urbanMSP

$365? Good lord.

Yeah, what about new Ped Overlays? Or, are we going to (continue to) run around and try to put out fires AFTER they are submitted with existing guidelines in place and have ZERO leverage and open the city to litigation by the owners?

This. I like that this inspires such resistance, but what is being appealed here? Except for the minor variances granted, it meets the requirements. It's not a PUD and doesn't require a comp plan change, so they don't have all that much discretion here.

If this is unacceptable, changes are needed, but those changes should be to policy, not by denying an application that met substantive requirements and needed only minor variances.

If we get 100 people to send $5 to a gofundme, we could fund an appeal just to throw a time wrench in this. But I'm not sure it has much legal merit.

Yeah, what about new Ped Overlays? Or, are we going to (continue to) run around and try to put out fires AFTER they are submitted with existing guidelines in place and have ZERO leverage and open the city to litigation by the owners?

This. I like that this inspires such resistance, but what is being appealed here? Except for the minor variances granted, it meets the requirements. It's not a PUD and doesn't require a comp plan change, so they don't have all that much discretion here.

If this is unacceptable, changes are needed, but those changes should be to policy, not by denying an application that met substantive requirements and needed only minor variances.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the city fought pretty hard to deny the project 100 yards down the street by denying an alley vacation. Yet seem willing to rollover with regards to this project. Making it even more weird is that the project they effectively killed would have added uses to this area while this project reduces active uses. This is what is upsetting to me. It's perfectly reasonable to be upset about this based on this logic.

I will agree that we need to lobby city leaders to institute change, but also making a stink about poor land uses can also be effective in letting city leaders know this is just plain stupid. All-in-all the city will do what is necessary when they have the tools to deny an application, but don't seem to be working hard to create overlays or FAR minimums to institute meaningful change. There is some hypocrisy in that, no?

There is. Which is what leaves me so confused and even more upset.

I have to plead ignorance on what that project was -- but surely you see the difference between refusing to vacate right-of-way that they own, versus preventing a private developer from using their private land almost exactly as the city has prescribed.

The problem is that the city's prescription is bad, at least for this corridor. Not that the applicant intends to use their land as the city allows.

Anyone able to dig up if the Planning Commission vote with just 5 out of 10 members present was legal?

That would be reason enough to appeal - just to ask the City Council's Zoning and Planning Committee to properly review the applications.

I'm fine with throwing money at the appeal purely as a delay tactic and conversation starter for change.

I have to plead ignorance on what that project was -- but surely you see the difference between refusing to vacate right-of-way that they own, versus preventing a private developer from using their private land almost exactly as the city has prescribed.

The problem is that the city's prescription is bad, at least for this corridor. Not that the applicant intends to use their land as the city allows.

Absolutely, just attempting to highlight a reason people may be upset, or at least myself.

Anyone able to dig up if the Planning Commission vote with just 5 out of 10 members present was legal?

That would be reason enough to appeal - just to ask the City Council's Zoning and Planning Committee to properly review the applications.

I'm fine with throwing money at the appeal purely as a delay tactic and conversation starter for change.

Word, I can throw a tenner on this.

Anyone able to dig up if the Planning Commission vote with just 5 out of 10 members present was legal?

5 members is a quorum, according to this 2015 doc of bylaw revisions I found: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 135838.pdf

Maybe an appeal is a legitimate political tactic to draw attention to the matter, but I really don't think the planning commission erred here...

But if you have five members, one of who is apparently obligated to not vote in the absence of a tie, is that really five members?

This seems like a similar line or argument to that of consent agendas stifling public comment..

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

A requirement of 5 members present is not the same as one of 5 members voting....

Do you really think the outcome would have been different if there'd been 10 members present? For better or worse, this was a boringly cut-and-dried decision for them to make.

I do realize I'm grasping at straws here. That said, I'll spot the first $30 if others pool in to file a formal appeal just to drag this project out and make a spectacle of how ridiculous our codes are.

I can think of worse things to spend $20 on. I'm in.

I hate that I'll have to live with this in my neighborhood (well, technically across the street from my neighborhood, but whatever.) I can throw in ten spite-dollars.

I'll donate $20 to the cause.

Of course I'll donate. Like I said, we need to act fast since the deadline for appeal I'm only 10 days after approval.

Instead of throwing your collective monies into a hole in the ground and lighting it on fire, why don't you donate it something that will actually make a difference? A food shelf, an overnight shelter, a scholarship fund? If it's just about the spectacle, you could buy yourselves a snarky brick at the Vikings stadium plaza.