Korh wrote: December 28th, 2020, 6:14 pm
Now that you mention the facade, doesn't the lot fall in the area of mainstreet that has a few guidelines of what buildings can look like?
I forget where the zone is and what the guidelines are exactly but I know it's in place to keep to a similar style.
mckilanowski wrote:Any idea what the feedback was?
No idea. But I doubt staff would voice feedback about density proposed. More likely about façade facing Mainstreet and the Center of the Arts being plain and comparatively non-distinct to what it’s replacing.
Jason Lindahl, Hopkins city planner, had this quote: "...we don’t think it fits very well with the traditional architecture of the surrounding Mainstreet and downtown..."
I’ve still never gotten details for why for previous Master Developer and MCWD were “unable to develop a joint vision for the site or come to terms on a purchase price”. What does “develop a joint vision” even mean?
But the detail about the disagreement about a purchase price is new for me.
The Beard Group withdrew their Hopkins Cinema Flats proposal, they are re-proposing apartments, 130 units and 3,155 sq ft commercial. Four stories.
It looks like there will be a walking alley between the apartments and 30 Bales, quite a few walk up units. And possible a public cut through along the property south side?
I think I like the new design a bit more then the Cinema Flats proposal. Don't know why they decided to increase the commercial sq ft at the lose of I think of one less unit though.
It also seem the knocked a few parking spots off from the older proposal, but I think they might of been able to get away with losing a few more, I also think the height might be a bit taller in some areas, but they might be able to get away with it if they use that step design in the rendering.
I heard through the family grape vine, the Sea Level owner has said that the project to redevelop the old strip mall has fallen through.
He said the property owner told him the city wanted it shorter and wanted much more commercial preserved.
I can’t believe the city at all had an opinion on height except by angry NIMBYs who hate that Hopkins is majority renter. But I believe the city was going to push hard for preserving commercial here.
Other interesting news from the Sea Level owner, he has been renting year to year for the past 5 years because the property owner expects to sell the land to a developer.
It’s been over 10 years since the watershed district bought the property. It’s been a long time while they twiddled thumbs and it’s been off the tax rolls.
Turns out the word of mouth from the retailers in the old commercial strip aren’t facts. Whoodaguessed.
Blake Road Station, proposed by Trilogy, is being reworked based on the city requests for preserving affordable retail at the corner of Blake and Excelsior and for upgrading matierials on all four sides of the 3 buildings to “front” faces aesthetically.
So Trilogy is coming to the city to ask for TIF to cover more retail in 2 buildings (instead of a small part of 1 building) and to keep retail spaces affordable (considering the demographics of the area), plus to construct underground parking that would be needed for the extra retail requested by the city (as Hopkins has not ditched parking minimums for commercial).
770 units for Blake Road Station after the redesign. In 3 buildings. The first building, Building A where the liquor store, chiropractor, and Sea Level store is is proposed to have 2,000 sq ft retail, instead of 0.
Second item, from the Work Study session this past week, a developer could be coming forward to ask for rezoning the offices at 6th St S and 5th St S to allow residential, maybe potential for senior housing. Up to 600 units of housing could replace this office building in South Hopkins.
The office is a distant walk to LRT stations, but has nice access to Nine Mile Creek trail and will be a short walk to the neighborhood commercial node at 11th and 7th so more residents could be a positive for South Hopkins, IMO.
seanrichardryan wrote: June 22nd, 2021, 9:40 am
I guess I don't understand why this need any TIF.
The document with all the proposals from the Agenda (https://www.hopkinsmn.com/AgendaCenter/ ... ?html=true) has this information: "13.2% of total development costs identified as public as TIF and grants. Assumes award of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) for the affordable units, which is a very competitive program."
