The bimonthly meeting of the City Planning Commission had a contentious virtual finale on Oct. 5 with CPED’s recommendations to move forward with rezoning and conditional-use permits for a large residential project at 2301 California Street.
A row of concrete grain silos was cleared from the site two years ago, and local developer LS Black Development has proposed a six-story, 164-unit building, which would face California Street and 23rd Ave NE. The site is currently zoned I1 (Light Industrial) and they are seeking an Industrial Living Overlay to allow residential on the site. Six single-family homes sit between the north end of the site and Lowry Ave.
The proposal ran into stiff opposition by area residents and the artistic community, some calling it a “superblock” because of its size and the visual effect it would have on the street. Others are concerned about density, parking and access to transportation. During the online meeting, callers brought up these issues and others.
Results of a BNA survey showed 70% of responders opposed rezoning, and 68% percent opposed the project itself.
In a Sept. 30 letter to the Commission, Bottineau Neighborhood Association (BNA) board member Mitch Kall listed some objections to the project. They included zoning issues, parking, the proximity of the residents’ entrance to the adjacent California Building’s working entrance (loading dock, truck deliveries, etc.), and the proposed building’s six-story height, scale and massing.
Kall suggested the project belongs on a commercial corridor, which California Street is not (it’s not even a through street). Also, the Minneapolis 2040 Plan shows preferred future land use at that spot as “Production Mixed Use.” Kall wrote, “The proposed project is first and foremost a residential project, that is offering only 5% of the built project (roughly 13,400 sq. ft.) as production space.” He concluded, “This type of building does not fit the neighborhood at all including the overall height and size. It doesn’t fit our history/culture, it has zero natural amenities, it does not create a high-quality physical environment, and will not create a healthy, sustainable, and diverse economy in our neighborhood.”
Jennifer Young, one of the owners of the California Building said, “I’m very concerned about the closeness of this very dense residential project…to our industrial uses at the California Building. We have 105 years history of industrial use here including metal working, glass and ceramic fabrication, all of which have the potential to produce noise, and other objectionable influences that will create inherent conflicts with our brand new neighbors. The California Building has been home [of] alternative jobs for all kinds of small entrepreneurs.
“The project should be smaller, should be multiple buildings given the fact the site is over 2.5 acres, the project should be respectful of our uses industrial uses and our neighbors across the street. And, the project should be respectful to the future renters — they will need to live next to an industrial building. Finally, the developer should work with our community to win our support.”
Defending the proposal at the meeting were two LS Black principals, Willy Boulay and Michael Hudson, and members of ESG Architects. Boulay said the building would be energy-efficient, with advanced stormwater management, low-flow plumbing fixtures, and a “solar-ready” roof. The plan calls for a minimum of one long-term bicycle space per unit.
Boulay also pointed out that 100% of the units’ rents are at various levels of “affordability,” ranging from 40 to 80% of AMI, for an average 60%; the rates would hold for 30 years. He noted that LS Black Development has committed to providing $150,000 for public art at the site.
Boulay identified two site factors that affect the design. The water table beneath the site is high, precluding below-level parking, and power lines that cross the property add certain restrictions to what can be done beneath them. He said the building’s footings would reach several feet above grade, and the parking lot surface (with a filtered drain tank) would handle storm water.
Some callers objected to the six-story height (87 ft.), one saying that it would be a precedent that would allow more tall buildings on residential streets that have predominately one or two-story homes.
California Building artist Gail Grabow said her primary concern was the lack of green space for the children of the building’s residents, asking, with a street in front and operational rail tracks and a parking lot in back, “Where will the children play?”
BNA member Tim Kremer lamented rental as a continuation of the redlining of Northeast, and would like to see unit ownership to keep money in the city.
At the meeting, Kall said the BNA had tried to work with the developers to reduce the height and number of units, increase production space, and change the “look” of the building. Young said she has supported other Bottineau housing projects but agrees that the production space offered by the plans is insufficient, and the building itself is too large for a residential street.
In a Facebook post, the Northeast Minneapolis Arts District urged opposition: “During implementation of the new 2040 plan, areas within the future zoning description of Production/Mixed Use require any new mixed use developments that include a residential use must provide at least 50% of the main level to be production space. However, it has come to our attention that a standard being applied allows developers to exclude built interior parking spaces from first floor space when calculating production space required. This is illogical…and subverts the intent to keep production spaces within the City and the Northeast Minneapolis Arts District,” leaders wrote. “The built area of a neighborhood lasts for decades. It is time to get this right. This project is not built yet. Please apply the future standard to this project and every project within the Northeast Minneapolis Arts District.”
Patricia Canney responded, “My studio window will look out on this monstrosity. It’s way too big, way too close, with not a single bit of green space included….completely designed for someone’s profit and the detriment of this little corner of the Arts District.”
The Arts District post concluded, “Northeast Minneapolis is the largest production community in Minneapolis. It is where a lot of small businesses get their start, entrepreneurs test out ideas, artists build all sorts of work for the city, state and country. It brings in money, resources and jobs. This [is Northeast’s] ace in the hole.… Every time production space is removed for residential projects we lose opportunities for the future.”
LS Black Development agreed to move the production use entrance to the south end of the building, and making the change a condition of the project’s approval. They also agreed to increase the amount of production space. It is not clear if these nuances are reflected in the written minutes of the meeting.
The building’s ultimate height depends on whether it qualifies for an exemption from the inclusionary zoning requirements, which specify the numbers and percentages of affordable units that must be available.
A motion by Commission (and City Council) member Jeremy Schroeder to table the approval for two weeks was turned down, and after adding a condition that production space be 8.3% of the ground floor space (minus parking), the conditional use permits and the site plan review were narrowly approved by the Commission.
Boulay said the next step is a meeting with the Business, Inspections, Zoning and Housing (BIZH) Committee on Nov. 2. At least two appeals were filed as of October 15 and will be considered at the BIZH Committee. Boulay said he expects the project to go before the City Council on Nov. 13.
Below: A view of the proposed building which shows some variation in the massing and stepping back from the street. It is still, however, one huge building. ESG is the architect on the LS Black Development project. (Provided photo)
