urbanMSP

Why don't they just move the house?

Good question! Perhaps it's cost-prohibitive? Or too flimsy?

http://minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/pub ... 120725.pdf

Looks like they changed it just a tad for the Committee of the Whole meeting. The FAR has decreased from 4.0 to 3.8, but other than that, it looks like the newest version just spells out the other changes more coherently.

What I noticed and liked is the rooftop ornamentation addition to sort of mimic not only what is currently showing at 1319 but also the retail building facing 14th Avenue SE. Move both the garage entry and the transformer box to the back, and then this project is looking pretty darn good.

wow, actually yeah, the detail work looks good and not too tacky, definitely a more handsome refined version all around.

I couldn't see any obvious changes between that and my latest GIF, so I'm reposting for everyone's enjoyment

The versions look more and more traditional/retro, and the last one looks like something that could have been built around the turn of the Century......20th Century. Needless-to-say I like it very much, and what I think I like most about it is that it's in the middle of the block and looks like true infill as opposed to most projects these days which take up anywhere from 2 to all 4 corners of any given block. This one takes up 0!

It sounds to me like the Planning Comission voted to study the Camdi building as to whether it's historic or not. If the study finds it's not historic, then they can tear it down, and Save Dinkytown can eat crow. So I say do the study, just to make people happy.

I know this is my pro-development bias coming forward... but if you have to do a study to see if a structure is historic, doesn't that kinda make it not notable enough by definition? Ie - no one knows the designer/builder off the top of their head, no one can point to significant events easily, etc. We know it's old, and I 100% agree has a nice aesthetic to is (most street-facing buildings like this do). I dunno.

Either way, they've gone through 3 revisions and still no change to the parking entrance location. Bummer.

Haha, good point! It certainly reads like: "This building is historic.....I think.....wait, let's do an analysis to see whether or not this building is historic, and if it is I'll block this development, and if it's not......I'll come up with something else"!

Assuming this would be approval of the Z&P outcome (splitting up the request, denying 1319) unless someone decides to break out the individual line items? I'm hoping that happens. I just wrote to my CM hoping he overturns the 1319 demolition denial if it gets to that point, and I urge others to do the same.

Either way, they've gone through 3 revisions and still no change to the parking entrance location. Bummer.

Yeah, at this point I think it only happens if the city forces it as a condition for approval.

It seems a little strange to me that they would do that. You think they'd want as much commercial as possible, and they are tearing that house down for a 2nd, totally separate entrance...

How is that house even worthy of mention? Because it's been there for so long? Has it provided any purpose to the public? I used to just assumed it was some ugly old crack house.

This is being discussed right now: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/tv/79

CM Bender is pulling out the three demo permits for Council discussion.

Denial upheld, 8-4. Fail.

Huh. Looks like we never really got rid of Hofstede after all.

So to clarify- they have only denied demo of the Camdi/Mesa building, correct? The other two structures have been green lit for demo?

Yeah. Any chance Doran demos the two approved blgs and leaves them vacant pending the staff study or a lawsuit? Can't imagine they produce much rental income.

Chances are Doran hasn't actually purchased the properties yet. I'm sure any purchase agreements were contingent upon demolition approval and approval of his project.

To be clear, there's going to be a formal study of the building, correct?