The following is the text of a oral presentation to Minneapolis City Council requesting that the City not violate its own Zoning ordinances:
"Appeal of Planning Commission decision on a PPL proposal for variance of parking requirements and the rezoning of a lot at 1033 East Franklin Avenue This case is very unusual. The Official Citizen Participation Neighborhood Group at a neighborhood wide advertised meeting votes unanimously to oppose the PPL proposal for variances and rezoning. The City of Minneapolis Planning Staff also recommends that the requests not be granted. That this issue is even before you today is amazing. Yet it once again demonstrates the awesome power that politically connected corporations can have. If this were a small storeowner, or restaurant owner, who asked for even part of these variances, even a percentage, they would be summarily dismissed. That this project has made it to the point of having a neighborhood have to file such an appeal demonstrates the discrimination against poor inner city neighborhoods that may presently exist in Minneapolis. The notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was improper. It listed the zoning change for a property located at 1033 East Franklin that in fact was at 2012 11th. PPL is not even in a position to be requesting a zoning change on this property. That partial lot was originally a part of the lot at 1018 East 21st Street, and is now owned by MCDA. MCDA Staff has made a commitment for the sale of the property to the owner of the house at 1018 East 21st Street, that it was originally separated from. The basis for granting of a request for a parking variance is hardship. There is in fact no hardship involved with either PPL or AIBDC. PPL has other suitable land for construction only two blocks away. PPL presently occupies a building that is only partially used on the corner of Franklin and Chicago. That building has a parking lot AIBDC will tell you that they have not been able to find a user of the space at 1033 East Franklin Avenue. This is not true. I have sent Somali Business people to AIBDC on several occasions to explore renting AIBDC property. They have been refused. I have a list of merchants interested in leasing this space. Merchants who would not need a variance. In the last month a Home Health Care Provider Business came to me asking how they could purchase this building. When asked what their parking needs were they replied that they have eight employees and would be in partnership with an Ethnic Clinic. So existing grandfathered parking would be sufficient. I suggested that they send a letter of intent and interest to AIBDC. They sent a copy of that offer to me and I forwarded it by fax to each of you. There presently exists a parking shortage in the area. AIBDC has been granted a variance to the number of parking spots required for its Ancient Traders or Franklin Circle Shopping Center. There are numerous duplexes, triplexes and multi-unit housing buildings in the area without any off street parking. Additional street parking would constitute a true hardship for those families and owners. The applicant has provided no Traffic and Parking study that would show that the proposed variances would not have serious harmful impacts for the neighborhood. In fact the opposite is true, City Planning staff have given testimony that the application should have been denied because of those harmful impacts. Such large parking variances are usually not allowed in other areas of the City. In fact such extreme variances from the written City regulations and policies are detrimental to the well-being of the residents of the area and detrimental to present businesses on Franklin Avenue. The harm caused by such an extreme variance from City Regulations may well be an actionable item for those businesses and residents who will be so harmed. Again I emphasize, City Planning staff documented this impact in their report when they recommended that the City NOT grant a variance for parking as requested. They document the harmful effect of this project on the surrounding businesses and the surrounding residential area. The implications for future law suits against the City of Minneapolis are also daunting. If a variance of such magnitude were granted how could the City of Minneapolis then later deny less of a variance to any other business? How can the City enforce any parking requirement in a neighborhood, that might marginally support the variance, when the City acted in such an arbitrary and capricious manner? The implications for future parking regulatory actions are then suspect and probably actionable. Minneapolis should not be putting itself and tax payer dollars at such risk. When initially coming to the Ventura Village Neighborhood to ask for support to assume ownership of this building and to assume the Neighborhood NRP mortgage on this property AIBDC made specific promises. Even more importantly AIBDC made specific verbal and written contracts concerning this building. The building was to be used primarily for retail business, which the neighborhood had a shortage of. AIBDC was to provide a youth enterprise business for the rear portion of the building. The agreements stipulated that if AIBDC could not perform on these actions within six months, or if AIBDC sold or leased the building in its entirety, then the building was to be returned to the community. The City of Minneapolis was to enforce this condition. That Minneapolis failed to perform its duty to the neighborhood is the reason this action is even before you today. AIBDC has an outstanding debt and contract on this building, which the Neighborhood has started foreclosure proceedings on. It is the intent of the neighborhood to pursue this matter to insure the agreements that have been made are enforced. It is the obligation of City agencies acting in a proper fiduciary manner to have previously pursued this matter. That the City has failed in that fiduciary responsibility does not now entitle the City of Minneapolis to ignore such responsibility, and now compound such by arbitrarily violating its own zoning ordinance for a favored business. I respectfully ask that the Zoning & Planning Committee also respect the Neighborhood process and support the decision of the community and the judgment of the City's own staff. This application is not appropriate at this time given the questions of ownership, questions of proper notice, and proof that there exists no hardship to justify consideration of either the zoning change or the variances included in the request. More importantly, that the Committee and Council not violate due process by granting a variance that simply does not meet the standards for such variances as described by the City's own staff when they recommended that these variances not be granted. Thank you." The Z&P Committee voted to disregard both the City's own staff and the neighborhoods recommendations and to grant variances without exploring the many legal problems of their actions. I would hope the full City Council would at least attempt to allow "Due Process" by clearing up the legal questions in this action, prior to voting on it. Such attention to "Law" might prevent having it indeed become several "Actionable Items". Hopefully wise heads on the Council will prevail and the council will use the City Attorney's Office for legal advice, rather than for legal defense. Jim Graham, Ventura Village _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
