>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUSINESS, HOUSING AND ZONING COMMITTEE R MARCH 4, 2025. I'M JAMAL OSMAN, AND I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE. I WANT TO REMIND ALL MEMBERS, STAFF AND PUBLIC
THAT THESE MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE TO ENABLEREATER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. THIS BROADCAST INCLUDES REAL-TIME CAPTIONING AS A FURTHER METHOD TO INCREASE ACCESSIBILI OF OUR PROCEEDINGS TO THE COMMUNITY.
THEREFORE, ALL SPEAKERS NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THE RATE OF THEIR SPEECH. W ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO MODERATE THEIR SPEED AND THE CLARITY OF THEIR COMMENTS. WE'LL BE USING SPEAKER MANAGEMENT FOR THIS MEETING, SO PLEASE SIGN UP. AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL TO VERIFY A
QUORUM. >> COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE. >> PRESENT. >> CASHMAN. >> PRESENT. >> JENKINS IS ABNT. CHOWDHURY. >> PRESENT. >> VICE CHAIR ELLISON. >> HERE. >> AND CHAIR OSMAN. >> PRESENT. >> THERE ARE FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM O OUR AGENDA, WE WILL FIRST TAKE OUR CONSENT AGENDA WHICH ITEMS 6 THROUGH 18. ITEM 6 IS APPROVING
TWO LIQUOR LICENSE. ITEM 7 IS PROOFING 11 GAM LING LICEN RENEWALS. -- 9 IS AUTHORIZING
CONTRACT ATIAWATHA AND LAKE BRIDGE. 10 IS A PASSAGE OF RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FALL OF 2024 BROWNFIELD GRANTS. 11
APPROVING GUIDELINES FOR BRIDGE FUND FOR DANCE PROGRAM. -- OPERATION FOR THE CENTER FOR MUSIC. -- ITEM 14 IS SETTING A
PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 20, 2025, TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE -- TO CONSIDER A HOST APPROVAL FOR METRO SCHOOL
COLLEGE PREP. ITEM 16 IS REFERRING TOTAFF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE ZONING MAPS. ITEM 17 IS REFERRING STAFF TOHE SUBJECT
MATTER OF ORDINANCE CODE. -- FOR MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE MEMBERS? I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. NO
QUESTIONS. ITEM 9, WE'VE GOT A CONTRACT WIT THE DEPARTMENT OF MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION AND MINNESOTA MURALS. THIS IS GOING TO BE A MASSIVE MURAL. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE SQUARE OTAGE. IT'S A BIG CONTRACT WITH, YOU KNOW, A LOCAL ARTS ORGANIZATION THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE A LITTLE
BIT OF HISTORY WITH WAY, WAY BACK WITH ONE OF THE ARTISTS WHO ARE INVOLVED THERE. I HAVEN'T WORKED WITH GOODSPACE THEMSELVES. B IT'S REALLY EXCITING. ART IS CULTU. AND WE WANT TO BE A CITY THAT CREATES AND GENERATES GOOD SPACES FOR
FOLKS TO LIVE AND ENJOY. SO I JUST WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR BRINGING SUCH AN INCREDIBLE, YOU KNOW, FUTURE ART AMENITY TO THE CITY. SO THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMA >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. AND YEAH, VE CHAIR ELLISON, IT'S
1500 SQUARE FEET. SO THAT'S MASSIVE AND INCREDIBLE. BUT I WANTED TO TK ABOUT THE BRIDGE FUND FOR DANCE PROGRAM THAT ARTS AN CULTURAL AFFAIRS IS BRINGING FORWARD. THE GUIDELINES HERE IN FRONT OF US TODAY. THIS IS A DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE COLE
CENTER CLOSING LAST YEAR, AND WI AMELORATE -- SO THAT THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE GRANT AGREEMENTS AND SUPPORT THE DANCE COMMUNITY. ARTS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION. AND TS IS A
HISTORIC CITY-OWNED THEATER. THE COLE CENTER IN THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT THAT WE'RE REALLY COMMITTED TO SEEING RESTORED AND REVITALIZED. TNK YOU. >> THANK YOU. SEEING NO ONE ELSE, I WILL MOVE APPROVAL FOR CONSENT AGENDA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVEIT, AND THE MOTION CARRIES. I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VETAW WHO IS HERE WITH US. NOW WE WILL PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION O
OUR AGENDA. WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN APPLICATION FROM TROPICO COLOMBIAN STREET FOOD.
>> I AM LEAD LICENSE INSPECTOR KRISTINA STICHTER. I'M PRESENTING AN APPLICATION FROM TROPICO COLOMBIAN FOOD LLC. THE
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN ON SALE PUBLISHER WITH SUNDAY SALES LIMITED ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE LOCATED ON THE FIRST FOR OF A MULTI-LEVEL BUILDING. THEY CAN SERVE 40 PATRONS. THEIR HOURS WILL BE SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY
11 A.M. TO 9 P.M. AND FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, 11 A.M. TO 10 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 1 FEBRUARY 10TH, '21 NOTICES WERE SENT. NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE
DOWNTOWN WEST ASSOCIATION, DOWNTOWN COUNCIL, AND COUNCIL ME NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY. THERE AREO ISSUES CONCERNING THE BUSINESS OR ISSUANCE OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSES AND CONSUMER SERVICES DIVISION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF
AN ON SALE LIQUOR WITH SUNDAY SAS, LIMITED ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE FOR TROPICO. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION A THIS TIME. I WILL STAND FOR ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH F THAT PRESENTATION. I WILL PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST. AND
SEE WHO SIGNED UP. I HAVE -- IS IT EMILY OR EIMY. WELCOME. >> HI, EVERYBODY. YES, IT'S
EIMY, I'EIMY MORARU. I'M THE OWR OF THE TROPICO. I'M REALLY EXCITED TO BE PART OF THE MINNEAPOLIS DOWNTOWN. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER KATIE CASHMAN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. I
JUSTANTED TO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN TO THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT FOR OPENING THIS WOMEN-OWNED COLOMBIAN RESTAURANT. THERE'S BEEN S MUCH GOOD FEEDBACK ALREADY. AND I THINK WITH THE LIQUOR LICENSE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO STEP UP AND
TAKE ON A WHOLE NEW CLIENTELE. IT'S OPENING IN THE ART GALLERY AS WELL. I WANT TO WISH YOU ALL THE BEST AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING YOUR VISION TO THE 7th WARD. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING
NONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SEEING NO ONE ELSE WH COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN'S MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION
CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE WILL TURN QUASI JUDICIAL PORTION OF OUR AGENDA. I'LL GIVE REPRESENTATIVE TOTAL OF SEVEN MINUTES TO SPEAK. I'LL ALSO GIVE TWO MINUTES FOR ANYBODY WHO
SIGNED UP FOR THE NEXT ITEM. THIS ITEM IS A LICENSE HEARING INVOLVING PRAEGS OF 22 RENTAL DWELLING LICENSES HELD BY HUSSAIN KHAN AND MIR ALI FOR PROPERTIESOCATED IN THE CITY
AS DESCRIBED IN THE RECORD. I'LL ASK CITY ATTORNEY FUSSY. >> THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THIS IS A QUADI JUDICIAL LICENSING HEARING.
STAFF IS REQUIRED TO SPEAK TO THE RECORD AND RECOMMENDATION THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE MATTER. THE LICENSEES OR THE LICENSE HOLDERS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS HEARING AND THEIR RIGHT TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEER HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE DO SO. IN THIS MATTER, THE LICENSEES WERE PROVIDED NICE AND AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE STAFF COMMENDATION TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS THROUGH A HEARING AS PROVIDED I SECTION 244.1960 OF THE CODE. THE LICENSEES DID EXERCISE THAT RIGHT TO FILE AN
PEAL AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MATTER WAS HEARD BEFORE AITY HEARING OFFICER. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF L AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS COMMITTEE. WHICH NOW HAS FINAL AUTHORITY TO CONFIRM, MODIFY OR
REVERSE THE RECOMMENDATION. -- LICENSE HOLDERS OR THEIR REPRESTATIVE BUT SHOULD TAKE NO FURTHER EVIDENCE. I ALSO WANTED TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. SO IT'S ONLY THE PARTIES TO THE MATTER THAT ARE PERMITTED TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE. WITH THAT BEING SAID,
I BELIEVE THAT MY COLLEAGUE, MR. JO JOE JENSON IS HERE TO PRESENT. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIAT
>> YES, WELCOME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR OSMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JOE JENSON. I'M AN ASSTANT CITY ATTORNEY. AND I'M
HERE BECAUSE I REPRESENTED THEM IN THE ADMINISTRATIVEHEARING. WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HEANG OFFICER TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON 22 DWELLING LICENSES HELD BY THE APPELLANTS, HUSSAIN KHAN, AND MIR ALI. THE CITY APPROVED THREE
DIFFERENT GROUNDS TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THESE RENTAL LICENSES. FIRST, THAT THE APPELLANTS VIOLATED SECTION 244.1960 WHICH STATES IN RELEVANT PART THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES
OR ASSESSMENTS ON THE DWELLING. THE CITY APPROVED AT THE HEARING THAT THE APPELLANTS OWE DELINQUENT TAXES TO HENNEPIN COUNTY. AND HUSSAIN KHAN
ADMITTED ON THE STAND TO THE SAME. SECOND, VIOLATION WHICH READS IN PART THAT THE LICENSEE SHOULD HE NO UNPAID FINES RELATED TO THEIR RENTAL PROPERTY. THE CITY PROVED ATHE HEARING THAT THE APPELLANTS OWE
TO THE CITY IN UNPAID ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS, REINSPECTION FEES, AND NUISANCE OR SNOW ABATEMENTS. SPECIFICALLY ON NINE SEPARATE BASIS. FIRST,
THAT THE APPELLANTS HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL HISTORY OF CODE VIOLATIONS AT THEIR PROPERTIES TOTALING 223 VIOLATIONS IN TWO YEARS. SECOND, THA THE APPELLANTS FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THEIRROPERTIES APPROPRIATELY RESULTED IN THE CITY UNDERTAKING
32 NUISANCE OR SW ABATEMENTS AT THEIR PROPERTIES IN TWO YEARS. THIRD, THAT THE APPELLANTS FAILURE -- 26 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS IN TWO YEARS. FOURTH, THAT THAT SAME FAILURE TO REMEDY VIOLATIONS IN
A TIMELY MANNER RESULTED IN THE ISSUANCE OF 14 REINSPECTION FEES AT THEIR PROPERTIES IN TWO YEARS. FIFTH, THAT THE FAILURE TO PAY FEES ON TIME RESULTED IN 42 LATE FEES IN THE PAST TWO YEARS. SIXth, THAT THE FAILURE
TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTIES APPROPRIATELY OR REMEDY THOSE VIOLATIONS IN A TIMELY MANNER RESULTED IN THE CITY HAVING TO GO TO COURT ON BEHALF OF THE TENANTS IN THOSE BUILDING ON FI
IN 2024 ALONE RENTED UNITS IN CONDEMNED BUILDINGS ON THREE OCCASIONS AND THEN FRUSTTED THE -- AS REQUIRED BY OUR CITY ORDINANCES. EIGHTH, THAT AS OF NOVEMBER 5TH, WHICH IS WHEN THIS
PROCESS BEGAN, THE APPELLANTS HAD A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OPEN CODE VIOLATIONS AT THEIR PROPERTIES. 45 OPEN VIOLATIONS AT THAT TIME. AND LASTLY, THE CITY HAS UNDERTAKEN REASONABLE EFFORTS TO SECURE VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE. THERE HAVE BN
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THESE TWO LICENSE HOLDERS GOING BACK TO 2023 OR LATE 2022, AND NO AGREEMEN WAS ABLE TO BE REACHED. THE CITY'S MOST RECENT COMMUNICATION, WHICH WAS BEFORE THIS BEGAN WENT UNANSWERED. MOVING NOW TO THE CONDITIONS
THEMSELVES, I'LL GIVE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW. BUT A COPY OF THAT AGREEMENT IS AVAILABLE IN YOUR PACKET. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL IF NEED BE. BUT IN SHORT, THE FIRST CONDITION THAT THE APPELLANTS COMPLY WITH THE RENTAL LICENSING
STANDARDS IN THE CITY ORDINANCES, INCLUDING THE ONES THEY'RE CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF SECOND, THE APPELLANTS HAVE TO AGREE TO FOLLOW THEIR SPONSIBILITIES UNDER STATE LAW, WHICH IS IN CHAPTER 504B. THIRD, THE APPELLANTS WILL AGREE TO ACCEPT OFFICIAL
COMMUNICATIONS VIA EMAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF, AND RESPOND TO THESE EMAILS WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS, AND UPDATE THOSE IN TIMELY MANNER IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES. FOURTH, THE APPELLANTS MUST RESOLVE ANY
APPLICATIONS BEFORE -- FIFTH, THE APPELLANTS MUST AGREE TO ALLOW IN-PERS PHYSICAL INSPECTIONS FOR ALL PROPERTIES FOR CODE VIOLATIONS, AND BE PHY INSPECTIONS. SIXth, THE APPELLANT MUST COOPERATE WITH
ALL SCHEDULED INSPECTIONS. RDON ME. I APOLOGIZE. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO CONDITION 5 FOR ONE MOMENT. THE HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED A SLIGHT AMENDMENT TO THIS. WHERE IF THE
APPELLANTS ARE OTHERWISE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE CONDITIONS AFTER 18 MONTHS,HAT THE CITY RELAX THAT REQUIREMENT FOR IN-PERSON INSPECTIONS TO TERMINE WHETHER VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN CLOSED, AND TO ALLOW SOME PHOTOGRAPH OR VID EVIDENCE AS PROOF OF COMPLETION.
