Northeast and Southeast Minneapolis - General Topics

[Silophant]

The Broadway and Marshall neighborhood is getting some more proposed. https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... front.html

A Chicago developer’s first Minnesota proposal. 13 car parking and 49 bike parking. 49 apartment units.

The scale of this building is amazing. Without the parking requirements we are seeing that tight lot, small footprint apartment type again. I love it.

Biked by here on my way to work today and saw that the former house and foundations are entirely gone. Always nice to see a development actually get off the ground right after approval instead of hanging in limbo for a year or two.

[mattaudio]

No post on here yet about 635 Van Buren NE? This parcel nearly backs up to Central Ave where it curves towards downtown, to deconstruct 1970s SFH and build a 23-unit 4-story multifamily building with no on-site parking but an interior "bike hub" with 32 bike parking spaces.

It met current city code / comprehensive plan very closely, but was still denied last night by the Planning Commission on a 6-3 vote.

Honestly this represents a major threat to everything the public weighed in on and the Council approved to implement the 2040 plan, and it sends a signal to developers of these types of what-they-thought-were-slam-dunk projects that they might not want to bother building needed housing along transit in Minneapolis. This should represent a full-on blaring klaxon that the recent pace of new housing in Minneapolis is under threat.

- Packet: https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/download ... %20St%20NE
- Start of item at CPC (1:07) - https://youtu.be/pItJ1XTDHlI?t=4048
- Start of motions/discussion at CPC (2:39) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=9539&v= ... e=youtu.be
- Alex Schieferdecker has an interesting post on this: https://twitter.com/alexschief/status/1 ... O5wFO37cKw

2 (Small).png

1 (Small).png

[daveybabymsp]

No post on here yet about 635 Van Buren NE? This parcel nearly backs up to Central Ave where it curves towards downtown, to deconstruct 1970s SFH and build a 23-unit 4-story multifamily building with no on-site parking but an interior "bike hub" with 32 bike parking spaces.

It met current city code / comprehensive plan very closely, but was still denied last night by the Planning Commission on a 6-3 vote.

Honestly this represents a major threat to everything the public weighed in on and the Council approved to implement the 2040 plan, and it sends a signal to developers of these types of what-they-thought-were-slam-dunk projects that they might not want to bother building needed housing along transit in Minneapolis. This should represent a full-on blaring klaxon that the recent pace of new housing in Minneapolis is under threat.

- Packet: https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/download ... %20St%20NE
- Start of item at CPC (1:07) - https://youtu.be/pItJ1XTDHlI?t=4048
- Start of motions/discussion at CPC (2:39) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=9539&v= ... e=youtu.be
- Alex Schieferdecker has an interesting post on this: https://twitter.com/alexschief/status/1 ... O5wFO37cKw

2 (Small).png

1 (Small).png

Is there any appeals process that the developer can go through? It doesn’t seem like the planning commission should be able to arbitrarily deny a proposal that is in line with the comprehensive plan

[Bakken2016]

No post on here yet about 635 Van Buren NE? This parcel nearly backs up to Central Ave where it curves towards downtown, to deconstruct 1970s SFH and build a 23-unit 4-story multifamily building with no on-site parking but an interior "bike hub" with 32 bike parking spaces.

It met current city code / comprehensive plan very closely, but was still denied last night by the Planning Commission on a 6-3 vote.

Honestly this represents a major threat to everything the public weighed in on and the Council approved to implement the 2040 plan, and it sends a signal to developers of these types of what-they-thought-were-slam-dunk projects that they might not want to bother building needed housing along transit in Minneapolis. This should represent a full-on blaring klaxon that the recent pace of new housing in Minneapolis is under threat.

- Packet: https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/download ... %20St%20NE
- Start of item at CPC (1:07) - https://youtu.be/pItJ1XTDHlI?t=4048
- Start of motions/discussion at CPC (2:39) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=9539&v= ... e=youtu.be
- Alex Schieferdecker has an interesting post on this: https://twitter.com/alexschief/status/1 ... O5wFO37cKw

2 (Small).png 1 (Small).png

Is there any appeals process that the developer can go through? It doesn’t seem like the planning commission should be able to arbitrarily deny a proposal that is in line with the comprehensive plan

Pretty sure they can appeal to the city council.

[mattaudio]

Draft minutes were posted including FiNdInGs oF fAcT used to deny a project that is as-of-right per codes: https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download ... inutes.pdf

635 Van Buren St NE, Ward 3
City Staff: Shanna Sether, PLAN14048

A. Rezoning.

Action: Staff recommendation notwithstanding, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the petition to rezone 635 Van Buren St NE from the R1A Multiple- Family District to the R3 Multiple-Family District, retaining the BFC6 Corridor 6 Built Form Overlay District, based on the following finding:

1. The rezoning is not consistent with Policies 38 and 80 of the comprehensive plan, which are to locate high-density housing on a high-frequency transit line or near a METRO station. This property is not located on Central Ave NE, which has the high-frequency transit. This property has difficult access to Central Ave NE.
2. The rezoning is not consistent with Policy 33 Affordable Housing Preservation or Production. This project is not adding affordable housing and it is removing an existing affordable unit.
3. The rezoning does not fit the character of the neighborhood because none of the other
adjacent properties or those across the street are zoned R3 Multiple Family District.

