Page 5 of 5

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: June 12th, 2017, 6:47 am
by J2arkitekt
go4guy wrote:
June 11th, 2017, 7:44 pm
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.

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: June 12th, 2017, 6:54 am
by 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.

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: June 12th, 2017, 9:52 am
by J2arkitekt
Silophant wrote:
June 12th, 2017, 6:54 am
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.

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 4th, 2019, 11:00 pm
by grant1simons2

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 5th, 2019, 10:38 am
by 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.

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 5th, 2019, 11:28 am
by lordmoke
Wow, that's worlds nicer than the last set of plans.

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 5th, 2019, 12:34 pm
by Seth
That's really sharp! Love the brick and restrained use of design elements.

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 5th, 2019, 2:14 pm
by Lisa I. RoadBot
Seth wrote:
February 5th, 2019, 12:34 pm
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-

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 5th, 2019, 2:38 pm
by trkaiser
I'm shocked that came back so nicely upgraded. Now we just need a proposal for that Wells Fargo...

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 5th, 2019, 3:47 pm
by 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.

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 5th, 2019, 7:16 pm
by Nick
Condos are exempt from the interim inclusionary requirement.

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 5th, 2019, 8:08 pm
by Silophant
Whoa, really?

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 5th, 2019, 8:33 pm
by 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.

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 5th, 2019, 8:40 pm
by Nick
Silophant wrote:
February 5th, 2019, 8:08 pm
Whoa, really?
Sorry, should have linked. Top of page 3:

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

Re: 420 E Hennepin Ave

Posted: February 6th, 2019, 8:30 am
by alexschief
Nick wrote:
February 5th, 2019, 7:16 pm
Condos are exempt from the interim inclusionary requirement.
Word.

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