THE SEVENth CONDITION IS THAT THE APPELLANTS MUST RESOLVE ALL CODEIOLATIONS BY THE DUE DATE GIVEN IN THE NOTICE. ANY EXTENSIONS AT THE DUE DATE ARE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE INSPECTOR AS ALWAYS. EIGHTH, THE
APPELLANTS MUST ATTEND A WORKSHOP. THE NINTH CONDITION THE HRING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STRIKING, AND THE DEPARTMENT AGREES. THE TENTH ISHAT THE APPELLANT MUST SUBMIT A SATISFACTORY WRITTEN MANAGEMENT PLAN TO THE CITY WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER IMPOSITION OF THESE
CONDITIONS. AND THEN GOES INTO SOME DETAIL OF WHAT THE CITY MIGHT BE LOOKING FOR IN THAT. ELENth, TEMPORARY HOUSING MUST HAVE NO OPEN CODE VIOLATIONS, AND MUST HAVE AN ACTIVE DWELLING
RENTAL LICENSE. AND LASTLY, CONDITION 12, WHICH THE HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED AMENDING WOULD NOW READ ALL PAYMENTS OF DELINQUENT TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE IMPOSITION OF THESE CONDITIONS. NO NEW TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS, DELINQUENT TAXES OR
ASSESSMENTS MAY BE ACCRUED. AND OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION, AN OPTION FOR THE APPELLANTS NEGOTIATE MORE FAVORABLE TERMS WITH THE CITY AT A LATER DATE. THE HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED THAT THESE CONDITIONS BE ACTIVE FOR A PERD OF 36 MONTHS.
TODAY, THE DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING THA THESE CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED AS RECOMMENDED BY THE HEARING OFFICER. I WOULD NOW STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I THINK W QUESTIONS A LITTLE LATER ON. BUT I WANT TO GIVE A TIME FOR
APPELLANT AND THE REPRESENTATIVE IF THEY ARE HERE. I'M GOING TO PROCEED TO OPEN THE HEARING AND SEE IF THE OWNER OF THE PROPTIES HERE, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. WELCOME. YOU
HAVE SEVEN MINUTES. >> WELCOME. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. TO ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. I JUST WANT IT HIGHLIGHT A FEW THIN. THE PURPOSE OF ME TO BE HERE IS NOT TO CHANGE YOUR DECISION ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS. IT'S JUST TO
ASK FOR MODIFICATION. THE MODIFICATION -- >> COUNC MEMBER I'M SORRY. COULD YOU RECOGNIZE YOUR NAME. >> SOREE OTHER. SORRY. I'M HUSSAIN KHAN, I'M THE PROPERTY MANAGER.2-PROPERTY PORTFOLIO,
WHICH I'D LIKE TO ADD MOST OF THAT PORTFOLIO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOOD CAUSE. THERE IS A FEW DIFFERENT GOOD CAUSES THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST ASSERTED THAT I WANT TOADDRESS, AND I WILL TRY TO BE VERY CONCISE AND CONSIDERATE OF YOUR TIME.
HOWER, I JUST WANT TO START WITH MY GOAL WHICH IS TO GET YOUR CONSIDERATION TO MODIFY THE PLAN. I'M NOT ASKING FOR YOU TO CHANGE THE PLAN OR HEAR FACTS ON THE PREVIOUS HISTORY. I JUST WANT THE PLAN MODIFIED TO ONE
YEAR. BECAUSE THREE YEARS IS VERY EXCESSIVE, AND IT IS EXCESSIVE DUE TO ESE FACTS. WE HAVE BEEN MANAGING PROPERTIES IN MINNEAPOLIS, ME AND MY PREDECESSOR FOR OVER 50 YEARS.
ME ABOUT0 ODD YEARS. AND I'VE WORKED WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY AND THIS HAS BEEN REALLY GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE. AND CERTAIN PEOPLE WE HAVE GOTTEN A VE, YOU KNOW, RIGID AND STERN AND ZEALOUS EVEN APPLICATION OF THE
CODE AND DISCRETION. AND THIS IS EVEN RESULTED IN A LOT OF ADVERSITY TO TENANTS. I COULD POINT TO A RECENT NOTICE BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT NEW FACTS. JUST IT SEEMS EVERY TIME WE GO INTO AN AGREEMENT, THERE'S
ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES PUT ON OUR DOOR TO MAKE THIS UNSUCCESSFUL. AND THIS IS WHY I FEAR A THREE-YEAR ENFORCEMENT OF THIS PLAN IS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE ON THEIR TEAM THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW,
ADVERSE INTENTIONS. AND THIS IS PROVEN BY THE RECENT LETTER OF THIS HEARING. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A LOT OF DEROGATORY STATEMENTS ON THIS LETTER TO OUR TENANTS OF THE HEARING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN LEFT ALONE. IT
COULD HAVE BEEN INFORMATIVE TO OUR TENANTS ABOUT A HEARING. A LOT OF PEOPLE THIS MONTH HAVE STOPPED PAYING RENT. THERE'S PEOPLE WHO HAVE MOVED OUT BASED ON THIS DEROGATORY STATEMENT. THIS IS WHY WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH PEOPLE WHO COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOME OF THESE
LOOPHOLES AND USE IT TO ULTIMATELY CONDEMN ALL THESE FAMILIES IN THE PORTFOLIO FILLED WITH PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NO VIOLATIONS, THAT HAD NONE OF THE CONDEMNATION -- EXCUSE ME, THE GOOD CAUSE ASSERTIONS THAT THE
ATTORNEY MADE. AND YOU KNOW, BESIDES SOME OF THEM MAY HAVE HAD SOME PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENT AND FINES. BUT THESE WERE VERY EXCESSIVE. THESE WER BEING PUT ON -- I MEAN, IF I MAY CORRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY, IT WASN'T THREE CONDEMNATIONS, IT
WAS TWO CONDEMNATIONS THAT WAS ASSERTED AT THE CONDITIONS HEARING. AND ONE OF THEM WAS PREVIOUSLY REVERSED BY THE CITY. SO THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IS, YOU KNOW, THE FACTS ARE CLEAR THAT THE CITY HAD THE INFORMATION THAT THE OTHER TWO
CONDEMNATIONS HAD TANTS IN THEM. OCCUPANTS IN THEM THAT DID NOT WANT TO BE RELOCATED. THEY DID NOT HAVE ISSUES PAYING THEIR RENT. THEY HAD THIRD PARTY ASSISTANCE. THE PROPERTIES WERE IN GREAT CONDITION. THE PROPERTIES ARE STILL IN GOOD CONDITION. AND IN ONE OF THOSE
INSTANCES, THEY APPLIED THE CORRECT DISCRETION. IN THE OTHER INSTANCES THEY USED THESE FORMALITIES AND PROVISIONS ON WHY THEY COULDN'T REVERSE THEM. THEY HELD ME TO A STANDARD
BASICALLY AT THEIR OWN VOLITION. THEY'RE APPLYING THE STANDARD, IT'S CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO HAVE AN INCORRECT BASIS OR HARD FEELINGS OR SOME REASON OF WHY THEY DON'T ALWAYS APPLY THAT SAME DISCRETION. AND I MIND YOU, ONE
EXAMPLE IS FOR INSTANCE, THE TAX IS $200,000 IN EXCESSIVE TAXES. IN ONE YEAR, '22 TO '23, THEY LITERALLY STRUCK WHEN WE'RE THE MOST VULNERABLE. WE'VE DONE THIS FOR ALL THIS TIME. HAD NO PROBLEMS. THEY STRUCK US WHEN AFTER COVID, WE HAD AN OFF RAMP
AND WE HAD A LONG PERIOD OF TIME WHERE TRE WERE CERTAIN PROVISIONS WHERE YOU COULD FILE EVICTIONS FOR A CERTAIN YOU COULDN'T. WE WERE VERY VULNERABLE ATTACK FROM ADVERSE TENANTS. I MEAN, A LOT OF THESE VIOLATIONS, I MEAN, IT'S CLEAR
WE DON'T CAUSE VIOLATIONS. TENANTS, ESPECIALLY IN CERTAIN AREAS, WHICH I POINTED OUT TO IN THE HEARING, THERE'S A AREA IN THE NORTH SIDE THAT HAS BEEN VERY STRICKEN WITH CRIME IN THE RECENT YEAR. AND YOU KNOW, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BLESS HERE
HEART, CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH. THEY'VE ATTEMPTED TO DO WHAT TH AMONGST THE PUBLIC THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE NORTHSIDE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO HAVE THE RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO ATTEMPT TO CORRECT THE MASSIVE PROBLEM IN THE NORTHSIDE. THIS
IS W I AM POINTING TO THE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES IN -- THIS IS WHY I'M POINTING TO THE RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY THE PLAN TO ONE YEAR IS BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT AT THIS POINT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE PROBLEMS. JUST GIVEN
THEENVIRONMENT. GIVEN THE CRIME. GIVEN THE ABILITY FOR, YOU KNOW, POLICE TO ATTEND TO THESE CRIMES. WE WANT TO CHANGE UP, MAKE SOME CHANGES IN OUR PORTFOLIO AND THAT IS GOING TO
BE RESTRICTED BY THE THREE-YEAR PLAN. IT IS GOING TO MAKE US LIMITED INOW WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THE CITY IS WILLING NOT TO WORK WITH. I MEAN, NONE OF THIS EVENS NECESSARY IF WE HAD AN UNDERSTANDING AND DISCRETION
THAT WE HAD GOTTEN FROM THE CITY IN CERTAIN ASPECTS. BUT OVERALL, IT HAS BEEN VERY, VERY ADVERSE. AND AGAIN, THIS IS BECAUSE SPECIFICALLY, IN A CERTAIN TIME WHEN WE HAD OUR HANDS TIED AND
RESTRICTED WITH E ONLY TOOL WE REALLY HAD, WE HAVE CUMULATED A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF TAXES AND FINES THAT WERE EXCESSIVE. WE
ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH THIS AND COME UP WITH A PLAN WHETHER IT'S A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT OR ANOTHER ACTION -- OTHER ACTIONS ON OUR END THAT COULD RESULT IN MORE FAVORABLE RESULTS FROM THE
CITY. HOWEVER, I JUST WANT THESE TWO THINGS MODIFY, PLEASE. ONE, THE THREE-YEARLAN TO THE ONE-YEAR. PLEASE MODIFY TO ONE YEAR. AND I ASK THE COUNCIL ALSO FO THE TAXES PART OF IT, IT SAYS THE RECOMMENDATION SAYS
EITHER TO PAY WITHIN 90 DAYS OR FIND A MORE FAVORABLE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. JUST WANT THAT TO BE IMPLEMENTED. IF IT'S A MORE FORABLE AGREEMENT, FOR INSTANCE, WITH THE COUNTY THAT FAVORABLE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE
CITY AS WELL. >> I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. NOW OPENING THE FLOOR FOR THE MEMBERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF. ALSO, I'D LIKEO RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS HAS BEEN HERE WITH US FOR A
WHILE NOW. I WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON FIRST. YOU CAN SIT DOWN. >> I JUST WANT TO APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD SEVEN MINUTES. >> IT'S OKAY. WE UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I THINK I FORGOT
ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. BUT THE BASIC QUESTION IS THERE WERE TENANTS LIVING IN CONDEMNED BUILDINGS. THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD HERE. >> CHAIR OSMAN, VICE CHAIR ELLISON, THA IS CORRECT. >> AND THE TAXES ARE NOT PAID, RIGHT? THAT'S ALSO A FACT OF THIS CASE, RIG?
