Archives by date

Tuesday, August 8, 2006, 5:30 p.m.
Dunn Brothers, Sixth & University Avenues SE

Members Present: Kelly Carver, Arvonne Fraser, Pete Goelzer, Bill Huntzicker, Ardis Johnson, Jo Radzwill, Bo Sherman

Guests: Tony Barranco and Justin Zavadil (Archive), Brain Lubben and Jeffrey Sweitzer (500 Central Avenue), Elissa Cottle, Ted Tucker

1. Archive: Archive had appealed the following conditions set by the City Planning Commission (CPC) to the Planning Committee of the Minneapolis City Council. Conditions set by the CPC were side yard set back of 7 feet and that “all rooflines incorporated within the development shall be flat”. Tony and Justin updated the land use committee on the results of their appeal – the side yard set back had been reduced to 3 feet, but the rooflines must remain flat. Archive is currently working on the redesign of the flat roofs.
2. 500 Central Ave SE: Brian Lubben and Jeff Sweitzer presented updates to preliminary drawings of a possible development on the current site of Arone’s bar and grill. This is a proposal for a development containing first level commercial space – a completely enclosed drive through bank with four stories of 42-48 residential condos above. The condos were expected to retail with a few smaller units (900 sq. ft.) in the low $200,000’s, but most of the units in the mid to upper $300,000’s. As the development was presented, they were asking for rezoning from C2 to C3A, they thought they could remain below 56 feet high, increased the side yard set back to 5 feet on the first level (parking ramp), a conditional use permit for the parking ramp. The floor area ratio for the project was 4.35. This development would be right up against the northeast property line and would, therefore, have no windows on that side of the building. Some members of the committee considered that issue problematic. Townhouse neighbors are concerned with height and shadowing issues. These neighbors are concerned that the development will give their homes a “closed-in” feeling. Most townhouse owners enjoy their common back yard and the (current) feeling of openness associated with that area. There was much discussion regarding the drive-thru bank that was presented for the commercial space on the first floor. Pete Goelzer thought the property was located in a pedestrian overlay district – in which case a drive-through facility would not be allowed. Concerns were also expressed about the safety of pedestrians as vehicles exited either the drive-thru or the parking ramp. Response to the design presented was varied. The design presented is very “busy” and some members thought it was too busy. Explanation by the architect was that it was meant to have it’s own character (not being like Cobalt – a controversial design within the neighborhood) and still be a design they felt was compatible with the neighborhood. Developers feel the plus for the neighborhood is a better use of the property than its current use – of course there are differences of opinion regarding this issue.
3. Planned Unit Development at 401 University Ave SE: The Robinsons did not appear at the meeting. Correspondence had been received by the neighborhood association noting that J and Jeb Robinson planned to use parcel number 23-029-24-14-0086 as a planned unit development. Two units currently occupy that property. The house with address 401 University would remain as is. The home bearing the address 308/310 Fourth Ave SE would be demolished and the house at 408 Fourth Street SE would be moved onto that space, leaving the 408 Fourth Street SE open for a new building. This item is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on August 28, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.ACTION: The Land Use Committee unanimously voted to oppose this development until the developer brings his plans before the neighborhood for discussion and subsequent further action. The Land Use Committee recommends that the MHNA Board support the committee decision and forward letters so stating to the developer and to Jim Voll, planning staff for notation of the neighborhood action and attachment to the project file.
4. 1117 Eighth St SE: This includes plans for a triplex in R5 zone for rebuilding after a fire. This project is subject to administrative review. Project consists of three 5-bedroom units – one below ground with egress windows and two units above ground – with two bathrooms in each unit. Plans call for off-street parking for 4 cars and 4 bicycles, “professional designed landscaping and storm water drainage” and sprinkler system for fire suppression. This appears to be a typical “student” rental. With 15 bedrooms the parking requirements do not meet neighborhood standards of .5 spaces per bedroom. There are two walls that lack sufficient windows to make the building attractive and to allow “eyes” on the surroundings. Just as concern was noted regarding the development at 500 Central Avenue, some committee members felt this was problematic with the design of this project.ACTION: Since this project is subject only to administrative the land use committee authorized its chair to submit a letter stating its displeasure with aspects of the design – particularly the shortage of off-street parking. This letter will be presented at the board meeting for board action and (assuming board approval) will be forward to city planning for notation of its comments and for attachment to the file.
5. Pillsbury A Mill: Ted Tucker, facilitator of the ‘A’ Mill Task Force gave a brief overview of the original Consensus Statement of the Pillsbury ‘A’ Mill Task Force. This statement laid out the goals set by the task force for this project. Ted also reviewed the status of unresolved issues as of August 2, 2006. The land use committee also briefly reviewed the staff report to the Planning commission and takes the following action:ACTION: The MHNA Land Use Committee recommends the MHNA Board commend the developer, Schafer Richardson for working with the Pillsbury ‘A’ Mill Task Force toward meeting the goals of the neighborhood. We would also like to commend CPED staff for its efforts to incorporate neighborhood goals into its recommendations along with efforts to ensure developer compliance with these goals. If staff conditions are approved, most of the unresolved issues from the ‘A’ Mill Task Force will have been resolved. The remaining issues can be resolved through the following suggested language changes to conditions proposed by staff. The committee recommends the following changes:
   • Conditional Use Permit: approve Condition 3: The elimination of any of the following proposed amenities will require an amendment to the PUD: the rail corridor preservation including the replacement of some tracks and the train shed; the pedestrian connections through the site at Prince Street and the 4^th Avenue SE pedestrian walkway between Buildings B and C and the Red Tile Elevator and Building D (connecting 2^nd Street SE with Main Street SE); provision of a streetscape on (vacated) 5^th Ave SE that is like a city street, including sidewalks adjacent to the buildings, boulevards with trees and road access down the center, the entire scheme encompassing the full width of the vacated 5^th Ave SE right of way. Upper stories of adjacent buildings should be set back from the lower stories at least 15 feet; provision of the view corridors through the site at Prince Street and 5^th Avenue SE; and the roof top gardens between Buildings D and E and Buildings F and G. Other changes to the PUD may require amendments and are required to be evaluated by staff.
   • Site Plan Review: approve Condition 5: A streetscape plan and view corridor for 5^th Avenue SE (vacated) shall be approved by staff before construction begins on Buildings C, D, E, F, and G. The plan shall provide public access and a view corridor through the site that is like a city street, including such elements as sidewalks adjacent to the buildings, boulevards with trees and road access down the center, the entire scheme encompassing the full width of the vacated 5^th Avenue SE right of way. Upper stories of buildings should be set back at least 15 feet from the lower stories. If such a plan is not possible, CPED staff will notify the neighborhood.
   • We recommend replacement of Condition 7 with the following: The applicant shall move the vehicular access for Building G to the rail corridor or directly adjacent to the rail corridor; roadway acceptable to the City can be on the applicant’s property or on an easement arranged with the adjacent property owner.
   • Condition 14: We recommend the following addition: If changes are necessary, CPED staff will inform the neighborhood.
6. Revised mini-plans for MHNA Supplement to the Master Plan, Elissa Cottle, NRP Administrator, presented HGKi’s edited version of the conceptual plans for the supplement to the MHNA Master Plan.ACTION: The land use committee approved them in concept, noted a few minor errors and requested that HGKi use a font that is easier to read for the final project.
7. 625 E. Hennepin: Because of the size of this building, the project is subject to administrative review. The site plan was approved subject to the following conditions:
   • Planning Staff review and approval of the final site, elevation and landscaping plans.
   • All site improvements shall be completed by July 17, 2007 unless extended by the Zoning Administrator, or the permit may be revoked for non-compliance.
   • Reorientation of the building towards the corner of 7^th Street SE and Hennepin Avenue East so that a portion of the structure shall be within 8 feet of both 7^th Street SE and Hennepin Avenue East. Staff shall ensure that there will be no parking between the building and the public sidewalks.
   • Incorporation of windows, entries, recesses, projections or other architectural elements along the east elevation to break up the blank uninterrupted walls that exceed 25 feet in width per Section 530.120 of the zoning code.
   • Modification of the east elevation so that the windows are distributed in a more or less even manner.
   • The development shall meet the screening standards as stated in Section 530.170 of the zoning code.

