Bernard, Joseph A. During the Debate on 2040, There Were
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bernard, Joseph A. From: Kaia Svien <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 1:07 PM To: Wittenberg, Jason W.; Baldwin, Lisa M.; 2040; Cano, Alondra (External) Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Zoning Standards Planning Commission Members, Staff, and Councilperson Cano, Please take a strong stand against the proposed changes to the city zoning standards. Analysis that I‘ve read makes this sound very much like a gift to developers who most likely do not hav the vision and vlaues needed to construct housing for low income people. I fully endorse the statement below. Please enter my submission into the Public Record. Thank You, Kaia Svien 3632 13th Ave S, Mpls During the debate on 2040, there were many confirmations and promises related to Built Form for Interior 1-2- 3. Just like in the email confirmation from a Council Member, we were assured "the expectation that two- and three-family homes in low-density areas must meet the same height, setback, and massing requirements as single-family homes." I remind you of this now, as it seems certain special interest groups are claiming "Minneapolis 2040 did not go far enough" and have gone so far as to suggest our tax dollars go to fund a named consultant (Opticos) to "evaluate our existing neighborhoods" and "restart the research of Interior neighborhoods." This can be found in a streets.mn post on October 2nd by Janne Flisrand. There should be NO CONSIDERATION of further movement in these areas: 1 - Approval of ADUs to be built on lots where the principal residence is non-owner-occupied. NO! This only turns over more of our NOAH properties to investors instead of local owners, making it impossible for first time homebuyers to have a shot. Investors will clamor to turn one small house or duplex into 3-4 unit property and regular residents won't be able to compete. It also stuffs more people and impervious surface on a lot and eats up greenspace. 2 - Elimination of off-street parking minimums and re-evaluation of parking maximums. NO! This is a gift to developers with the livability of our neighborhoods at risk. The ONLY place this should be a possibility is transit corridors. 3 - Shoreland Overlay Districts - These must be respected, I have seen way too many variances handed out as if there is no protection for the fragile ecosystems adjacent to our precious lakes and waterways. I want to see much stronger language propping this up, and a requirement for a public hearing each and every time there is any request to violate the SOD. 4 - Adding "premiums" to Interior neighborhoods. NO! Our neighborhoods are the jewels of our city and letting developers get premiums to make their projects more profitable, at the cost of less greenspace, more height, shadowing, more impervious surfaces, more lot coverage, more urban heat island effects is 1 unnecessary. Premiums on transit corridors is appropriate, and that provides adequate density without destroying interior neighborhoods. 5 - Current Interior 1-2-3 building envelope must be maintained as promised: - Floor Area Ratio - Setbacks - Lot Coverage - Building Height Kaia Svien, MS Spiritual Guide, Meditation Instructor, Program Designer Mindfulness for Changing Times www.mindfulnessforchangingtimes.com [email protected] 612-722-2650 pronouns: she, hers [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the City of Minneapolis. Please exercise caution when opening links or attachments. 2 Bernard, Joseph A. From: steven Verdoorn <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:17 AM To: Wittenberg, Jason W.; Baldwin, Lisa M.; 2040 Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposed to Prroposed changes to Zoning Dear Planning Commissioners and Council Members ‐ Please make these comments a part of the PUBLIC RECORD. During the debate on 2040, there were many confirmations and promises related to Built Form for Interior 1‐2‐3. Just like in the email confirmation from a Council Member, we were assured "the expectation that two‐ and three‐family homes in low‐density areas must meet the same height, setback, and massing requirements as single‐family homes." I remind you of this now, as it seems certain special interest groups are claiming "Minneapolis 2040 did not go far enough" and have gone so far as to suggest our tax dollars go to fund a named consultant (Opticos) to "evaluate our existing neighborhoods" and "restart the research of Interior neighborhoods." This can be found in a streets.mn post on October 2nd by Janne Flisrand. There should be NO CONSIDERATION of further movement in these areas: 1 ‐ Approval of ADUs to be built on lots where the principal residence is non‐owner‐occupied. NO! This only turns over more of our NOAH properties to investors instead of local owners, making it impossible for first time homebuyers to have a shot. Investors will clamor to turn one small house or duplex into 3‐4 unit property and regular residents won't be able to compete. It also stuffs more people and impervious surface on a lot and eats up greenspace. 