>> CHAIR OSMAN, VICE CHAIR ELLISON, THAT IS ALSO CORRECT. >> I'M LOOKING AT THE -- I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER THE EVIDENCE AND NOW WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY HERE, AND I CAN'T THINK OF ONE GOOD REASON. I
MEAN, TO ME, TSE CONDITIONS SEEM WELL REASONABLE FROM MY VANTAGE POINT. AND LOOKING AT THEISTORY OF VIOLATIONS AND LOOKING AT WHAT WERE THE EVIDENCE THAT WE'RE SEEI, YOU KNOW, THREE YEARS. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT MAJOR PROBLEMS
IN YOUR PORTFOLIO. AND SO I'M NOT INCLINED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THESE. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT IS, YOU KNOW, USUALLY I TRY TO ASK THESE AHEAD OF TIME. IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO ME EARLIER. WHY
WOULD A TRA HAVE BEEN AT ANY POINT IN THIS PROCESS APOPRIATE? I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE STABILITY OF THE TENANTS. IT'S THE ONLY REASON I DON'T THINKE SHOULD BE REVOKING THIS LICENSE RIGHT NOW IS FOR THE SAKE OF THE STABILITY OF THE TENANTS. BUT IS THERE ANY REASON WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO
EITHER EAGE IN A TRA IN THE FUTURE OR COULDN'T HAVE EARLIER? >> CHAIR OSMAN, VICE CHAIR ELLISON, THERE IS NO BAR TO THAT. THE BAR FOR A TRA IS ESSENTIALLY THAT THERE'S A CODE VIOLATION IN THE PROPERTY. THE
EXACT DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR THE CITY IN DETERMINING WHEN TO BRING THEM AND IN WHAT CASES JUST KIND OF DEPENDS. IT'S GENERAL PRACTICE TO SECURE VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WHERE POSSIBLE. IF THERE'S CONDITIS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO GET IN THERE RIGHT NOW AND GET
TH FIXED, THAT WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO RESULT IN A TRA. >> OKAY. I THE APPLICANT AT ANY POINT FAILS THESE CONDITIONS AND WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S A CHANCE THAT THE TENANTS WOULD FACE DISPLACEMENT,OULD WE STILL SORT OF INITIATE A TRA AT A
FUTURE POINT? ARE WE RESTRICTED IN A WAY MOVING FORWARD? >> CHAIR OSMAN, VICE CHAIR ELLISON, WE WOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED IN ANY WAY. >> ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN LOOKING AT THE
EVIDENCE WE'RE SEEING, PEOPLE DESERVE TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY IN THEIR HOUSING. THAT'S A BIG PART OF WHAT WE COVER HERE. I KNO THAT'S BEEN INSTILLED IN ME SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL. I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION AS WELL. BUT I WILL MAKE A
MOTION FOR US TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ITEM. AND IMPOSE THESE CONDITIONS. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, STAFF. I HAVE A QUESTION. THE OWNER OF
THE PROPERTI HAVE STATE IN THE SPEECH IN THE BEGINNING THAT HE KIND OF AGREED ALL THE FINDING. BUT IS REQUESTING THE LENGTH OF THE TIME FROM THREE YEARS TO ONE YEAR. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THR YEARS AND WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION
BEHIND HAVING THREE YEARS INSTEAD OF TWO? >> OF COURSE, CHAIR OSMAN. IN SHORT, THE REASONING IS BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF HIS PORTFOLIO. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MONITOR THIS OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIMEO MAKE SURE THAT THESE
SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN DON'T START HAPPENING AGAIN. OUR CONCERN IS THAT IF THE PERIOD OF TE IS ONLY A YEAR, WE MIGHT GET GOOD BEHAVIOR FOR A YEAR, AND THEN SLIP BACK
13 MONTHS FROM NOW. >> CAN YOU TALK ABOUT TAS, WORKING WITH THE COUNTY, AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, PAY IN 90 DAYS OR SO ON. >> OF COSE, CHAIR OSMAN. I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT
LEGAL REMEDIES THEY MIGHT BE SEEKING. I CAN SAY THAT THE CITY IS READY AND WILLING TO DISCUSS WHAT A PAYMENT ARRANGEMENT MIGHT LOOK LE THAT WOULD BE SATISFACTORY TO US. AND IF THERE IS, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME FORM OF COURT ORDER OR BINDING DECISION, WE WOULD DEFINITELY TAKE THAT IN
VERY STRONG CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, . CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION JUST
TO CLARIFY, ARE THERE CODE VIOLATIONS ON ALL 22 OF THE RENTAL DWELLINGS? >> CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY, THERE WERE VIOLATIONS
ON ALL EXCEPT FOR TWO OF THE 22 RENTAL LICENSES BEFORE YOU TODAY. >> THANK YOU. AND I KNOW THAT THE CONDITNS, THE 12 CONDITIONS ARE ON ALL 22. COULD YOU JUST KIND OF WALK US THRGH THE REASONING BEHIND IT. I CAN
ASSUME. BUT I DON'T WANT TO ASSUME. >> OF COURSE. CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY. THE REASONING BEHINDLL 22, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S SPECIFIC GOOD CAUSE REASON, THE VIOLATIONS DO PROPERTIES. THE OTHER VIOLATIONS
DO. PROPERTY TAXES, FOR EXAMPLE. THERE'S EVIDENCE OF UNPD PROPERTY TAXES, DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE 22 PROPERTIES. SO EVEN IF ANY INDIVIDUAL GOOD CAUSE REASON MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY TOUCH ALL 22, THERE
IS A BASIS HERE FOR IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS ON ALL RENTAL LICENSES. >> MM-HMM. AND ARE YOU ABLE TO DETAIL ANY OF THE EXPERIENCES OF THE TENANTS IN THESEPROPERTIES? HAVE PEOPLE RELOCATED? WHAT HAVE
THE CONDITIONS BEEN FOR THEM? WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN SAYING TO THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS? JUST SO GET A BETTER PICTURE OF THE IMPACT. >> CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY, I DON'T THINK I CAN SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THE TENANTS' EXPERIENCES. >> OKAY. BUT THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS HAS BEEN INTERACTING
WITH THE DIFFERENT TENANTS WITHIN THESE DIFFERENT RENTAL DWELLINGS? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTH QUESTIONS. I THINK THE THING THAT FEELS VERY CLEAR TO ME IS
WITH THE LEVEL OFODE VIOLATIONS ACROSS SO MANY PROPERTIES, AND THE DELINQUENCY PAY ACROSS ALL 22 DWELLINGS, I ALSO AM IN SUPPORT OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION. I FEEL LIKE THREE YEARS IS NECESSARY. ONE YEAR DOESN'T FEEL LONG ENOUGH IN
ORDER TO ENSURE THIS TYPE OF COMPLIANCE. AND WE REALLY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO LOOK OUT FOR THE TENANTS THAT LIVE WITHIN THESE BUILDINGS. AND I ENCOURAGE THE APPELLANT TO TAKE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY HERE IN THIS MATTER. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT BECAE THAT'S A PART
OF CHANGING THIS. THIS WOULDN'T BE COMING BEFORE US IF THERE WASN'T A LEVEL OF WRONGDOING. AT THE END OFHE DAY, THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS SERVES AS A REGULATORY BODY TO REPRESENT OUR CONSTITUENTS, AND HAS MADE MANY
ATTEMPTS TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING STAFF RECOMMENDATION TODAY AND SUPPORTING THE MOTION BEFORE US. >> ALLRIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. YEAH, IAS PRETTY SHOCKED TO HEAR ALL
OF THE NINE GOOD REANS THAT YOU DETAILED FOR IMPOSING THESE CONDITIONS ON THE RENTAL LICENSE. 223 CODE VIOLATIONS. 32 NUISANCES OR SNOW ABATEMENTS. FAILURE TO REMEDY THE CODE VIOLATIONS HAS RESULTED IN 26
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS IN THE PAST TWO YEARS. I MEAN, 14 REINSPECTION FEES IN THE PAST TWO YEARS. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. THAT'S ONLY THE FIRST FEW BULLET POINTS. THE IMMENSE COST TO THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS TAXPAYERS JT TO DEAL WITH THIS
IS PRETTY IMMENSE. AND THE FACT THAT IT'S GONE THIS FAR TT YOU HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL AFTER A SERIES OF APPES, IT SHOWS THAT RENTERS RIGHTS AND THIS TYPE OF WORK THE CITY IS DOING IS IMPORTANT. RENTERS DESERVE TO HAVE THESE
MECHANISMS TO HAVE THEIR LANDLORDS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE RULES THAT WE BUT IN PLACE. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PUT THE RENTAL LICENSE CONDITIONS TODAY. I THINK THE RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF OF NEGLIGENCE. AND OUR CITY RESIDENTS DESER BETTER.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SEEING -- >> THANK YOU. >> SEEING NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON'S MOTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AND THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVEIT, AND THE MOTION
CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE MOVING TO THE NEXT. NEXT WEAVE A VARIANCE APPEAL PRESENTED BY KATHRYN HILL FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 40133RD AVENUE NORTH. I'LL ASK NICHOLAS OR CITY ATTORNEY FOSSY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. >> MR. CHAIR, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THE NEXT COUPLE ITEMS ARE ZONING
AND PLANNING VARIANCE APPEALS. AND STAF IS HERE TO PRESENT THE MATTER. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CALL UPON THEM NOW. >> WELCOME.
