Those present: Robert Cook, John Van Heel, Lisa Pederson, Neil Reardon, Paul Hinderager, Mark Nelson, Mike Marn, Becky Guillickson, Dick Sandberg, and Jana Metge (staff).

Marcy-Holmes – Neil Reardon reported (Jana asked to type into minutes handout detail).

Neil shared with the group the Index/Table of Contents of the Marcy Holmes Master Plan. This is an example of a Citizen-driven vs. City-driven plan. Items highlighted in the introduction were that the plan was developed over a period of about a year. It started in Sept. 2002 with general community meetings that allowed the participants to declare what they liked or disliked about the neighborhood, what they wanted to preserve, what they hoped to achieve, and what they wanted to avoid. This discussion developed the Objectives for their plan. Neil highlighted a unique feature of this plan. One of the exercises at these first meetings was to write an imaginary letter to a friend or relative 10 years from the date of the meeting. These letters were used to form a collective vision.

They then held focus topic meetings and the results of these meetings became the policies in the plan. The consultant augmented the objectives and policies with maps and diagrams depicted the policies which participants came up with. They held general public review meetings of the draft plan once it was developed.

Chapter 1 – A land use pattern that allows for a variety of uses but protects sensitive single family and other residential areas from commercial and industrial uses and University expansion. Neil stated that for Loring this could be MCTC and St. Thomas.

Chapter 2 – A well-kept, well preserved, balanced supply of housing units that accommodates the needs of a variety of residents including single-family homeowners.

Chapter 3 – A quieter, clearner, better kept-up, and safer neighborhood.

Chapter 4 – Healthy institutional, commercial and areas that provide good jobs without overwhelming the livability of the neighborhood and its supply of housing.

Chapter 5 – Preservation and enhancement of the neighborhood parks, Mississippi River corridor, green spaces, and boulevards. Neil identified Loring Park and Greenway

Chapter 6 – A diverse population that acknowledges the needs of each citizen and works well together to address neighborhood issues.

Chapter 7 – Improved public transportation options and reduced traffic hazards and parking problems in the neighborhood.

Chapter 8 – Preservation and enhancement of the small town (Neil inserted Historic) character and traditional design features in neighborhood buildings. Neil raised the question of what are the other things in the neighborhood to be preserved.

Chapter 9 – The preservation of the neighborhood’s historic character and sense of local history.

Then, Neil suggested that Chapter 10 be added for Implementation and Chapter 11 for Future Development if not addressed in Chapter 8.

Audubon Park - Dick Sandberg distributed a handout for all members. He had reviewed both Audubon Park and Cedar Riverside. He had charted the items identified in the “Guide for Developing Planning Documents” down the left side and then highlighted aspects from each neighborhood plan in those areas. Audubon Park is more of a single-family, residential neighborhood and is located north of the downtown core up close to Columbia Heights. Their plan did not reflect that they had any big groups of multi-family housing stock like we do. They had in their Master Plan an Executive Summary, Definition of the Geographic area, and the History of Audubon Park. They utilized block by block surveys to gather input. Their plan built upon previous and recent small area and corridor plans. At the conclusion of their plan it stated that “The Audubon Park Neighborhood Small Area Plan will serve as an amendment to the Minneapolis Plan. It will be used by city staff for future review of zoning regulations, so that the city develops a consistency between its comprehensive plan and land use regulations. They went on to state in their plan that when applications for development require rezoning or other approvals that must be consistent with The Minneapolis Plan, CPED staff will trun to this document. Dick highlighted that Audubon Park had a specific implementation plan which included recommendations for Comp. Plan changes for CPED to implement. He reported that this plan identified areas and items which they believed did not work in the Comp. Plan, along with changes/recommendations.

North Loop - John Van Heel reported. The plan was done from 2001-2002 and was a City-driven plan. The area covered just outside of the Downtown Core to the river and was done as a guide for future development. The stated mission of this plan was to encourage development of this area 1) LRT line-transit-oriented development and 2) Continue to guide riverfront development already in place. Prior to this plan, there had been no close look at the edge area of the North Loop/Downtown area. John reported that there was very little written about process and Jana reported that the content page read city vs. neighborhood for each line. There were regular meetings of city staff and consultants and 4 workshops for stakeholders. The plan does state that there was a Steering Committee, but there seems to be no community engagement other than the 4 workshops.

For opportunity areas they did illustrate several options for each identified area. They also identified these options under 2 varying scenerios – 1) Downtown core expansion onto the river or 2) the area remains the same. They had good examples and graphics in their plan. They also looked at the topology of buildings and mix of uses – residential – work- services & goods. John passed around the index of their plan for the committee members to review.

Lisa talked about how plans are developed to guide growth and be proactive. To think about how much future growth is expected, how much growth a neighborhood wants, and how to plan for growth. She talked about trade-offs in decision-making. For example, people are needed to enhance the pedestrian use of a neighborhood. That comes with housing density. Paul stated that he believes our plan priorities will be 1) historic property preservation and ensuring against future demolition, 2) ideas for parking lot usage in the future, 3) Directed growth, rehab or new.

