List, I know lots of you don't get attachments through the list. So here are Don's comments on River Run for all to read, critique, and consider:
Joseph Barisonzi Willard-Hay Comments on the River Run project from Council Member Don Samuels: The River Run Project is a proposed housing development on Marshall Avenue on the banks of the Mississippi River in the Sheridan Neighborhood. The neighborhood leadership of Sheridan reviewed the project over six months and made many suggestions for change. Here are several of the changes demanded by Sherman, to satisfy the community. Some of these were satisfactory to the group and some were not. 1. The number of units was reduced from 119 to 101. 2. Underground parking was increased to reduce the need for above ground parking. 3. Impervious surface was reduced and more green added to the rear. 4. A rain garden and small pond were incorporated into the landscape. 5. The building was set back more to facilitate the future enhancement of Marshall Street. 6. Direct public access to the river was integrated into the site. 7. The height of the building was reduced, in proximity to the river, to reduce the need for a variance. 8. A faux-stone fa�ade was added to some areas of the lower level to enhance the look. On the other hand there are some change requests that were not achieved: 1. The developers said home ownership an unequivocal impossibility. 2. They also did not believe mixed commercial use was viable in the current market. 3. They could not guarantee trouble free parking. 4. The neighborhood was still not satisfied with the four-storied frontage on Marshall. 5. Neighborhood leaders felt the (rental) density of 101 units, was still too high for the site. There was additional concerned about saturating the rental market, especially with Bottineau Commons, of similar size, just recently opened only blocks away. 6. Neighborhood leaders felt the design was not appealing or area specific and that the building was not beautiful. 7. Community leaders were concerned that the building became a visual and physical obstacle to the river. In addition, concerns were raised about the management of Bottineau Commons, owned by the same developers. The building, which had opened this summer, had experienced a shooting and other minor criminal activity and surrounding parking problems. As a small business owner, I appreciated the tremendous work that the property owner and developer had done to respond to community concerns. As a neighborhood activist I had deep sympathies for the appropriate and legitimate concerns raised by the neighborhood leadership. After observing months of adjustments and objections, in good faith, I attempted to break the stalemate by negotiating what seemed to me to be significant changes on behalf of the community, to move the project toward approval. These included: 1. The addition of a well-designed lobby to open the building up and make the space more welcoming. 2. An improved balance between market and affordable units. 3. An innovative mortgage accrual program included in each rental payment to build a �down payment nest egg� for residents to have the option and an incentive for moving into home ownership. The developer was reluctant, but willing to make these changes contingent on neighborhood support. Community leaders, however, did not embrace this compromise. At the last community meeting, a straw poll was taken and the vote was tied 10/10. After the meeting several neighbors complained that they had been confused about the vote and would have voted against the project. In the end, every community group with direct or indirect involvement in the project voted against the project. A brief tally of communications in our office has opinions against the project running 25:1 against the project, with over 100 communications logged. In the end, and after much consideration, I have decided to vote against supporting the public financing of the project. Here is why: The project is financed by the city, which requires that in such a case, the community should review and register their opinion to the city. That opinion was overwhelmingly against the project. As an elected official, I am chosen to make decisions on behalf of my community and the city so that people can go about their lives. The city allows and encourages people to give their opinion directly, that opinion must be taken seriously. When that opinion reaches the level of consensus, it must prevail. If the elected representative has a dissenting view, they can and should try to persuade the community. But if and when a community participates in that spirit -- is active and vocal -- but remains un-persuaded it is counterproductive to the democratic process not to heed that voice. Empowering the community and encouraging community engagement demands nothing less. The community has spoken resoundingly. The developer would be justified to feel frustrated and even angry. They have held the property for five years. They tried commercial development, but my predecessor rejected it. They proposed mixed-use development, and it was rejected. They changed to residential and their design handily satisfied the requirements of the city. The city staff loved the project, rating it highest among the projects in consideration. In their presentations to the neighborhood, they would have been justified to feel that they were moving slowly toward a design compromise that would eventually be acceptable to the neighbors also. They did many drawings and redos and attended many meetings with Sheridan and AFCAC to sell those design changes. This rejection is personally and professionally devastating to them. There are rumblings of concern about a NIMBY element in the community. My meetings with the community were devoid of that sentiment. Any such impression on my part would be inappropriately conjectural. I have no doubt that, given human nature; some of those sentiments do exist among some residents. However, given who and what I am, I doubt that those sentiments would be expressed to me. In the end I feel confident that the fair residents of Sheridan would challenge any of those among them that have such sentiments, even as they oppose the project, so that this debate will retain its civil tone. I have encouraged the developers to consider this failure an instructive step toward the achievement of a future successful project. I suggest they add significant home ownership � ideally with components of affordability - to the project. I suggest they upgrade the design to reflect the proximity to the river and answer the lingering concerns of the neighborhood. I encourage the neighborhoods to consider this success an increase in responsibility to the achievement of a future successful project. It is now the role of the community leaders to come forward with their goals, desired outcomes, design parameters, and priorities for this site. With a clean slate and an open mind, they must consider the market, the economics, all the diverse stakeholders of this site, and the role and responsibility of neighborhood leadership in the community development process. I remain confident that there is a project for this site on the river that can be embraced by all the stakeholders of the neighborhood and the city. It is a project that everyone will be proud to have in their neighborhood. I commit my time and my office to helping make that project a reality. I trust that all those who have expressed such passion and interest in this site will join me. REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