>> CHAIR OSMAN, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I'M NICHOLAS, CITY PLANNER WITH CPED. -- DENYING UR VARIANCES TO LAWFULLY ESTABLISH AND EXISTING
IMPROVEMENT, PROPERTY 401 33 AVENUE NORTH. THE SUBJECT IS A PARCEL AT FOURTH STREET NORTH AND 33RD AVENUE NORTH. THE SITE IS ZONED URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 AND INTERIOR 1 BUILT FORM OVERLAYDISTRICTS. THERE'S AN
EXISTING TWO-STORY, TWO-FAMILY DWELLING ON THE PROPERTY. ZONING ENFORCEMENT VISITED THE PROPERTY IN JULY OF 2024 ANDDENTIFIED SEVERAL CODE VIOLATIONS RELATED TO IMPROVEMENTS THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD MADE TO THE SITE. THE
APPLICANT DECIDED TO PURSUE VARIANCES TO LAWFULLY ESTABLISH AND . THE FIRST VARIANCE WAS TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT AND CORNER SIDE YARDS FROM FOUR-FEET TO
SIX-FEET. THE SECOND VARIANCE WAS TO INCREASE THE SURFACE TO 89%. THE THIRD VARIANCE WAS TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD AND CORNER SIDE YARD FOR GROUND LEVEL PATIO TO ZERO FEET. AND
MAXIMIZE THE DRIVEWAY. THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADOPTED STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE APPLICATION AND DENIED THE FOUR VARIANCE REQUESTS. I WILL NOTE
FOR A VARIANCE TO BE APPROVED, IT MUST MEET ALL THREE FINDINGS. THIS FINAL SLIDE DETAILS IN WHICH FINDINGS WERE MET OR NOT BY STAFF. THATONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. AND I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU SOUCH FOR THAT EXPLANATION. I'LL PROCEED TO
OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST. AND GIVE THE APPELLANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE SEVEN MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE. IS THE OWNER OR THE REPRESENTATIVE TO SPEAK?
>> HELLO. >> HI. WELCOME. >> I'M KATHRYN HILL. I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS MY MOTHER-IN-LAW. I FORGOT TO SIGN HER IN. BUT SHE ACTUALLY WANTED TO PASS OUT SOME PAPERWORK. CAN WE GIVE THEM TO THE CLERK.
>> YES, PLEASE. CAN YOU HOLD ON
MINUTES, CLOCK.
>> OKAY. I AM THE OWNER OF 401 33RD AVENUE NORTH. WE NEED THE TALLER FENCES HEIGHT BECAUSE MY MOTHER-IN-LAW WITH A BRAIN INJURY, SHE LIVES WITH US AND WE TAKE CARE OF HER. SHE ACTUALLY
CLIMBS OVER SMALLER FENCES.O THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE TALLER FENCE. SHE -- WHEN SHE DOES CLIMB OVER SMALLER FENCES SHE LIKES TO WANDER AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE SHE IS. THE LAST TIME SHE DID IT, WE ENDED UP FINDING
HER TWO AND A HALFOURS LATER IN OUR NEIGHBOR'S GARAGE RUMMAGING THROUGH HER STUFF. LUCKILY THE NEIGHBOR WAS VERY UNDERSTANDING. ACTUALLY, SHE ACTUALLY HAS ONE OF THE LETTERS IN THERE. SHE'S THE HEAD OF THE McKINLEY COMMUNITY. THERE'S A
LETTER IN THERE FROM HER. SORRY. I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS. SO THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE HIGHER FENCE IS FOR HER SAFETY. AND TO MAKE SURE SHE DOESN'T ROAM AROUND THE
NEIGHBORHOOD BY HERSELF. WE ALSO NEED THE PORCH ON THE 33RD STREET SIDE TO BE THERE. THAT'S HER PORCH. SHE USES THIS WALKER. SHE ACTUALLY USES A SCOOTER. IF
WE HAVE TO REMOVE THAT ANDUT GRASS THERE, SHE CAN'T PUSH HER WALKER OR USE HER SCOOTER IN THE GRASS. THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE PORCH THERE FOR HER TO BE ABLE TO MANEUVER AROD. IT'S LEVEL. IT'S NOT A TRIP HAZD OR
ANYTHING. SHE IS A FALL RISK. THAT'S WHY SHE NEEDS THAT SERVE THERE. EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE TO THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN FOR HER SAFETY, AND ALSO TO HELP THE QUALITY OF LIFE BE BETTER FOR HER. AND THAT'S ALL I
HAVE TO SAY. DID YOU WANT IT SAY ANYTHING? OKAY. COME UP. HER NAME IS DRA PARHAM. >> HELLO. I HAVE INJURIES. I
WENT TO TREATMENT SO I CAN TALK BETTER. >> TAKE YOUR TIME. WHAT DID YOU
WANT TO SAY? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE PROPERTY? >> THE PROPERTY HAS MADE -- AND
I NEED TO HAVE -- >> I'M SORRY. SHE'S BEEN REALLY UPSET ABOUT THIS. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT IT SAY? NO. DO YOU WANT TO SIT DOWN? OKAY.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. FOR THAT TESTIMONY. >> I THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE FOR ME? >> I THINK THE QUESTIONS CAN COME UP LATER. NOT RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU, GUYS, FOR YOUR TIME. >> THA YOU. ARE THERE ANYONE
ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO ONE ELSE SPEAK, I'LL CLOSE THE HEARING. AND RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON, WHO DOESN'T HAVE SIGN SHEET. BUT HE DID TALK TO ME.
>> I WAS GOING TO -- I WILL DEFER TO YOUR SENIORITY, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. I'M DOING THE OLD SCHOOL TAGS. FIRST OFF, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR MING DOWN TO COUNCIL TO TESTIMONY TESTIFY IN FRONT OF
US TODAY. THESE ISSUES ARE ALWAYS COMPLICATED SOMETIMES FOR REASONS THAT ARE BROADER. WE GOTTA THINK ABOUT THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF EVERY SINGLE THING, EVERY SINGLE VARIANCE THAT WE ALLOW. I THINK THERE'S A PATHWAY FOR US HERE. I THINK THERE'S A PATHWAY FOR YOU ALL HERE. SOME OF IT WILL INVOLVE I THINK THESE VARIANCES. BUT I
THINK SOME OF THEM ARE BETTER SUITED FOR DIFFERENT BUREAUCRATIC TOOLS. BUT I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT I MEAN IN SECOND. IF MY COLLEAGUES, I DEFINITELY WANT TO HEAR WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TO SAY. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AND KIND OF TAKE THE ITEMS UP ALL ONE BY ONE AS
WE GO THROUGH THE FOUR. I THINK THAT THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO GET THIS. SOOR THE FIRST ITEM, FOR THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT, THERE ARE OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE TOOLS THAT STAFF CAN USE TO SUPPORT US GETTING FROM POINT TO POINT B ON THE FENCE. AND SO
WHAT I WANT TO DO HERE TODAY IS DENY THE INCREASED HEIGHT IN VARIANCE FORM. BUT I WAN TO DIRECT YOU ALL TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH STAFF, WHO ARE PREPARED TO DO SO, ON A DIFFERENT PATHWAY TOWARDS FIGURING OUT WHAT WE DO ABOUT THE FENCE. SO THAT WE'RE REALLY
ADDRESSING YOUR SPECIFIC NEED AND NOT SORT OF ACCIDENTALLY MAKING A RULE FOR THE WHOLE CITY. BUT I D THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. SO THAT SORT OF WILL BE THE TWO-PARTER THERE. WEL DENY IT HERE. BUT AGAIN, WORKING WITH STAFF TO GENERATE A DIFFERENT AINISTRATIVE FIX ON
THE FENCE HEIGHT. FOR THE INCREASED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE, I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT -- YOU GUYS HAVE SORT OF A DIFFICULT LOT SIZE. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BN BRIEFED ON. THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS. AND SO I DOANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE CAN PUT YOU IN A BETTER POSITION TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY THAT YOU HAVE. AND SO I'M GOING TO GRANT THAT WITH A MAXIMUM COVERAGE OF 75%. AGAIN, STAF CAN WORK WITH YOU ALL ON HOW TO ACHIEVE THAT. I KNOW THAT'S LESS THAN WHAT YOU HAVE.
BUT IT'S A LOT MORE THAN WE WOULD TYPICALLY ALLOW. SO THAT WOULD BE THE MOTION THAT I WOULD MAKE ON THAT SECOND ONE. AND THEN I THINK WE CAN -- I THINK BECAUSE OF THE LOT SIZE, WE CAN
GRANT ITEM THREE OR WE CAN -- SORRY. WE CAN -- YEAH. WE CAN SORT OF GET RID OF ITEM THREE. AND THEN FOR THE DRIVEWAY, I THINK WE WILL HAVE TO ASK YOU
ALL TO DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE DRIVEWAY. SO THAT WOULD BE THE MOTION THAT I WOULD MAKE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE CLERKS WOULD NEED MY HELP OR STAFF'S HELP. BUT I THINKE HAVE THE -- BECAUSE OF THE LOT SIZE, BECAUSE OF SOME OF WHAT WE'VE HEARD HERE, I THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE MOTION THAT WE WOULD
BE ABLE TO DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT FOR, AND SORT OF HOLD THROUGH THIS QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS. >> I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. IF THAT'S OK. >> WE TYPICALLY DON'T TAKE QUESTIONS I THIS MANNER. BUT I CAN CIRCLE BACK AND MEET WITH
YOU RIGHT AFTER COUNCIL. >> OKAY. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU. >> CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND COMMITTEE VICE PRESIDENT ELLISON. I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR. I THINK I'M CLEAR ON THREE OF THE FOUR COMPONENTS. BUT WHAT WAS YOUR MOTION WITH REGARD TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE
SIDE -- THE CORNER SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT. >> I THINK THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THEY WOULD REDUCE IT. AND I THINK THAT WE COULD STRIKE THAT REQUIREMENT. BECAUSE I THINK THE LOT SIZE WOULD OFFER US SOME
FINDINGS TOWARDS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. I COULD BE WRONG. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF STAFF IF I'VE GOT THAT AITTLE BIT WRONG. I THINK THAT WE CAN -- >> SFF. >> THANK YOU.
>> THE THIRD VARIANC FOR -- CHAIR OSMAN AND COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON, THE THIRD VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT AND CORNER SIDE YARD SET FOR THE GROUND LEVEL PATIO, I DO NOT THINK WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THE FINDINGS FOR
THE VARIAN. WE COULD REMOVE -- WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO REMOVE THE PORTION OF T PATIO FROM WITHIN THE REQUIRED YARD. WHIC WOULD SHRINK IT DOWN AND ALSO WORK TOWARDS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE
>> YEAH. COULD WE RECONCILE? BECAUSE THAT AND THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE SEEM LIKE REALLY RELATED ITEMS. SO IF BY REDUCING THE IMPERVIOUS -- OR IF BY ALLOWING UP TO 75% ONHE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE, WOULDN'T THAT SORT OF ADDRESS
HOW WE NEED TO HANDLE THEIDE YARD? I COULD HAVE THAT WRONG. >> I DON'T THINK SO. I SEE THEM AS SEPARATE ISSUES. >> OKAY. COOL. COOL. >> YEAH.
