Trader Joes (Lyndale and 27th)

[mullen]

this is really much ado about nothing. both schiff and goodman are supporting the re-zoning. it passed the planning commission with only 1 no vote.

trader joes will be a benefit to minneapolis. they've made concessions to give the store a better street presence. the planning process worked as it should.

[woofner]

this is really much ado about nothing. both schiff and goodman are supporting the re-zoning. it passed the planning commission with only 1 no vote.

It would be a bit of a coup if the rest of the committee voted against the councilmember whose ward the project is in. If not for the cherished institution of parochialism, we would likely see dirt being turned on the Linden Corner site today.

Downtown zoning goes as far south as 14th & Nicollet. It may be possible, though, to argue for a rezoning of an adjacent lot, or maybe even anywhere within the freeway ring (which has been used in City documents as a boundary of downtown). I'm not going to pretend that I understand Trader Joe's's expansion strategy, as I don't even understand the consumers who find their kitschy Disney Island marketing appealing (although I would go to a Downtown or Uptown TJ solely for Simpler Times), but I think that the old liquor store site on Nicollet south of 15th would be a tolerable spot for the type of development they're proposing, or even the site at 3rd & 16th southeast of the convention center.

[Nathaniel]

"What Minneapolis Planners should have said to Trader Joe"

http://www.streets.mn/2012/06/21/what-m ... rader-joe/

Lyndale Avenue can do a lot better than this. As the recent OpenStreets proves, the difference between St Paul’s Lexington Parkway and Minneapolis’s Lyndale Avenue is huge. Lyndale is one of the key points where walkability, density, and mixed-use fabric should be maximized in the city. Even if you enjoy making snide remarks about condos, the recent developments near Lake Street have increased density along this corridor, and in the future this area should continue to increase in density with infill. It’s one the few places you can actually walk to more than one store to buy food, where you can actually get by semi-successfully without a car. The parking ratios should be decreasing. Large surface parking lots should be a thing of the past along Lyndale.

Article Link: http://www.streets.mn/2012/06/21/what-m ... rader-joe/

[Didier]

The problem with that passage is that it assumes Trader Joe's is looking to build a new grocery store primarily for those in the immediate neighborhood who can walk there. Everything else aside with the design, Trader Joe's is clearly banking on drawing people from beyond that limited neighborhood, and the only way to do that is by having parking.

So in a lot of ways I think it comes down to a decision of bringing this positive new business into the area with some warts in the design or rejecting it altogether. I'm not necessarily even advocating for the Trader Joe's there, but just pointing out that it's not realistic to expect them to build a high-density, low-parking grocery story in this space.

[WillB]

The City Council Zoning & Planning Committee unanimously denied rezoning at this morning's meeting.

[mullen]

guess they're stuck with the wedge and their craptastic parking to go with inflated pricing. it's made the traffic at that intersection incredibly bad. seems for all our good intentions this is still a driving city.

there has to be a better lot somewhere in south mpls for trader joes. they have nice stores. doesn't st paul have two locations?

[garfield]

Hooray. Minneapolis tells a viable business, "We don't want you to provide jobs and a ton of tax revenue in our city." Get ready for this block to be essentially vacant for a while ... the Guerts family will not be happy with this outcome!

[MNdible]

Question: Do we think if this project had included a housing component, would it have been more or less likely to get approval?

[trkaiser]

This is the Planning Commission doing just what they're supposed to — ensuring development happens in an orderly fashion, doesn't adversely impact the infrastructure and isn't excessively out of character with its surroundings. If they still want a Minneapolis location, they'll find one and have to adapt it better to the surroundings. If they don't, well, let me tell you about all the grocery stores nearby and in the core... Minneapolis is not anti-business, and we'll be fine with or without a Trader Joe's. I'm much more excited to see what happens with Uptown Rainbow. It can't be much longer before something happens there. It's becoming more and more out of step with its surroundings, and could become a fantastic site in the context of an exploding Uptown. I picture a larger version of the Lund's/Cobalt in NE, or something like the Whole Foods I at the western edge of downtown Chicago.

