining land supply. You have
1) Anti-growth policies like the MUSA line
2) Minimum lot size zoning that most of the suburbs have.
When these combine and a typical suburban lot is a 1/4 acre and costs $85,000, you need to build a house 3-5 times the value of the lot, so it's impossible to build for under $300,000 or so.

As a thought experiment I posted in the Bloomington thread if we didn't have minimum lot size zoning, if we could build something that had most of the benefits of a detached house on a very small lot; my idea was to build up while having a common garage wall and driveway. You'd have a very small back yard, but a lot of people don't have kids and don't use it much preferring grilling on their deck. you'd still have light and air on all four sides of the living area and not be able to hear your neighbors stereo at night.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7528
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: 3535 Grand Ave S

Postby mattaudio » May 13th, 2016, 11:01 am

I'd be happy to replace the MUSA Line with more common-sense expansion policies directly limited to development impacts. As in, cities should not extend sewer/water/streets unless it is proven that the marginal cost to maintain and eventually replace that infrastructure is covered, over time, by the marginal increase in tax revenue to that local government. That is, the growth should be financially viable.

I'd be up for getting rid of minimum lot sizes altogether. We already have setbacks and other requirements, so minimum lot sizes are redundant even in a "green light" scenario, and are a barrier to common sense development/intensification in other scenarios (such as last week's variance denial at Mpls CPC due to 280 SF below minimum lot area).


Return to “Minneapolis - South, Southwest, and Uptown”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests