Theater Garage Marquee Apartments - (Franklin & Lyndale)

[twincitizen]

garfield-- That's a great take. I'll only disagree with you on one point. The "blue building" (which I think has actually been painted tan or taupe) is just a bad location for retail. Access issues there make it a tough sell to retailers. You can only access the parking lot from northbound Lyndale, due to the proximity to the freeway and the full median on Lyndale at this point. This building (and its parking lot) should have been residential, not commercial. People just can't get in here. If a coffee shop couldn't make it, no one can (perfect for right-in, right-out on your way up to 94 or 394). If you can't attract retail in this location with a full parking lot on site, I think that speaks volumes.

Furthermore, the cycletrack along Lyndale to the north needs to be extended down to Franklin, past this and the Rudolph's site, probably taking all of the street parking on that stretch. If Rudolph's is really moving across the street, now would be the time to make those changes (before another user moves into Rudolph's and demands that the 3 on-street parking spaces remain). Re-thinking the access to Ridgewood might not be a terrible idea either (close it completely, make it a one-way, etc.) The current right-in/right-out isn't terrible, but it does chew up quite a bit of frontage on Lyndale.

[PhilmerPhil]

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wjlm7micf2gf ... Report.pdf
The bike situation at Lyndale has been studied and is included on p.16 of this report on Franklin Ave. Hopefully it gets implemented this year. The county hadn't been planning on it, but there may be a push to get this done sooner rather than later. It's unfortunate that it takes such a tragic event to bring attention to the danger of Franklin Ave.

[David Greene]

I'm sorry, I guess this is the wrong place to have a difference of opinion. I was hoping for a reasonable explanation that might lessen my concerns. This is obviously not the forum.

If you're arguing for keeping surface lots over new development ... yeah probably the wrong place ...

Come on, that's not what clf is arguing. It is super annoying that complex issues often get reduced to simple dismissive statements here.

[bubzki2]

I'm sorry, I guess this is the wrong place to have a difference of opinion. I was hoping for a reasonable explanation that might lessen my concerns. This is obviously not the forum.

If you're arguing for keeping surface lots over new development ... yeah probably the wrong place ...

Come on, that's not what clf is arguing. It is super annoying that complex issues often get reduced to simple dismissive statements here.

Take a deep breath and count to ten. It was meant tongue-in-cheek. Quite a bit less snark here than other posts that permeate this forum.

[FISHMANPET]

The best I could figure out is that clf thought that the rents would be too high, using his current rent as an example. Myself and other posted multiple reasons why the rent was in fact not too high for the market, even if it may have been too high for him. There were also rebutals of his specific example of Le Parisian and why it's a bit of an outlier that doesn't represent a typical development experience.

If there's something else I missed please let me know, but that's all I saw, and it was all refuted, and he just complained that we didn't agree with him and left.

There's a dangerous precedent that "the middle" tries to set in this country that when there are two opposing viewpoints, the "correct" answer lies somewhere between those two. Sometimes that's the case, but sometimes one side is just wrong, and we shouldn't be afraid to call that side wrong.

[RailBaronYarr]

Here's a though experiment: Does this building, just south along Lyndale, respect its neighbors? 5 stories high, all of them right against Lake St. http://goo.gl/maps/FzoAt ~10 feet from property to its west, casts shadows on street and adjoining properties. Were the people who built this in 1913 greedy or disrespectful to the 2 story building to its east built in 1910?

[David Greene]

Take a deep breath and count to ten. It was meant tongue-in-cheek. Quite a bit less snark here than other posts that permeate this forum.

If you're having a discussion with someone who disagrees with you and who has specifically stated that he or she doesn't feel like their concerns have been sufficiently addressed, snark is not the most effective tool to use.

[bubzki2]

Take a deep breath and count to ten. It was meant tongue-in-cheek. Quite a bit less snark here than other posts that permeate this forum.

If you're having a discussion with someone who disagrees with you and who has specifically stated that he or she doesn't feel like their concerns have been sufficiently addressed, snark is not the most effective tool to use.

Sorry, but this is, after all, a web message board. I wouldn't get too frustrated about anything you read here. Do that at city council meetings or things of that sort, if you'd like.

Now, back on topic, I think...

[David Greene]

Here's a though experiment: Does this building, just south along Lyndale, respect its neighbors?

That's not at all an apples-to-apples comparison. We're talking about a much larger building. I don't think anyone would have a problem with the kind of building you reference here.

[David Greene]

There's a dangerous precedent that "the middle" tries to set in this country that when there are two opposing viewpoints, the "correct" answer lies somewhere between those two. Sometimes that's the case, but sometimes one side is just wrong, and we shouldn't be afraid to call that side wrong.

That is certainly true and I do think that some here put an honest effort to address cfl's concerns respectfully. But those were drowned out by a larger majority that just wanted to state, "I'm right and you're wrong."

It strikes me as not much different from how Save Dinkytown members have responded to UrbanMSP overtures for conversation.

We can all do a little better in generating productive conversation, no?

[mattaudio]

I hearken back to the wise words of fishmanpet:

There's a dangerous precedent that "the middle" tries to set in this country that when there are two opposing viewpoints, the "correct" answer lies somewhere between those two. Sometimes that's the case, but sometimes one side is just wrong, and we shouldn't be afraid to call that side wrong.

The reality is that many of the claims against this project are ridiculous, and it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation that gives ridiculous complaints unfounded legitimacy.

[RailBaronYarr]

Here's a though experiment: Does this building, just south along Lyndale, respect its neighbors?

That's not at all an apples-to-apples comparison. We're talking about a much larger building. I don't think anyone would have a problem with the kind of building you reference here.

You don't think so? The issue of height wouldn't cause people to worry? A building like this on the corner wouldn't still impact the building to its west by blocking view and sunlight with a relatively ugly backside? Ok, what if 3 of these buildings were placed side-by-side with 8-10' gaps between them, all backing up to the Aldrich properties?

[FISHMANPET]

I've been thinking a lot about the parking wall, and while 2007 Aldrich has no legal right to the current view out of the window, it's still pretty crappy that the backside is the back of a parking ramp. But you can't really step back a parking ramp without making it 90% ramp and 10% parking, which is a huge waste of space. You could swap it so housing is in the back and parking is in the front, but that's obviously not good for the area. I'm guessing a parking podium wouldn't work because of the theater and the ground level retail. I understand the desire to make this kind of a "gateway" building for the corner, so some height at the corner is appropriate. Maybe just a small 6 story apartment tower on the corner and no apartments on top of the retail? I'm not sure if that provides enough parking for the business though.

I'd also be curious to see what a building that didn't require any height variances looked like there, because that's a solution that's been offered by the group.

[woofner]

There's a dangerous precedent that "the middle" tries to set in this country that when there are two opposing viewpoints, the "correct" answer lies somewhere between those two. Sometimes that's the case, but sometimes one side is just wrong, and we shouldn't be afraid to call that side wrong.

That is certainly true and I do think that some here put an honest effort to address cfl's concerns respectfully. But those were drowned out by a larger majority that just wanted to state, "I'm right and you're wrong."

I'm hesitant to go down this handwringing path, but it seemed to me that several people responded to cfl's sole evidence of his perception of a Detroit-like retail scene in the Wedge with respectful reasons why Le Parisien is uniquely fucked. At which point he brought up that he is a CPA. Which one is saying 'nuh-uh' here?

I've been thinking a lot about the parking wall, and while 2007 Aldrich has no legal right to the current view out of the window, it's still pretty crappy that the backside is the back of a parking ramp.

I'll ask again: did they find the trellised green wall indicated on the plans to be infeasible for some reason? I would say that even a blank wall covered in Ivy would be better than at least half of the backyard views I've had in this city.

[mattaudio]

Hey, if we got rid of off-street parking, I'm sure this thing could step back rather nicely.....

[FISHMANPET]

I'll ask again: did they find the trellised green wall indicated on the plans to be infeasible for some reason? I would say that even a blank wall covered in Ivy would be better than at least half of the backyard views I've had in this city.

I'm not really sure what would satisfy people here. The actual home owner there is complaining that she'll lose her view, but other units in her building overlook other buildings next door. I guess I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt in that she would actually support a project that met whatever criteria she's determined, rather than just using this particular thing as an excuse for being a NIMBY (and I think the term fits, it's literally in her back yard, and she doesn't want it there).

[PhilmerPhil]

I'm pretty sure she literally called it her front yard at the meeting. So, NIMFY.

[RailBaronYarr]

I'll ask again: did they find the trellised green wall indicated on the plans to be infeasible for some reason? I would say that even a blank wall covered in Ivy would be better than at least half of the backyard views I've had in this city.

I'm not really sure what would satisfy people here. The actual home owner there is complaining that she'll lose her view, but other units in her building overlook other buildings next door. I guess I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt in that she would actually support a project that met whatever criteria she's determined, rather than just using this particular thing as an excuse for being a NIMBY (and I think the term fits, it's literally in her back yard, and she doesn't want it there).

I think that's the struggle. For the most part, people opposed to the development aren't immediately adjacent homeowners, just neighborhood people concerned about traffic, neighborhood scale/character, parking spillover, the like. Things that (in my mind) have very rational policy responses (fix transit & add good bike facilities to improve mobility options, there is no such thing as an agreed-upon perfect neighborhood character, price on-street parking in the area, respectively). The impacted properties need a more nuanced discussion and compromise that fits within the letter of the law. Since the one vocal homeowner's view isn't actually protected by law, and would be lost even if the building were within the zoning-allowed setback (she'd still be staring at the back of a building, just with about 1 hour more direct sunlight per day), the city and developer should work to minimize impact.

[twincitizen]

(EDIT: This was in response to FISHMANPET's previous post, you guys are too fast for me)

But the height isn't a variance, it's a conditional use permit. Legally speaking, there is a big difference.

Variance = a deviation from the letter of the law (due to unique circumstance of that particular property, which in this case the lack of an alley would certainly qualify)

Conditional Use Permit = permitted by the zoning code, IF AND ONLY IF you can meet certain specified conditions (lot size requirements, etc.)

People who get all fired up about buildings being "too tall" basically have no legal standing. The fight they should be fighting is the variances to setbacks, etc., because that is what affects the bulk and placement of the building walls, etc.

[FISHMANPET]

But the height isn't a variance, it's a conditional use permit. Legally speaking, there is a big difference.

Variance = a deviation from the letter of the law (due to unique circumstance of that particular property, which in this case the lack of an alley would certainly qualify)

Conditional Use Permit = permitted by the zoning code, only IF you can meet certain specified conditions

People who get all fired up about buildings being "too tall" basically have no legal standing. The fight they should be fighting is the variances to setbacks, etc., because that is what affects the bulk and placement of the building walls, etc.

Where can I read to learn more about this kind of stuff?

E: Screw it, I should just read Minneapolis zoning code. Is that going to put me into a coma?