New apartment complex towers over a neighborhood. The residents want it torn down
Ingrid Alexander and the view from her side and back yards. Photo by David Pierini
By David Pierini, Editor
The house Ingrid Alexander bought in 2013 was better than any dream.
Alexander found a spacious rambler at 1248 Russell Ave. N. with wide doorways and open rooms. When she saw it for the first time, she said, “I am at home.” It was the ideal house for Alexander, who cares for a developmentally disabled granddaughter in a wheelchair.
There was a bonus – Prince slept here. The home had belonged to the family of Terry Jackson, a friend and percussionist who played in an early band with Prince. The back porch was a frequent rehearsal space and Alexander likes to say, “Prince used to spend the night sometimes in my office.”
Ten years later, the dream devolved into a nightmare. Two towering apartment buildings were constructed on the north side of Alexander’s house, which was uncomfortably close to her property line.
Alexander is the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the city and the builder, James Archer of Matrix Development. Alexander and several of her neighbors hired an attorney who specialiszes in land use and they want the buildings vacated and torn down.
Last July, a district judge ruled that zoning permits for the project were unlawful and that Alexander was entitled to relief. Just as a remedy hearing was set to begin last year, the city and Mattrix attorneys filed an appeal. The Minnesota Court of Appeals will hear arguments on Feb. 6.
“They keep asking me what I want and I am not asking for anything,” Alexander said. “The remedy was always to bring it down.”
The case pits a quiet Willard-Hay neighborhood against a city in the throes of an affordable housing crisis.
The Plymouth Avenue Apartments and Ingrid Alexander’s Home on Russell Avenue North. Photo by David Pierini
To the city, the Plymouth Avenue Apartments, located at 2309 Plymouth (five stories) and 1254 Russell Avenue (four stories), is a win. The two buildings offer 63 units with a mix of Section 8 and income-based rent.
But residents say the city flouted its own rules and ignored their wishes. The size of the development dwarfs nearby homes and is at odds with the character of the neighborhood, they say.
After only a few months, residents have complained of noise, people crossing through their yards, drug deals in the alley and a growing parking problem.
“I think it has brought immense change to the neighborhood,” said Robin Crockett, Alexander’s nextdoor neighbor. “The city maybe had good intent but didn’t understand how the good intent would impact those of us who live here and own our own homes.”
When development was first proposed in 2020, area residents and the Northside Residents Redevelopment Council opposed it. Although the council and residents agreed housing would be a nice addition to the two parcels, they wanted something more compatible with the single-family homes in the neighborhood.
Residents tried to get a historic designation for an old church on one of the parcels to stop Archer’s development. The city turned it down, and the church, among the last buildings on Plymouth that survived fires during racial unrest in 1967, was bulldozed to make way for the apartments.
In December 2022, NRRC appealed to the Planning Commission and the city’s Business, Inspections, Housing, and Zoning Committee, but Archer’s project was allowed to proceed.
The city gave Matrix $1.8 million.
“The community voice should lead any development that receives financial support from the government such as TIF (Tax Increment Financing), Hennepin County or city funds, said NRRC Executive Director Martine Smaller. “These supplemental funds are tax dollars."
A spokesperson for the city said officials could not comment with litigation pending. Archer’s attorney, Mark Thieroff, also declined comment.
Alexander did not learn of the development until a petition began circulating. She filed her lawsuit in 2023.
“I don’t want 63 neighbors on top of me,” she said. “I’ve been homeless; I’ve lived in my car before. I’ve done everything that everybody in that building has done. I’ve been in that position, and I don’t want to live next to it.”
Alexander keeps a blanket pulled over her bedroom window because of close the Plymouth Avenue Apartments are to her home. Photo by David Pierini
Alexander’s lawyers say the city violated its own zoning regulations when the Planning Commission granted variances for additional height and setbacks, reducing the space between the buildings and her home. Less than eight feet separates one of the buildings from Alexander’s property line.
Under city zoning rules at the time, the Planning Commission does not have the power to grant variances; this falls to the city’s Board of Appeals and Adjustments, according to the lawsuit.
In court, Thieroff argued that state law allows municipalities flexibility in planning decisions and that a shared power among bodies decides planning and zoning issues.
City attorney John Hayes Hanson argued in court that the property had unique challenges and required variances for construction.
“Now, there's no dispute in this case that… the proposed use for this property is reasonable,” Hanson said, according to court transcripts. “This is affordable housing, the city desperately needs it, and this is a lot that can support that.”
Alexander’s attorney, Thomas De Vincke, described the city as having an attitude of “no big deal” when applying its own zoning ordinances.
“But here’s the reality: Ingrid Alexander and her house is right next to this project,” De Vincke said in court. “She has the right to have the right law applied by the right government body. That’s not asking much. And so we are asking the Court not to let the defendant simply say, ‘Well, no harm, no foul.’”
District Judge Christian Sande ruled the variances were invalid because the wrong governing commission granted them. The lawsuit also alleges Matrix failed to get the written consent of two-thirds of the property owners within 100 feet of the project site, as required by state statute.
“Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment declaring that the zoning variances given by the city to Matrix are unlawful, unenforceable, and of no effect,” Sande wrote, adding that Matrix does not have the authority to proceed with the development.
Matrix continued to lease apartments over the summer. Since Alexander’s suit, the city has amended the zoning code so that similar variances would not be required. The new code is retroactive and will bring the Plymouth Avenue Apartments into compliance.
Ward 5 Councilman Jeremiah Ellison, who authored an amendment to the zoning code in November, declined to comment because of the ongoing litigation.
“It seems to me our city has doubled down on this development, and they want it to stay regardless of its legitimacy or affects,” said Jennifer Windsor, who lives nearby on Thomas Avenue.
Bringing down buildings now occupied may not be realistic, but neighbors blame the city and the developer for putting vulnerable people at risk when the district court judge ordered a halt to the development.
“I feel as a citizen and taxpayer, if I’m expected to adhere to federal, state and city laws, our city should adhere to those laws, too,” Crockett said.