First, I need to provide some background information to this debate. The primary flaws of process and fairness have led to the three problem areas: parking, truck loading and massing.
It helps one to understand the full picture to grasp the current conflict. In April, the local architects for the MIA attended the Whittier Transportation and Land Use Planning (TLUP) Committee. When I asked the MIA representatives about variances and conditional use permits, I was continually told only �that everything is within the law.� The plan was also presented as preliminary, and that there would be ample opportunity for further public scrutiny. The same errors and omissions were presented at the full Whittier Board. The facts are different. This project is in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which requires a Conditional Use Permit by statute. The key word here is �conditional�. There are also variances and amendments in their plan, �curb cuts, etc.� The idea that there could be conditions put on the statutorily required Conditional Use Permit was never broached with the community. These facts were not disclosed. The Whittier TLUP Committee has since voted, because of these shortcomings, to �reconsider� the matter. (This is all-important--city-wide--in the manner neighborhood processes effect and interact with city processes.) These illegitimately gained neighborhood �approvals� were then used as testimony to the Park Board (The MIA sits on Park Board land), the Heritage Preservation Commission (an HPC district) and the Planning Commission. The errors and omissions are part and parcel of their snowballing flawed approval processes. How can the city approve a plan when their neighborhood organization was so misled? Second is the issue of fairness. Small businesses and developers and homeowners receive the full blast of the bureaucratic process. Large corporate/cultural institutions seem to get a pass. The parking variances (over 1,000 car variance) and the loading dock exception appear to be the most egregious. The arbitrary application of the Minneapolis plan is another white flag. The MIA has now conceded that they need a parking plan and has now agreed to do one concurrently with construction. We feel that we deserve full input into this plan before the concrete is poured. Note the Brookfield/Block E escalator, et-al debacle. Obviously, the leverage is before the permit. Having chaired Zoning and Licensing issues in the Whittier neighborhood for five years, I would love to see a small tacqueria or coffee shop say �I�ll study my parking needs later.� Or, as the MIA says, �we�ll build it when we need it.� Or, �we want to look at neighborhood-wide parking concerns.� What�s good for the Goose is good for the Gander. Show us a parking plan, now, before it�s built-- like the rest of us. Why do the Big Boys continue to receive special exceptions. Now they are gravitating toward this idea of a neighborhood-wide �parking problem.� What a red herring. It is their new 117,000 square foot building and they are not only not adding any additional spaces, they are eliminating 66 spaces, where the proposed new structure would go. This is their project and their parking issue. So parking is complicated and tied to their comprehensive plan. This is the heft of the neighborhood parking concern: Show us your plans for the future. This is reasonable and moderate. Of course, an institution of this size has both long-term and 5 year planning documents. These plans should be on file at City Hall as is required of other large institutions. Why the Big Exception? Why is this process and plan not transparent to the larger community? Tax revenue to the tune of Five Million Dollars a year flow to this institution. With this kind of levy, their comprehensive plans and parking designs should be transparent. With this kind of public support every year, their public process should have been the best, bar none. In this regard, if I may, they failed. John Kremer Whittier/ Washburn Fair Oaks _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
