Red 20 - 20 6th Street NE

[helsinki]

I'm just hearing the same thing from the complainers as in the 222 thread. Sure this building is simple; stone base, red brick, nothing crazy in height, and simple geometrics. I can't think of something better for something in a neighborhood like this. Plus plenty of retail to get the neighborhood jump started, hopefully enough to get projects like 7XX Central started, and the Superior Plating site. Central and Hen are both HUGE roads at this point, and if we can get enough people living and walking around over here then maybe something can be done to improve the hood and make it into a neighborhood. The use of balconies is a personal qualm with aesthetics, and yes they should have preserved the Totino's building, but this should be a well put together solid project in a neighborhood that needs it.

I agree that it is a solid project and that the neighborhood needs it.

What is unfortunate is that in a city with so few old buildings, developers tend to want to knock them down.

Certainly it would disrupt the economics of the project to save the building. In the future, one would hope that in situations where pre-war buildings are threatened, the city could waive, for example, parking requirements. If this project didn't have two floors of underground parking, the developer probably could've incorporated the Totino's building into the design without compromising unit pricing.

[mattaudio]

Well, I think most people on here would be happy if we waived minimum parking requirements altogether in Minneapolis.

[MNdible]

Certainly it would disrupt the economics of the project to save the building. In the future, one would hope that in situations where pre-war buildings are threatened, the city could waive, for example, parking requirements. If this project didn't have two floors of underground parking, the developer probably could've incorporated the Totino's building into the design without compromising unit pricing.

I assume that you have no insider knowledge of the development.

So it's pure conjecture, and convenient since it supports a pet theme, that the city parking requirements are what is driving the demolition of the Totino's building.

I also have no insider knowledge, so allow me to conjecture the following:

If the developer had wanted to get a reduction to the parking requirements, the city would have likely granted them. The developer likely chose not to because they believe that the market requires the parking they are proposing. In addition, the reportedly poor structural condition of the Totino's building likely contributed to the decision to not try to save it.

My personal opinion is that saving the facades of buildings is rarely satisfying.

[mattaudio]

So, if the developer did not seek a waiver of the requirement, why is the requirement necessary in the first place?

[min-chi-cbus]

I don't care for "Red 20". Is Red 5 still standing by?

Red 5, this is Rogue 2, I repeat, this is Rogue 2!

[Nick]

Information-based opinions about the Totino's building include the knowledge that there's some kind of super complicated stormwater runoff situation on the property that apparently is very expensive to fix.

http://apps.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/PIApp/ ... 2924120035

That said, it's unfortunate they can't at least save the facade.

[Viktor Vaughn]

A Braun Intertec truck was (taking soil samples - I assume) in the Red Stag parking lot this morning.

[twincitizen]

Someone appealed this one too: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/meetings/zp/WCMS1P-106659

9. 6th Street Northeast Redevelopment (514 1st Avenue NE; 519-523 Central Avenue NE):
a) Appeal filed by Lazaros Christoforides, on behalf of Pontus Properties, from the decision of the Planning Commission granting applications for:
1) a conditional use permit to increase maximum building height from 4 stories, 56 feet, to 7 stories, 81 feet, subject to conditions;
2) a variance to reduce the interior side yard requirement from 15 feet to 5 feet, subject to conditions;
3) a variance to reduce the minimum lot area requirement from 287 square feet per dwelling unit to 282 square feet per dwelling unit; and
4) site plan review, subject to conditions;
all to allow for a mixed use building with 130 dwelling units and ground floor commercial uses.

[widin007]

Wait, can any person just appeal anything? What the hell is going on?!

[alleycat]

He owns the Gardens of Salonica, which is across from US Bank. I'm wondering what his beef is in particular?

[MNdible]

This is purely conjecture, but my guess is that if he actually owns the property his restaurant sits on, his big concern is the 5’ sideyard setback variance. This is an issue I’ve picked at before in a couple of other threads, so I apologize if I’m repeating myself.

