Those present: Mike Marn (Summit House), Christopher Hoffer (510 Groveland), John Van Heel (110 W. Grant), Destin Nygard (Architectural Alliance), Paul Hinderager (Summit House), Lisa Bender (15th St.), Neil Reardon (Willow St.), Robert Cook (430 Oak Grove)

Those on committee, unable to attend: Bob Copeland (1303 Yale), Sasha Mayer (Summit House), Becky Guillickson (301 Clifton), Kam Talebi (Nicollet Ave. Businesses/Property owner), Liz Hutter (Spruce), Sunny Floum (Summit House), Dick Sandberg (1201 Yale), and Jan Sandberg (1201 Yale)

Staff: Jana Metge/CLPC Coordinator

I. Meeting was called to order and introductions were conducted by John Van Heel

II. John asked for the new attendees to share their expectations for our Loring Park Master Plan:

• Lisa suggested that we think of how to share photos, maybe set up a Flicker account.

• One member expressed hope to collect photos and maps and have available on the website.

• It was suggested that the more the committee members take on, the fewer tasks we will need to outsource/contract to a consultant.

• Several members expressed interest in preservation and to what extent this Master Plan will preserve the character of the neighborhood and monitor newly developed design guidelines. The hope is that this Master Plan will be a good tool for the community to guide and direct any future, proposed development.

• To incorporate the Loring Hill guidelines into this plan and give them some legs.

• To strengthen the pedestrian connections from the Hill to surrounding community.

• That Harmon Ave. could be reinvented, possibly utilizing MCTC students in the planning

• Define, identify, and propose options for use of empty lots – how to guide development, whether it is to define that we need to save them for parking, like in the Cedar Riverside plan, or propose options to direct development.

• Historic preservtion could be used as a strategy for preservation and design standards.

• Determine a way to better utilize and advertise the Walker and Hyatt parking ramps.

III. Jana reported on the Traffic Calming Task Force – Sasha Mayer had agreed to facilitate the

first meeting, but was elected (and agreed to being) chair. There were 10 residents in attendance, with another 6 interested. They agreed to meet on the 3rd Monday of each month @ 6:30 @ Loring Park Office building/430 Oak Grove. Next meeting will be Monday, June 15th. They discussed traffic concerns in the neighborhood and prioritized the crossing to Loring Park @ 15th St., fast traffic on Groveland, Oak Grove, Clifton, and 15th St., the crossing from Loring Greenway to Loring Park @ Berger Fountain, the cul-de-sac by MCTC – cars are not stopping and going too fast, the Bridge to the Walker is too dark at night, and the crossings at HN/Lyndale/Oak Grove and Groveland are impossible for folks to get across. They also talked about the Walker parking ramp and that its usage could get increased if more information on this ramp were available to the public. They plan to set objectives and immediate, short term, and long term goals for each of the priority areas identified. There is $17,000 of NRP Phase II funding which may be identified for use by this group under items classified as short term. Immediate items may be those that can be corrected with more traffic patrol, long term items will be forwarded to the Master Plan effort with ideas for solutions.

Paul reviewed the Cedar Riverside Master Plan and distributed copies of the Cedar Riverside Community Engagement Plan, their index, and their Small Area Plan Notes/Summary. This information is available at the below website. The Community Engagement piece is copied here. Paul suggested that we model this as an example as we develop our community engagement plan for this process. Paul also highlighted that a large portion of the Cedar Riverside related to transit development. It was suggested that we have Nicollet Ave., HN/Lyndale, and the SW Rail corridor to review and include in our plan, as well as alternative transportation systems that we could promote, such as street cars. Also discussed was the need to identify our parking issues. Do we want to propose development on our parking lots, or are we a destination point for MCTC students. It was also reported that several apartment building in the neighborhood, like the Haverhill and the Oak Grove Hotel, do not have a parking ramp attached.

