urbanMSP

What confuses me about this is that the building needs a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC for their building. They got that. A council committee overturned that approval. So do they go back to HPC? What criteria does HPC use then? Because HPC was fine with it before so what's to keep them from granting the certificate again and just going on an endless loop until the appellants give up and run out of money?

yeah it's just whoever gives up first I guess

“I just looked at the size of that thing and asked, ‘how is that even possible?’” [NIMBY] said, in an interview.

Strib on the appeal: http://www.startribune.com/north-loop-o ... 399352011/

The City Council is scheduled to review the decision at a Friday meeting. If the council agrees that the building is not appropriate for the area, developers will have to go back to the Heritage Preservation Commission with a revised plan

There's our procedural answer.

What chance is there that the city will agree with the appeal?

Fact-free snark: Depends on how well the appellant knows Goodman.

Z&P committee meeting minutes: http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 189038.pdf

A. Johnson and B. Johnson were absent, leaving a committee of 4: Bender, Goodman, Reich, and Warsame. The appeal was granted on a voice vote, after a motion by Goodman. Do we know what the actual vote was?

While it seems unlikely the full city council will go against the committee's action (granting the appeal), I could see a scenario where they possibly grant the appeal "in part", by attaching specific conditions to the Certificate of Appropriateness. At this point, it seems very unlikely the building will move forward in the exact configuration (height, bulk, design, etc.) presented thus far. As to what degree they'll have to modify/downsize, I guess we'll find out on Friday.

The City Council is scheduled to review the decision at a Friday meeting. If the council agrees that the building is not appropriate for the area, developers will have to go back to the Heritage Preservation Commission with a revised plan

There's our procedural answer.

What chance is there that the city will agree with the appeal?

Still doesn't answer the question of what exactly the HPC will decide on. HPC is not city council, they don't have to agree with City Council. There has to be some mechanism to prevent CPM from presenting the same exact building to the HPC and the HPC granting the same exact Certificate of Appropriateness to that same building. An appeal of a denial of something by the HPC doesn't go back to HPC, it's just overturned.

This is just kinda weird, I don't think anybody ever expected the HPC to not believe in "history" enough that a decision of there's would have to be overturned in this direction. I would expect HPC to err on the side of history and be occasionally overruled by Council because of reasons outside of history, but the reverse situation is odd.

So there's really two fronts of confusion, what is the legal path forward for this, is CPM allowed to legally submit the same plan to HPC to be reviewed under the same criteria, or does HPC have to change their criteria because of the Council's actions? That makes me very nervous by the way, HPC should be independent of the council and act independntly (right?). If CPM legally has to submit a different plan, could they just move an interior wall and say "look it's a different plan" even though nothing substantive has changed?

And practically what is the way forward? Even if the HPC isn't legally required to change their criteria would they do it practically?

As to the vote, I watched the meeting and it sounded unanimous, which really confused me! I'm so confused!

I doubt this will move forward with the current design. I know people working on the project on the 700 block of Washington (next to Freehouse) and they have been "warned" to stay within zoning limits. They have made some slight modifications and plan to proceed within zoning limits.

For better or worse, Lisa Goodman is very consistent with her aversion to exceeding zoning limits in regards to height. I don't really see this as a stellar project anyway with all the parking on the first few levels. I know they were told they needed to have active uses on the street facade but I am skeptical that they can pull that off and still make the parking footprint work.

http://finance-commerce.com/2016/11/bui ... orth-loop/

CPM will come back with a building that stays within the 10 story / 140 feet limits of the historic district. As proposed, this was at 168 feet.

I checked the staff report for United's 729 Washington office building, which said:

Height: Excluding the mechanical equipment, the building is 10 stories and 140 feet in height.
Including the mechanical equipment, the building is 11 stories and 159 feet in height. The
Minneapolis Warehouse District Guidelines call for a maximum of 10 stories at this location; 10
stories and 140 feet is also the maximum height allowed from a zoning code standpoint without
a conditional use permit.

I don't know if that means United's proposal is good to go or if they'll need to scale down too, before coming back to PC/HPC for final approvals. The zoning code is clear that rooftop mechanical counts toward the height limit. What isn't clear right now is how the City Council feels about exempting it for these projects. The plans for the United building have the rooftop mechanical penthouse setback so far that I don't think you could ever see it from the street. Whether that's good enough or not, I guess we'll soon find out.

Not so shocking news: Frey wants to save this

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/meetings/l ... MSP-190129

I'm not a huge fan of any building in that spot with that much parking. That will definitely encourage more driving in the area.

This is back, with six inch lower ceilings in each of the seven office levels, putting it just under the height limit. (Except for the elevator overrun.) I'm rather perplexed as to why they didn't do this in the first place. Is 11'-6" ceilings vs 11' ceilings (or whatever) really that much of a selling point in the office leasing world?

Going for HPC approval: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 192183.pdf

I think it's the same or very similar to the revised plans from December.

Wow, every time I open one of these files I'm blown away by how much effort and detail goes into each and every proposal. I can see developers and designers getting incredibly frustrated by NIMBYs after putting in all that work, only to get a response like "it'll block my view".

Wow, every time I open one of these files I'm blown away by how much effort and detail goes into each and every proposal. I can see developers and designers getting incredibly frustrated by NIMBYs after putting in all that work, only to get a response like "it'll block my view".

Designers are getting paid for their work either way, and the developers at CPM aren't exactly organizing these projects as like a fun creative hobby. There's plenty of reasons to mock condo owners' vapid self-interest, but "think of the poor development company's hurt feelings" isn't one of them.

Wow, every time I open one of these files I'm blown away by how much effort and detail goes into each and every proposal. I can see developers and designers getting incredibly frustrated by NIMBYs after putting in all that work, only to get a response like "it'll block my view".

Designers are getting paid for their work either way, and the developers at CPM aren't exactly organizing these projects as like a fun creative hobby. There's plenty of reasons to mock condo owners' vapid self-interest, but "think of the poor development company's hurt feelings" isn't one of them.

Heh, and who doesn't have a job where this happens?

Man it's a good thing development companies aren't the ones creating the files!

You know designers aren't going into design for the money, right? Like screw you if you think that architects are still happy if a project dies. Those projects are like flowers. We care and care for them and want them to be something beautiful. It sucks when it dies.

Man it's a good thing development companies aren't the ones creating the files!

You know designers aren't going into design for the money, right? Like screw you if you think that architects are still happy if a project dies. Those projects are like flowers. We care and care for them and want them to be something beautiful. It sucks when it dies.

Everybody who does project based work experiences this. I experience this. Just part of the territory. No one felt sorry for the guy who designed Apple Maps, they just hated the product. Hell, even good products get scrapped or don't sell or fail in some other way.

I think the point is that the burden to produce something that people like is on the developer and designer and there's no point in feeling bad for them if the project doesn't work for the space.

It's a bit different depending on the project I guess. Feel bad for the architects who spent multiple overnights working on perfecting a project, only for it to be killed off by a neighbor.

It's a bit different depending on the project I guess. Feel bad for the architects who spent multiple overnights working on perfecting a project, only for it to be killed off by a neighbor.

I'm not defending the "blocking my view" people, they're idiots.