##VIDEO ID:1SMuF8vWlZE## >> OOD AFTERNOON.  WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUSINESS, HOU HO HOUSING, AND DIS  ZONING MEETING FOR JANUARY 21.  I WANT TO OFFER A FRIENDLY REMINDER THAT ALLEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC THAT THESE MEETINGS ARE BROADCASTED LIVE TO ENABLE GREATER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.  THIS BROADCAST INCLUDES REAL TIMEAPTIONING AS A FURTHER METHOD TO INCREASE THE SEANLT OF OUR PROCEEDINGS TO THE COMMUNITY.  THEREFORE, ALL SPEAKERS NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THE RATE OF OUR SPEECH SO OUR CAPTIONERS CAN FULLY CAPTURE AND TRANSCRIBE ALL COMMENTS FOR THE BROADCAST.  WE ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO MODERATE THE SPEED AND CLARITY OF THEIR COMMENTS.  WE'LL BE USING SPEAKER MANAGEMENT WITH THIS MEETING.  PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ARE SIGNED IN.  AT THIS TIME, I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL TO VERIFY A QUORUM. >> COUNCILMEMBER RAINVILLE. >> PRESENT. >> CASHMAN. >> PRESENT. >> JENKINS IS ABSENT.  CHOWDHURY. >> PRESENT. >> VICE CHAIR ELLISON. >> HERE. >> CHAIR OSMAN. >> PRESENT. >> FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT. >> WE HAVE A QUORUM.  BEFORE WE PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, ITEMS FOR AGENDA WE'LL FIRST TAKE OUR CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH IS ITEM 10 THROUGH 14.  10 IS APPROVING 25 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS.  ITEM 11 IS APPROVING ONE GAMBLING LICENSE.  ITEM 12 IS CONFIRMING AN APPOINTMENT FOR SAINT ANTHONY FALLS HERITAGE BOARD.  ITEM 13 IS AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A YOUTH AT WORK COMPETITIVE GRANT.  LASTLY, ITEM 14 SETS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER HOUSING REVENUE BOND FOR NACC-HOUSING PROJECT.  I'VE SPOKE TON STAFF, TY HAVE REQUESTED -- FOR THE ITEM DUE TO THE APPLICATION.  PUBLICATION ISSUE.  I'LL MOVE TO SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR O MEETING ON FEBRUARY 28th, 2025 ANYONE LIKE TO PULL ANY ITEMS?  >>  MR. CHAIR, ON THE LAST ITEM, THE BLIC HEARING IS RESCHEDULED TO FEBRUARY 18th. >> FEBRUARY 18th. >> YES. >> THANK YOU. >> FEBRUARY 18, 2025.  SEEING NONE, I'LL MOVE APPROVAL FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA INCLUDING THE AMENDED AND ITEM 14 SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 18.  ALL THOSE -- AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES.  NEXT TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS.  PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER ONE, WE'LL PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PORTION OF OUR AGENDA FIRST.  WE HAVE PA PUBL HEARING FOR TWO ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.  THREE APPOINTMENTS.  I'LL ASK BRENT ELLISON TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.  WELCOME.  >>  THANK YOU.  QUICK ONE TODAY.  I BELIEVE FOR THIS.  WE HAVE TWO REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONING BOARD O ADJUSTMENT.  THEY'VE BEEN GOOD..  ADAM HUTCHENS AND PETER INGRAHAM.  THEY BRING A LOT OF EXPERIENCE.  THEY HAVE DIFFERENT INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE THEY HELP WHEN THEY NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.  I CAN GO INTO DETAIL, IF ANYBODY NEEDS ANYMORE.  BUT OTHERWISE ... >>  THANK YOU SO MUCH.  NOW WE'LL PROCEED TO OPEN THE PUBLI HEARING.  AND OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS ... I CANNOT SEE.  IS IT CATHERINE? >>  YES. >> YES.  PLEASE COME.  YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.  THANK YOU.  >>  OKAY.  THIS ISBOUT 3120 WASH BURN. >> NO.  THIS IS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS REAPPOINTMENTS. >> OH, NO.  I APOLOGIZE. >> OKAY.  ALL RIGHT.  NEXT PERSON THAT'S SIGNED UP IS BRIDGET T. >> I'M ALSO -- >>ALSO.  OKAY.  I THINK I HAVE THE WRONG LIST.  IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM ON THE PORTION OF REAPPOINTMENTS?  FOR BOARD OF ZONING.  ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REAPPOINTMENTS.  ANYONE?  SEEING NONE.  I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGND SEE IF THERE'S ANY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.  ALL RIGHT.  COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.  HAPPY TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. >> ALL RIGHT. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT.  WITH THAT MOTION, AL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.  OPPOSED SAY NAY.  THE AYES HE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES.  I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS.  ALL RIGHT.  NEXT WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR LAND SALE OF THREE PROPERTIESF MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND REC BOARD OF PERMITS AND COMMUNITY GARDEN PILOT PROGRAM.  I'LL ASK MAUREEN TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.  WELCOME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON., CHAIR OSMAN AND COUNCILMEMBERS.  I'M THE CPED HOUSING SUPERVISOR FOR REAL ESTATE SERVICES.  FOR TODAY, CP ED IS RECOMMENDING THE SALE OFTT AVENUE NORTH, 2215 CHICAGO AVENUE SOUTH, AND 3437 15th AVENUE SOUTH TO THE MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND RECREATION BOARD FOR A PERMANENT COMMUNITY PILOT GARDEN PROGRAM.  SOME BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT, THE PROGRAM IS A PARTNERSHIP BETWN THE COMMUNITY -- BETWEEN CPED, PUBLIC WORKS, AND THE CITY'S HOME GROWN MINNEAPOLIS INITIATIVE.  CURRENTLY THERE ARE 84 VACANT LOTS INHE GARDEN PROGRAM.  IN JUNEF 2024, THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZED GRAING EXCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO THE PARK BOARD FOR SEVEN VANT LOTS IN THE GARDEN PROGRAM FOR PERMANENT COMMUNITY GARDEN USE.  THE PARK BOARD WAS IDENTIFIED AS ATRONG POTENTIAL PARTNER DUE TO THEIR EXISTING GARDEN PROGRAM, AND INTEREST IN IDENTIFYING AERMANENT STEWARD FOR LOTS AS GREEN SPACE.  THE PARK BOARD HAS SUBMITTED OFFERS PURCHASE FOR THREE OF THEOTS AT FAIR MARKET VALUE, AND IS REIMBURSING THE CITY FOR THECOSE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS.  TOTAL COST ON THE SALE IS $66,225.  IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I COULD TAKE, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT PRESENTATION.  I'LL SEE IF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE QUESTIONS.  COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.  TNK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.  I'M REALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROGRAM, BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW YOU'RE DECIDING OF ALL THE COMMUNITY GARDENS, ICH ONES TO ADVANCE TO THIS LEVEL OF SALE TO THE PARK BOARD FORKER  FOR PERMANENT COMMUNITY GARDENING.  HOW DO YOU GET TO THAT LEVEL OF RECOMMENDING THESE PROPERTIE >>  ADDITIONALLY, WE HAD A -- OF THE  84, OR SO PROPERTIES, WE HAD AN IN-DEPTH LOOK, RESEARCH.  WE LOOKED AT THE PERMANENT SIGPERMANENT OF THE GARDENS.  HOW LONG THE GARDENS WERE IN USE.  HOW EFFECTIVE THEY WERE BEING USED.  AND WEOOKED AT PARTNERS.  PARK BOARD WAS IDENTIFIED AS A SOLUTION.  THEIR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THE PROGR.  MAINTAIN PERM PERMANENCY OF THE GARDENS.  WE CAME DOWN TO SIX GARDENS.  I THINK ONE OF THE GARDENS IN YOUR WARD, COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN.  PREVIOUSLY 1809. >> UH-HU >> THAT ONE IS GOING THROUGH A SORT OF A REVIEW PROCESS WITH THE PARK BOARD.  WE HAVE ISSUES WITH PHASE ONE ENVIRONMEAL REVIEW. >> OKAY.  THANKS.  THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROPERTY I WAS ASKING ABOUT.  I WANTED TO MAKE MY QUESTION A LITTLE MORE GENERAL SO OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS COULD BENEFIT FROM THE INFORMATION.  BUT, YEAH.  I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE 1801 L.A. SAL, THE COMMUNITY GARDEN I HAVE A PLOT AT.  IT'S IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.  IT'S BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD F A LONG TIME.  IT'S REALLY EFFECTIVE.  IT'S FRUITFUL.  I'M WONDERING HOW WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF PERMANENTLY PROTECT THAT.  SO IF YOU COULD GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. >> YES, COUNCILMEMBER.  THE PARK BOARD  STILL INTERESTED IN THAT GARDEN.  THEY WANTED TO D MORE REVIEW.  POSSIBLY DO A PHASE TWO OF THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. >> OKAY. >>  POSSIBLE TESTING.  BUT THEY'RE INTERESTED STILL TO PURCHASE THAT GARDEN. >> OKAY.  THANK YOU.  AND THEN JUST FINAL QUESTION.  OF THE 84 PROPERTIES, ARE THEY ALL CITY-OWNED PLOTS?>>  YES.  FOR T CPEDANAGES, THESE 84 LOTS ARE OWNED AND MANAGED BY CPED OR PUBLIC WORKS. >> OKAY.  THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.  COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN.  GOOD TO SEE YOU.  I'M JUST CURIOUS. S ARE READY FOR DEVELOPMEN > OR ARE THESE PLOTS DEVELOPABLE? >>  SO THE GARDEN PROGRAM WAS STARTED INITIALLY WITH PLOTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS NOEVELOPBLE.  IN PART, WERE SMALLER LOTS AND HAD ISSUES. OR PUBLIC WORKS RIGHT-OF-WAYS.  IN THE PAST, YES, WE HAVE SOLD SOME PLOTS.  CURRENTLY THESE LOTS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS GARDENS. >> SO THERE'S NO POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPING THESE SMALLER LOTS. >> THAT CANNOT I SAY FOR NOW.  WE PROBABLY HAVE TO REVIEW THEM AGAI  GO BACK TO DOING INTERNAL REVIEW.  BUT A LOT OF THESE LOTS, A MAJORITY OF THEM ARE CONSIDERED NONDEVELOPBLE. >> I SEE -- BEHIND YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR OSMAN.  COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS, HOUSING POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AT THE COMMUNITY OFCONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.  THE 84 PARCELS IN THE GARDEN LEASE PROGRAM WERE IDENTIFIED BECAUSE OF NUMEROUS REASONS.  SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WAS REFERENCED.  SIZE OR SOIL ISSUES FROM A CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE.  BUT ALSO YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW THAT A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE PROPERTIES IN CPED'S INVENTORY ARE IN WARDS 4 AND 5.  SO IN AN EFFORT TO SUPPORT THE GARDEN LEASE PROGRAM, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON BLOCKS THAT HAVE NUMEROUS VACANT PARCELS.  AND ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT OF ALL OF THOSE SITES, AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S NOT PDENT OR FEASIBLE.  SO, AS A RESULT, WE'VE S IDENTIFIED SOME PROPERTIES TO INCLUDE IF THE GARDEN PROGRAM.  SOME ARE FOR ONE YEAR OR THREE YEARS.  ONCE THOSE -- ONCE THAT -- ONCE THAT THREE-YEAR TERM IS TERMINATED, WE THEN WOULD POSITION OURSELVES TO MARKET THOSE PARCELS FOR DEVELOPMENT.  BUT THERE ARE SOME PARCELS IN THE INVENTORY THAT ARE SLATED FOR LONGER TERM LEASES.  YOU SHOULD BE ADVISED THAT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS THAT WERE USED TO ACQUIRE SOME OF THE PROPERTIES NECESSITATES THAT THESE PROPERTIES BE DEVELOPED FOR HOUSING.  SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE ARE CONTINUED TO MARKE THOSE FOR SUCH TIME WHERE DEVEPMENT IS FEASIBLE. >> THIS PARTICULAR -- THESE PARTICULAR LOTS ARE FOR SALE, THOUGH, RIGHT? >>  THESE PARTICULAR LOT ARE IDENTIFIED FOR PERMANENT COMMUNITGARDENS.  BECAUSE EITHER THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT'S THE SIZE OR THERE A CONDITION, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE TECHNICAL ISSUES FROM A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE.  SO THOSE IDEN IDE WERE IDENTIFIED AS POSSIBLE PERMANENT GARDENS.  THAT'S WHY THE SEVEN ARE ENGAGED WITH THE PROCESS WITH THE PARK BOARD. >> THANK YOU.  AND,HAIR, I WANT TO CLARIFY.  I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE GARDEN LOT PROGRAM.  BUT I KNOW WE NEED TO DEVELOP MORE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES.  PARTICULARLY IN WARDS 4 AND 5.  YEAH.  SO THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.  NEXT SPEAKER I SEE COUNCILMEMBER RAINVILLE. >> THANK YOU.  DIRECTOR, JUST YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION, BASICALLY.  B A SUGGESTION IS THE NEXT TIME YOU DO COME FORWARD WITH A REPORT, STAFF REPORT, EXPLAIN WHY THESE LOTS ARE NOT DEVELOPABLE.  FOR HOUSING. .  SO THERE'S NO QUESTION.  IT WOULD HELP ME -- SPEAKING FOR MYSELF.  IT WOULD HELP ME MAKE A DECISION ONOW TO VOTE YES OR NO ON THIS.  BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER JKINS.  THAT HOUSING IS NEEDED.  AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S WARDS 4 OR W5.  JUST ANYWHERE WE NEED HOUSING, PERIOD.  SO THAT WOULD HELP US IN -- HELP ME IN THE DECISION MAKING.  THANK YOU. >> THANKS. >> THANK YOU.  I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.  TS UNDEVELOPBLE LAND.  ARE WE SEEING, LIKE, NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIO COMING FORWARD TO BE A PART OF IT OR JUST POLICY TO LEASE IT OR REALLY, UMM, PARTNERG WITH OR EVEN OFFERING NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS THAT WORK WITH EITHER YOUTH OR WORK WITH SCHOOLS OR JUST -- BECAUSE I'M ONLY SEEING THE PARK BOARD.  I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHERS TO SEEK -- >>  THIS IS -- CHAIR OSMAN, THIS IS A PILOT.  WHEN THE PROGRAM WAS FIRST INTROCED TO THE COUNCIL, THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES HELD FOR PERMANENT GARDENS OR SOLD FOR COMMUNITY GARDENS.  BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE REASONS THAT COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS AND COUNCILMEMBER RAINVILLE RAISED AROUND THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR CITY.  SO WE'VE IDENTIFIED THESE SEVEN.  AND IDENTIFIED THE PARK BOARD BECAUSE OF THEIR ABILITY TO MANAGE PROPERTIES.  SOME OF THNEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS DON'T HAVE THAT EXPERTISE.  SO THIS IS WHY WE'VE PRIORITIZED THE PARK BOARD. >> YEP.  I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND.  IT'S JUST THAT I HAVE SEEN -- I THINK THE ITEM THAT CAME THROUGH BIZ PARTNERING WITH MNDOT LAND, PARTNERING WITH NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS TO BASICALLY TAKE CARE OF THAT.  RIGHT BEHIND THE RIVER SIDE, WEST BANK BUSINESS ASSOCIATION HAS PARTNERED AND CREATED A WONDERFUL PROGRAM DURING THE SUMMER WHERE THEY DO GARDENING WITH YOUTH AND SO ON.  SO THERE ARE, OF COURSE, SOME ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE, I FEEL LIKE COULD BE A GOOD FIT.  BUT AS YOU SAID, IT'S A PILOT PROGRAM.  WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES.  THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.  WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.  SEEING N NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CALL ON COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON. >> I WANT TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE ITEM AND THANK STAFF.  THING IS TREMENDOUS WORK FOR US TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE ACTIVATING THESE SITES.  WHEN WE CAN'T BUILD ON THEM.  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE CAN PUT A HOUSE THERE OROT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE SITES ARE ACTIVATED.  THEY'VE GOT COMMUNITY PURPOSE.  THEY'VE GOT COMMUNITY USE.  SO JUST BIG THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR THE PRESENTATION.  AND FOR THIS.  HAPPY TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. >> WITH THAT MOTION, ALL THO IN FAVOR SAY AYE.  AND THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY.  THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES.  OUR NEXT ITEM IS AN APPEAL HEARING REGARDING THE DECISION OF HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO DENY A DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3120 WASH BURN AVENUE NORTH.  APPELLANT REQUESTED A DELAY FOR THE ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON FEUARY 4th, 2025.  AT 1:30:00 P.M.  THE CITY STAFF IS OKAY WITH THE DELAY I'LL BE MOVING TO CONTINUE THIS HEARING TO THE DATE.  BEFORE I MAKE THAT MOTION, HOWEVER, I'LL FIRST OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.  RATHER THAN OUR NEXT MEETING.  OKAY.  THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE SIGNED UP.  YEP.  I SEE OUR THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE SIGNED UP.  THREE.  WELCOME. >>  HELLO.  HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY. >> VERY GOOD.  WELCOME. >> THANK YOU.  MY NAME IS CATHERINE.  I LIVE AT 3110 DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.  WE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT THIS ITEM WOULD BE DELAYED TO ANOTHER MEETING.  ALL THREE HAVE TAKEN TIME OFF FROM WORK TO BE HERE.  SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR NOTIFICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY.  HOWEVER, I CAN STATE THAT THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATIONS UNDER CITY ORDINANCE 599.190 DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SENT OUT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.  THERE ARE TH THREE OF US AND NONE OF US HAVE RECEIVED THEM. >> THANK YOU.  I'LL ASK THE CLERK IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT. >>  HI.  MR. CHAIR, I THINK IT WOULDE BEST TO SAVE QUESTIONS UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OVER.  THE APPLICANT JUST REQUESTED THE DELAY THIS AFTERNOON.  SO ALL THE REQUIRED NOTICING HAPPENED, BUT THE NOTICE ABOUT THE APPLICANT -- THE LAY IS HAPPENING IN THIS MEETING RIGHT NOW. >> SURE.  BUT >> I'LL LEAVE IT TO STAFF I THERE ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. >> CO-CHAIR. >> I WANT TO, FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND MEMBERS, YOUR TESTIMONY STANDS THE SAME.  AND WE WANT -- WE'RE GLAD YOU'RE HERE.   YOU KNOW, WE CAN START THE CLOCK OVER  BECAUSE I KNOW IT WAS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT, LIKE, A SUDDEN NEWS AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW HOW TOESPOND TO IT.  BUT I'M HAPPY TO START YOUR TWO MINUTES OVER.  YOUR TESTIMONY STANDS.  BECAUSE THE HEARING WAS NOTICED, THE HEARING IS OPEN.  AND THE FLOOR IS COMPLETELY YOURS.  AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS KNOW THAT.  AND WHETHER WE VOTE -- AND WHEN WE VOTE ON THE ITEM, IT'S IMMATERIAL TO WHETHER OR NOT WE GET TO RECEIVE YOUR TESTIMONY.  WE WANT TO LISTEN AND RECEIVE YOUR TESTIMONY.  EVEN WE TAKE THE ITEM ITSF UP ON A DIFFERENT DATE.  YOUR TESTIMONY WILL BE STAND AND BE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. >>  WE FOUND OUT THIS MORNING THIS MEETING WAS HAPPENING TODAY.  AS I SAID, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATIONS.  I ONLY FOUND IT BECAUSE I WENT TO GO LOOK AT THE HPC MEETING.  FOUND OUT IT WAS CANCELED AND TRACKED IT BACK TO HE.  THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE EVEN KNOW THIS MEETING IS HAPPENG. >> WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT STAFF TAKES A NOTE THAT WAS YOUR EXPERIENCE HERE WITH GETTING NOTICE.  AND I WANT TOIC MA SURE THAT YOU -- GET YOUR TWO MINUTES OF TESTIMONY. >> WE REQUEST THAT THE BONN FIED ATTEMPT BE VERIFIED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS..  WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE MEETING.  ALL RIGHT I'M READY TO GO.  ARE YOU READY? >>  YES. >> GREAT.  THE CPED REPORT FROM 2024 INDICATES THAT THE -- TERMED THE PROPERTY ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATURAL REGISTER AS LATE AS 2021.  AFTER THE BUILDIN WAS -- [ SPEAKER SPEAKING INCREDIBLY FAST ] THE DEVELOPER SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PREVENT FURTHER DETERIORATION AT THAT TIME.  WHEN THE BUILDING WAS  PURCHASED, IT WAS IN USABLE REPARABLE SHAPE.  A REASONABLY EXPERIENCED AND PRUDENT DEVELOPER W HAD PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN THE METRO SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE PREVIOUS REPORT THAT IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR LANDMARK STATUS.  WHILE NO LONGER LICENSED AS INSURANCE ADJUSTOR, I HAVE RELEVANT EXPERIENCE WITH RESTORING BUILDINGS TT EXPERIENCED DETERIORATION.  IT'S MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT HAD THE BUILDING BEEN ADEQUATY CARED FOR IN THE INTERIM, IT'S UNLIKELY THIS LEVEL OF DAMAGE WOULD HAVE OCCURRED INHE FIRST PLACE.  AND IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE DEVELOPER ACTIVELY FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY.  IN HOPES THAT FURTHER DETERIORATION WOULD FURTHER STRENGTHEN THEIR DEMOLITION.  DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTER A SIX-STORY BUILDING WOULD HAVE IMPACT ON MULTIPLE EXISTING NATIONAL REGISTERED ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES.  INCLUDING GRAND ROUNDS AND THE EXISTING VICTORY MEMORIAL LANDMARK.  WHICH DOES EXTEND INTO MINNEAPOLIS.  DIRECTLY ACROSSTH  THE OVERPASSES AND THE LIGHT RAIL STATION COULDN'T HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE SETTING.  BUT A TAL BUILD WITHOUT ANY TEMPTS TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORICAL ESTHETIC IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN AN OVERPASS.  AND THE DEVELOPERS APPEAL -- THIS TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE AND STATES THERE'S BETTER EXAMPLES IN MINNEAPOLIS.  THERE ARE NO BETTER EXAMPLES IN NORTH.  NORTH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF MNEAPOLIS.  AND I FIND IT INCREDIBLY DISINGENUOUSN SHORT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, IT SEEMS SHORTSIGHTED TO DEMOLISH THEPRO. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.  OUR NEXT PERSON IS BRIGITTE  T.  >>  THANK YOU FOR NOT ATTEMPTING THE LAST NAME. .  IANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.  I LIVE AT 3236 VINCENT AVENUE.  I CAN SEE THE PROPOSED SITE FROM MY FRONT YARD.  I NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTIFICATION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY.  THE FOR SALE SIGN WAS UP FOR LITERAL YEARS.  SO I WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE IMPRESSION IT WAS STILL AVAILABLE.  THERE WAS NO APPARENT SECURITY PRESENC THERE.  THERE WAS AN RV THAT WAS PARKED IN THE PARKING LOT FOR MONTHS.  CURRENTLY THERE'S AN ACCESS PANEL OPEN ON THE SIDEWALK NEXT TO THE BUS STOP.  WHICH I USE EVERY DAY.  THERE IS LITTLE TO NO SNOW REMOVAL OR ICE MITIGATION HAPPENING AT ALL AROU THE PROPERTY.  WHICH IS DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.  