>> MANAGER OF ADMINISTRATION AND ZONING ENFORCEMENT. I JUST KIND WE'RE LOOKING FOR FOR ITEM NUMBER 3 IS A YES OR NO. IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT, WHATEVER FINDINGS THAT WOULD CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS AROUND, YOU KNOW, WHAT COULD BE ALLOWED
ON THE SITE. IF IT IS DENIED, THEY WOULD NEED TO REMOVE ANY PORTION OF IT THAT WOULD BE BEYOND 50 SQUARE FEET IN THAT REQUIRED YARD THAT WOULD OF COURSE HELP THEM GET TO THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE NUMBERS WE'RE LOOKING . BUT IT CHANGES THE
FLEXIBILITY. IF IT'S GRANTED, MAYBE THEY COULD TAKE PARTS OF THE IMPERVIOUS FROM ANOTHER LOCATION. >> GOT IT. I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT NOW. IT'S NOT THAT THEY WOULD HA TO REMOVE THE ENTIRE THING. BUT THEY'D HAVE TO REMOVE ENOUGH TO COMPLY WITH THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO I WILL MOVE SO THAT WE DO DENY THAT VARIANCE AS WELL. BUT AGN, TO WORK WITH STAFF SO THAT WE CAN -- SO THAT THEY CAN MAINTAIN AS MUCH OF IT AS THEY ARE HOPING TO MAINTAIN OF IT. >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER
RAINVILLE. >> SO I DO -- I WOULD LIKE TO VISIT YOUR MOTION ON REDUCING THE FRONT AND CORNER SIDE YARDS, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON. BUT FIRST, I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE FAMILY. THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN TODAY. IT'S NOT EASY. THANK
YOU FOR THE LOVE YOU'RE SHOWING FOR YOUR RELATIVE. I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR -- I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE YOU ALL THESE VARIANCES. BUT COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON DOES HAVE MORE EXPERIENCES ON ALL OF THIS. WHAT HE'S SAYING IS KEEP WORKING WITH US. WE'RE GOING TO
HELP YOU, AND KEEP EVERYBODY SAFE. COUNCIL MEMR ELLISON, AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW MORE THAN I DO, BUT WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO JUST GRANT THE VARIANCE ON THE REDUCED FRONT AND CORNER SIDE YARDS JUST TO GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY AND GIVE STAFF CLEAR DIRECTION?
>> TO GRANT THE APPEAL? >> YES. >> NUMBER THREE. >> FOR NUMBER THREE. >> NUMBER THREE. >> I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD LIMIT THEIR -- SO FOR THE 75% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACHIEVE THAT WITHOUT
TOUCHING THE SIDE YARD AND THE GROUND LEVEL PATIO. AND SO I THINK BY DENYING IT, WE GIVE STAFF FLEXIBILITY IN SUPPORTINGO THAT 75% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE. AND AGAIN, THAT
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE -- MAYBE I'M EXPLAINING THAT WRON STAFF CAN COME UP. IF THAT IMPERVIOUS SUR GREATER THAN WHAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY ALLOW. I THINK DENYING IT, IT'S NOT SAYING THEY HAVE TO GET RID OF THE ENTIRE GROUND LEVEL PATIO. BUT IF WE DON'T GRANT IT, THEN WE MIGHT PUT THE
APPLICANT AND STAFF IN A DIFFICULT POSITION WHEN IT COMES TO ACHIEVING THAT 75%. >> OKAY. MR. ELLISON, WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> I GUESS THE REAL CONCERN HERE IS, I'M NOT CONCERNED, BUT IF
THAT ITEM IS DENIED THEN WE WILL HAVE T REMOVE ALL BUT MAYBE 50 SQUARE FEET OF THAT PATIO IN THAT REQUIRED YARD. THAT AUTOMATICALLY ALLOWS FOR SOME OF THAT REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT. IF GRANTED,
THAT WOULD GIVE MORE FLEBILITY THEY COULD KEEP MAYBE MORE OF THE PATIO AND THEN REMOVE FROM ANOTHER AREAHAT THEY SAW FIT IF ITEM THREE WERE GRANTED. >> OK. GOT IT. YEAH. SORRY. MISUNDERSTANDING. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE. SO
YEAH. SO I'LL AND MY MOTION TO GRANT NUMBER THREE THEN. >> THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN. >> THANK YOU, CHAI YES, I SEE A STRONG CASE HERE FOR GRANTING THE FIRST THREE AND NOT THE FOURTH. SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND, COUIL MEMBER ELLISON, IF THAT IS THE MOTION THAT IS BEFORE US HERE?
>> I'M DENYING THE FIRST ONE. THE INCREASE OF THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE HEIGHT BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENT -- I BELIEVE THERE'S A DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIVE PATH FOR THEM TO GET THE FENCE HEIGHT THATOESN'T THEN CREATE A RULE FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. THAT COULD REALLY ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC NEEDS THA THEY'RE FACING, THE UNIQUE NEEDS THAT THEY'RE FACING
AT THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT NOW SAYING ESSENTIALLY THIS -- >> SO THE FIRST PART WILL BE UPHELD AND THE SECOND TWO WILL BE GRANTED. >> MM-HMM. >> ALL RIGHT. >> COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO STATE, YOU KNOW, AS A PERSON WHO USES A WALKER AND A SCOOTER, I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES AND HAVING HAD TO CARE FOR A GRANDPARENT WHO HAD
DEMENTIA AND WOULD LEAVE THE HOME. THESE ARE VERY SERIOUS ISSUES AND CONCERNS. YOU KNOW, SO I'M WILLING TO GRANT ALL OF THE APPEALS. BUT CERTAINLY,
RESPECT SOME OF THE MOTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON HAS BROUGHT FORTH. AND I THINK THAT CAN HELP US TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES. SO YEAH. >> ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PLACE, AND
SO I'M ON THEAME PAGE. DENY THE INCREASE FENCE HEIGHT. THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATE PATHWAY THAT STAFFS IS GOING TO WORK WITH KATHRYN HILL AND THE
THAT'S NEEDE ON THE PROPERTY. I'M LOOKING AT STAFF TO GET THAT CONFIRMATION. AWOME. AN AMENDED MOTION FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE INCREASING IT TO 75% INSTEAD OF 89%. WE'RE GRANTING THEEDUCED FRONT CORNER SIDE
YARD SETBACKS, AND DENYING THE S THE FOUR BEFORE US? >> YES. >> WONDERFUL. SO KATHRYN AND KATHRYN'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND FAMILY, THANK YOU FOR COMINGO CITY HALL. THIS IS A VERY BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS. YOU'RE
HAVING US JUST KIND OF GO BACK AND FORTH BEFORE YOU WITH OUR ATTORNEYS AND STAFF. I KNOW THAT WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH IS DEEPLY EMOTIONAL. I CAN HEAR IT INOUR TESTIMONY. SO JUST APPRECIATE YOU BEARING WITH US. AND THANK YOU FOR SENDING US THE
EMAILS THAT YOU'VE BEEN SENDING US. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT YOUR EMAIL WASN'T JUST SITTING IN AN INBOX. I'VE READ THEM. THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME OUT OF YOUR DAY. WE WANT T BE ABLE TO HELP YOU. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HELP
FIGURE THIS OUT. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A STRONG PATHWAY TO GET YOU WHAT YOU NEED. THANK YOUO OUR CITY STAFF. AND THANK YOU FOR COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON, FOR WORKING SO DILIGENTLY ON THESE. >> WONDERFUL. SEEING NO FURTHER
SCUSSION, WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON'S MOTION THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AND THOSE -- >> MR. CHAIR, I WOULD JUST FINALLY ON THIS MATTER TO CLOSE THE LOOP I WOULD ASK THAT MOTION
BEADE TO DIRECT STAFF TO CREATE FINDINGS REFLECTING THE MOTION THAT JUST PASSED. >> SURE. AND ALL THOSE NAY SAY NAY. SEEING NONE. ALSO, I WILL DIRECT THE STAFF TO FIND THE
FINDINGS OF THAT MOTION. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES. OUR NEXT IS ANOTHER VARIANCEPPEAL BEING SUBMITTED BY TREVOR ON BEHALF OF
NLP MINNEAPOLIS PROPCO FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 411 WASHINGTON NORTH. THIS APPEAL COMES FROM A DECISION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. I WILL ASK HILARY DVORAK, OR CITY
ATTORNEY FUSSY TO BRIEFLY SPE ON THAT ITEM. WELCOME. >> MR. CHAIR, COMMITTEE MEMBER YES, I BELIEVE THAT MS. DVORAK IS READY TO PRESENT. >> WELCOME. PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> HI. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M
HILARY DVORAK, I'M PRINCIPAL CITY PLANNER OF CPED. I'M HERE WITH AN APPEAL -- TO DENY A
VARIANCE FOR A SIGN ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 411 WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH. THE PROPERTY IS IRREGULARLY SHAPED AND HAS TWO BUILDINGS ON IT. THE STEELMAN EXCHANGE BUILDING WITH
AN AVERAGE OF 241 5th AVENUE NORTH. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT ON THE AERIAL OVERHD OR THE MAP ON YOUR SCREEN, THIS OUTLINE IS THE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE IT IS IRREGULAR IN
SHAPE. THERE IS A BUILDING RIGHT HERE. AND THE STEELMAN EXCHAN BUILDING IS RIGHT HERE. IT'S ONE PROPERTY TWO BUILDINGS WITH TWO SEPARATE ADDRESSES. PROPERTY
LOCATED IS OWNED BY ANOTHER ENTI AND IS USED FOR SELF-SERVICE STORAGE. SO THAT IS THE BUILDING ON THE CORNER OF 5th AND WASHINGTON. A PARTIALLY VACANT PUBLIC ALLEY. THE PUBLIC ALLEY IS USED TO ACCESS BOTH OF
THE PROPERTIES. SIGNS CAN ONLY BE PLACED ON PRIMARY BUILDING WALLS. A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL IS DEFINED IN THE ZONING CODE AS AN EXTERIOR -- BUILDING WALL THAT FACES AN ON SITE ACCESSORY PARKING AREA. THE NORTH SIDE OF
THE BUILDING DOES FACE WASHINGTON AVENUE NOR BUT IT IS NOT A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL AS THERE IANOTHER PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN IT AND WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHILE THIS PROPERTY HAS FRONTAGE ON
WASHINGTON, THE STEELMAN EXCHAN BUILDING DOES NOT HAVE FRONTAGE. ON WASHINGTON NORTH. THIS NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING NOT A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL. I WILL GO DOWN TO THIS IMAGE. SEE WHERE EO1 IS SHOWN HERE,
THIS IS WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PUTHE SIGN. THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS NOT A PRIMARY BUILDING WALLVEN THOUGH IT FACES THE STREET, IT DOESN'T HAVE FRONTAGE UP ON THE STREET. 411 WASHINGTON DOES HAVE FRONTAGE AND THAT IS A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL. SO I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY HAVING FRONTAGE ON WASHINGTON AND THE BUILDING IN QUESTION NOT HAVING FRONTAGE ON WASHINGTON. AND THIS IS AN IMAGE OF WHAT THAT SIGN WOULD LOOK LIKE. THE J.P.ORGAN SIGN UP
HERE. THIS IS A BLOW-UP OF IT BEING CLOSER. BUT YOU CAN SEE THE SELF-SERVICE STORAGE BUILDING IN FRONT OF IT. THIS IS A NON-PRIMARY BUILDING WALL WHERE THEY'RE SHOWING THE J.P. MORGAN SIGN. CHALLENGES DO NOT EXIST IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF
CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. THE STEELMAN EXCHANGE BUILDING HAS FRONTAGE ON TWO STREETS. FIFTH AVENUE NORTH AND SIGN COULD BE PLACED ONE OF THE TWO BUILDING WALLS. AS THE APPLICANT NOTED IN THE APPLICATION, THERE'S A WALL SIGN
LOCATED TOWARDS T TOP OF THE BUILDING FACING NORTH 3RD STREET THAT WILL BE REMOVED WHEN THE PROPOSED SIGN IS INSTALLED. ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE CAN BE ADDED TO PRIMARY BUILDING WALLS. THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING TO USE THE PRORTY IN A REASONABLE MANNER THAT WOULD BE IN KEEPING
WITH THE SPIRITED INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE AREA NORTH OF WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE BUILDINGS IN THIS AREA ARE BETWEEN FOUR AND SIX STORIES IN HEIGHT. GIVEN THE TOPOGRAPHY IN THE AREA AND THE HEIGHT OF THE
BUILDING AND SURROUNDING BUILDINGS THEMSELVES, THE PROPOSED SIGN WOULDE VISIBLE TO A LARGE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS. WHILE THERE ARE SIGNS ALONG WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH THAT ARE VISIBLE TO THESE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, ONE WOULD NOT EXPECT TO SEE A SIGN LOCATED AT THIS
ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AS IT IS NOT A PRIMARY WALL. -- ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTYN THE VICINITY. THE AREA NORTH OF WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH IS LOCATED IN THE SAINT ANTHONY
FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT. BOTH SIDES OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. GIVEN THE TOPOGRAPHY IN T AREA AND THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS, THE SIGNAGE WOULD BE VISIBLE. FO THESE REASONS, THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION UPHELD THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND DENIED TH VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIGN ON
A NON-PRIMARY BUILDING WALL. THIS CONCLES MY PRESENTATION. I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>HANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT PRESENTATION. WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR LATER. FIRST, I'M GOING TO PROCEED TO OP THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND CALL --
CAN'T READ THAT. >> IS IT TREVOR? >> THANK YOU. WELCOME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. WE PREPARED A POWERPOINT. SO I'M GOING TO PULL THAT UP QUICK.