It was requested that when we invite Beth Elliott, our city planner it, that she talk about how to change zoning, what are the steps and what should we have in our plan, if we identify an area where the zoning no longer fits (i.e. Nicollet Ave. guidelines propose higher density than zoning allows). Jana reported that in conversations with Beth, she suggested that we set policy first within our plan and then we outline what the steps are to deal with the zoning. She will be a resource for us on this. Lisa suggested that when we get to this point, we discuss and present the trade offs to people, i.e. “more density supports transit”. It will be important to frame issues for discussion as “more green space for the community vs. development.” It was stressed during this discussion that the community should decide what they want this community to be, to look like, that zoning should not dictate it. This should be an open process and we should not shut down any ideas. If discrepancies come up through the process, we will work them through in discussions with City staff. John stated that our process is a neighborhood-driven, not a city-driven process by design, but that our goal is to have this plan approved by the City and by the Met Council and then be used to guide development recommendations of the City and the neighborhood. It was also suggested that there could be debates about “the good of the City” vs. the “good of the neighborhood”. Members stated that if there are points of true disagreement with the City, the neighborhood needs to stake their ground. We should look at overall zoning issues vs. individual property zoning. Cedar Riverside Small Area Plan (full document, no appendices)

John brought a copy of the North Loop Master Plan and highlighted components that he thought our plan should include. This plan illustrated alternative scenerios for development which could be initiated post light rail lines. They looked towards the future in this plan and investigated what development needs may be if the Metrodome stayed or went away, if a new Ball park came or not, and how might the core of this neighborhood be developed with commercial and transit hubs. They looked at major ways in which opportunity sites could be developed. In Loring Park, John suggested that we think about future growth of St. Thomas or the Convention Center. He suggested that our Master Plan not be one of a single vision, but that maybe it makes sense to have several options for each identified opportunity site. Robert suggested that we also identify and look at problem sites and develop ways to improve them.

Neil Reardon reviewed the Marcy-Holmes plan, which is an example of a neighborhood-driven vs. city-driven planning effort. Beth Elliott, our planner, had suggested that we specifically review this plan. Due to time limitations, Neil agreed to report on this next month.

Robert walked through the project index/scope document that he had put together based on what has been either organized, designed, or identified to date. The Committee determined that we will begin at the next meeting with this document. We will go through it and see if there are other items to add, items to delete. This will assist us in determining the Project Scope. John also referred participants to the NRP Phase II plan, under the Urban Planning section. That section was written to outline a project scope. It is available at the CLPC website – www.loringpark.org

John also reported that there is now a separate page for our Master Planning efforts available on the CLPC website. His intent is that he will screen planning document and put all meeting information on this sight, as well as other resource information collected.

We will also hear reports on other Master Plans reviewed by Bob Copeland, Neil Reardon, and Dick Sandberg next month.

Mike Marn agreed to follow up on finding us a copy of the Historic Inventory completed last year.

Lisa agreed to put together a spread sheet of various plan components.

Jana distributed copies of proposed project timeline from now until we release a RFP and select a consultant.

Paul offered to email all the links to the Cedar Riverside plan.

Next meeting set for the 3rd Monday of June, June 15th from 6:30-8:00 p.m. at the Loring Park Office building/430 Oak Grove, Conference Room 207.

Meeting concluded at 8:35 p.m.

This chapter gives an overview of the community engagement process used during the development of the Cedar Riverside Small Area Plan. Additional information on this process, including a summary of comments received, can be found in Appendices A and B. More information on this plan is attached at the end of the minutes.

Early in the planning process, a steering committee was chosen for the Cedar Riverside Small Area Plan. The steering committee plays an important role in any small area planning process such as this one. This role includes:

• Advisory on process. The steering committee provides guidance to City staff and consultants on how to structure the planning process.

• Communication with appointing organizations. Steering committee members serve as a communication link between the study process and the entity they represent.

• Public engagement. Steering committee members may be asked to work with community organizations in getting the word out about public events related to this study.

• Advisory on plan content. Although the committee will have input in the plan, broader public input is essential in informing the plan. The steering committee may be asked to be a sounding board and offer preliminary feedback on plan options in preparation for broader public engagement.

