Archives by date

MINUTES of the MHNA General Membership Meeting
March 15, 2005
University Lutheran Church of Hope, 601 13th Ave SE, Minneapolis

1. Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm by President Brian Biele.
2. The February minutes were approved (Doug Carlson motion)
3. Council Member Paul Zerby addressed the group on the Gophers Stadium. A draft environmental review is underway. There are two advisory groups meeting about the plans – one from the University and one comprised of neighbors. The petitions for the 15th Ave lighting are here and that process will begin soon. We are still hoping to get the lights (on 15th Ave SE from 5th St SE 15th Ave SE) installed this summer. March’s utility bills will feature a breakdown between stormwater/ sewer use and water use. Most residential owners won’t see much difference in bill. But some multi- unit buildings will show an increase. People who wish to argue their case can call 673-1114. Arvonne Fraser noted that her bill went up considerably, as the method the city uses to determine the cost is not site specific. The city is still looking at our problems at 10th Ave SE & 5th St SE/ crosswalk intersection.A question was asked about the Gopher Motel – still closed. CM Zerby replied that it is not illegal to be vacant, but it is puzzling and he will check on the status with the owner. Another question was asked about 6th & University. It is very difficult for pedestrians to cross there, especially with the timing of stoplights. MHNA has written several letters about the situation, to no avail. We have set aside some NRP funding and asked that the situation be looked at in the A-Mill EIS. The draft A-Mill EIS has been issued and comments are due at the end of March.
4. Board action taken tonight :
   • The Livability Committee is moving some of their responsibilities to other committees. Task Forces that involve more than just our neighborhood, will be organized by the MHNA Board. Events will go to the Student Affairs Committee. Licensing will go under the Executive Committee’s responsibilities. The Livability Committee recommended and the board approved that we join SECIA In supporting a grant application to the US Dept of Education that would combat problem/underage drinking and the behavior that is associated with binge drinking in our area.
   • The Land Use Committee: 521 Second Street SE (Bluff Development) has made some changes, but there is still one major objection – the placement of commercial spaces on the Second Street side of the building. The Master Plan calls for Second Street to be residential, although commercial space on the 6th Ave side would be acceptable. A motion to support the Land Use recommendations on 521 Second Street (Bill Huntzicker) was passed. Those recommendations are:
     • MHNA understands that the City Planning Commission believes the area between Main Street and University Ave SE is ripe for development with high-density housing and has already rezoned 520 Second Street SE (across Second Street) to C3A
     • MHNA believes this site is not an extension of the East Hennepin Community Activity Area.
     • MHNA opposes development of ground floor commercial in new buildings on Second Street SE, preferring that commercial be concentrated on Main Street or in existing nodes.
     • MHNA does not want any rezoning of this site by the CPC (to allow commercial use or higher densities on this site at the corner of Sixth Ave and Second Street SE ) to be considered a precedent for rezoning to C3A the three blocks between Second Street SR and University Ave SE between Second Ave SE and Fifth Ave SE.
     • MHNA prefers keeping the current ILOD zoning and approving needed variances for FAR and land area per dwelling to accommodate this project.
     • MHNA approves the CUP for height as approved by the HPC.
     • MHNA approves the CUP for the requested number of units in the project.
     • MHNA approves the variance for side yard setbacks provided Bluff Development resolves any easement issues with the neighbors.
     • MHNA opposes the site plan version with ground floor commercial on Second Street SE. MHNA does not object to the commercial facing Sixth Ave SE.
     • MHNA approves the site plan version with “work/live spaces” on the ground floor if the entrances to these spaces match the grade of the existing sidewalk and if such spaces meet the regulations of Minneapolis Zoning Code 525.450, “Home Occupation Standards”, MHNA approves a CUP for such use if requested by the developer.
     • MHNA would also approve a site plan with ground-level town houses on Second Street SE.
   • Jo Radzwill reported on the Eastgate/Cobalt Condominiums project. Under pressure from the main grocery tenant, several changes have been made to the plans that were not approved by neighborhoods or the city. These changes include: a change on the building’s footprint; a decrease in the amount of retail space; and an increase in the amount of surface parking. The MHNA Board voted to withdraw MHNA’s support for the Eastgate/Cobalt project because of the substantial design changes. MHNA supports the development as approved by the Eastgate Task Force and requests that City Planning review the project.
   • The MHNA Land Use Committee compiled recommendations to send in response to the EIS:
     

     A MILL TASK FORCE COMMENTS ON PILLSBURY A MILL PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

     The A Mill Task Force did not believe this project needed an Environmental Impact Statement and finds the DEIS to be a supplementary tool to evaluate the visual impact of the Pillsbury A Mill Project on the riverfront and adjacent neighborhoods.