Yea: Campbell, Faiola, Ford, Marwah, McGuire, and Rainville
Nay: Alper, Baxley, and Olson

B. Site plan review.

Action: Staff recommendation notwithstanding, the City Planning Commission denied the site plan review for a new four-story, multiple-family dwelling with 23 units, based on the following finding:

1. The proposed project would be injurious to the neighbor’s use of their property related to shadowing and the blocking of their garage.
2. The proposed site plan review application is not consistent with Policy 47 Housing Quality,
because they are asking for reductions of the quality of the build and the architecture.

Yea: Campbell, Faiola, Ford, Marwah, McGuire, and Rainville
Nay: Alper, Baxley, and Olson

[alexschief]

The planning commission's reasoning is pretty shocking in its sloppiness. To go over this point by point:

**

A. Rezoning.
1. The project site is a two minute walk away from the furthest stop of the high frequency #10 bus at Central and Spring Street and a six minute walk from the furthest possible location for a future F Line station at Central and Broadway. Policies 38 and 80 commit the City to promoting housing near transit. I am confident that any reasonable person would find a 2-6 minute walk to meet the definition of "near." CPED explicitly found that the proposed development would meet Policy 80, not violate it.

2. The property being demolished is a single family home that is not deed-restricted affordable. According to Zillow, it last sold in April of 2020 for $340,000. It's not clear to me that the site contains an existing affordable housing unit. But even if it did, Policy 33 says nothing about protecting either deed-restricted or naturally-occurring affordable housing from demolition, let alone replacement by multi-family units. The closest the policy comes is through action steps 33(c) and 33(d), which commit the City to creating strategies to preserve NOAH. But these action steps do not oblige the City to block redevelopment of all NOAH unless the City subsequently passed a policy that contained that action. In fact, if anything, Policy 33 weighs in favor of the approval of this project through action step 33(e), which instructs the City to "Encourage affordable living features... that result in lower transportation costs and reduce monthly utility bills..." This project strongly supports car-free living and will contain numerous sustainability features that should reduce utility costs for all residents.

3. The property in question is part of the Corridor 6 built form district, along with all other properties on the eastern side of the block. The underlying zoning across the city has yet to be changed in compliance with Minneapolis 2040, but the built form guidance has been approved. In Minnesota when the zoning and the comprehensive plan disagree, the comprehensive plan takes precedence. The neighborhood opposition has produced an email from the former CM for this district saying that the built form guidance for these parcels should be changed, but as a matter of fact and law, they were approved as Corridor 6 and that's the only thing that matters.


B. Site plan review.
1. The proposed development would be 39 feet tall, not much higher than the property to the north and well below the line of the trees nearby. Shadows have never been a convincing reason to deny a project, because they might as well apply to every new proposal, and the same is true here. There's no reason to believe that this project would in any way depart from the precedent set by hundreds of approvals in past years. I have no idea what "blocking their garage" means, but this proposed development would be constructed entirely on the parcel in question and I have a hard time imagining how this could stand as a justification for denial when the project meets the city's rules for setbacks etc.

2. There is nothing in Policy 47 that supports this finding. The proposed development is obviously going to meet building codes. Opinions about the quality of the build or the architecture are just that; opinions. They are not grounds for a denial and it is embarrassing that they were included here. As a matter of fact, the proposed development will include a number of details that suggest a higher than normal standard of build and design. The project has ambitious energy efficiency goals and CPED concluded that these meet Policy 68 for energy efficient and sustainable buildings.

**

Basically, the CPC got way out over their skis on this one. The CPC put the City in legal jeopardy here. This decision is really egregious and ought to be swiftly overturned if appealed to the full City Council.

[StandishGuy]

Agreed. If not reversed by the City Council, a court will overturn this decision. Corridor 6 planning guidance allows for up to six stories by right, and 10 stories if other City goals are met through the project. Such goals include TOD.

The make up of the Planning Commission must have changed dramatically because the previous Commission understood this and was approving these types of projects often.

[seanrichardryan]

This decision has rainvilles fingerprints all over it.

[grant1simons2]

Gee, you think? Goes to show that Ward 3 residences didn't like Ginger for being a Socialist, but for being anti-development.

[mattaudio]

Neighbors for More Neighbors has a call to action on this, including talking points and an email template.
Please email your councilmember and ask for it to be included in the record, even if it's once or two sentences of support.
https://mailchi.mp/3a98946a32b1/action- ... 0f07f3cd9d

[Hero]

Speaking of northeast. I've noticed a number of streets have intersections cut in half. I'm guessing this is keep cars from driving though the neighborhood but it sure would be nice if a bicycle could get though here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9897259 ... 2?hl=en-GB

[mattaudio]

Cityscape: A proposed apartment building perfect for Minneapolis’ 2040 plan. So why did the Planning Commission deny the project?
https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2022 ... e-project/

[seanrichardryan]

Seems a bit unusual (at least for Mpls) that the neighborhood organization owns these two huge parcels of land.

[RedDutch]

That is odd.....why not develop it?

[Silophant]

nEiGhBoRhOoD cHaRaCtEr

[seanrichardryan]

Some real galaxy brain nimby stuff in the packet- https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/download ... %20St%20NE

[RedDutch]

those are some of the most preposterous reason I have ever heard. They are actually quite funny.

[Hero]

Seems a bit unusual (at least for Mpls) that the neighborhood organization owns these two huge parcels of land.

I believe this is a neighborhood park and community gardens if I remember correctly.

[Hero]

Some real galaxy brain nimby stuff in the packet- https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/download ... %20St%20NE

This has to be a joke. Right? I'm not even sure how anyone would have a complete loss of indoor and outdoor privacy. Is this development going to bug each of the neighborhood houses?

[Bakken2016]

I smell a lawsuit a brewing!