420 E Hennepin Ave

[J2arkitekt]

That is pretty stupid if Frey really is telling the developer to limit their height.

If the developer is asking for variances or conditional use permits, the city council and planning department can do exactly that. It's taller than what zoning allows, taller than what the small area plan calls for, and uses the alleyway for access. Those are all things that need special permission. That gives the power to the city, not the developer.

[Silophant]

I don't think anyone's saying that the city/Frey can't do that, we're just saying it's dumb to, given that they gave all of those permissions to Nord Haus, the Atalus condo tower, and (I think) the previous version of the Mortenson tower, all just a couple blocks away. Not to mention that the CC blocked the previous proposal for this site as being not dense enough.

[J2arkitekt]

I don't think anyone's saying that the city/Frey can't do that, we're just saying it's dumb to, given that they gave all of those permissions to Nord Haus, the Atalus condo tower, and (I think) the previous version of the Mortenson tower, all just a couple blocks away. Not to mention that the CC blocked the previous proposal for this site as being not dense enough.

I don't disagree that all of those developments needed variances, or that density isn't desired. There is precedent to step down the height of the neighborhood as you head east, with RED20. That may be part of the ask. In addition to requiring variances, the current proposal does not address other neighborhood requirements, including a step back past the "Tier 1" height (roughly 80' for projects on Hennepin. The other projects that have been approved, all meet the basic district design standards that have been outlined (the Alatus project is outside of the NIEBNA neighborhood, and it's issues are separate). I don't mind a lot of what is happening with this project, but I believe showing renderings of a 10 story building, and the metrics for a 15 story building raises more questions that it can answer.

[grant1simons2]

ITS ALIVE

https://twitter.com/UrbanNorth/status/1 ... 27680?s=19

[mattaudio]

Can we unskew/unsuck these intersections before development happens? We already lost that chance up at Central Ave and 7th/8th Streets due to new development.

[lordmoke]

Wow, that's worlds nicer than the last set of plans.

[Seth]

That's really sharp! Love the brick and restrained use of design elements.

[Lisa I. RoadBot]

That's really sharp! Love the brick and restrained use of design elements.

Agreed!
Not a bad looking building, a couple of floors of office wouldn't be a bad addition
to the project, it has a stately, official, vintage look to it-

[trkaiser]

I'm shocked that came back so nicely upgraded. Now we just need a proposal for that Wells Fargo...

[alexschief]

Looks like this would be an IZ project? Current zoning on this lot is C2.

If so, that might explain the increase of two floors from the original proposal, from eleven to thirteen. This would be the second proposal to respond to the new IZ rules by going higher instead of cancelling the project. That would be a really encouraging trend.

[Nick]

Condos are exempt from the interim inclusionary requirement.

[Silophant]

Whoa, really?

[jtoemke]

Building looks great.

And just to contribute to the last three posts, I think Inclusionary Zoning is a bad idea. Good goals, bad idea.

Should people have access to safe, secure housing. Yes for sure. Does this include brand new apartments that are easily double my rent at an "affordable" rate. I don't think so.

If these units went for $400 a month, I'd be more likely to agree. But if you make 40k a year, the rent is like an unbelievable 1k a month. I know that meets the 30% rule but omg its expensive.

[Nick]

Whoa, really?

Sorry, should have linked. Top of page 3:

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/gro ... 214877.pdf

[alexschief]

Condos are exempt from the interim inclusionary requirement.

Word.

Then they're just going higher because they can, which is also a good trend.