AND, TO ME, THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE DEVELOPER'S CARE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO BUILD IN.  WE HAD A CLEVELAND COMMUNITY MEETING ON 11/7.  THERE WAS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE DEVELOPER THAT WAS THERE.  WE RAISED A NUMBER OF CONCERNS IN THE -- WHAT IS THIS NOW?  TWO AND A HALF MONTHS SINCE THEN?  WE'VE RECEIVED NO INFORMATION FURTHER TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.  AND -- SORRY.  MULTIPLE POST ITS I HAVE TO GO THROUGH NOW.  WE ALSO WEREN'T INFORMED THERE WAS A PHASE TWO AT THAT MEETING.  WE WERE TOLD IT WAS GOING TO BE ONE LARGE SIX-STORY CONCRETE BLOCK OF ABUO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.  I WANT IT.  THAT'S THE, I LIVE THERE.  BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD THERE. MINO LIVE.  MORE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIVE THERE.  BUT THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT SITE FOR A GIANT BRICK OF A BUILDING.  AND IT'S NOT THE KIND OF PLACE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE EITHER.  IT'S JUST -- DEVELOPER HAS BEEN IRRESPONSIBLE AND DISRESPECTFUL TO THE COMMUNITY.  AND THAT'S INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING TO ME, AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES THERE, COMMUNICATES WITH MY NEIGHBORS, AND -- [ TIMER GOING OFF ] LOVES  I LOVE WHERE I LIVE.  I WANT OTHER PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE TO LOVE IT, TOO. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.  AND NEXT PERSON IS BRANDON PORTER. >> HELLO.  GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND COUILMEMBERS.  EXCUSE MY CLUMSINESS UP HERE.  MY NAME IS BRANDON PORTER.  I A RESIDENT AT 3126 VINCENT AVENUE NORTH.  DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CHURCH.  I'M A LOCAL PASTOR, AS WELL.  ON THE SOUTH SIDE AT CITY VIEW CHURCH.  WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS BEFORE.  BUT, YOU KNOW, JU THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THE APPEAL OF THE DEVELOPERS.  ONE OF THE THINGS THEY SAID THERE WAS NO USE FOR THE CHURCH.  AND I THINK, LIKE MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID, THE DETERIORATION OF THE CHURCH, OVER TIME.  THEY'VE HAD THIS IN POSITION FOR FIVE YEARS.  DOES CREATE THAT.  IT'S -- FOR ME, IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WHERE IF THIS BUILDING HAD -- DEVELOPERS WOULD HAVE MADE SURE THEY TOOK CARE OF IT.  THE FACT IT'S IN NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, IT FEELS LIKE IT BE NEGLECTED.  IT RUBS ME A WRO WAY.  WE HAVE A LOT OF IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.  A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE FALLING APART.  AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CARE FOR IT.  AND SO I THINK THE DEVELOPERS FAILING TO TAKE CARE OF IT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THEIR HOPES.  I CAN GUESS THEIR HOPES IF IT'S FURTHER DETERIORATED IT IS, THEY CAN GET PERMISSION TO TEAR IT DOWN.  IT IS A PROBLEM.  EXCUSE ME ABOUT THAT.  BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'RE SAYING AND THE APPEAL IS THAT THERE'S NO USE AND NO ONE WANTS TO USE THAT SPACE.  AND HERE I'M -- AM A PASTOR ACROSS E STREET THAT WOULD LOVE TO USE THE SPACE.  I WOULD PUT A COMUNCH IN THAT BUILDING TOMORROW, IF COULD.  IF THEY'RE INTERESTED IN GETTING RID OF THAT PLACE, I WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE THEM UP ON THAT AND GIVE THEM AN OFFER TO BUY THE BUILDING.  I DON'T THINK THAT SMOT I SPOT IS A PLACE FOR THAT TALL OF A BUILDING.  THAT BIG OF A BUILDING FOR HOUSING.  I THINK IT SHOU BE KEPT AS A CHURCH FOR THAT SPACE. I THINK THE CHURCH HAS BEEN A CENTRAL PART OF BLACK COMMUNITY AND BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS FOR AS LONG AS WE CAN REMEMBER.  IT'S BEEN THE SOURCE OF STRENGTH FOR BLACK COMMUNITIES.  SO THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.  ARE THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIK TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM? ? >>  I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION. >> YOU HAD TWO MINUTES, SIR.  YOU CAN ALWAYS WRITE US. > ALL RIGHT.  WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM FOR NEXT BUSINESS, HOUSING, AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING ON FEBRUARY 4th.  I SEE SOME OF MY COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS.  I BELIEVE THE STAFF MIGHT BE HERE TO ANSWESOME OF THE QUESTIONS.  COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ACTUALLY SA INSTEAD OF HAVING STAFF COME UP AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.  I KNOW WE'LL BE GETTING THE PRESENTATION AND TAKING THE ITEM UP MORE ROBUSTLY THEN.  I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF CAN MAKE NOTE OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND SOME OF THE CONCERNSE HAD AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE ADDRESSED WHEN WE GET THE PRESENTATION.  AGAIN, DON'T WANT TO HAVE YOU ANSWERING QUESTIONS WITHOUT THE ABILITY TI DO -- AS WAS STAD, FOLKS TOOK TIME OUT OF THEIR DAY.  THEY TOOK TIME AWAY FROM WORK.  THEY HAVEUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.  I WANT TO MAKE SURE THOSE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS CAN GET INCORPORATED WHEN WE DO COME TOWARD ON THIS ITEM WITH A PRESENTATION.  THAT'S ALL.  THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.  I SEE COUNCILMEMBER RAINVILLE. >> THANK YOU.  COULD YOU PASE PASS ON TO THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY THAT HE HAS TO MAKE SURE -- THEYAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SIDEWALK IS SHOVELED AND, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A UTILITY BOX THAT WAS OPEN.  AND I WANT TO MAKE RE THAT HAPPENS.  AND BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO DO THAT PRIOR TO THE NEXT HEARING.  THANK YOU. >> YES.  THANK YOU.  ON THE MOTION TOONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 4th.  ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.  AND THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY.  THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE HEARING WILL CONTINUE.  ALL RIGHT.  OUR NEXT ITEM IS QUASI JUDICIAL ITEM 4 THROUGH 9.  VARIANCE APPEAL HEARING RELATED TO THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF AT SEVERAL PROPERTIES NEAR THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.  THIS IS ON THE AGENDA AT OUR LAST MEETING.  IT CONTINUED ON TO TODAY'S MEETING.  THE HEARING REMAINS OPEN AS OF RIGHT NOW.  FIRST, I'LL WELCOME MYLES FROM CPED TO TALK ABOUT THIS ITEM.  >>  THANK YOUERY MUCH.  I HAVE A FEW DIFFERENT ITEMS HERE FOR DISCUSSION.  WE'RE GOING -- THIS IS ONE DISCUSSION ITEM.  JUST IN THE INTEREST OF BREVITY THESE ARE SIX SEPARATE EYE PEELS OF THE DECISION BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.  AGAIN, THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION ARE 1609 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, 1623, 1711, 1813, AND 1815 UNIVERSITY AVENUE SOUTHEAST.  I HAVE TRIED TO MARK THEM HERE ON THE AERIAL IMAGE.  THIS IS KIND O SPREADS A COUPLE OF BLOCKS.  JUST SOME BACKGROUND.  SO BACK IN BEGINNING PART O THE YEAR, IN MARCH OF 2024, ORDERS TO CORRECT NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS REGARDING INSTALLATION OF ARTIFICIAL TURF.  AS THE APPLICANT CALLED OUT.  DUE TISSUES WITH CLAY SOILS AS WELL AS FOOT TRAFFIC FROM STUDENT RESIDENT ACTIVITY.  THE PREVIOUS NATURAL GRASS YARDS WERE GETTING TN UP OVER TIME.  THE APPLICANTS INSTALLED ARTIFICI TURF IN AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT THE DAMAGE OR MAINTENANCE ISSUE.  THEN THA TRIGGERED, AGAIN, ENFORCEMENT FROM THE STONING DEPARTMENT IN MARCH OF LAST YR.  IN MAY, APPEAL REGARDING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THAT ARTIFICIAL TURF AS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.  IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.  PRIOR TO THE MEETING, FIVE OF SIX WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THESE ESSENTIALLY SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE.  THEY'RE ARGUING THE SAME PORTIONS OF CODE  AND THE DETERMINATION ITSELF IN THAT CASE, THOUGH, THE FINAL ITEM THAT WENT FORWARD APPEAL AND 172022 WAS DENIED 3/1 AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.  THAT CAME TO THIS BODY IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR.  IT WAS HEARD BY BIZ AND, AGAIN, RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL.  AND THEN EVENTUALLY RECOMMENDED DENIAL FULLY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN JUNE.  FOLLOWING THAT DECISION, AGAIN, SO THAT POINT, THE TURF HAD BEEN DETERMINED AND CONSIDERED TO BE AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND OBSTRUCTION AND REQUIRED YARD.  THE APPLICANTS CAME BACK TO STAFF SEEKING ESSENTIALLY VARIANCES FROM THE SECTIONS OF CODE.  SO THE FIRST ROUND OF REVIEW, ESSENTIALLY, TO ARGUE THAT ARTIFICIAL TURF WAS NOT AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND NOT AN OBSTRUCTION.  WHEN THAT FAILED THEY RETURNED FOR THESE VARIANCE ITEMS.  THEY WERE HEARD NOVEMBER 21st, 2024 BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.  I ALL CASES, THESE WERE DENIED 7-0.  AND THEN THAT DECISIONS KIND OF WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY APPEALED TO BIZ. NE THING I'LL NOTE, SHOULD THE ITEMS BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AGAIN, THE APPEAL DETERMINED TO BE ALLOWED.  THE NEXT STEP FOR THE PROCESS WOULD BE GOING BACK TO THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION.  MOST,F NOT ALL, FALL UNDER THE UNIVEITY OF MINNESOTA GREEK LETTER CHAPTER HOUSE HISTORICAL DISTRICT.  IT WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL FOR HYSTERIC PRESERVATION.  I HAVE A COUPLE OF SLIDES A CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON EACH.  THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR IN TERMS OF AN ALL CASES, THESE ARE SECTIONS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF INSTALLED IN FRONT YARDS OF THESE PROPERTIES.  MAKING UP GERALLY 3 TO 11 OR 12% OF A LOT'S TOTAL AREA.  SOME ARE LARGER LOTS.  BEING ABOVE 10,000 SQUARE FEET.  MAJITY ARE NINE OR LESS.  AND THE MAJORITY ARE GOING TO BE -- ALL OF THESE WILL BE IN THE HIGH 90s IN TERMS OF MAXIMUM I T IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.  I BELIEVE THE SMALLEST IS 91%.  IN ALL CASES IT GOES TO THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY, IN MOST CASES.  THAT'S WHERE THE VARIANCE OF THE FRONT YARD COMES INTO PLACE.  THEY ARE ESSENTIAL BUILT UP TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.  IN TERMS OF FINDS AND WHENE TALK ABOUT ZONING CODE VARIANCES, THERE ARE THREE STANDARDS OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES EXAMINATION THAT NEED TO BE MET BY AN APPLICATION IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED.  STAFF AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IN THIS CASE, AGREED THE FIRST TWO METE FINDINGS WERE NOT MET.  THE FINAL, BOTH STAFF AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FELT THEYERE FINE IN TERMS OF ESTHETIC PERSPECTIVE.IT'S PROBABLY THE MAJOR BENEFIT OF THE ARTIFICIAL TURF.  THEY LOOK THE SAME ALL YEAR AROUND.  THERE'S N A VIRTUAL BREAK WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.  