   Developer is appealing the ruling of the zoning administrator regarding the conditions for site plan approval. This appeal is to be heard at the Planning Commission meeting on August 14, 2006.

   ACTION: The Land Use Committee recommends that the MHNA Board act in accordance with the Minneapolis Plan and the Marcy-Holmes Master Plan and support the ruling of planning staff and of the zoning administrator.

8. Miscellaneous:City of Minneapolis call for RFP for sale of specified parking ramps – One of the ramps is the St. Anthony Ramp, 210 Second Ave SE, 901 spaces above ground, constructed in 1980. This ramp could be used as land for development or continued parking (complete or partial). Concern was voiced regarding the parking requirements for neighborhood businesses if this site were sold for development. Since the St. Anthony Main development received City funding, the City may be required to provide parking for those businesses. RFP’s are due October 19, 2006, and there is a pre-proposal conference scheduled for August 21, at 1:15 at the Minneapolis Central Library. This is definitely something to keep tabs on.

NOTE: Action items on the Pillsbury ‘A’ Mill and on 625 E. Hennepin will be forwarded to the MHNA Executive Committee for immediate action so the may be forwarded to the planners to be made part of the packets presented to the Planning Commission members for the meeting on August 14, 2006.

Action items on the PUD at 401 University Ave SE, 117 Eighth Street SE (letter to follow) and the Revised mini plans for the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Association Supplement to the Master Plan will be taken to the MHNA Board at its regular meeting on August 15.