I got an e-mail today with a summary of a meeting at in Folwell last night talking about site plan reviews et al. Sounds like someone is once again trying to rip "C" in Citizen Participation out of an important process....
Submitted by Lin Schutz: Brief summary below of March 14 evening meeting at Folwell Rec Center on the changes to Chapter 530 "Site Plan Review" and modifications to Chapt. 535.90 and 535.95. > Next critical meeting date is March 28 before the City Planning Commission (this will be toward the end of many agenda items that day). Then it goes to the Council's Zoning & Planning Committee. for more info, see contacts names, ph #, e-mails at very end of this message). #1. BIG CHANGE for neighborhoods. The most troubling thing heard was that the proposed "streamling" of site plan review for residential developments (single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, 4-plexes, townhomes), would NO longer involve any public hearing process or public notification of the nearby (within 350 feet) property owners or neighborhood associations. #2. Any "mixed-uses" under 20,000 SF would also be "administratively reviewed" (no public hearing, no public notice....). Re #1 & #2: Removal of public hearing takes it out of the Board of Adjustment public hearing process, Planning Commission public hearing process, Heritage Preservation public hearing process, and Arts Commission public hearing process. All city ordinances, including those involving the preceding boards/commissions, are still considered, by the zoning administrator. But, no public hearing notices or public hearing processes would be involved. About 20 of us present, mostly from neighborhoods, argued that neighbors & neighborhoods HAVE to be notified some how! > The StarTribune articles about the "renovation" (demolition/teardown) at 2655 E. Lake of the Isles Blvd. were held up and cited. Questions were asked: How would a neighbor ever know in advance before a similar "renovation/tear down" occurs, or a big hole is dug next door, or most of the walls of an existing structure get ripped off seemingly overnight. Who would ever communicate to the neighbors about what might go in nearby, in advance, rather than after the fact? > #3. Public Pathway is included: Greenway or bike trail, including but not limited to, the Midtown Greenway, Loring Greenway or the Humboldt Greenway. What does that mean/implications for development along these corridors? Does it include the city or county Park & Recreation "Parkways" and paths, bikeways, etc.???? #4. There are apparently "9 things" that will also continue to need to be taken into consideration by the zoning administrator handling these administrative reviews (a list of these 9 considerations will be e-mailed to interested people, separately*) which include things like: permitted height, lot coverate, house width, front facade, attached garages, parking requirements, etc. > #5. Article VI is "entirely brand new": A Table on "Standards for single and two-family dwellings and multiple-family dwellings having three or four dwellings" If an owner/builder/developer does certain things(s), he can get bonus points : 5 for "a", 5 for "b", 4 for doing "c", 3 for including "e", 3 for doing "f", 2 for doing "g", 1 for "h", 1 for "i" .... > Somone at the 3/14/05 Folwell Rec Center meeting suggested owners/contractors/developers could get a couple bonus points for coming before neighborhood groups with their proposal(s). Article VI does provide some helpful/useful direction or ideas to owners/builders/developers of residential structures about what is desirable within the city of Mpls. (to avoid too much of a suburban look, to avoid vinyl siding, etc.) > Somone at the 3/14/05 Folwell Rec Center said that while the direction/ideas in the Table were helpful, maybe that alone would help meet the "60 day" timetable; why throw out the "baby with the bathwater" however -- let's keep the public notice & public hearing requirements, and simply adopt the helpful/useful bonus points in Article VI. If the planning staff continues to be overworked (after interest rates rise and real estate borrowing tapers off), then consider the "administrative site review/expedited process" a year from now. > Neighborhoods that have guidelines, could also submit these to the zoning administrator, for consideration relative to the "administrative review", but such guidelines are merely advisory. (This was touted as one way that neighborhoods could try to ensure that remodeling/building is in keeping with the scale and character of the neighborhood, say an attractive quaint bungalow type area. Someone mentioned that in the Chicago Area there is a "Bungalow Club"/special protections for these charming areas.) > #6. Why the changes? One big reason offered is that the "case load" for city planners is currently overwhelming* ... This "streamlining" was presented as an "administrative-only review process" to "move" or expedite the projects through in the required "60-day" review process. If a > project doesn't move within 60-days it's automatically is okayed, as submitted, by default. (Only one time, so far, has this awful situation occurred, however; a person at the 3/14/05 meeting at > Folwell Rec center inquired about that.) Another significant reason offered for making these proposed changes now (in Spring 2005) include experiences (some less than idea/somewhat negative) that have occurred since the city made its 1999 comprehensive zoning code changes, at which time in 1999 "site plan" was also revised ....The site plan revisions of 1999 resulted in some neighborhoods asking for development "moratoriums" because some of the developments that occurred were not not appreciated. Comments of concern about losing the notification to neighborhoods, losing the notification to nearby property/homeonwers, and losing the public hearing process were many. *Why overwhelming? Perhaps due to low interest rates and other factors have brought lots of money into real estate ... much of what otherwise might go into other investments like the stock market ...That leads to a building boom, some land speculation, investor vs. owner driven developments, parcel assembly, etc. This is an interesting mix when it gets coupled with "loosened" zoning law changes, the press to get projects through before a different city council/mayor/planning commissioners, park commissioners, etc. come on board after the 11/05 elections ... FOR MORE INFO, useful handouts to review before March 28, to submit your views/comments before March 28 CONTACT: CPED personnel as follows: Jason Wittenberg 612/673-2297 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Barbara Sporlein, Director of Planning & Economic Development, City of Minneapolis 612/673-2616 [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