O'HA  I HAVE THE LANGUAGE HERE.  THESE HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.  BUT IF I CAN SUMMARE THAT DOWN, FIRSTLY, IT'S THAT CLAY SOILS ARE VERY COMMON HERE IN MINNESOTA.  LOTS OF DIFFERENT HOMEOWNERS ARE STRUGGLE WITH THE DIFFICULTIES OF MAINTAINING A YARD IN THESE KINDS OF CASES.  AND IN THAT SENSE, THE SOIL KIND OF MAKE UP IS NOT UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY.  SECONDLY, THE APPLICANT NOTED A LOT OF  THIS ISOMING OUT OF WHEN STUDENTS RETURN TO CAMPUS.  THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND IN THE RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES.  AND STAFF POINTS OUT, THIS ACTIVITY IS, IN SOME WAYS, CAUSED BY THE OPERTY OWNER.  AND ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CREED BY A PERSON HAVING INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY.  IN TERMS OF REASONABLE USE, THI IS A LITTLE BIT MORE UP TO INTERPRETATION BY THE COCILMEMBERS.  STAFF IS TAKING A KIND OF HARD READING OF THIS IN TERMS OF REASONABLE IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.  IN TERMS OF ORDINANCE, IT'S CLEAR IN THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIRED YARDS AT GROUND LEVEL SHOULD BE COVERED WITH TURF GRASS, NATIVE GRASSES, OR OTHER FLOWERS, TREES, OR EDIBLE LANDSCAPING.  IN TERMS OF THE INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS, MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND SURFACE STANDS ARE TO PROMOTE ADEATE SPACE FOR LANDSCAPING, AND STORMWAT RUNOFF AND ENCOURAGE NATURAL ABSORPTION.  FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE CODE SETS A CLEAR LINE IN THE SAND WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS MORE OF A NATURAL SOLUTION TO STORMWATER INFIFILTRATION AND MANAGEMENT.  WITH THAT SAID, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE APPEAL ESSENTIALLY BE UPHELD, IN THIS CASE, THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BE UPHELD AND THE DENIAL OF THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS.  HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY OR GO TO ANY PARTICULAR SLIDES. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION.  WE'LL HOLD ON TO QUESTIONS AND ASK THEM AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF THAT'S OKAY.  ALL RIGHT.  THANK YOU.  I GOING PROCEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.  IEAN, TO CONTINUE, I GUESS, TO PROCEED THE PUBLIC HEARING.  S  WE'LL HANDLE THE HEARING JOINTLY, AS WELL.  I'LL FIRST GRANT THE APPELLANT TEAM FORHIS APPEAL A TOTAL OF 10 MINUTES.  TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE.  AFTER THAT, I'LL ALLOW ANYBODY ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK WHO WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO ADDRESS THAT.  FIRST, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPELLANT.  WELCOME. >> APOLOGIES FOR THE DELAY.  CHAIR, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.  IT APPEARS MY ADAPTER IS NOT THE RIGHT TYPE OF AN ADAPTER FOR THE PRESENTATION.  SO WE'LL CONTINUE ON WITHOUT THE VISUALS.  THINK THE STAFF'S REPORT HAD A LOT OF CLEAR EXAMPLES OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF.  BEFORE WE GET INTO -- I GUESS I SHOULD RESTART HERE.  MY NAME IS NICK.  HEREN BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.  IT'S A PLEASURE TO SEE MOST OF YOU.  IF NOT ALL OF YOU AGAIN.  I APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU'RE GIVING ME TO SPEAK ON MY CLIENT'S BEHALF.  BEFORE WE GET INTO THIS SPECIFIC ANDARDS, I APPRECIATED THAT STAFF BROUGHT IN SOME OF THE BACKGROUND, AS I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.  BUT REALLY QUICKLY, I'D LIKE TO ALSO REMIND EACH COMMITTEE MEMBER THAT AT THE POINT WHERE EACH APPLICANT WAS CHALLENGING THE INITIAL ZONING COMPLAINT.  THE -->>  YOU CAN P. >> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS -- IT WAS MADE A BIG DEAL THAT IF THE ZONINGOMPLAINT OR THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE ALLOWED TO BE CONSIDERED PERVIOUS AS OPPOSED TO IMPERVIOUS, WE WOULD BE OPENING THE FLOOD GATE WOULD REAL LEVEL OF CHECK FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE AND STAFF REMINDED THE SAME COMMITTEE THAT EACH APPLICANT WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THEN GO BACK AND APPLY FOR A VARIANCE.  SO THAT THESE IMPROVEMENTS THAT A MAJORITY OF THE CITY STAFF AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS AGREED WERE BENEFICIAL OR, YOU KNOW, MADE THE AREA LOOK A HECK OF A LOT BETTER.  AND A VARIANCE COULD BE A GREAT AVENUE FOR THAT.  SO I WANT TO BRING THAT BACK UP IN CONTEXT.  I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.  THEN, AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND START TO LOOK AT EACH ACTUAL APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE.  WE NEED TO FIRST START OUT BY LOOKING AT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES CREATED BY UNIQUE CCUMSTANCES THAT ARE CREATED BY THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES.  I NOTE THAT THESE PROPERTIES AREN'T NECESSARILY UNIQUE TO THE AREA, BUT THE SITUION CERTAINLY IS.  THAT'S UNIQUE IN THE SENSE THERE'S, REALLY, FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, BE CLEAR THERE'S ONLY ONE SOLUTIONERE.  GIVEN THAT IT'S SHOWN BOTH ON THE PROPERTIES THEMSELVES, BUT ALSO THE SURROUNDING AREA THAT WE CAN ONLY BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN FOR THREE OUT OF THE FOUR SEASONS EVERY YEAR.  RIGHT.  EVERY WINTER AND LATE/EARLY TO SPRING, ALL THE PROPERTIES WILL BE FOUND TO BE IN NONCOMPLIANCE.  I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK BACK AT STAFF'S PHOTOS, BUT ALSO THE PHOTOS WE SHARED DURING THE ORIGINAL PUBLIC HEARING OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.  YOU SEE GRASS IN THE FALL AND IN THE SUMMER.  AND THEN IMMEDIATELY IT'S JUST A MUD PIT.  THAT GRASS DIES OUT.  AT NO FAULT OF THE APPLICANT.  I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO REMEMBER THE APPLICANTS HAVE TRIED MULTIPLE TIMES ACROSS THE SIX DIFFERENT PROPERTIE  GONE THROUGH VARIOUS DIFFERENT VENDORS IN TERM WAS TRYING TO GROW NATURAL GRASS.  ALL TO COME UP SHORT EVERY WINTER.  WHICH CREATES BOTH A SAFETY ISSUE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER STANDPOINT.  BUT ALSO ARAINAGE ISSUE FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE.  ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONA RUNOFF TO SLIDE THROUGH AND PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE PRESSURE ON THOSE CITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.  LOOKING AT THE SECOND STANDARD, I THINK IT'S -- EXCUSE ME.  I WANT TO BRING UP, BECAUSE AT THE FIRST HEARING AT EACH VARIANCE STAGE, IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF ENFORCEMENT GIVEN THAT THE PROPERTIES WOULD FALL INTO NONCOMPLIANCE WAS RELATIVELY MINIMAL.  IT WASN'T VERY LIKELY THAT THE CITY WOULD GO OUT AND ACTUALLY ENFORCE PROPERTY THAT HAD MUD, DIRT, AND GIVEN OSE ITEMS AREN'T LISTED AS PERMITTED FRONT YARD COVERAGE MATERIALS.  I'M NOT QUITE SURE THAT'S REALLY RELEVANT HERE.  NONCOMPLIANCE IS NONCOMPANCE.  I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S EMPHA EMPHASIZED THE PROPTY OWNERS WANT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE, IN ONE FORM OR THE OTHER.  WITHOUT THIS CREATIVE, ALBEIT, SOLUTION, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE.  ALSO, I WANT TO MAKE MENTION THAT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN WE START TO TALK ABOUT CITY ENFORCEMENT AND CITY RESOURCES.  THAT'S BEEN ANOTHER HURDLE THAT WE'VE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS.  THE BENEFIT OF PERMITTING OR APPROVING A VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO INCLUDE REASONABLE CONDITIONS.  AND EACH APPLICANT WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO INCLUDE SOME FORM OF ANNUALR BIANNUAL CHECK IN, AS FAR AS SUBMITTING INSPECTION REPORTS TO MAKE SUR THAT, ONE, IN THE EVENT THAT NEW TURF IS INSTALLED, IT'S INSTALLED BY A PROFESSIONAL IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER.  AND WITH QUALITY MATERIALS.  BUT, ALSO, THAT IT CONTINUES TO BE KEPT AND MAINTAINED SO WHAT WE DON'T END UP WITH IS, YOU KW, JUST A SLAB OF TURF THROWN ON TO A FRONT YARD, WHICH IS, AGAIN, AS A REMINDER, NOT WHAT THIS IS.  THERE'S SIGNIFICANT LAYERS OF GRAVEL AND OTHER DRAINAGE MATERIALS THAT ARE INSTALLED UNDERNEATH THESE TURF IMPROVEMENTS.  MOVING ON TO THE SECOND CATEGORY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE AUTHORID -- PROPOSES TO USE THE PROPERTY IN A REASONABLE MANNER THAT WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.  IHINK THAT CITY STAFF NAMES A COUPLE OF THESE KIND OF PROMOTION ITEMS OR, I GUESS, PURPOSE ITEMS FOR THESE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE CODE.  AVOIDING URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT,E ADEQUATE SPACE FOR LANDSCAPING, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, AND REDUCE STORMWATER RUNOFF.  I THINK THE APPLICATION MATERIALS REALLY PUTS INTO PERSPECTIVE HOW EACH ONE OF ESE THINGS ARE EITHER ENFORCED OR BOLSTERED OR IN SOME ITEMS, ELIMINATED.  SO THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK BACK AT SOME OF THE INITIAL SUBMISSION MATERIALS IN TERMS OF ACTUAL HEAT.  THAT'S N A FACTOR HERE.  IN TERMS OF TEMPERATURE.  PROMOTE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR LANDSCAPING.  I WOULD ARGUE THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF SPACE FOR NATURAL LANDSCAPING IN AND AROUND THE YARDS.  AND THAT COULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED A REASONABLE CONDITION IN THE EVENT WE WANTED TO SEE, YOU KNOW, A FLOWERE BED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.  CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE IN COMPLIANCE OR IN ADDITION TO THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.  AND THEN REDUCING STORMWATER RUNOFF, I THINK, IS THE BIG ONE.  AS WE SAW EARLY ON IN THIS PROCESS, E TURF DRAINS.  IT HAS MANY ADVANTAGES TO IT IN COMPARISON TO WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW OR LOOKS LIKE -- HAS LOOKED LIKE IN THE PAST.  ESPECIALLY IN THE WINTER MONTHS.  YOU'RE NO LONGER HAVING ANY OFHOSE BARRIERS AND HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE FREE FALL RUNOFF INTO THE STREETS AND SIDEWALK.  THREE, THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT AMOUNTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER.  I'M NOT GOING TO HARP ON THIS ISSUE TOO MUCH GIVEN THAT IT WAS LISTED AS A APPROVED AND THE CITY STAFF REPORT.  BUT BASED ON EVERYTHING WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT TODAY, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO CONSIDER EACH APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR T VARIANCE.  I THINK IT'S GOES WITHOUT SAYING THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE UNIQUE APPROACH THAT REALLY ALLOWS FOR THESE PROPERTIES UP-AND-DOWN THE CITY TO SHINE AGAIN AND NOT NECESSARILY FALL INTO KIND OF DISREPAIR EVERY WINTER.  AND IT ALSO HAS GREAT BENEFITS FOR THE COMMUNITY, AS A WHOLE, AS WELL.  SO WITH THAT, I'LL YIELD MY TIME.  I THINK I'VE GONE THROUGH EVERYTHING I WANTED TO SAY.  I'M HAPPTO STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.  