New Proposed Northeast Development Checks All The Boxes

On Thursday, February 28, LanderGroup will present its proposal for a new development on vacant, industrially-zoned land across two properties, at 2301 California Street NE and 78 23rd Avenue NE. That night there will be both meetings at the Planning Commission Committee of the Whole and the Bottineau Neighborhood Association.

The proposal includes 24 townhomes and 110 apartments, with 17% of townhomes affordable at 80% AMI and 20% of apartments affordable at 60% AMI. The townhomes will be owner occupied, with the affordable units set up through a land trust model, according to the developer. The proposal also includes a publicly-accessible, privately-maintained green space with a children’s play area and a pavilion. For the total of 134 units, there are a total of 133 parking stalls, some in garages for the townhomes. There also appears to be solar panels on the roof of some buildings in a rendering, although the developer does not mention any installation or electrical for future installation elsewhere in their proposal.

california street solar panels parking

Will the development include solar panels, or is this artistic license?

The property is zoned I1 Light Industrial District, and BNSF railway tracks are located directly to the east of the property, which you can see above directly adjacent to the parking lot. There used to be grain
elevators and silos on the property until 2018 when they were torn down after the city determined they were not historic.

california street common green space

Street view of common green space.

My favorite feature of this proposal is the publicly-accessible, privately-maintained green space with a children’s play area and a pavilion. Creating a public space for families from the entire neighborhood to gather will be a real positive. I would only suggest that the play area be expanded across more of the lawn and a short fence surround it. With California Street just steps away, it gives parents a little peace of mind to have a measure of control.

You can read the entire PDF proposal on the city’s website. The Planning Commission Committee of the Whole will hear the developer’s first presentation on February 28 at 4:30 PM at Minneapolis City Hall, Room 319. The site is in the Bottineau Neighborhood, and the neighborhood association will host a development meeting also on February 28 at 7:00 PM at 1900 2nd St NE. LanderGroup will be presenting.

What do you think of the proposed development, its affordable component, its parking, its green space? Share your views in the comments.

Streets.mn is a non-profit and is volunteer run. We rely on your support to keep the servers running. If you value what you read, please consider becoming a member.

14 Responses to New Proposed Northeast Development Checks All The Boxes

  1. Bob Roscoe February 28, 2019 at 12:39 pm #

    The design should incorporate the logos on cereal boxes on these simulated cardboard exterior walls.

    • Bill Lindeke
      Bill Lindeke February 28, 2019 at 1:10 pm #

      Hi Bob. Can you explain what you don’t like about the walls to people who might not understand your point?

    • bob roscoe February 28, 2019 at 3:29 pm #

      The design should incorporate the logos on cereal boxes on these simulated cardboard exterior walls.

      Here, architecture can meet pop art.

      • Eric Anondson
        Eric Anondson February 28, 2019 at 5:28 pm #

        Well, you certainly repeated yourself. Could you explain instead?

  2. Anton Schieffer
    Anton Schieffer February 28, 2019 at 1:03 pm #

    Looks like a great project and I’m happy to see that 20 percent of the units will be affordable at 60 percent of AMI. From the proposal, the new market-rate units will also be 5 to 25 percent cheaper than what’s been built elsewhere in the city. I also like that they’re experimenting with a land trust model for four of the townhomes. We need more success stories for land trust models to get off the ground, and doing it even in a limited way can help prove whether this can keep new housing affordable over a longer term.

    My only minor complaint is that there’s too much parking given that this is on the high-frequency 11 route.

    • Cobo R February 28, 2019 at 5:10 pm #

      Looks like a well thought out development.
      There’s only one parking spot per unit, its hard for me to consider that to be too many, seems to be about right number. I know that even if I took the bus everyday (Its not currently feasible for me to take the bus to my job) I would own a car so that I can escape the city now and then to visit state and national parks, see friends and family, bike on less crowded trails, go hiking in a forrest,fish from a boat, enjoy a round of golf, decompress…

      New york city is the only place in the US I can think of where the majority of people who can afford to own a car doesn’t. This is Minneapolis we’re talking about, most people will want to own a car, even if they don’t use it everyday.

      The families that need two cars will balance out the ones that don’t want to or can’t own one.

      • Doug March 1, 2019 at 8:55 am #

        I belong to the group “don’t need it but have one for fun stuff”. I am trying to get rid of it. I will rent instead.

        • Adam Miller
          Adam Miller March 1, 2019 at 10:08 am #

          I belonged to that group in DC (although I also drove more than I should have). Not sure I would have been if I didn’t have a parking spot with my condo. I didn’t have a car when I bought the condo and the presence of one wasn’t much of a factor in my condo shopping.

    • Keith Morris February 28, 2019 at 5:54 pm #

      I’m happy with the project, but the 11 is a faux hi-frequency route: it’s no 18, that’s for sure. And no old buildings got torn down!

  3. Monte Castleman February 28, 2019 at 8:07 pm #

    What do I think of it? Yet another “have walls sticking out at random and can’t decide on one exterior finish so we’re going to randomly put on five of them” type development you see everywhere. I’ve seen better, I’ve seen a lot worse.

    • Jeremy Hop
      Jeremy H February 28, 2019 at 9:44 pm #

      The city of Minneapolis dictates the multiple exterior finishes building a have. It’s not the developers fault it looks like three buildings had a baby.

      • Andrew Evans March 4, 2019 at 3:43 pm #

        Yup, and the quest to do something on the cheaper side leaves builders with little choice than that concrete board or whatever it is. It’s fine, and who knows what will be there in 50 years. It’s not like our current crop of apartment builds are the first and only time something borderline ugly was built.

  4. Karen Nelson March 1, 2019 at 7:28 am #

    Like this

    “My favorite feature of this proposal is the publicly-accessible, privately-maintained green space with a children’s play area and a pavilion. Creating a public space for families from the entire neighborhood to gather will be a real positive”

    Too many big apartments in my neighborhood built recently wall off a large private courtyard or pool patio are from neighborhood. Old apartment buildings in my old 1910-20s built neighborhood have U shaped buildings with accessible courtyards. Not too many people would just walk into in, but just the view from the sidewalk was way better than modern giant, block-long building fortress with a courtyard hidden.

  5. Trent March 2, 2019 at 11:13 pm #

    Nice scale and height for the neighborhood it is going into. Also nice to have a mix of rental, owner occupied, affordable and market housing.

Note on Comments

streets.mn welcomes opinions from many perspectives. Please refrain from attacking or disparaging others in your comments. streets.mn sees debate as a learning opportunity. Please share your perspective in a respectful manner. View our full comment policy to learn more.

Thanks for commenting on streets.mn!