Can a modern steel and glass skyscraper and a 19th-century riverfront neighborhood co-exist? Is city residential growth and high density an unalloyed good? Are areas with historic designation or historic registration immune to change?
These questions underlie the controversy over a proposed high-rise building, and the site chosen for it, and the issue is entering a new phase. The players include the City of Minneapolis, its Heritage Preservation Commission, private developers, and residents of the Marcy-Holmes neighborhood. A residents’ group is pitted against the city about their differing views of the future of one of the city’s oldest neighborhoods.
On May 3, 2106, the department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) recommended that the city’s Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) approve applications for Certificates of Appropriateness for two actions: the demolition of two adjacent buildings within the St. Anthony Historic District at 200-214 Central Ave. SE, and the construction of a 40-story residential building on the site.
The applications had been submitted by Alatus LLC, a Minneapolis real-estate developer. Alatus, which was then in the process of acquiring the site, said it had explored all options to demolition, including restoration of the buildings to their original uses, repurposing them as restaurants/offices, and moving them to other sites, none of which were deemed feasible.
After two tie votes, the HPC voted in favor of demolition but not construction. Robert Mack, an architect who served on the commission prior to this issue, said a building can be on the National Register of Historic Places and still be unprotected from municipal actions. He noted that a local preservation office may make recommendations, but the city council has the ultimate authority.
On June 17, the council voted 12-0 to sidestep the HPC’s split decision and allow the submission of demolition and building permit applications. Council member Jacob Frey, who’s Third Ward includes this site, voted yes.
Some months after the plans for the proposed building became public, an ad hoc neighborhood group, Neighbors for East Bank Livability (NEBL), was formed. It included residents of the Marcy-Holmes and Nicollet Island-East Bank neighborhoods.
The non-profit group’s website says, “Our neighborhood is home to largest concentration of intact historic structures in the City and the birthplace of Minneapolis, sitting adjacent to St. Anthony Falls, which fueled the lumber and milling businesses in the 1800s. Unfortunately, this special place is threatened by the City’s approval of demolition of the St. Anthony Falls Commercial Club, a contributing structure to the historic district. In its place, plans call for a 42-story tower of steel and glass, rivaling the skyscrapers of downtown Minneapolis.”
Bob Stableski, board vice president of Marcy- Holmes Neighborhood Association (MHNA), said he first saw a presentation of the project at the Washburn-McReavy funeral home in August 2014. The Tudor-style building was the original home of the St. Anthony Commercial Club and is one of the structures on the site.
Alatus president Bob Luz proposed a 30 to 35-story residential tower that included street-level townhomes, green spaces, and a restaurant. MHNA’s land-use committee eventually endorsed the project, and the board approved the revised design.
Stableski said, “We ultimately wrote a resolution saying that while conditions for approval were more or less met, we will not accept ‘precedence,’ that the structure would become a justification for more high-rises, and that we continue to support the St. Anthony Historic District guidelines.”
Local resident John Brainard, a member of both MHNA and NEBL, also attended the 2014 meeting, and said subsequent presentations by the developer showed a much-taller structure with fewer amenities. Brainard said he felt the later design, coming on the heels of the announcement of a high-rise proposal for the Nye’s restaurant site, was a shock to neighborhood residents.
NEBL later got 350 signatures on a petition opposing the revised project. Fellow NEBL member Nathan Dungan echoed that sentiment, saying, “We chose to live in an historic neighborhood, and we feel our views aren’t represented. I don’t think the City Council cares much about historic preservation. We’re not NIMBY’s; we just feel that a neighborhood with a significant history is being diminished by a classic case of death by a thousand paper cuts.” Brainard and Dungan noted that funds for legal action have been raised from donors throughout the city.
Last November 22, NEBL filed for an injunction to stop the demolition. Dungan said the suit seeks to challenge the city’s authority to allow developments that threaten the historic integrity of the neighborhood. He noted that 4 years ago, the city paid $75,000 for a “historical study” of the district. Dungan said, “The study went into painstaking detail, but now the city calls it ‘just a guideline.’”
NEBL’s suit has two main parts: that the city and the developer are ignoring the historic nature of the existing buildings in allowing their demolition, and that the city acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in granting a height variance and conditional-use permit to build a 480’ building in a historic district.
A trial on the claims was set for March 13 in Hennepin County District Court, and the parties agreed that no demolition would take place during that time. The trial was canceled and a judgement was issued dismissing objections to the demolition of the site’s buildings.
NEBL’s attorney William Griffith said that a decision was reached on Friday, March 24, by Judge Daniel Moreno on that portion of the case. Griffith added that the judge’s order does not by itself give permission for the developer to begin demolition or construction. A court spokesperson said that a public announcement of the order was delayed because of minor revisions. Judge Moreno postponed further action on the second part of the suit, concerning the building’s height, until Wednesday, April 19.
On Thursday, March 30, NEBL filed a motion for summary judgement for a permanent injunction against the city to deny Alatus’ applications for a zoning variance and a conditional-use permit for construction. The 41-page document outlined the group’s objections to the height, design and placement of the high-rise.
Chris Osmundson, Alatus’ project manager, said, “We have no dig date scheduled, partly due to the ongoing litigation. We have a hearing on April 10th about how we can move forward. The judge’s response in this case have been fairly timely and we still expect to break ground this year.”
Below: Artist rendering of the high rise project, courtesy of Alatus.