>> YUP. YOU HAVE SEVEN MINUTES. >> HELLO. I'M KIERSTEN SCHILLING. I'M THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE STEELMAN EXCHANGE AND THE 411 WASHINGTON AVENUE
BUILDINGS. THE STEELMAN EXCHANGE BUILDING IS PART O A TWO-BUILDING UNIT THAT SITS ON A PARCEL THAT FRONTSASHINGTON AVENUE. THE EXCHANGE BUILDING ITSELF WAS BUILT ON A PREVIOUSLY USED SURFACE LOT FOR THE 411
BUILDING. THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 2019. IT IS COMPRISED OF FIVE PUBLIC PARKING FLOORS. PUBLIC PARKING IS ACCESSED THROUGH 3RD STREET NORTH, AND TWO PRIVATE LEVELS WHICH IS ACCESSED THRGH THE ALLEYWAY BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS. I
THINK TREVOR, IF YOU CAN POINT THAT OUT THE. AND THEN ABOVE TH CLASS A OFFICE SPACE. 64% OF WHICH E LEASED. AND 75,000 SQUARE FEET LEFT TO LEASE. OUR
NEWEST TENANT, J.P. MORGAN IS BRINGING IN LOTS OFLIENT TRAFFIC INTO OUR BUILDING, AND INTO THE NORTH LOOP NEIGHBORHOOD. I WILL LET J.P. MORGAN SPEAK TO LETOU KNOW WHY THEY CHOSE THIS LOCATION. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING
US. MY NAME IS CLARA AND I LEAD A PORTION OF THE J.P. MORGAN BUSINESSERE LOCALLY. I WAS INVOLVED IN THE SELECTION O THE STEELMAN EXCHANGE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE IS THAT THE J.P. MORGAN CHASE BUSINESS HERE IN
MINNESOTA IS JUST BEGINNING AND IS JUST GROWING. PAR OF WHEN A BUSINESS COMES IN, THE BIGGEST ISSUE SOMETIMES IS BRAND AWARENESS. SO JUST LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT WE ARE HERE. SO WEANTED TO BE IN AN UP AND
COMING AREA THAT IS FULL OF ENERGY AND FULL OF INDIVIDUALS AND PEOPLE. AND SO WE MADE THE DECISION TO MOVE TO THE STEELMAN. AND WE'RE ABSOLUTELY THRILLED. WE'LL BE HAVING ABOUT 150 EMPLOYEES TT WILL EVENTUALLY BE JOINING US THERE,
IN ADDITION TO TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF CLIENTS THAT WILL BE COMING BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE A LARGE CLIENT CENTER THERE. WE'LL BE USING A LOT OF THE RESTAURANTS AROUND FOR LUNCHESND BREAKFAST AND WHAT NOT. A BIG PART OF THAT IS THE CLIENT EXPERIENCE. SO TH
AND FIND US THERE IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND SO BEING ABL TO SEE US ON WASHINGTON AVENUE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. WE HAVE A LO OF CLIENTS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT OLDER THAT HAVE A HARDER TIMENAVIGATING. AND SO WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION. BUT WE'RE REALLY, REALLY THRILLED TO BE THERE AND
WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY. WE KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE TEAM IS REALLY EXCITED. SO THANK YOU.
>> THIS JUST TOUCHES ON A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT POLARO WAS MENTIONING. NAVIGATION NATURALLY COMING FROM 94 OR 394 A THEN MOVING DOWN WASHINGTON AVENUE. SO TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT FROM WASHINGTON AVENUE. NOT ONLY NAVIGATION BUT ALSO THE PRIVATE PARKING THAT ALL OF THE CLIENTELE WILL BE USING IS THROUGH THAT. BEFORE YOU GET TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
JUST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> SO HERE'S AN ADDIONAL RENDERING OR PICTURE OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR THE SIGN AT THE REDLINE ON THE BUILDING. AGAIN, WHICH IS THE NORTHEA
WALL OF STEELMAN. THIS IS THE SCALED VERSION OF THE SIGNAGE ON THAT WALL. YOU CAN SEE HERE STEELMAN BEING A FAIRLY LARGE BUILDING. THE SIGN WOULD TAKE UP LESS THAN 1% OF THE WALL AREA.
THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER IS THE PARKING GARAGE WHE J.P. MORGAN AND THEIR CLIENTS WILL ENTER THEIR PARKING. HERE'S A RENDERINGF THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE DESIGN. IT WOULD BE MADE
OF STANDARD SIGNAGE MATERIALS, ALUMINUM AND ACRYL FOR THE FACES. THE LETTERS WOULD BE PLACED ON A RACEWAY THAT WOULD BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE BRICK OF THE BUILDING. AND IT WOULD BE 59 1/2 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. THIS
IS A DIAGRAM OF THE LIGHTING INFORMATION FOR THE SIGN. IT WOULD HAVE STANDARD WHITE L.E.D.s. IT CALCULATES TO 1200 LUMENS PER SQUARE FEET. DID NOT FIND ANY SPECIFIC LIGHTING
INFOATION IN THE CITY CODE OTHER THAN DIGITAL DISPLAYS, WHICH ARE LIMITED TO 500NITSs. SO 1200 LUMENS CALCULATES -- S
THAT IS WELL BELOW THE 500. J.P. MORGAN IS WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON THE ILLUMINATED HOURS AFTER SUNSET IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. SO I BROUGHT WITH ME A CUTOUT OF THE J FOR THE SIGNAGE
WHICH WOULD BE 29 INCHES TALL. THE PHOTO HERE IS DISPLAYING THAT J FROM 110 YARDS AWAY. AND THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
ACROSS WASHINGTON IS 160 YARDS. THE CUP FOR HEIGHT WAS GRANTED. THE SIGN WOULD BE WELL WITHIN THE RULATED SIZING. THIS WALL WOULD ALLOW FOR 300 SQUARE FEET
OF SIGNAGE BEING OUR SIGN AT 59 1/2, THIS WOULD BE ABOUT 50% OF THAT ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE. >> THIS BUILDING IS PLACED ON A PARCEL WITH TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS. IT DOES OPERATE AS ONE UNIT. THE SKYWAY CONNECTS
THE TWO BUILDINGS, NOT JUST PHYSICALLY BUT MECHANICALLY. SO TOCTUALLY SEPARATE THOSE WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY UNFEASIBLE TO SEPARATE THEM. BECAUSE OF THAT, WE DO SEE THESE TWO BUILDINGS AS ONE UNIT WITH THE PRIMARY
BUILDING BEING AWASHINGTON AVENUE. AND THEN AGAIN, THE CLIENT WAY FINDING ON WASHINGTON AVENUE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO J.P. MORGAN AND THEIR CLIENTELE. >> AND THAT'S THE END OF OUR PRESENTATION. >> OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR TESTONY. I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR ANYONE WHOOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO
ONE ELSE TO SPEAK, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND OPEN FOR DISCUSSION FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE. I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE. >> THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU, MS. DVORAK, FOR COMING WITH THE PRESENTATION. I DID SER ON THE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A WHE. I'M ALWAYS IMPRESSED THAT THE THOROUGHNESS THAT THE STAFF PROVIDES. BUT HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONERS THEMSELVES SOMETIMES DON'T SEE THINGS LIKE WE DO AS ELECTED OFFICIALS. I DO THINK THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THIS
PROPER. I WENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP MEETING WHERE WE THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED THIS. AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP ALSO SUPPORTS THIS. AND THINK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. WE HAVE A COMPANY. LET'S START WITH THE COMPANY WHO BUILT THAT BUILDING
ON AN EMPTY LOT. THEY ENCLOSED THE PARKING LIKE WE'VE ASKED. THEY TOOK A SURFACE PARKING LOT. THEY BUILT A VERY FINE BUILDING, AND NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO FILL IT UP. SO TO WELCOME 150 EMPLOYEES, A COMPANY WITH 1 EMPLOYEES, THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD
BE DOING AS A CITY. WELCOMING. TRYINGO HELP THIS COMPANY BE SUCCESSFUL. AS WE CAN SEE, THE SIGNAGE IS MINUSCULE, AND WILL NOT, AGAIN, INTERFERE WITH THE RESIDENTS. LISTENED VERY THOROUGHLY. THE RESIDENTS WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. I WOULD LIKE MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE WITH ME ON GRANTING THIS APPEAL. THANK YOU. >> I WILL, BEFORE I RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN, THIS IS QUASI JUDICIAL. SO STATING
OTHERWISE WILL BE SUPER -- >> YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO PROVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE HERE. I THINK A MIXED USE BUILDING IS EXACTLY WHAT THE 2040 PLAN IS STRIVING FOR IS TO HAVE WORK, LIVE, PLAY
NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THE NORTH LOOP IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THAT. I ALSO REPRESENT DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS SO I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO THEISRUPTIVE NATURE OF A SIGN. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE HERE. ESPECIALL GIVEN
HOW SMALL IT IS. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, YOU SAID YOU WOULD DIM IT IN THE EVENING. I ASK RESIDENTALL THE TIME ABOUT HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT SOME OF THE NEW SIGNAGE RULES WE'RE LOOKING TO EXPLORE IN THE WAREHOUSE AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. AND WT LEVEL IS TOLERABLE. AND I THINK
YOU'RE WELL BELOW THAT LEVEL HERE WITH WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. I WOULD JUST ASK IF ATTORNE FUSSY CAN HELP US CRAFT AN APPROPRIATE MOTION HERE BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THIS
QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER. >> MR. CHAIR, AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS DECIDED AT THE UNDERLYING BODY. IT'S ONLY THE VARIANCE THAT IS BEFORE THIS BODY. CERTAINLY, IT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE MANY POSITIVE ASPECT OF WELCOMING THIS BUSINESS HERE. HOWEVER, THAT
CANNOT BE PART OF THE FINNGS THAT WOULD SUPPORT GRANTING THIS MOTION. I DO BELIEVE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE DID MAKE MENTION OF SOME OF THE UNIQUE --OME OF WHAT WE VIEWS TO BE SOME OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY, ITSELF, AND HOW IT'S SITUATED.