NEXT WE'LL ALLOW ANYONE WHO IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.  I HAVE -- WELCOME SIR. >>  CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCILMEMBERS.  MY NAME IS CRAIG.  I'M A MINNEAPOLIS RESIDENT AND OWNER OF AN ADJACENT PROPERTY.  AS A STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY IN MINNESOTA IN THE '80s, A STAFF MEMBER FOR ABOUT 13/14 YEARS STARTING IN THE '90s.  I'VE BEEN ACTIVELY IN THIS AREA FOR A VERY LONG TIME.  I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE PROPERTIES AND WHY THEY'RE DIERENT AND WHY A VARIANCE IS APPROPRIATE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANTS.  THE FOOT TRAFFIC HERE IS ENORMOUS.  I NOTE THAT THE STAFF REPORT DID NOT ADDRESS FOOT TRAFFIC.  EVEN THOUGH IT WAS RAISED AS AN ISSUE BY THE APPLICANT.  IF YOU'VE EVER DRIVEN DOWN THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY AVENUE AT UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DURING A FOOTBALL GAME, BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER.  THERE'S JUST PEOPLE EVERYWHERE.  THE SAME GOES FOR HOCKEY AND BASKETBALL.  THESE HOUSES ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THREE STADIUMS.  THE STADIUM HOLDS 51,000.  WILLIAMS ARENA HOLDS ALMOST 1000.  THE OTHER ARENA HOLDS 10,000.  THE RESULT THE IS THAT WE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CAN CLAIM THREE STADIUMS WITHIN A QUARTER OF MILE EACH OTHER.  SO, I MEAN, THAT'S A PRETTY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE IN ITS LOCATION AND WHY THIS IS APPROPRIATE.  AS OF THE FALL OF '23, THERE WERE ALMOST 55,000 STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA IT CAMPUS.  THAT'S EVERY DAY, YOU KNOW, NINE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR, INCLUDING THE TIME TT THE APPLICANT CITES IS THE TIME THEY CAN'T STAY IN COMPLIAE.  THE UNIVERSITY ENCOURAGES STUDENTS TO WALK.  AND THESE HOUSES ARE, IN MANY CASES, LOCATED DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND THE APAR PARKING LOTS PEOPLE PARK IN TO GET TO THE UNIVERSITY.  AND STUDENTS, LET'S FACE IT, THEY DON'T ALWAYS FOLLOW THE SIDEWALK OR USE I  THEY CUT THROUGH YARDS, ON OCCASION.  THAT CERTAINLY HAPPENSERE.  SO THE FOOT TRAFFIC HERE REALLY IS UNIQUE TO THE AREA.  IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN GRASS ON THESE LOTS.  I'VE SE MANY ATTEMPTS AT THEM TRYING TO DO SO.  SHRUBS, HOSE DRAFTS, GRASS, FENCES TO LIMIT TRAFFIC.  ALL OF THEM EVENTUALLY FAIL.  SO THANK YOU.  AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION. >> THANKS A LOT.  NEXT IS AUSTIN AND CONNOR ANDERSON.  >>  THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.  THIS IS AUSTIN KLINE AND MY FRIEND CONNOR ANDERSON.  I'M A RESIDENT OF ONE OF THE PROPERTIES.  WE'RE UNIVEITY OF MINNESOTA STUDENTS.  HE'S ALSO A MEMBER WITH THAT HOUSE.  ALL I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT WE HAVE BEARED WITNESS THAT THE NEIGHBORS WITH REAL GRASS, THEY HAVE -- THEY RECENTLY PUT IN REAL GRASS DURING AUGUST AND I DON'T KNOW IF A PICTURE IS PROVIDED.  IF YOU LOOK AT IT NOW, IT'S COMPLETE JUST DIRT EVERYWHERE.  AND IT ONLY WAS IN A MATTER OF A MONTH OR TWO THAT IT DIDN'T LAST LONG.  AND IT WAS FRESHLY PUT IN. >>  AND THAT'S JUST, AGAIN, DUE TO THE IENSE AMOUNT OF FOOT TRAFFIC THAT GOES THROUGH THOSE YAS.  IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN ANY TYPE OF GRASS.  NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO.  JUST BECAUSE OF HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS ON THOSE LAWNS, AS WELL.  SO THE TF HAS BEEN WONDERFUL SOLUTION THAT WE'VE FOUND. >> OKAY.  THANK YOU SO MUC FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THETEM?  SEEING NONE.  I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.  AND CALL COUNCILMBER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR OSMAN.  THANK YOU TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO CAME DOWN TO CITY HALL TO TESTIFY.  I APPRECIATE YOU FOR COMING DOWN AN DOING YOUR PART IN THIS PROCESS.  I, FIRST, I WANTO START OFF BY ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHAT IS THE SCOPE BEHALF WE'REONSIDERING.  JUST TO FEEL GROUNDED IN THAT AS WE CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION. >>  THROUGH THE CHAIR, THANK YOU, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.  THE ISSUE THAT IS BEFORE YOU, WITH REGARD TO ALL SIX OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTS COMES DOWN TO THE FST TWO OF THE THREE REQUIRED FINDINGS THAT STAFF WENT THROUGH.  THOSE FINDINGS, I GUESS, TO REITERATE, ARE, FIRST, THAT THE APPLICANT MUST PROVE THE CHALLENGES EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF CITIZENS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE CREATED BY PERSONS HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPEY OR BASED ON ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ALONE.  AND, SECOND, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER PROPOSES TO USE THE PROPERTY IN A REASONABLE MANNER THAT WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE.  IT'S THOSE TWO FINDINGS THAT STAFF FOUND WERE NOT MET AND THAT THE BOARD OF JUSTMENT ALSO CONCURRED WERE NOT MET.  AND IN ORDER FOR THE VARIANCE REQUESTS TO BE GRANTED, BOTH OF TSE FINDINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN MET BY THIS COMMITTEE.  AND CERTAINLY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE TESTIMONY ANDEPORTS THAT YOU'VE SEEN HERE TODAY, YOU'RE CERTAINLY FREE TO COME TO YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT CONCLUSION WITH REGARD TO EITHER OR BOTH OR THEY'VE BEEN MET.  THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.  I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS R CITY STAFF THROUGH THE CHAIR.  >>  HI WILL IT HI. >> WHAT IS THE TYPICAL AMOUNT OF IMPEIOUS SURFACE FOR A LOT LIKE THIS? >>  COUNCILMEMBER CHOWDHURY, LET ME PULL IT UP HERE.  I BELIEVE THE AMOUNT.  SO TICALLY FOR THIS AMOUNT PROPERTY WHICH IS ZONED RESIDENCE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT A FALLS IN THE INTERIOR THREE BUILD FORM.  THE TYPICAL MAXIMUM IS 75 PERCENT OF THE LOT BEING CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS.  AGAIN, IT RANGES IN THE CASES OF ALL THESE PROPERTIES, I THINK THE LOWEST WOULD BE AT 91% IN TERMS OF WHAT ISONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS.  INCLUDING, AGAIN, THE ARTIFICIAL TUR >> GOT IT.  WE'RE SEEING AN ASK FOR NEARLY 15 TO 20 MO 20% FOR SOMETHING TYPICAL OF THIS AREA.  THERE'S SOMETHING I WANT TO ASK THAT WAS ASKED IN WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID.  URBAN HEAT ISLAND IMPACT ISN'T IN EFFECT HERE.  SHOULD THE TURF NOT BE MAINTAINED, WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE REGARDING OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOTH FOR THE URB HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND STORMWATER RUNOFF. >> YEAH.  I WOULD SAYROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, I THINK PART OF THIS IS THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT EXPERTS ON ARTIFICIAL TURF.  I KNOW IN REVIEWING SOME OF THE MATERIALS OUT THERE, BOTH FROM MANUFAURERS AS WELL AS FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, ONE OF THE NOTES IS THAT THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY BIG PLASTIC AREAS.  THEY INTEND TO COLLECT A LOT OF HEAT WITHIN THEM.  THE  THERE CAN BE CASES WHERE I THINK MOSTLY IN THE SOUTHWEST, PEOPLE WERE WATERING THEIR ARTIFICIA LAWNS IN ORDER TO COOL THE PLASTIC THAT WAS WARMING UP IN THE SUN.  IN TERMS OF THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, OBVIOUSLY, AS MUCH AS WE CAN PROVIDE NATURAL VEGETATION, TREES, SHRUBS, LANDSCAPING, THAT HEL IN TERMS OF OVERALL COOLING FROM ESPECIALLY WITH SHADE TREES, TO BE HONEST.  OTHERWISE IN TERMS OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, THE ASON, I THINK, FOR A LOT OF THAT MAXIMUM WHY IT SAID TO BE ONLY 75% OF A LOT.  AND THIS IS A DISTRICT WE ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE.  SINGLE FAMILY IT'S CLOSER TO 50 OR 60%  FOP SET A MAXIMUM CAP TO ALLOW FOR AN AREA WHERE YOU HE LANDSCAPING, VEGETATION, THAT IS PROVIDING IF NOT ON THAT SINGLE LOT SCALE ON THE CITWIDE SCALE TOWARD PROVIDING THAT GREEN SPACE CITY WIDE. >> THANK YOU.  THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD -- ACTUALLY, THIS IS MORE OF A NOTE TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS.  EARLIER LAST YEAR IN MAY 2024.  TRE WAS A CONVERSATION AROUND ARTIFICIAL TURF VARIANCE IN A SCHOOL OF MY WARD.  WE GOT INTO A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF, SPECIFICALLY URBAN HEAT ISLAND.  AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP WAS HEAT THAT WOULD BE CONCENTRATED WITHIN THE TURF AND THE AVAILABILITY TO ACTUALLY DO TREATMENT WATER THAT WAS TOUGH RUNOFF OR DRAIN.  IT WAS STUFF WE WERE NOT ABLE T FIND CONCLUSIVE.  LIKE REASONABLE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD NOT OCCUR.  AND IT WAS A CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY US FOR MANY COMMUNITYEMBERS.  AND ULTIMATELY THE APPLICANT WAS NOT GRAN GRANTED VARIANCE FOR ARTIFICIAL TURF.  IN THIS CASE, ONE OF THE THINGS TO NOTE WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, IS SINCE THIS DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE CHANNELS, THERE ISNE CURRENT TURF MATERIAL BY OUR CITY STAFF.  A FOR OUR STAFF TO CONFIRM THE ARTIFICIAL TURF IS STILL PLACED AND ON THE PROPERTIES, AT PSENT. >> CORRECT.  COUNCILMEMBER CHOWDHURY, ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, ESSENTIALLY, HAVE BEEN PAUSED UNTIL THIS ALL HAS BEEN RESOLVED.  THERE WAS NO SENSE OF ISSUING CITATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.  AS FAR AS STAFF IS CONCERNED, C CONDITIONS REMAINED UNCHANGED. >> WERE THERE ANY OTHER INSPECTIONS OF THE TURF MATERIAL DO AFTER THE FACT? >>  THAT I CAN'T SPEAK TO IN TERMS OF THE REINFORMATIONS OR NOT.  I WILL SAY, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE CITY ZONING FORCEMENT STAFF DOES NOT GET INVOLVED WITH ARTIFICIAL TURF INSTALLATION ORHAT LEVEL OF PROJECT, IN A LOT OF CASES.  SO SIMILAR TO, LIKE, DOING A P PATIO.  IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY TRIGGER AN INSPECTION. >> THANK YOU.  I DON'T WANT TO BELEAGUER MY COMMENTS TOO MUCH LONGER.  I KNOW THAT I HAV OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS HERE THAT WANT TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS.  I THINK THAT THE PLACE I'M LANDING.  I THINK I WANT TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN WHAT WAS GIVEN BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND DENYHIS.  PRIMARILY FOR THE TWO FINDINGS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT.  I DON'T THINK THERE IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE HERE THAT WE CAN CONSIDER.  WHILE I UNDERSTAND SETTLEMENT SPECIALLY BEING A STUDENT AT UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA GRADUATING THERE.  PEOPLE WANT TO PARTY ON THE LAWN.  PEOPLE WT TO HAVE ACTIVITIES AND BUILD COMMUNITY.  BUT THAT'S NOT A REASON TO SAY ERE IS AN ABSOLUTE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE.  WE ALL CAN USE OUR FRONT LAWNS AS  PLACE TO GATHER.  AND I DEFINITELY HAVE QUESTIONS ON IF THERE'S BEEN EFFORTS TO TRY TO LIMIT THE TYPE  FOOT TRAFFIC.  IF THERE'S BEEN EFFORTS TO TRY TO USE MORE RESILIENT GRASSES.  