urbanMSP

Not sure if this deserves its own thread, but I saw this proposal on the Lupe website. This lot isn't the best in the North Loop, but the proposal is pretty disappointing, I don't think it could look any more suburban if they tried.

http://lupedevelopment.com/indevelopment.html#520

I got physically upset seeing that. You are right, it isn't the best location but that building belongs in Mankato, or Burnsville, or Chaska, or...you get the point. Ugh.

I drive by this lot every day on my commute, and have often wondered what could possibly fill this space. It's awkwardly shaped and not very large. I'm happy to see something going in, but it does look suburban. This part of the city, toward Broadway, has made some big strides in the last few years - especially with the Coloplast building.

IMO, this certainly does not need its own thread. The name is generic so I'm going to keep checking it for updates, just to remember they're building what looks like a Perkins with a surface lot here. 10K RSF is also too low, IMO, to be posted.

It would have been fun, albeit expensive, to build a building that takes the shape of the lot. I LOVE it when cities have oddly-shaped bldgs like that!

Ugh, are those fake balconies over the windows in the first rendering on the left, to give it the illusion of urban height? That's disgusting.

This is a very poor use of prime real estate. It's hard to imagine that City zoning would allow this?

gross. keep this kinda crap in Eagan where it belongs

Crappy suburbaniety aside, how was something with such a low FAR approved in the first place? Seems like that shouldn't even have been allowed in the North Loop to begin with. Failure/loophole in the zoning code?

That is a butt ton of surface parking, and I can't imagine it's too difficult to find a space on the street around here... What gives?

http://ebrochure.colliersmsp.com/Proper ... sp2097.pdf

"This is a land sale pass through from MnDOT to the developer that involves no possible assembly of adjacent property. The property consists of abandoned excess right of way from a cancelled roadway project and is less than one acre (34,338 sq. ft.) in size. The property boundaries are largely Plymouth Avenue North, Second Street North and railroad right of way. The property is adjacent to the Star Tribune on the south. Typically, public development projects are not speculative in nature. A specific committed tenant or user of the site and financing is generally required by the City prior to closing on a ublic land sale. This is one way that the City ensures that there is a public benefit outcome resulting from the sale of the land under its redevelopment authority. However, the challenges with this site, the recession, MnDOT prohibitions on signage to recruit tenants and the passing of time have prevented the developer in securing financing and/or an end user of the site. The developer has requested the amended terms attached to provide maximum flexibility to achieve re-development for this site and place the property on the City tax roll in the future."

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 093274.pdf

they could have AT LEAST put the parking in the back and create a lovely walkway to the front and make it fit better by building closer to the sidewalk inviting and walking friendly but nope. Also yea the fake baloney are funny must be some goood food they gotta be good at something since building design is lacking

Another case of real life development interfering with my impossibly obscure and unrealistic hypothetical plans for Minneapolis: http://goo.gl/maps/xmt1O

Edit: After looking at the link, it seems we would want to use any available reason to stall this strip mall, including the potential for this site to be a part of heavy rail trackage to a new perpendicular station throat sometime in the year 2253.

I like your plan too!

LOL yes my realistic network of frequent and reliable electrified commuter rail for the year 2216.. http://goo.gl/maps/jW1kG but actually that plan would route all services thru the existing Wayzata Sub alignment through the Interchange, so this other perpendicular station concourse would not be needed.

The property consists of abandoned excess right of way from a cancelled roadway project and is less than one acre (34,338 sq. ft.) in size.

Interesting. Could this be the old I-335 project. I know that proposal had the highway angling across the river from Boom Island to about this location. At any rate, best wishes that a Forever 21 flagship store does well here!

Yes it is surplus MNDOT land that was originally planned for I-335. Apparently it was a superfund site due to some battery/metal reclamation on the site... sounds like maybe the state condemned the property and then leased it back to the business pending the plans moving forward? I can't imagine such site contamination was done solely in the late 1970s and early 80s...

The property consists of abandoned excess right of way from a cancelled roadway project and is less than one acre (34,338 sq. ft.) in size.

Interesting. Could this be the old I-335 project. I know that proposal had the highway angling across the river from Boom Island to about this location. At any rate, best wishes that a Forever 21 flagship store does well here!

Yes, it goes into a bit more detail on this property in the linked PDF above, including the very long list of standard city operating procedures that Minn had the gall to request be waived (and apparently the savvy to receive).

Crappy suburbaniety aside, how was something with such a low FAR approved in the first place? Seems like that shouldn't even have been allowed in the North Loop to begin with. Failure/loophole in the zoning code?

That is a butt ton of surface parking, and I can't imagine it's too difficult to find a space on the street around here... What gives?

This is what I've been complaining about for a while - the zoning code generally allows good development but it doesn't disallow bad development. There should be a max parking frontage that applies to all districts - not just PO districts - so we don't have to deal with this crap. There should be rules about maximum curb cuts per block and/or per project. There should be rules about curb cuts lining up with intersections. (Maybe there should be a minimum FAR, too, although I think the case for that is less clear.) When a city puts forth policy that it wants to grow sustainably and it wants to accommodate all roadway users, it should not allow development that requires a car to safely and comfortably access.

That said, apparently the site plan linked is not the one that received Planning Commission approval. The site is in the Downtown Parking overlay district, and the staff reportclaims that they reduced their lot to 20 spaces so they wouldn't need a variance, but the site plan shows 27 spaces. Maybe they increased the size of the dog run?

This abomination is back from the dead and on the CPC agenda for Monday 10/28/13.

Staff is recommending denial.

Site Plan

Glad their recommending denial. It's a piece of shit.

Don't get too comfortable. Staff recommended denial in 2009 as well, yet the Planning Commission and City Council approved it, probably unanimously or damn near. The only reason the applicant is back is that the approvals lapsed for more than 2 years. They need to completely reapply since they didn't get extensions. Different Planning Commission then, slightly different City Council too, but I wouldn't be so sure it will be roudedly rejected by policymakers. It isn't that uncommon that staff recommends denial on technicalities "by the book" and policymakers have to consider other aspects, like "how long has this been sitting vacant?" or "can this parcel be reasonably redeveloped into something better without assembling other parcels?" or "we passed this in 2009, we could get sued if we deny it without good reason just 4 years later".