IF THAT WERE TO BE THE BASIS OF A MOTION, THAT IS MORE IN LINE WITH THE FINDINGS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO SUPPORT A VARIANCE IN THE FINDING OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT ARE BASED UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE T THE PROPERTY. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE
YOU, IF THAT'S THE MOTION THAT'S GOING TO BE PUT FORWARD THAT IT FOCUS ON THOSE ASPECTS. I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS ANY COMMENTS WITH REGARDS -- I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. IT DOES SOUND
LIKE THAT THERE ARE UNIQUE FACETS WITH TWO BUILDINGS BEING ON ONE LOT. I DON'T KNOW IF THA WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO FOCUS ON THE FINDINGS AS THEY ARE LAID OUT, AND FOCUS ON ESTABLISHING THAT THERE ARE PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES WITH REGARD TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. >> CITY STAFF. >> YES. CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCIL MEMBERS, OUR ZONING CODES MOVING IN A DIRECTION WHERE WE DO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE BUILDING
ON MANY LOTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO THAT IS NOT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WE FND OF THIS SITE. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE AS REFERENCED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN, ARE YOU -- >> I GUESS I WILL, YOU KNOW, IF RAINVILLE'S MOTION IS BEFORE US AND WE NEED TO DO THE FACT FINDING WORK TOGETHER, THEN I THINK I WILL SUPPORT THAT. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT -- THANK YOU FOR COMING AND PRESENTING THAT PRESENTATION. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A N BUSINESS THAT'S EXPLORING THE CITY. IT'S IMPORTANT. BUT I THINK WHAT THE STAFF MENTIONED
WAS THAT THE 3RD AND 5th AVENUE OR 5th STREET, THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO PUT THE SIGN ON THOSE TWO STREETS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. THE STEELMAN EXCHANGE BUILDING, THE 241 NORTH
5th HAS TWO PRIMARY BUILDING LLS. NORTH 5th AVENUE AND 3RD STREET NORTH. THE CALABRIA IS ON THE NORTH. THAT SIGN IS COMING DOWN. IT WAS SAID THAT THAT SIGN IS COMING DOWN AND WOULD BE
TAKEN DOWN WHEN THE SIGN ON THE OTHER SIDE IS PUT UP. HOWEVER, THEY HAVE TWO PRIMARY BUILDING WALLS. ONE OF WHICH IS NOT WASHINGTON. IN OUR REPORT WE STATE THAT THEY COULD PUT IT ON 5th OR THEY COULD PUT IT ON 3RD. >> IS WASHINGTON MORE BUSIER
THAN THOSE OTHER STREETS? JUST TRAFFIC WISE. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY. >> I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANTS. >> OKAY. YES. WHY WASHINGTON?
WHY NOT THE TWO OTHERS STREETS? >> SO 3RD STREET ACTUALLY ENDS IN A DEADEND AT THE RAILROAD. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY NO TRAFFIC COMING FROM ONE WAY. THERE'S ONLY TRAFFIC COMING FROM THE EAST, I BELIEVE. AND THEN 5th AVENUE IS ACTUALLY ONLY FOUR BL
AVENUE IS WHERE ALL OF YOUR TRAFFIC IS COMING FROM. >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. >> AND AS WE HAVE CLIENTS COME IN FROM EITHER 94 OR 394, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE WASHINGTON. SO TO FIND THE
BUILDING, IT WILL BE MUCH EASIER IF IT'S ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING. OUR CLIENTS' ABILITY TO FOUND OUR OFFICE AND EASE OF USE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO COME DOWNTOWN. THAT'S SOMETHING WE FOUND TODAY IS VERY DIFFICULT. AND SO WEON'T HAVE
AS MANY CLIENTS COME. >> THANK YOU. >> ALTHOUGH THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS, THEY'RE CONNECTED BY MECHANICALS. THERE'S MECHANILS FROM ONE BUILDING THAT FEED TO ANOTHER. TOGETHER, THEY ARENE UNIT IN THAT SENSE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON. >> I WANTED TO SEE IF STAFF WOULD INDULGE ME QUICKLY. JUST BECAUSE I HAVE NO DOUBT TO THE RATIONALE OF THE APPLICANT. BUT IT ISIMMATERIAL TO THE DECISIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING. YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO THE FENCE
HEIGHT IN THE PREVIOUS ISSUE. A GREAT CASE FOR WHY THERE'S A NEED THERE. MAYBE EVEN AN ALTERNATIVE PATHWAY TO MEET THAT NEED. BUT ULTIMATELY, IMMATERIAL TO THE THINGS THAT WE GET TO CONSIDER AS WE MAKE THIS DECISION IN THIS QUASI JUDICIAL
MANNER. LET'S SAY WE WERE TO DR FACT AND GRANT THIS, IN THE SENSE OF LIKE SLIPPERY SLOPE. I KNOW I'M ASKING YOU TO BUST OUT YOUR CRYAL BALL HERE A LITTLE BIT. LET'S SAY WE DON'T MIND
THIS, WE'RE GOING ALLOW THIS. WHERE MIGHT WE SEE THIS POPPING UP AGAIN IN THE NEAR FUTURE. >> CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON, A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHERE THIS I THINK WOULD BECOME A PROBLEM IS WHEN TAKE OUR
COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS, FRANKLIN, WEST BRDWAY. YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL FACING THE CORRIDOR AND ALLEY AND RESIDENTIAL IN THE BACK. THE BUILDINGACING THE ALLEY IS NOT A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL. BUT IF WE SRT ALLOWING
SIGNS THERE, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S ON THE SID OF THE NEIGHBORS. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING WHAT'S NEXT DOOR AND SURROUNDINGIT. >> AND OUR RATIONALE FOR DENYING IT WHEN WE'VE ESSENTIALLY ALLOWED IT ELSEWHERE. THAT'S THE WAY I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS
ISSUE. ULTIMATELY, I LOOK AT THIS ONE BUILDING AND THIS ONE SIGN AND THIS ONE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I PROBABLY COME TO A CONCLUSION WHERE I WOULDN'T MIND THAT MUCH. BUT THEN I THINK OF A SITUATION WHERE I WOULD MIND AND RESIDENTS
WOULD MIND. STAND FIRMLY ON THAT DECISION AND NOT FACE LITIGATION. WELL YOU GAVE IT TO J.P. MORGANND NOW YOU GOTTA GIVE IT TO US. I DON'T WANT TO PUT US IN THAT POSITION. TO ME, I THINK THAT THERE ARE -- YOU'VE GOT A VERY RESPONSIV DOWNTOWN
COUNCIL MEMBERS. I THINK STAFF WILLING TO BE RESPONSIVE. I THK IF THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS TOWARDS WAY FINDING, I'M REALLY OPEN TO FIGURING OUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE RIGHT IN FRONT OF US, I
THINK THE ONLY WAY WE GRANT THIS IS TO POTENTIALLY SEND A MESSAGE. NOT YOU ALL'S FAULT BUT WOULD BE OUR FAULT TO SEND A MESSAGE SAYING, HEY, LOOK, SPECIAL RESIDENTS GET SPECIAL RULES, AND THEN NORMAL RULES FOR NORMAL PEOPLE. AND DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF A COUNCIL THAT'S
GOING TO ASSERT THAT IN O ZONING CODE AND IN THE WAY THAT WE TREAT VARIANCES. AND SO I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORTHE AMENDMENT. I THINK WE'VE GOT TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION HERE. BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE'S -- BUT THAT'S NOT TO SORT OF SAY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT J.P. MORGAN TO HAVE GOOD
WAY FINDING. I'M OPEN TO NEW ALTERN ALTERNATIVES. BUT AS I LOOK AT THE RULES AND THE MANNER IN WHICH WE GET TO MAKE THESE RULES IN A QUASI JUDICIAL MANNER, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PATHWAY OTHER THAN UPHOLDING STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>> THANK YOU. I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I DO WANT TO NOTE FOR THE REST OFHE BODY, WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A MOTION BEFORE US. EVENTUALLY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THAT. I HAD A COMMUNITY
OBLIGATION THE DAY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHERE THIS CAME BEFORE. SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND. I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IS THE MAIN ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE SIGNAGE THE FACT
THAT IT'S ON A NON-PRIMARY BUILDING WALL, AND IF IT WAS ON A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL, WOULD THIS BE A DIFFERENT CASE? >> YES. IF THIS -- YES. THE WHOLE ISSUE BEFORE YOU IS THIS SIGN IS BEING REQUESTED TO BE PLACED ON A NON-PRIMY BUILDING WALL, WHICH
THE ZONING CODE DOES NOT ALLOW. IF IT WAS PLACED ON EITHER 5th AVENUE OR 3RD STREET, THERE WOULD BE NO VARIANCE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ON A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL. SO IT WOULD BE ALLOWED AS OF RIGHT ON THOSE TWO SIDES OF THE BUILDING.
>> THAS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED PUTTING IT ON A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL >> YEAH, WE HAVE CONSIDERED. SO AS I SAID BEFORE, THE WAY FINDING IS FROM WASHINGTON AVENUE. IT'S NOT FROM 5th AVENUE
AND IT'S NOT FROM 3RD STREET. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'VE GOT CLIENTS PARKING BEFORE YOU GET TO THE BUILDIN ON 5th AVENUE. YOU NEED THE SIGNAGE ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE BUILDING IS -- IF YOU'RE COMING FROM WASHINGTON, YOU'RE COMING IN HERE TO PARK.
AND SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THFRONT OF THE BUILDING. AND THEN ALSO, TO YOU POINT ON THE 3RD STREET SIDE, THAT ENDS IN A DEAD-END. THERE'S NO WAY FINDING AVAILABLE THERE REALLY. AND TO
TENANT SIGN THERE NOT COMING DOWN. YES, BUT WE HAVE 75,000 SQUARE FEET TO LEASE, AND THAT BECOMES A BARGAINING CHIP IN OUR LEASING. TO GET A COMPA LIKE J.P. MORGAN COMING HERE, WE DO NEED THAT SIGNAGE FOR THEM.