NATIVE PLANTINGS.  AND I ALSO GIVES ME A LOT OF PAUSE THAT ON TO THE SECOND POINT AROUND MAINTENANCE OF A TURF/FIELD AROUND URBAN HEAT ISLAND AND RUNOFF.  THAT AT THE PROPERTY, TURF WAS PLACED WITHOUT CONNECTING WITH OUR CITY STAFF AND SOMETHING THAT BROUGHE MEETING, IS THIS AREA IS ALREADY STRUGGLES IN MAINTAINING THE NATIVE GRASS THAT IS THERE AND TURF RUIRES MAINTENANCE TO ENSURE THAT THAT DRAINAGE ACTUALLY HAPPENS.  AND IF THERE IS THIS HIGH LEVEL OF FOOT TRAFFIC ON ARTIFICIAL TURF, AND THERE'S ALREADY A STRUGGLE TO MAINTAIN CURRENT GRASS AND ALSO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY CODE, I STRUGGLE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE MAINTENANCE OF THE ARTIFICIAL TURF TO ALLOW IF THE TYPE OF DRAINAGE.  THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH TURF.  IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A SURFACE THAT DRAINS UNLESS YOU TAKE CARE OF IT.  >>  COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL RAINVILLE. >> OKAY.  I HAVE A QUESTION TO STAFF.  IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS UPON THE CONDITION OF ANNUAL INSTRUION, THE CONCERN CAME UP THAT AS THESE SURFACES DETERIORATE THEY BECOME LESS EFFECTIVE.  HAVE WE EVER GRANTED PERMISSION FOR TURF IN THIS CITY WITH A CONDITION OF AN ANNUAL INSPECTION? >>  CHAIR OSMAN AND COUNCILMEMBER RAINVILLE, I HAVE BEEN WITH THE CITY ABOUT A YEAR.  I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY IN MY TIME OR PREVIOUS HISTORY.  ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS STAFF HASS THE CONDITION WE'RE GOING TO BE CHECKING BACK IN.  RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO VEHICLE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICES, IN TERMS OF HANDLING SOMETHING LIKE THAT.  I MEAN, WE HAVE IT FOR THINGS LIKE NEW CONSTRUCTION, PER SE.  WE'RE SETTING UP VISITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.  BUT THE CONCERN FROM CITY STAFF, WE CAN SET UP A BIANNUAL REPORT OR INSPECTION IF THE INSPECTOR THAT HANDLES TSE FOR THOSE 10 YEARS RETIRES.  WHAT IS THE PASS ON?  HOW IS THAT MANAGED BEYOND A DECADE EVEN?  >>  ALSO, TO HELP ANSWER OF THE QUESTION.  ONE OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE IS STAFF DOESN'T HAVE THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TO UNDERSTAND THE DRAINAGE ON THAT SORT OF THING.  WE NEED TO GET SOME SORT OF A REGIME SET UP IN ORDER TO DO THAT.  WE CAN CERTAINLY BUILD IT IN.  ONE OF THE REASONS IT'S TREATED THAT WAY, IS JUST THERE'S NO CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO TELL WHETHER IT'S DRAINING OR NOT.  I'M SURE THERE ARE SOME SORT OF TESTS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY.. >> SURE.  WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY. >>ORRECT. >> OKAY.  THANK YOU.  I DO SEE THE UNIQUENESSES OF THE PROPERTY AND THE BURDEN.  BUT HAVING HEARD FROM THE STAFF, THERE'S NO WAY TO MAKE SURE THIS IS PROPERLY TAKEN CARE OF.  I'M GOING TO VOTE TO OVERRIDE OR UPHOLD THE APPEAL.  YOU PROBABLY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO SUCCEED HERE.  BUT I THINK IT'S VERY WORTHY TO KEEP STUDYING HOW THIS, INDEED, COULD HAPPEN.  THOSE HOUSING UNITS ARE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE GATHERING ON THE FRONT YARD.  THIS PROBLEM IS NOT GOING GO AWAY.  IF YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS.  BUT CLEARLY THEREEEDS TO BE DONE MORE RESEARCH DONE.  MORE THOUGHT PUT INTO THIS.  I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU.  I'M ON YOUR SIDE TODAY.  BUT I ALSO WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP WORKI TOWARDS THIS.  SO WE CAN HAVE A SOLUTION THAT WILL BE AMENABLE TO MY COLLEAGUES HERE.  THANK YOU.  COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON. >> THANK YOU.  I'LL SAY, FOR MY PART, THE QUESTION ISN'T WHETHER THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE TURFS ARE LOOK GOOD OR DON'T LOOK GOOD.  THE QUESTION IS ABOUT, LIKE YOU KNOW, DOES THIS MEET THE STANDARD THAT WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY.  THE ANSWER IS NO.  AND WHAT I WOULD ADVISE, I CAN'T REMEMBER EVERY PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD WHEN IT CAME UP BEFORE.  AT A DIFFERENT ANGLE.  BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THERE IS A PATHWAY FORWARD.  BUT IT'S POLICY.  YOU'VE HEARD FROM STAFF AND COUNCILMEMBERS.  THERE IS NOT AN OR ORDINANCE ALLOWING US TO SUFFICIENTLY OVERE THIS AND ENFORCE THIS AND REGULATE THIS.  I THINK THAT I KNOW IT'S FRUSTRATING. OLICY MAKING CAN BE DIFFICULT.  BUT TALK TO YOUR COUNCILMEMBERS.  TALK TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS UP HERE.  TALK TO STAFF AND GAUGE STAFF.  FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD YOU NEED.  WHAT WOULD STAFF NEED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN MATERIAL WE CAN UNDERSTAND.  RIGHT NOW PING COUNCILMEMBER CHOWDHURY VERY POINTEDLY SAID.  RIGHT NOW IN THE GRASSES ARE WALKED ON AND WALKED ON.  WE CAN TELL BECAUSE THEY GET ERODED.  IF A TURF IS THERE, IF THE TURF IS ERODED AND NOT EFFECTIVE IN THAT MOMENT.  IT PROBABLY LOOKS MORE OR LESS THE SAME, TO THE NAKED EYE.  WE WON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE DRAINAGE IS COMPRISED.  WE WON'T EVEN KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT'S MAINTAINED.  WELL MAINTAINED.  AND I THINK THAT POLICY IS GOING TO BE YOUR AVENUE HERE.  AND MANG SURE THAT THE CITY HAS THE EXPERTISE TO REGULATE THIS IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT.  SO WE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMETHING THAT IS JUST LAID THERE AND WOULD NOT BE COMPLIANT VERSUS A MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION THAT WOULD BE COMPLIANT.  SO WE KNOW WHEN IN A FUTURE ARTIFICIAL TURFS UP TO STANDARD VERSUS WHEN IT'S BEEN DEGRADED AND NO LONGER UP TO STANDARD.  AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST ONE, THE FIRST APPLICATION WAS HEY, LOOK.  THIS IS ALLOWED AND, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS WEREN'T ABLE TO PREVAIL.  THIS IS NOT ALLOWED BUT LET US TO DO IT ANYWAY AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PREVAIL HERE.  I THINK YOUR ONLY AVENUE IS POLICY MAKING AND MIKING SURE THAT THE CITY HAS THE REGULAR WILL -- REGULATORY ABILITY TO ACTUALLY ALLOW FOR THAT.  FOR THAT REASON, I'LL BE SUPPORTING ANY MOTION TO UPHOLD THE PREVIOUS DECISION.  >>  I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE STAFF.  LAST MAY WHEN IT WAS DENIED.  WHAT WAS THE -- >>  CHAIR OSMAN, STAFF, AT THAT TIME, ADVISED THE APPLICANT OF THE RECURRENT PATHWAYS.  ONE WOULD BE POLICY AND CHANGE TO THE ZONING CODE.  THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE PATHWAY IS THE KIND OF GET A VARIANCE FOR THE USES, AS WELL AS GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.  AND STAING TO LAY OUT PATHWAYS AVAILABLE TO THEM.  I WOULD NOT SEE IT STAFF HAS BEEN OVERLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE ODDS OR WE NEVER TRY TOAKE ANY SORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS KNOWING STAFF IS MAKING A RECOMMENDION TO YOU ALL OR TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO MAKE THE DECISION.  BUT, AGAI IN TERMS WHAT WAS TOLD TO THE APPLICANT, SIMPLY NO.  OR LETTING TM KNOW THIS WAS A ROUTE TO MAINTAIN THAT TURF.  WHICH WAS THEIR PRINCIPLE AIM AT THAT TIME. >> OKAY.  YEAH.  I THINK MY COMMENT IS THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BY PUBLIC HEARING WE HAVE HEARD THAT THAT THE WAY THINGS HAVE SET UP IS AN ISSUE.  FOOT TRAFFIC.  THE DOWNTOWN AREA.  THERE WAS ROOFTOPS.  HOW DO WE ENFORCE THAT?  DO THEY COME UNDER THE QUESONS OF DRAINAGE AND OTHERS.  I CAN THINK ABOUT DIFFERENT PLACES THAT HAVE ARTIFICIAL TURF THAT COULD BE A ROOFTOP.  ESPECLLY IN DOWNTOWN AREAS. >> CHAIR OSMAN.  I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT.  I THINK I CAN THINK OF A COUPLE OF CASES DOWNTOWN.  THERE'S BEEN SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING PARK BOARD PROPERTIES.  THIS WAS AT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.  TYPICALLY A LOT OF CASES THE'S ALLOWED TO BE ARTIFICIAL TURF, LARGELY IN A CASE I KNOW IN DOWNTOWN SPECIFICALLY, OUR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS ARE 100% OF THE PROPERTY'S LOT AREA.  SO THE ENTIRE LOT COULD BE IMPERVIOUS.  AND THEN IN SOME CASES, SUCH AS THE PARK BOARD PROPERTY, THERE AREAXIMUMS, THE AREAS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF ARE OUTSIDE OF THE REQUIRED.  IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THIS IS A FRONT YARD, AS WELL AS BEING OVER THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, THAT TRIGGERS THE ISSUES.  OTHERWISE I WOULD SAY IN TERMS OF HOW THEY'RE TREATED BY CODE.  SIMILAR TO A GROUND LEVEL PATE OWE.  THESE ARE SEEN AS A HARD SURFACE BY DEFAULT IN THE CODE.   THAT'S IN TRUE IN ALL PROPERTIES. >> ALL RHT.  THANK YOU.  AS WE HEAR THIS ARGUMENT, I THINK THAT THE ISSUE IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO COME BACK.  FOR STAFF TCOME UP WITH SOLUTION TO HAVE ACTUAL POLICIES ON THE BOOK TO DEAL WITH ARTIFICIAL TURF AND SO ON.  I'LL CALL ON COUNCILMEMBER CHOWDHURY.>> THANK YOU, COUNCILR OSMAN.  I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POLICIES IS THE AVENUE.  AND DON'T WANT US TO JUMP INTO A POLICY CONVERSATION.  THAT'S NOT HERE.  I THINK SHOULD WE ENTER INTO THAT CONVERSATION, IT WOULD BE A LOT OF DEBATE AROUND IT.   APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES.  I UNDERSTAND THE PLACE IN WHICH THE STUDENT COMMUNITY IS WHEN IT COMES TO THESE LOTS.  AND I HAVE AN APPRECIATION FOR THAT.  AND I DON'T THINK IT MEETS THE TEST OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY.  I WOULD LIKE TO FORMALLY MOVE TO UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ESTIMATION -- NOT BOARD -- SORRY!  WE'RE NOT AT BUDGET YET.  BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND DENY THIS APPEAL.  >>  ALL RIGHT.  COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS.  >>  THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN.  NOW THERE'S A MOTION.  IS THERE A SECOND?  >>  SECOND. >> YOU KNOW, I JUST -- I JUST REITERATE THE POINT YOU MAD CHAIR OSMAN.  I MEAN, THIS ISSUE IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO COME FORWARD.  I'M NOT SURE IT'S THE APPLICANT'S ROLE PARTICULARLY STUDENTS WHO ARE GOING TO BE LIVING AT THIS PROPERTY FOR A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME.  IT SEEM LIKE IT'S OUR ROLE TO HAVING YOUR OUT -- FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BEST POLICY SHOULD BE.  AND IT'S GUARANTEED IF THERE'S NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE GRASS, NATURAL GRASSES, SOMEBODY SAID PERENNIAL PLANTINGS THAT ARE DISRUPTED THAT I'M CURIOUS FROM STAFF.  IS IT GOING TO BE CONTINUOUS CITATIONS TO THESE PROPERTIES?  IT'S GUARANTEED THE GRASS IS GOING TO GO AWAY.  >> CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS.  WHAT I WILL SAY, IN TERMS OF STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE OF THESE, I TOOK A LOOK BACK.  IT CAME BACK AT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AS THE APPLICANT NOTED IN TERMS IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THE CITYNFORCES ON IN THE CASE WHERE DIRT OR MUD IS PRESENT.  