[garfield]

Actually, the Planning Commission approved the development on May 21. This is strictly regarding zoning...because Meg doesn't want it. Remember it is just from C1 to C2 to allow for beer and wine sales...not a drastic change.

[Nathan]

Suddenly I have faith again!!!

[trkaiser]

Ah, yes, city council zoning and planning committee...

[Wedgeguy]

So what was the verdict. Never will there be a TJ's at 27th and Lyndale, or the Developer now will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better design that contains upper levels for office or apartments, and primarily underground parking which it should be.

[PhilmerPhil]

I'm pretty sure the reasons that Meg Tuthill and the Z&P Committee don't support this development are opposite from the reasons most of us don't support it...

[mplsjaromir]

I E-mailed Meg's office about this a few months back when I still lived in her ward and basically she said that she will not accept zoning changes. Although I do not think the current proposal is good, it may preclude other really proposals because they do not conform to code.

[garfield]

My concern is this: the city council will only follow the wishes of the councilmember of the ward where things are proposed. If that is the case, which seems to occur quite frequently, then what is the point of the whole process? The purpose of the City Council is to do what is best for the overall city...not to appease their colleague because he or she doesn't want something.

There are many people that don't like the design, don't like the parking lot, and don't like the potential traffic problems. I understand all of those concerns. But this wasn't denied because of those things - it was because of the zoning change. In reality, what difference does it make if this is rezoned to simply allow for a beer and wine store on that corner? If the Planning Commission approves the plan, shouldn't that mean something?

I know the full Council vote is yet to come, but I'm not very optimistic that they'll go against the zoning committe's decision. This might not have been the best desing, and there was a surface parking lot, but it just feels like city politics got in the way of allowing this development, which I believe would have been a potential springboard for future developments that would have really been beneficial for this neighborhood, and the city as a whole.

[Wedgeguy]

I think there would be away around it, if the developer had some balls and took on the responsiblity of making a redesign that both worked for the area and fit better the density of the neighborhood. 2 to 3 levels of apartments over the TJ. 80 to 85% of the parking in the basement under the store. Main driveway to the underground parking would be off 27th. With the Grocery store on the north end, with a covered common thru way to a few limited parking spaces behind a narrower liqour store, and in this area the enterance also for the apartments above. All fairly straight forward. More expensive yes, but you now have rental income to help pay for all that parking under the building!. You add a light with a northbound turn arrow and you avoid most traffic backups to a point.

Meg might change her tune if there was a real reason for this to happen. Density, less above gound parking, and the liquor becomes a non issue. Look at Greenleaf, they filled up so fast I was shocked!!

[Nathaniel]

Hooray. Minneapolis tells a viable business, "We don't want you to provide jobs and a ton of tax revenue in our city." Get ready for this block to be essentially vacant for a while ... the Guerts family will not be happy with this outcome!

Garfield, I think you're missing the bigger picture.

I'll agree that Minneapolis might lose property tax revenue in the short run (of course, this is debatable as the multiple buildings currently on the site may actually pay more in property taxes than one single-story building with a parking lot). In the long run though, Minneapolis loses by placing Trader Joe's in its current form on the site. Any mixed use development would generate much more for the City in the long run. So, even having these buildings sit vacant for a year or two would probably be better than what is proposed.

The future of Uptown is not that of auto-oriented single-use buildings. Allowing Trader Joe's to place this building in this location will do more harm to the urban fabric than good.

[garfield]

You cannot look at property tax revenue alone. The sales tax from the liqour store alone would probably far exceed any property taxes received from the existing buildings. And then there is income tax...Trader Joe's would employ many times more people than the existing empty buildings.

The fact that there is a parking lot does not mean that you have to drive there to shop. If the residents of Uptown want to shop there, it would be awesome if they walked or biked. The beauty of the parking lot is that the people from the suburbs can park there, and spend their money in Uptown instead of St. Louis Park or Bloomington. This seems like a pretty big missed opportunity.

[mplser]

people from the suburbs can park in a hidden parking lot or underground ramp.