The base zoning says that residential buildings need to step back from the property line further the higher they’re built. This is to guarantee that access to light and air for residential units is maintained in the future. When the city grants this type of sideyard variance (which they seem to do now without even batting an eye), they are essentially shifting air rights from one property owner to another, because it will be very difficult/unattractive to develop the adjacent property with the same height and minimal setback.

My 2 cents.

[MNdible]

What the hell is going on?!

It's called democracy. Messy, ain't it?

[RailBaronYarr]

What the hell is going on?!

It's called democracy. Messy, ain't it?

Fine line between democracy and property rights invasion in many appeals like this.

I agree that if the side-yard setback is the issue this certainly falls more on the democracy side. Maybe equity or fairness regarding one's own property rights is a more appropriate definition for this case?

[mattaudio]

No, it's not democracy. Democracy works fine for public land use. Whatever happened to the concept of private property rights, next to rule of law in the pillars of modern liberal democracy.

[MNdible]

If you develop your property in line with existing zoning requirements, there's nothing to be appealed. If you request that the government grant you variances, or changes your zoning, etc., that's when there are issues.

[seanrichardryan]

The area in question is here.

http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/Property/m ... ,0,0,0,0,0

He owns the land behind his building and an access alley between the properties. All the dwelling units in his building are accessed from the rear porches.

That site is huge, I still wish they were renovating the old Totino's instead of leveling it. It would make a great retail space and entrance to the new development.

[mattaudio]

I contend that the existing use-based zoning requirements are an undue restriction of private property rights. The only things we should be regulating are the form a particular development takes, and any external impacts of a land use to other private property owners.

The abject failure of our use-based code is evidenced by how common variances are. Strong Towns University talks about this, in the section on land use. Very informative stuff.

[woofner]

The base zoning says that residential buildings need to step back from the property line further the higher they’re built.

Where does it say that? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I'd be surprised if it did, frankly. The mechanism currently used in the zoning code to allow buildings higher than the specified maximum height in the various districts is the conditional use permit, and this mechanism was created after the right-wing MN Supreme Court basically banned variances in the Krummenacher decision. Because of the slapdash manner in which it was set up, and because CPED doesn't want to have a frank discussion about how and whether our city should grow (not that I blame them), the various provisions that you would expect to mitigate the negative aspects of height are not included in the code as far as I know. They can still be addressed by actually attaching conditions to the CUP, but CPED has not consistently done so.

Personally I'd be in favor of a step back provision, perhaps starting at the third story and certainly taking into account the height of neighboring buildings. Unfortunately any code change risks starting the discussion about whether the traditionally very strict attitude towards building height is worth sacrificing for growth, which the average Minneapolitan - even the activists - probably has a different attitude about than most members of this forum.

Also, if you read the minutes (I skimmed them) on the Red 20 item, Christoforides' attorney also mentions that his building shares footings with the Totinos building, and the developer plans to remove the portion that the Totinos building sits on, which could potentially endanger his structure.

[MNdible]

I contend that the existing use-based zoning requirements are an undue restriction of private property rights.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

I know that there's a fetish dating back to early New Urbanism for form based codes, but in practice, at least in a city like Minneapolis, I'd contend that the market is fairly well aligned with the code. That is, excepting some particular uses that the vast majority of people in fact do not want in their backyard, the zoning allows the market to build most of what they want to in the locations they want to.

In any case, the point of contention on this site certainly appears to be a form-based issue and has nothing to do with use.

[woofner]

No, it's not democracy. Democracy works fine for public land use. Whatever happened to the concept of private property rights, next to rule of law in the pillars of modern liberal democracy.

I would say there are several traditions of modern liberal democracy where private property rights are rather minor, often purely ornamental, pillars. Certainly the French Republican tradition has little interest in private property rights. It's really only the Anglo tradition in which they're fetishized, and some would call that tradition more oligarchic than democratic.

[edited for spelling]