urbanMSP

The current office building is over double the size of the proposed addition, so I'll take your bet.

acs: You're on!

railbaronyarr: Thanks for your response. I agree, church exemption from property taxes to the city is bad policy. But how do you get around the First Amendment? (I suppose that's a discussion that doesn't belong on urbanmsp.)

Yeah I don't think churches being exempt from property tax has anything to do with the first amendment. Or any party of the constitution for that matter.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the "upper plaza" will be closed off by a wall or fence, and only accessible for church functions, kind of like the "existing courtyard", but the lower plaza looks like it's just kind of a part of the sidewalk. The "plaza" on Marquette just looks like a fancy driveway....

What a disjointed mess. The carillon is laughably bad.

I have no problem with the sanctuary itself not being taxed. But when churches own other property that is not a part of the worship. Office buildings, schools, and parking lots. They need to pay for the same services and maintenance of the street that their members use. Look at how much untaxed land the University of St. Thomas has downtown. If that land is taxed then that is news to me. The rest of us are paying for those taxes that are not collected.

I'm sure the Pope of Westminster is watching this board trying to decide whether to move forward with this, but the community-minded thing for a downtown church to do would be to build up. I'd think there would be plenty of room to add on top of their disneyland monastery at 12th & Marquette.

Also in the never-gonna-happen category: as a condition of approval the city should make them rebuild 13th St as a woonerf bridging Nicollet Mall and the Convention Center walkway, with an intersection table at Marquette. That's the only way their "plaza" at 13th & Marquette will be used in any way.

I don't like this. but whatever they own the land.

how much space does this church need. they just did an expansion a couple years ago. waste of land imo. and I agree I don't like that bell contraption. so I suppose we'll have to hear that thing blaring all the time.

I guess I will deviate from most others on this group and say I was impressed with the renderings. I think it's a beautiful church and I like that in the new design, the historic building will be the tallest point on the block. Underground parking (off of a relatively little used street) and drop off location - good. Outdoor plazas (especially on the Nicollet side as a gateway to the Loring Greenway) - good. The loss of the old glassy building on that site is fine by me. I won't miss it. There's more available office space downtown and room to build more if needed. It doesn't have to exist on this site.

It's kind of amazing how quickly we jettison function if we like the form.

It's kind of amazing how quickly we jettison function if we like the form.

Pesky humans.

The purchase of this property cost the church $2806 per church member. Demolishing the existing building and building this plan will cost an additional $9032 per church member.

It's kind of amazing how quickly we jettison function if we like the form.

Pesky humans.

They really are the problem.

Anyone know the current FAR of this block or parcel compared to the proposed FAR?

What surprised me about the proposal was the absence of any reference to their residential tower for seniors. As that was my understanding as to why they wanted to buy this property in the first place. I understand that financing may not have worked out, but this proposal seems to really limit their options for adding that back in in the future.

Anyone know the current FAR of this block or parcel compared to the proposed FAR?

They're asking for a variance of the minimum FAR from 2.0 to 1.2, so 1.2 is the proposed FAR. Not sure what it currently is.

What surprised me about the proposal was the absence of any reference to their residential tower for seniors. As that was my understanding as to why they wanted to buy this property in the first place. I understand that financing may not have worked out, but this proposal seems to really limit their options for adding that back in in the future.

oh, some of us here we're assuming they were completely honest? I figured they said that just for good PR while they were kicking out people in low income housing. A church telling a little white lie does seem unrealistic. ...They must be still working on that phase right? Maybe in 2018 Phase 2?

Those evil churches!

Demo here is well underway already.

GAHHH. Here's some items on the CPC agenda:

- Variance to reduce the minimum floor area ratio.
Recommended Motion: Approve the application for a variance to reduce the minimum floor area ratio from 2.0 to 1.2.

- Variance to increase the maximum off-street parking.
Recommended Motion: Approve the application for a variance to increase the maximum off-street parking from 144 spaces to 264 spaces

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 181249.pdf
Bad.