• Representative. Steering committee members are representing the values of their appointing organization. They also have a responsibility to factor in the perspectives of other groups and individuals. They must consider: citywide policies and values, the satisfaction of multiple needs, and the feasibility of plan implementation.

The membership of the Cedar Riverside Small Area Plan steering committee was carefully chosen to be representative of the neighborhood’s demographics, organizational affiliations, and geographic distribution. Although not all of them were able to regularly attend steering committee meetings, all members were kept informed of the plan’s progress via frequent informational updates. Among their roles, the steering committee members helped advise as to the best way to reach out to the neighborhood as a whole. This is described below.

Public involvement is a key component of any community planning process. In addition to providing valuable insight into neighborhood needs and preferences, it helps the public to become more informed about how City decisions are made, and hopefully increases public support for the plan once it is completed. Strong support from neighborhood stakeholders increases the likelihood of timely and effective plan implementation. Without good public involvement, the plan may present a vision for the neighborhood that is inconsistent with neighborhood priorities and lacks support.

It is the goal of a good planning process to reach and engage a representative sample of the area’s stakeholders, including residents, employees, businesses, and visitors. This is not always easy. At the start of the planning process, several public engagement challenges for Cedar Riverside were identified:

To address these various challenges, a framework for public involvement was crafted. Three major stages of the public process were identified: general visioning and goals, research and analysis, and development of recommendations.

The basic idea was to split each of these stages of public involvement into two major parts:

1. Large public meeting. A standard public meeting, open house style, which all neighborhood stakeholders are invited to attend. Accommodations would be made to ensure the meeting was well advertised, and that translated meeting materials and interpreters would be available at the meeting. These meetings were all held at the Brian Coyle Center, the venue accessible to the largest concentration of population within the neighborhood: the residents of Riverside Plaza and The Cedars. Meetings were scheduled at a range of times outside normal work hours, and child care was offered as an option.

2. Smaller follow-up meetings and interviews. For the various groups that were underrepresented at the large meeting, a series of smaller meetings would be convened, with locations, styles, and times convenient and comfortable to the specific groups. Some groups would be targeted and approached directly, though the invitation would be open to any group with interest.

To combat “research fatigue,” planning staff reviewed and summarized results from previous planning processes and presented this information at the first public meeting, to assure residents that this planning process would build on past efforts rather than duplicate them. Particularly since the neighborhood had very recently completed an extensive visioning process for its NRP First Step Plan, the small area plan was able to bypass some of this work and move more quickly on to formation of neighborhood priorities.

Getting the word out about meetings is always an important part of community outreach. People cannot attend something they are not aware is happening. A number of approaches were used throughout the plan development process to let people know about upcoming events and opportunities. These included:

• Steering committee. The steering committee performed the valuable service of reaching out to their own contact networks to let them know about upcoming community outreach opportunities. When reaching out to immigrant communities, the availability of translated materials and interpreters at the meeting itself was emphasized. This was moderately successful in that some immigrants attended all the public meetings and made use of the translations and interpreters. However, as predicted, more input was received from immigrant communities at subsequent follow-up meetings.

Prior to the larger scale neighborhood meetings, there were several smaller meetings to gather input from key stakeholders. This series of meetings was held from May – July 2006. This included guidance on the most effective way to reach out to the neighborhood as a whole as well as the scope of the plan content. Input from these meetings provided direction for the entire planning process. The groups represented at these meetings were regularly engaged as the plan progressed.

The community organizations added valuable guidance in what should be priority issues for the plan to tackle. In addition to content, neighborhood stakeholders offered insight into the best methods for community engagement. These groups included:

• Community leaders - a group representing key neighborhood organizations, including nonprofit and social service groups as well as immigrant groups

With intentions to stay in the Cedar Riverside neighborhood for a long time to come, the large institutions provided insight into the issues of their constituents, their own capital planning, and how they can be better neighbors. Conversations with the major institutions included:

While the small area planning was being conducted by the Planning Division, all City staff and policymakers will participate in its implementation. Additionally, many staff provided insight into current city projects in the neighborhood as well as methods for outreach. Staff and policymaker input came from:

• Planning Commission

Paul also distributed the following:

Cedar Riverside Small Area Plan Notes

The Cedar Riverside Small Are Plan was developed by the Minneapolis Planning Department under the guidance of Beth Elliot. The finished document is 132 pages with additional 175-200 pages of appendices. The outline of the document is a framework for how to proceed in the formation of a small area plan. The document also has an excellent format for gaining credibility through community involvement.