Questions about Community Engagement came up. Project scope determination and priority area definition need to occur prior to development of a in-depth community engagement plan. Jana distributed copies of the Loring Hill timeline/community engagement process to generate ideas for this process. Discussion occurred on geographic based engagement, as well as specific constituencies such as property owners and commercial businesses. Engaging stakeholders may take on a different approach, such as a separate focus group or interview. It was reviewed that John had done up a preliminary map looking at the different areas of the Loring Park neighborhood.

Robert suggested that all members should become aware of the City’s Comp. plan. We should think about what we may be bound to by the City’s Comp. plan and policies. Jana suggested that all also review the NRP Phase II plan and to note specifically that areas of the City’s comp. plan were identified in each strategy of the Phase II/10-year NRP plan. We also need to review and be aware of past work done and how it fits into our Master Plan. Is it still relevant, does it need to be updated, have new issues arisen that we should focus on, such as sustainability areas. It was stated that we need to think about an opening statement for our plan as we compile input – do we want to have the City expand and build over us like in New York City, or do we want Loring Park to remain a residential and historic area and protect that. We should have priorities with the context of our vision and work to create that shared vision. For example, view corridors are important because we want to preserve the historic character of the neighborhood. We need to create a way for stakeholders to send us information online and possibly in a format where all can see each other’s input.

Lisa and Neil suggested that we begin by planning a "Kick Off" Event. Mike suggested that it would be important to state why this effort is important and to acknowledge that we are aware of past planning efforts, that this Master Plan takes our efforts to the next step and makes them formal. Robert suggested that we also need to connect areas of the neighborhood, look at the larger overall neighborhood and connections. It was felt that the Kick Off event should be light on presentation and more on input.

The general focus would be to create a vision for our plan - here are some items that were discussed:

We could have a table for each existing plan, components which we may incorporate into our Master Plan would be briefly itemized. Have one board for each which states its mission, the area and 5-7 key points. Have one volunteer who participated with this plan available at the table. The 1st 30-45 minutes would be like an Open House where folks could circulate and learn what has gone on.

Mike stated that we would develop an intentional Outreach plan for this event and that Steering Committee members would choose and take on a particular constituency to reach and ensure attendance at this event.

Lisa suggested that we develop a brief overview of our Master Plan purpose and present - briefly - goal is to have interaction and gather input.

Several ideas were generated as to the logistics and orchestration of this Kick Off Event. Paul reported that the Ballroom of the Woman’s Club could hold 150 participants. The Committee thought that October should be the month for this Kick Off event. It was suggested that sometimes we have held meetings like this two times, once in the evening and another on a Saturday to accommodate varied schedules of those we hope will participate.

More ideas - We could have round tables of 8-10 set up and determine tools to use to foster conversation. Some suggestions were to develop 3 questions for each table. Have participants write out answers to those questions and then pool them in the center of the table and then have folks draw out an answer, read it back, and have discussion. Another exercise, like in the Marcy Holmes plan, would be to have each participant write a letter to a family member or friend as to what the neighborhood looks like in 10 years.

When this event is over, we will compile all information and hopefully come out with a vision and components for our index and scope. We have though, approved to use an Index compiled by a committee member as a working document moving forward that overviews components of a plan, based upon your planning document and then adding in specifics to the Loring Park Neighborhood. We will invite Beth Elliot, our City planner and Joe Horan, our NRP specialist to this event. We may want to invite Beth then to our Nov. meeting to assist us in the material synthesis and review with us next steps.

The question was raised as to when we should do a Request for Proposal. We need to determine our Project Scope, as well as the responsibilities for our Committee, CLPC staff, City staff, and then determine what we need a consultant to do for us. Then, we can insert into a RFP, develop selection criteria, and post. Beth Elliot will help us with that. Jana was asked to get a sample RFP for members to begin to review.

To date, committee members have reviewed and presented highlights and areas that we may want to include in our plan from:

John brought up the idea of having a panel of 2-4 folks who were instrumental in developing Master Plans that were “resident driven” vs. “city driven” and whether or not we should have this in August. We will decide in July, if we have a “kick off” in September we may need the next 2 meetings to plan it out. David Fields from Elliot Park was suggested as a resource. Jana will research another panel member or two and suggested that Lisa could share experiences on neighborhood planning from her former position in the City Planning Dept. in San Francisco.

1. Can we get a Loring Park Neighborhood zoning map - large - to use in our processes and is this something the City or NRP can do for us?

Next meeting set for Wed., July 29th from 6:30-8:00 p.m. at Loring Park Office building, room 207. (This is the 5th vs. 4th Wed., but members had vacation conflicts with the 4th Wed.)

Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Thanks to Robert Cook for hosting at Eddy’s Café.

I set up a Flickr account, so any of us can add photos to it. This could be used to start documenting streets, historic buildings, here's how it works.