     The A Mill Task Force met March 2, 2005 to review the DEIS and made these comments:

     • More tax base is good for Minneapolis.
     • More residents are good for the Central Riverfront.
     • Project should finance the reuse of A Mill Complex.
     • Proposed number of units (1095) is acceptable.
     • Proposed total bulk (1.85 million sq ft) may be too much.
     • Towers along Main St. must not be a physical or visual barrier between MH and river.
     • There should be visible gaps between towers.
     • Project must connect Marcy-Holmes to its riverfront.
     • DEIS evaluates views for each alternative from the river but not from the neighborhood.
     • Do lower “links” improve views from the neighborhood?
     • Are blocked views from private space (on 2nd St SE) considered “adverse”?
     • Tower heights must vary, the more visually pronounced the variation, the better.
     • Parcels F, F/G, G (5th to 6th) are different: outside SAFWA and farther from Red Tile El.
     • What is the origin of the concept of St Anthony Falls Waterpower Area (SAFWA)?
     • Does SAFWA supersede St Anthony Falls Historic District sub-areas?
     • Should East and West Banks of SAFWA share size, mass and scale etc?
     • What are visual characteristics of A Mill Complex? of SAFWA?
       • Size (dimensions)
       • Scale (visual unit)
       • Massing or bulk (proportion)
     • Extension of the grid (4th and 5th Aves.) should be marked with large (at least 80′) gaps.
     • Building only large, expensive units will mean riverfront living is only for very rich.
     • Variety of unit sizes and prices fits better into diverse adjacent neighborhoods.
     • Chosen alternatives are not helpful in evaluation:
       • Alt 2 is ugly and unvaried, seemingly designed for rejection.
       • Alt 4 has density too low (esp. replacing White Concrete Elevators with low rise)
       • Why not an alternative with C3A density and fitting HPC guidelines in SAFWA?

     Most of these comments are about the project rather than the DEIS itself. However, one can infer the following comments about the adequacy of the DEIS:

     • The DEIS study of views of alternatives should be as complete from the neighborhood vantage point as from the riverfront vantage point.
     • The visual characteristics (size, scale and mass) of the St. Anthony Falls Waterpower Area should be assessed and the visual relationship of east and west banks of the SAFWA discussed in greater detail.
     • The alternatives chosen for evaluation were so unappealing either visually or fiscally as to make the proposer’s preferred plan seem the only viable solution to save the A Mill. An alternative with more visual variety than Alternative Two and more density than Alternative Four would have been more useful.

     A motion to send the above recommendations on behalf of MHNA was passed.

   • On April Fool’s Day, Ted Tucker will be stepping down from our land Use committee and joining the city’s Planning Commission. Jo Radzwill has agreed to be become chair of Land Use Committee. Thanks and congratulations to Ted. Land Use meets the Second Tuesday 5:30 at Dunn Bros.
5. Inspector Graham Wilson did not appear but rescheduled to April meeting. Meanwhile, reporting forms were made available tonight for people wishing to notify the city of problem properties. The Inspections Dept is on a 5-year cycle for inspecting rental properties. We have extras in the office.
6. Elissa Cortell, NRP Coordinator, passed out copies of the results of the Phase II funding allocation (see enclosed). Now it is up to committees to do the work of planning the programs they can be implemented. Any unfunded strategies will be added to our Phase II Action Plan as well . Elissa thanked all who came out to vote., At the April MHNA meeting, elections will be held for NRP Implementation Committee. Volunteers who wish to become involved with Phase II NRP should notify Elissa at 623-7923.
7. A question was asked about the grain elevators at the A-Mill project. President Biele suggested the correct procedure would be to go through our Land Use Committee.
8. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm Melissa Bean, Executive Director