The city took on the study for the Cedar Riverside neighborhood because of the significant challenges faced by the neighborhood—crime and the need for economic development, physical challenges caused be the adjacent interstates, the dominance in the neighborhood by large institutions and because the neighborhood is both a part of the city core neighborhoods but also geographically separated from the city’s downtown. The construction of two LRT lines, the large area of land owned by the park board and the involvement of many government agencies regarding a major public housing facility and city, county and state agencies that govern transportation corridors and economic development had all formed various reports of what should happen in the neighborhood. The small area plan attempts to address all these studies and prescribe future development in the Cedar Riverside area.

The study’s executive summary is an excellent and abbreviated version (17 pages) of the longer report.

The recommendations for land use and design improvements will be implemented over the long-term incrementally as sites redevelop or property owners make improvements to structures and their surroundings. The City’s main tool for implementation will be the development review process, which provides community members and policymakers the opportunity to weigh in on specific land use and development changes in accordance with zoning regulations and existing policy direction. This plan will be the main policy tool used by city staff and policymakers in that decision-making process.

• Competitive Development Location: Despite enjoying strategic access to highways, light rail transit and Downtown Minneapolis, as well as a strong employment base and unique reputation, Cedar Riverside suffers from significant (internal and external) barriers, inconvenient public parking arrangements, difficult property configurations, and real and perceived security issues. Given these factors, other areas near Downtown Minneapolis (e.g., Northeast Minneapolis, Elliot Park, Loring Park, North Loop, downtown East) are better positioned to capture economic activity that may “spill over” from downtown.

The planning process did not include an extensive analysis of the parks because they fall under Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board’s jurisdiction.

The City of Minneapolis’ existing comprehensive plan, adopted in 2000, provides long term vision and strategy for the City as a whole. In contrast, small area plans such as this one provide more specific guidance for particular neighborhoods, while remaining consistent with the overall comprehensive plan. Once this small area plan is completed, it will be incorporated in some format into the comprehensive plan as others have been done in the past. Not all areas of the City have this level of guidance, but it is helpful where it does exist. The land use section of the comprehensive plan organizes its policies in part by land use feature. These features are located throughout the City and defined by their function, density, and concentration of certain types of uses. Three major types of features present in the Cedar Riverside neighborhood are community corridors, transit station areas and activity centers.

Community Corridors are defined as having primarily a residential nature, with intermittent commercial clusters located at intersections. They have a range of traffic levels but are not generally high volume. The commercial uses along these corridors tend to be small-scale retail sales and services serving the immediate area. Urban form tends to be traditional, rather than auto-oriented, and many were formerly streetcar routes. Both Cedar and Riverside Avenue are classified as community corridors in the existing comprehensive plan.

(2) encouraging street design that promotes a pedestrian-oriented environment while maintaining traffic flow

(4) supporting small-scale commercial, but ensuring it does not negatively impact residential areas

Activity Centers are defined as having a mix of uses that draw traffic from citywide and regional destinations, with activity all day long and into the evening. They may have residential, commercial, entertainment, institutional, and other uses. They tend to have traditional urban form with transit and pedestrian orientation. The area around the intersection of Cedar Avenue and Riverside Avenue, including Seven Corners, is classified as an activity center in the existing comprehensive plan. Policy guidance in the comprehensive plan for Activity Centers includes:

(1) supporting diverse commercial and residential development to maintain all day activity

(2) preserving traditional urban form and encouraging new development to be consistent with traditional siting and massing

(3) developing parking strategies that accommodate high demand, promote shared facilities and minimize negative impacts