AT LEAST IN THE CASE OF THESE PROPERTIES, THESE SIX PROPERTIES, I TOOK A LOOK BACK.  NOTHING WITHIN THE LAST DECADE.  IT'S THE SOLE ZONING VIOLATION ON RECORD.  I TOOK A LOOK TO SEE.  I KNOW PROPERTY MAINTENANCE TRIGGERS SOMETIMES WITH GRA AND THINGS LIKE THAT.  NO ISSUES THERE IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT.  THIS IS NOT US TRYING TO GET THEM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.  THERE'S NOT A HISTORY OF THAT CITATION COMING FORWARD.  THE OTHER THING I WIL   YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT, SOME MEMBERS SPOKE ABOUT FOOT TRAFFIC ALONG THE SIDEWALK.  I'LL NOTE A FEW PROPERTIES INSTALLED FENCES IN THE FRONT YARDS.  AS A WAY TO ENCLOSE THAT AREA.  CLOSE IT OFF FR THE SIDEWALK.  THEY ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT TO BUILD A 4-FOOT FENCE.  NO MORE THAN 60% AQUE AS A MEANS TO CLOSE THE AREA AND BREAK IT OFF FROM PUBLIC FOOT TRAFFIC.  TO THE DEGREE OF SOMNE THAT IS NOT WILLING TO JUMP A FENCE, ESSENTIALLY.  STAFF WOULD HOLD THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES HERE.  BUT I WANT TO REITERATE OUR GOAL IS NOT TO HAVE THIS BEING DIDDED BEING DID -- DENIED AND BEGIN ENFORCEMENT ON LAWN AREAS DIRECTLY AFTERWARDS. >>  THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS.  THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER ELLISON. >> WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS.  IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO THE BODY TO MAKE THE CHANGES IN LAW.  BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO LEAD ON THAT.  I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE IT ONE OF MY PRIORITIES.  I THINK THE FOLKS MOST AFFTED BY THE ISSUE, RIGHT NOW IS THE APPLICANT'S.  I THINK ARE PROBABLY WOULD BE SOME OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE ADVOCATES.  WHEREVER WE SEE CHANGE BEING DRIVEN.  IT USUALLY STARTS WITH OUTSIDE ADVOCACY EVEN TRICKLES INTO A COUNCILMEMBER POTENTIALLY GIFTING THAT WIND UNDER THEIR SAIL AND BEING INTERESTED IN PURSUING ORDINANCE CHAE.  SO JUST WANTED TO SAY, YEAH.  I AGREE WITH YOU.  DON'T WANT THE APPLICANTS TO THINK IT'S ON YOU TO HAVE EVERY SINGLE ANSWER.  I THINK FROM A STANDPOINT OF ADVOCACY, INSIDE/OUTSIDE STRATEGY.  IT WOULDN'T BE A BAD IDEA FOR YOU TO BEGIN HAVING MEETINGS WITH COUNCILMEMBERSND COUNCILMEMBER RAINVILLE, COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS MIGHT BE YOUR CHAMPION ON THE ISSUE TO GET SOME CHANGE AT CITY HALL. >>  ALL RIGHT.  THANK YOU SO MUCH.  SEEING NONE, WITH THE MOTION TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF ZONING, WAS IT?  WITH COUNCILMEMBER CHOWDHURY'S MOTION -- CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> TH.  THANKOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER RAINVILLE. >> NO. >> CASHMAN. >> AYE. >> JENKINS. >> AYE. >> CHOWDHURY. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR ELLISON. >> AYE. >> CHAIR OSMAN. >> NO. >> FOUR AYES AND TWO NAYS. >> THAT MOTION PASSES.  THANK YOU.  ALL RIGHT.  WE ARE ON NEXT ITEM ITEM 15 DISCUSSION ITEM RETED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING WE HAD LAST MEETING CONCERNING THE LOWRY HANDY SHOP, I'M SORRY LOWRY HANDY STOP APPLICATION FOR EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION.  CITY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ONE MORE WEEK TO WORK THINGS OUT BEFORE THE VOTE.  THEREFORE, I'LL BE MOVING TO CONTINUE THIS HEARING TO OUR NEXT BUSINESS MEETING ON FEBRUARY 4th, 2025.  AT 1:30:00 P.M.  ANY QUESTIONS  SEEING NONE ON THE MOTION TO CONTINUE ON FEBRUARY 4th, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.  AND THOSE  OPPOSED SAY NAY SS.  THE MOTION CARRIES.  NEXT ITEM IS LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVE REPORT RELATED TO SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.  I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME TES TIFFANY FROM CPED TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.  WELCOME. >>  THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.  MY NAME IS TIFFANY, A SENIOR PROJECT COORDINATOR IN RESIDENTIAL FINANCE AT CPED.  I AM BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH A REPORT IN RESPONSE TO THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVE THAT WAS APPROVED ON OCTOBER 17th OF LAST YEAR.  THAT DIRTIVE ASKED STAFF TO REPORT BACK ON THE STANDARD PROCESSES REQUIRED OF PROVIDERS REQUESTING FUNDING FOR TRANTIONAL HOUSING FACILITIES, BOARD AND LODGE FACILITIES, AND EMERGENCY SHELTERS.  ADDITIONALLY STAFF WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE AN ORVIEW OF THE FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR THESE ACTIVITIES.  THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND HENNEPIN COUNTY WORKED CLOSELY TOGETHER TO COORDINATE AND SUPPORT THE HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE SYSTEM IN HENNEPIN COUNTY.  THE COUNTY ACTS AS LEAD SETTING STRATEGY AND PRIORITIES.  THE CITY WORKS TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING UNITS AND FUND SHELTER CAPITAL.  THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS HAS HISTORICALLY HAD A SINGLE SOURCE AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS.  THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT REFERRED TO COMMONLY AS ESG.  THE FEDERAL ESGROGRAM PROVIDES FUNDS THAT CAN BE USED FOR A VARIETY OF PURPOSES.  AND THE CITY HAS UTILIZED THESE FUNDS HISTORICALLY TO SUPPORT EMERGENCY SHELTER CAPITAL, STREETOUT REACH, AND RAPID REHOUSING.  FOR SHELTER -- EXCUSE ME, FOR EMERGENCY SHELTER, THE CITY HAS TYPICAL ISSUED AN RFP IN THE SPRING OF EACH YEAR.  INTERESTED APPLICANTS APPLY BY THE STATED DEADLINE, AND CITY STAFF, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COUNTY AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS, WOU EVALUATE THE INCOMING PROPOSALS AGAINST SEVERAL FACTORS AND BRING FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.  FOR ESG STREET OUT REACH AND RAPID REHOUSING.  THE CITY AND HENNEPIN COUNTY HAVE ENTERED IO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS TO FACILITATE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THESE FUNDS.  HENNEPIN COUNTY STAFF HAVE THE EXPERIENCE AND THE SOCIAL SERVICE EXPERTISE TO BETTER MONITOR STREET OUT REACH AND RAD REHOUSING.  THESE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS ARE RENEWED ANNUALLY WITH EACH AWARD OF ESG FUNDING THAT THE CITY RECEIVES.  THE AGREEMENTS ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, ALONG WITH THE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT ARE BROUGHT FORWARD BY STAFF.  THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC CHANG THE LANDSCAPE SIGNIFICANTLY.  UNDER THE C.A.R.E.S. ACT, THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RECEIVED MORE THAN $13 MILLION IN ESG CV FUND.  MORE THAN $40 MILLION IN ARPA, AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS, AND JUST UNDER $10 MILLION IN CDPG CV.  PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC, THE CITY'S ANNUAL ESG AWARD AVERAGED JUST UNDER $1MILLION.  OUR PARTNERS AT HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE STATE RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES UNDER THE C.A.R.E.S. ACT, AS SHOWIN THE TABLE THAT IS ATTACHED TO YOUR REPORT.  THIS FLUX OF PANDEMIC-ERA FUNDING ALLOWED THE CITY AND COUNTY TO FUND SOME ACTIVIES THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY ELIGIBLE.  SUCH AS CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SHEER FACILITIES, WHICH IS NOT A PERMITTED USE UNDER THE REGUL ESG PROGRAM.  OUR GOAL WITH THESE FUNDS WAS TO GET THE MONEY OUT E DOOR AND INTO THE COMMUNITY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.  SO WITH THAT GOAL IN MIND, THE CITY MADE FUNDING AVAILABLE THROUGH BOTH DIRECT AWARDS TO PROVIDERSND TO PUBLIC RFP PROCESSES.  AND BECAUSE THE PANDEMIC ERA FUNDING ALLOWED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SHELTER FACILITIES, THE CITY DID NOT INVEST AS MUCH OF THE REGULAR ESG IN CAPITAL PROJECTS.  INSTEAD RECENTLY THE CITY HAS INVESTED ITS ESG FUNDING IN SHELTER OPERATIONS, ESSENTIAL SERVICES, RAPID REHOUSING, AND STREET OUTREACH.  AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THESE PANDEMIC ERA FUNDS, STAFF EXPECT TO RETURN TO PREPANDEMIC FUNDING LEVELS WITH ONLY ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS IN REGULAR ESG AS AN ELIGIBLE SOURCE FOR SHELTER CAPITAL, STREET OUT REACH, SERVICE ESSENTIALS, AND RAPID REHOUSING.  OF COURSE, WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE COUNTY IN DETERMINING THE BEST BALANCES IN THESE AREAS.  HAPPTO STAND FOR QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE ANY. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT PRESENTATION.  ARE THERE ANY COUNCILMEMBERSHO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?  COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN. >> THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.  AND REALLY GRATEF TO THOSE WHO WROTE THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVE, AS WELL.  I WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE A TIMELINE ON WHEN YOU EXPECT THIS YEAR'S FUNDING TO GO OUT.  AND WHAT C CRITERIA YOU WOULD USE TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED. >> FOR 2024, WE HAVE THE REGULAR ES AND I THINK IT WAS -- >>  2025.  FOR 2025? >>  OH, WE DON'T HAVE THE 2025 ALLOCATION YET FROM HUD. >> OH!  I SEE.  OKAY.  SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. >> JUST LAST CYCLE, YOU APPROVED ALLOCATIONS FOR THE 2024.  THE CITY IS JUST NOW GETTING TO WORK PUTTING THE 2024 ALLOCATION TO USE. >> OKAY.  AND SO WHAT'S THE TIMELINE ON THAT 2025 ALLOCATION FROM HUD? >>  UMM, AS SOON AS WE HAVE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT FROM HUD, I WILL GET A BUDGET FROM THE PERSON WHO GIVES ME MY BUDGET.  AND THEN WE WORK INTERNALLY TO DETERMINE WHAT THE LEVELS OF FUNDING SHOULD BE IN THOSE AREAS THAT I TALKED ABOUT.  AND WE ALSO CHAT WITH FOLKS AT THE COUNTY TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE FUNDING LEVELS SHOULD BE. >> OKAY.  THANKS.  AND THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION, WHAT CRITERIA YOU USE TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSALS.  AS FAR AS WHO TO ADMINISTER TT FUNDING TO.  OR WHICH ORGANIZATIONS TO GIVE IT TO. >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CITAL PROPOSALS OR ARE YOU TALKING PRIMARILY ABOUT RAPID REHOUSING? >>  I GUESS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, CAPITAL PROPOSALS, IN PARTICULAR. >> FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSES, CAPITAL PROPOSALS.  ESG HAS A VARIETY OF REQREMENTS.  LET'S SEE, THE PROVIDER HAS TO ALLOW FOR A PERSON WHO IS CURRELY OR FORMERLY HOMESS TO PARTICIPATE IN DECISION MAKING.  USUALLY IT MEAN OS AN BOARD OF SOME TYPE.  THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO MAINTAIN THE TAILT AS A HOMELESS SHELTER FOR A PERIOD OF THREE OR 10 YEARS.  THAT'S TYPICALLY BASED ON A FORMULA.  WHAT ARE THE OTHEREQUIREMENTS?  THERE TYPICALLY HAS TO BE A DECLARATION SIGNED.  AND RESIDENTS OF EMERGENCY SHELTERS DO NOT TYPICALLY SIGN LEASES OR ANY TYPE OF OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT. >> OKAY. >>  THAT'S JUST A HANDFUL.  I'M SURE HUD HAS A BETTER CHEAT SHEET. >> OKAY.  THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION.  >>  COUNCILMEMBER RAINVIL. >> THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT.  I WAS ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THIS.  SO WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY IS, TYPICALLY WE HAVE RFP PCESS TO ALLOCATE MONEY.  AND THE REASON THIS CAME  BE BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO HOUSING PROVIDERS THAT DID NOT FOLLOW THAT PROCESS.  AND RECEIVED FUNDING FROM US FOR THAT.  YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION WHICH IS WE WERE DEPARTING FROM THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS TO HELP.  WE CHOSE TWO WINNS, SO TO SPEAK.  THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.  TNK YOU.  WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO OF THE COMMITTEE.  NEXT PERSON I'LL CALL ON IS COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN.  I GUESS JUST EDITORIAL HERE.  I HOPE WE RECEIVE HUD FUNDING IN 2025 BECAUSE IT'S NOT A GUARANTEE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO, WELCOME. >> THANK YOU.  IAS ONE OF THE CHAIRS OF THIS, AS WELL.  JUST TO BE HERE AND RECVE IT FIRSTHAND.  IF I READ THE REPORT CORRECTLY, WE CAN NO LONGER USE ESG TO FUND BUILDING OR MAINTAINING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.  IS THAT RIGHT? >>  THAT'S CORRECT. >> WE'RE LEFT WH SHELTER OPERATIONS, STREET OUT REACH, AND RAPID REHOUSING AS ELIGIBLE USES. >> AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES. >> AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES.  ARE WE BACK TO $1MILLION IS THE ESG MONEY?  THE REPORT ALSO NOTES THE CITY'S PANDEMIC FUNDS WERE PROVIDED IN DIRECT AWARD WITH COMMUNITY INPUT OR BY RFP.  WHAT PROCESS -- I READ IN A REPORT ABOUT HOW WE MAKE THE DECISIONS IN COLLABORAON WITH THE COUNTY.  THAT'S IMPORTANT SINCE THEY ARE THE MAJOR SOCIAL SERVICES PROVIDER.  IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS OF DIRECT AWARDS WE WERE DOING THE COUNTY WAS BEING PT OF THAT CONVERSATION.  >>  CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO, I'M NOT SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING YR QUESTION.  CAN YOU ASK IT A DIFFERENT WAY. >> YEAH.  SOME PARTS OF THEREPOT COMMUNITY INPUT BEING HOW WE DETERMINE WHO WOULD WHO OR WHAT PROJECT WOULD GET AWARDED AN RFP.  IN OTHER PARTS IT'S ABOUT COMPETITIVE RFP PROCESS.  WHAT MAKES SOMETHINGO THROUGH ONE PATH OR THE OTHER? >>  MY ANSWEN MY EXPERIENCE, ALL OF OUR PUBLIC PROCESSES INVOLVE COMMUNITY INPUT AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER.   OFTENTIMES THE COMMUNITY INPUT IS, AS I PUT IT, ON THE BACK END.  IT HELPS INFORM THE RFP DOCUMENT AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN PROPOSALS.  OTHER TIMES THE COMMUNITY INPUT IS ON THE FRONTEND. E'RE ACTUALLY BRINGING PEOPLE IN WHO CE HAVE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF HOMELESSNESS TO FIGURE OUT WHICH PROPOSALS IS THE BEST.  I'VE NEVER BEEN, YOU KNOW FORTUNATELY, I'VE NEVER BEEN HOMELESS.  SO LOOKING AT A PROPOSAL FROM A PROVIDER FOR STREET OUT REACH, I MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST SET OF EYES TO BE LOOKING AT IT.  SO WE DO WORK OFTENTIMES WITH FOLKS WHO HAD LIVED EXPERIENCE. >>HE POINT IS, ON THE FRONTEND OR THE BACK END OF A FORMAL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROCESS, MULTIPLE -- WHERE THERE'S A PROCESS WE GO THROUGH IT INVOLVES COMMUNITY INPUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE.  MAYBE ON THE FRONTEND TO DEVELOP WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN THE RFP.  MAYBE ON THE BACK END TO EVALUATE THE RFP RESPONSES THAT WE'VE RECEIVED.  RIGHT.  >>  YES, THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.. >> IT LOOKS LIKE MR. PORT MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE IS -- THERE WAS ALSO DOING THE INFLUX OF COVID RELIEF RESOURCES.  PARTICULARLY ARPA DOLLARS.  THERE WAS A PHASE F WHERE THE CITY'S LEADERSHIP THROUGH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, SOLICITED COMMUNITY INPUT.  AND THAT PART WAS THROUGH INTRODUCTION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THOSE RESOURCES.  SOME DOLLARS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO LP SUPPORT THE EFFORT.  LIKE TIFFANY SAID, THERE'S ALSO WHEN WE'RE ISSUING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, WE GET FEEDBACK THAT HELPS INFORM THE GUIDELINES AND THAT PROCESS ALSO IS INFORMED THROUGH CITY' RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BODY. >>  IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR.  WHAT COUNCILMEMBER RAINVILLE W GETTING AT.  CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND THE STANDARD PROCESS OF ANY SERVI PROVIDER REQUESTING ANY FUNDS TO MAKE CRITICAL REPAIRS FOR BOARD AND LODGE FACILITIES OR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING OR EMERGENCY SHELTERS.  IS THERE A STANDARD PROCESS TO REQUEST FUNDINGS FOR THOSE THINGS THROUGH THE ESG FUNDS. >> TYPICALLY ALL OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS HAVE GONE THROUGH A FORMAL RFP PROCESS.  AND THOSE DECISIONS OR PROVIDERS THEN MAKE REQUESTS THROUGH THAT MEDIUM.  AND DECISIONS ARE MADE AFTER EVALUATION WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS.  I WOULD REMIND YOU ALL THAT THE CITY IS ONE OF SEVERAL SOURCES OR ENTITIES THAT PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR THIS EFFORT.  AND THE COUNTY DOES SEEM -- AND THAT GOES THROUGH.   TYPICALLY GOES THROUGH A REQUEST AR FOR PROPOSALS PROCESS. >> WE'VE HAD TWO INSTANCES THAT DIDN'T GO THROUGH ANY ST OF COMMUNITY OR CITY PROCESS.  I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE -- I BELIEVE THOSE ACTIONS WERE PROBABLY COUNCILMEMBER-DRIVEN DIRECTLY.   EU8 I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF OUR CITY STAFF, YOU BOTH, ARE INVOLVED.  WHAT IS OUR PLAN IN THE FUTURE? >>  IT'S OUR HOPE THAT THROUGH THE CHAIR, COUNCILMEMBER PALMISANO, IT'S OUR HOPE THAT IT'S AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS.  BUT IN THE EVENT YOU ALL AS POLICY MAKERS ELECT TO GO DOWN A PATH AND REACH OUT TO STAFF FOR SOME FEEDBACK OR GUIDANCE, WITH WE WOULD BE READY TO PROVIDE IT.  IT'S OUR HOPE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE A TRANSPART PROCESS. >> THANK YOU.  IT'S MY HOPE, TOO, MR. CHAIR.  I FIND THIS ONEOFF WAY OF DOING THINGS DISJOINTED.  WE HAVE EXPERT CITA GOOD ABILITY TO WEIGH IN ON IT.  I HOPE WE'RE USING CAPITAL NEEDS INVENTORIES TO HELP DETERMINE OUR BEST USE OF CITY RESOURCES IN THE FUTURE.  THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMB CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.  AND THANK YOU, DIRECTOR PORT, FOR COMING UP HERE AND JUST ANSWERING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.  I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.  I HAVE SOME COMMENTS.  I THINK THIS IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THE WAY IN WHICH COUNCILMEERS AND CITY STAFF CAN WORK BETTER TOGETHER.  OPEN TRANSPARENT PROCESS.  I WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE TO GROW IT WITH YOU.  AND I KNOW WE HAVE SOME FRIENDS HERE AT T COUNTY THAT ALSO IS SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO SEE HAPPEN.  ESPECIALLYE WE'RE IN A HOUSING ARE CRISIS.  AND WE'RE IN A MOMENT WHERE THE CITY ITSELF HAS TAKEN POSITION OF DECLARING UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY.  I THINK WHILE THERE MIGHT NOT BE SPECIFIC PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR US FIGURING OUT OUR RELATIONSHIP AND ACTING QUICKLYS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT.  AND WHILE SOME COUNCILMEMBERS SPITE LATITUDE ANLONGITUDE TO THEIR OPINION MAY THINK WHAT THIS BODY HAS DONE IN THE PAST HAS BEEN DISJOINTED, I SEE IT AS A REFLECTION OF RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY.  AND USING OUR POLICY MAKING POLICIES AND LEGISLATIVE POWERS THAT WE HAVE TO ACT IN A WAY THAT IS RESPONSIVE TO COMMUNITY.  TT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.  I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PROCESS THAT WE SHOULD EMPLOY ALL AROUND IN EVERY SINGLE CASE OR EVEN IN OTHER ISSUES, BUT I THINK UNIQUELY LOOKING AT THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN, WHEN IT COMES TO UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNS, WE WERE LOOKING AT AN EMERGENCY.  WE NEED TO ACT AND I THINK NOW THAT WE HAVE HINIGHT 20/20 AND THERE ARE INSTANCES THAT MIGHT APPEAR IN THE FUTURE, WE CAN KIND OF GO BACK TO THE RELATIONSHIPS WE HAVE WITH ONE ANOTHER AND HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS AND SET OUT A PROCESS THAT MIGHT FEEL MORE COHESIVE.  I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME FOR MAKING THIS PRESENTATION.  AND I THINK OUR WORK AROUND ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS AS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS ONLY BECOMEORE IMPORTANT AS COUNCILMEMBER JENKINS SO APTLY PUT.  CONSIDERING THE IMPACTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THIS NEW TRP ADMINISTRATION. >>  THANK YOU.  STAFF, THK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.  AND JUST US REMIND, WE'RE IN CRISIS.  UMM, WE ARE -- YESTERDAY I WAS H THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT MINNESOTA RESOURCE CENTER WHO OPENED THEIR GYM FOR THE FOLKS THAT HAVE ENCAMPMENTS.  THEIR ENCAMPMENTS HAVE BURNED DOWN.  AND IT IS -- WE ARE IN CRISIS WHEN IT COMES TO HSING.  THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS IN THE FRIGID COLD WEATHER THAT ARE STAYING THERE.  AND ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD AND WHEN I TALK TO SOME OF THE VOLUNTEERS THAT WERE THERE, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, HOSPITALS WERE EVEN SENDING PEOPLE.  THERE WAS A CENTER THERE.  EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ABLEO GET THE PLACE TWO WEEKS AGO.  IT'S JUST THAT EVEN THE HOSPITALS DON'T KNOW WHERE TO SEND THE PEOPLE AFTER DISCHARGE.  SO WE GOT TO CONTINUE TO THOS HELP THOSE THAT NEED THE MOST HELP.  I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYONE SLEEPING OUTSIDE IN THE COLD WTHER.  I WANT TO THANK THE CITY STAFF AND THE COUNTY TO SUPPORT EFFORTS TO HELP THE INDIVIDUALS. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.  IF I MAY, WE CANNOT DO THIS ALONE.  WE HAVE EXCELLENT PARTNERS, NOT ONLY AT THE COUNTY, BUT THERE ARE GREAT PROVIDERS THAT WORK IN THIS SPACE DAY IN AND DAY OUT.  I WANT TO JUST SHOW APPRECIATION FOR THAT.  >>  THANK YOU.  SEEING NO OER MEMBERS WISHING TO SPEAK, I'LL ASK THE CLERKS TO GO AND FILE -- RECEIVE AND FILE ON THAT ITEM.  OH, I'M SORRY.  COUNCILMEMBER RAINVILLE. >> THANK YOU.  DIRECTOR PORT, THANK YOU FOR THE KIND WORDS WITH OUR COUNTY PROVIDERS.  I SEE YOU'RE HERE TODAY.  THANK YOU FOR COMING OVER.  YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB.  WE APPRECIATE IT.  IT'S JUST SO HARD WITH THE FEW RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE COMPARE TO THE NEED.  WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR HOW TO AM KATE THE RESO -- ALLOCATE THE RESOURCES IN THE MOST TRANSPARENT MANNER.  CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORK.  THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.  WONDERFUL.  THANK YOU EVERYONE.  SEEING NO FURER BUSINESS BEFORE US, WITH NO OBJECTION, I'LL DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED.  THANK YOU.