2 ‐ Elimination of off‐street parking minimums and re‐evaluation of parking maximums. NO! This is a gift to developers with the livability of our neighborhoods at risk. The ONLY place this should be a possibility is transit corridors. 3 ‐ Shoreland Overlay Districts ‐ These must be respected, I have seen way too many variances handed out as if there is no protection for the fragile ecosystems adjacent to our precious lakes and waterways. I want to see much stronger language propping this up, and a requirement for a public hearing each and every time there is any request to violate the SOD. 4 ‐ Adding "premiums" to Interior neighborhoods. NO! Our neighborhoods are the jewels of our city and letting developers get premiums to make their projects more profitable, at the cost of less greenspace, more height, shadowing, more impervious surfaces, more lot coverage, more urban heat island effects is unnecessary. Premiums on transit corridors is appropriate, and that provides adequate density without destroying interior neighborhoods. 5 ‐ Current Interior 1‐2‐3 building envelope must be maintained as promised: ‐ Floor Area Ratio ‐ Setbacks ‐ Lot Coverage ‐ Building Height 3 Thank you, Steven Verdoorn [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the City of Minneapolis. Please exercise caution when opening links or attachments. 4 Bernard, Joseph A. From: Jan Morse <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 9:16 AM To: Wittenberg, Jason W.; Baldwin, Lisa M.; 2040; Fletcher, Steve Subject: [EXTERNAL] 2040 plan / no more concessions to developers Greetings, As a long‐time resident of the Marcy‐Holmes neighborhood I write to strongly object to further accommodations to developers who are looking to further damage our community while reaping greater profits. Our community has had more than its share of tear downs and the resulting loss of architectural fabric. Formerly landscaped lots are cleared to the borders and gravel replaces grass. No trees are planted. The identical looking nondescript buildings proliferate, have the same flimsy construction, with cramped rooms and cheap finishes. Nonetheless, most of these buildings are advertised as 'luxury' apartments with many amenities and high rental costs. The effect of these buildings has been to leave lots of the older and more affordable buildings with vacancies, who then turn to anyone they can find to rent their units. We've seen a significant increase in: ‐ traffic problems, greater number of cars moving at high speeds ‐ trash on our streets ‐ noise ‐ crime, theft from/of vehicles to car‐jackings and armed robbery The 2040 plan has brought an overall degradation to our so‐called 'historic' community that has lost far too many interesting historic buildings, don't make it any worse than it already is. Enough is enough. Sincerely, Jan & Andrew Morse 518 7th St SE [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the City of Minneapolis. Please exercise caution when opening links or attachments. 5 Bernard, Joseph A. From: Stephanie Belseth <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 6:12 AM To: Wittenberg, Jason W.; 2040; Baldwin, Lisa M.; Palmisano, Linea Subject: [EXTERNAL] Reject changes to 2040 plan Dear Minneapolis Planning commission, council members and whomever else this may concern, I am a 25+ year resident of southwest Minneapolis and I care very much for our amazing city and its residents. Please make these comments a part of the PUBLIC RECORD. During the debate on 2040, there were many confirmations and promises related to Built Form for Interior 1-2-3. We were assured "the expectation that two- and three-family homes in low-density areas must meet the same height, setback, and massing requirements as single-family homes." I remind you of this now, as it seems certain special interest groups are claiming "Minneapolis 2040 did not go far enough" and have gone so far as to suggest our tax dollars go to fund a named consultant (Opticos) to "evaluate our existing neighborhoods" and "restart the research of Interior neighborhoods." This can be found in a streets.mn post on October 2nd by Janne Flisrand. MN 2040 DID go far enough, the voice of residents should NOT be ignored, and there should be absolutely NO CONSIDERATION of further movement in these areas: 1 - Approval of ADUs to be built on lots where the principal residence is non-owner-occupied. NO! This only turns over more of our NOAH properties to investors instead of local owners, making it impossible for first time homebuyers to have a shot. Investors will clamor to turn one small house or duplex into 3-4 unit property and regular residents won't be able to compete. It also stuffs more people and impervious surface on a lot and eats up greenspace.