>> THANK YOU. YEAH, I'LL JUST SAY I THINK THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONSER JUST PUTTING IT ON A PRIMARY BUILDING WALL. I UNDERSTAND WASHINGTON AVENUE MIGHT BE THE IDEAL. BUT MAYBE THERE NEE TO BE ANOTHER PIECE OF SIGNAGE THAT GIVES GUIDANCE
IN TERMS OF PARKI WHERE IT IS. IF IT'S A MATTER STATING THAT J.P. MORGAN EXISTS HERE INSTEAD OF IT BEING A BLANK BUILDING WITHOUT IT. I THINK THAT'S A WAY FOR THE APPLICANT TO GET WHAT THEY WANT BUT KIND OF FALL IN LINE WITH WT THE RULES ARE
BEFORE US AND OUR ZONING. AND I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON. LIKE WE CAN'T BE MAKING SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN SET OF CONSTITUENTS, AND OTHERWISE. AND SO I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT STAFF
RECOMMENDATION. IF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE A WAY OF HAVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR FULL COUNCIL. I'M ALWAYS OPEN TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. BUT I'LL MAKE THE FORMAL MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE. >> SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE, DID YOU ME A MOTION? >> YES. SO HAVE THE CLERK CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I
DID MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT THIS APPEAL DUE TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY. >> I GUESS I WAS UNCLEAR ABOUT THAT. >> I DIDN'T HEAR. KATIE SUGGESTS THAT YOU MADE IT. I'M SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN SUGGESTS
TH YOU MADE IT. BUT I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. THERE'S NO MOTION. OKAY. SO THERE WAS NO MOTION ON THAT. I WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE U THE FIST MOTION FIRST. BUT I WOULD
LIKE TO TAKE UP THE MOTION TO GRANT. I DO THINK WE MAKE SEVERAL DIFFERE EXTENUATING RUL DOWNTOWN TWO. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THERE ARE MANY, MANY DIFFERENT CONDITIONS THAT WE IMPOSE ON THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN DOWNTOWN 1 AND DOWNTOWN 2, AND THATHE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE DOWNTOWN ALSO ACCEPT AND ENJOY. THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO BE HERE. I'LL JUST SAY AS THE DOWNTOWN
COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE, IT IS OUR POLICY AND INTENTION IN THE COMING MONTHS TO REVISE OUR DOWNTOWN SIGNAGE CODE IN ORDER TO BE MORE PERMISSIVE. SO THIS IS NOT AT ALL OUT OF LINE WITH OUR AMBITIONS AS THE PEOPLE
REPRESENTING THIS AREA. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CHDHURY. ONE MORE TIME. >> JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. ARE WE -- WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TT IS EITHER APPROVAL OR DENIAL. >> YOU MADE THE MOTION FIRST. >> YES. I'M AWARE. BUT THERE'S
NO LIKE MOTION TO NOT RECOMMEND LIKE THAT DOESN'T EXIST. IT'S EITHER APPROVE OR DENY FOR THIS QUASI JUDICIAL MANNER. >> MR. CHAIR, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, YES, IT'S CERTAINLY TO APPROVE DENY THE APPEAL. I GUESS
ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO FORWARD IT WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION. BUT IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE A FINAL DETERMINATION MADE AT SOME POINT. AND THAT WOULD BE PUSHING IT TO THE FULL COUNCIL. THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS AS I SEE THEM. >> I WOULD BE WILLING TO WITHDR MY MOTION IF COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN, IF YOU'RE
WILLING TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION SO WE CAN FORWARD WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION SO THERE'S SOME FINDINGS OF FACT HERE. I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION IF THAT'S AMENABLE TO YOU? >> YEAH, COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE AND I WILL WORK ON THAT BEFORE THURSDAY, THURSDAY OR FRIDAY NEXT WEEK. FULL
COUNCIL MEETING. >> ONE OF THE TWO. >> IT'S FRIDAY. COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS IS ON THE RECORD FOR SAYING FRIDAY. SO I WL WITHDRAWAL THAT MOTION AND MAKE A MOTION TO FORWARD WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION. I MIGHT BE OUT OF ORDER. BUT IF MY COLLEAGUES ALLOW FOR THAT. >> IT'S FINE. IILL RECOGNIZE
COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON, AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS. >> THANK YO I'M DEFINITELY WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT MOTION AND OFFER MY COLLEAGUES SOME TIME TO FIND FINDINGS OF FACT. WE DO HAVE DIFFERENT RULES FOR DOWNTOWN. BUT THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL MANNER. IF WE'RE GOING
TO CHANGE THE RULES FOR GNAGE, THAT'S LEGISLATIVE AND THAT'S PER OUR DISCRETION. WHEN WE'RE HERE AS A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY, WE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH DISCRETION. WE'RE ESSENTIALLY A COURTROOM AT THIS POINT. AND WE DO HAVE TO ABIDE BY CERTAIN
QUASI JUDICIAL RULES. WHICH DON'T INVOLVE US MAKING SORT OF LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS HERE ON THE DAIS. THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE GOTTA GO AHEAD AND DO IN ORDINANCE AND THEN WE WON'T BE HERE ABOUT A VARIANCE. YOU GUYS SIGN. AND SO I DON'T WANT US TO
SAY, WELL WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS IN THE FUTURE, AND SO YOU KNOW, WE'LL OFFER THIS VARIANCE NOW BAUSE THAT WILL HAVE RIPPLE EFFECTS IN A QUASI JUDICIAL MANNER DOWN THE ROAD. WHERE WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD MAKE THE ORDINANCE CHANGE AND NOT COMPROMISE OURSELVES HERE IN
THIS CAPACITY. THAT BEING SAID, THE MAY VERY WELL BE FINDINGS OF FACT. WE WILL FIGURE THAT OUT BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT WEEK. AND IF THERE ARE, I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT. BECAUSE A I SAID, AT ITS FACE, I THINK THIS ISN'T THAT BIG OF A DEAL. BUT THE
RIPPLE EFFECTS OF WHAT THIS COULD MEAN FOR US AS A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY ARE REALLY CONCERNING TO ME AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CONSISTENT. >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. I
ESS I'M NOT SURE IF APPROVING THIS VARIANCE WOULD SET SOME KIND OF PRECEDENCE OR THAT WE MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON PAST CISIONS AS QUASI JUDICIAL. THE WHOLE POINT OF THE APPEAL
PROCESS IS SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS WHATEVER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE. BUT I WAS -- I WAS
PERSUADED BY COUNCIL MEMBER -- OH BOY, I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT WITH THE INTERRUPTIONS. BUT COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE'S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD SPOKEN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP, WHICH IS IN SUPPORT. AND I
WANTED TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY IF THAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE IN THIS STATEMENT OF FINDINGS. >> MR. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THE FDINGS HAVE TO ADDRESS THE FACTORS THAT ARE
THERE AND NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT JUST SIMPLY ISN'T ONE OF THEM. AS COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON SAID, I'M AWARE THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION AT AMENDING SOME SIGNAGE CODE AND BEING MORE PERMISSIVE IN THE FUTURE. BUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS PLANS TO
ALTER THE LEGISLATIVE OUTOK IN THE FUTURE ALSO WOULDN'T BE A BASIS FOR MAKING A FINDING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT ONE OF THESE MOTIONS. AGAIN, IT WOULD HAVE TO FOCUS ON A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AS IN RELATION TO THE THREE FACTORS
THAT ARE LAID OUT THERE. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. AND I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION PUT FORTH BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SEEING
NO ONE ELSE SPEAK, WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY'S MOTION TO MOVE THIS WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL COUNCIL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES. OUR LAST ITEM IS HEARING REGARDING THE DEMOLITION
OF HISTORIC RESOURCE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY JOEL ALBERS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3501 HIAWATHA. THIS APPEAL COMES FROM TH DECISION OF HITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. I'LL
ASK ERIN QUE TO BRIEFLY GIVE US TH PRESENTATION. I'LL HAVE THE STAFF FIRST. THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR OSMAN, AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME ISRIN QUE. FROM CPED. I'M HERE
TO PRESENT AN APPEAL OF HPC'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE APPLICATIO FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3501 HIAWATHA AVENUE I WILL BEGIN WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS, EXPLAIN THE DECISION, AND SUMMARY OF THE
APPEAL. I KNOW THAT A SIMILAR APPLICATION CAME BEFORE YOU LAST MONTH AS WELL. SO HERE'S THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM HISTORIC RESOURCE AS STATED IN THE MINNEAPOLIS CODE OF ORDINANCES. IT'S A PROPERTY THAT IS BELIEVED TO HAVE HISTORICAL,
ARCHITECTURE, CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND TO MEET AT LEAST ONE CRITERIA. ALTHOUGH HISTORIC RESOURCE MEETS THE CRITERIA TO BE DESIGNATED, IT HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY DESIGNATED. THIS CAME TO CPED STAFF WHEN THE APPLICANT AND
DEVELOPER REACHED OUT TO STAFF IN NOVEMBER OF 2024. THE PROPERTY IS DETERMINED INDIVIDUALLY ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. GIVEN THE AGE, THE PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED
TO BE A HISTORIC RESOURCE. SO THE APPLICANT WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A DEMOLION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE APPLICATION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3501 HIAWATHA AVENUE ADJACENT TO
THE CORKRAN NEIGHBORHOOD. HERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE SUBCT PROPERTY FROM THE WEST AND THE NORTH. AND THEN HERE'S A VIEW FROM THE EAST AS WELL AS AN OBLIQUE AERIAL PHOTO TO GIVE YOU
A SENSE OF SCALE. T APPLICANT HAS NOT FINALIZED A DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT HAS EXPRESSED IEREST ON DEVELOPING HOUSING ON THE PROPERTY. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE IS NOT PART OF THE COMMITTEE'S PURVIEW ON THIS APPLICATION. THE SITE WAS DEVELOPED AS A MILL IN 1914,
WHICH IS WHEN THE YELLOW BRICK BUILDING AND THE STEEL GRAIN BINS AND ELEVATOR IN THE MIDDLE TALL CONCRETE GRAIN BINS AT THE LEFT END OF THE PHOTO ON YOUR SCREEN WERE ADDED IN 2024. AND THE SITE HAS CONTINUED TO
DEVELOP OVER TIME. IT IS ONE OF NINE GRAIN ELEVATORS BUILT ALONG HIAWATHA DURING MINNEAPOLIS' PEAK PERIOD OF FLOUR MILLING FROM 1880 TO 1930. SIX OF THE NINE REMAIN STANDING. THIS SLIDE
SHOWS LANGUAGE PARAPHRASED FROM OUR ORDANCE ABOUT HOW TO DECIDE ON THIS APPLICATION. IF A PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE SIGNIFICANCERITERIA THEN DEMOLITION IS APPROVED. IF THE
PROPERTY DOES MEET -- UNLESS THE APPLICANT MEETS THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF IN ONE OF TWO WAYS. THE FIRST IS THAT DESTRUCTION IS NECESSARY TO -- THE SECOND IS THAT THERE ARE NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO DESTRUCTION. WHICH COULD BE RELATED TO
SIGNIFICANCE, INTEGRITY OR THE ECONOMIC VALUE OR UFULNESS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. AT THE FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025, MEETING, THE
FIRST TWO FINDINGS ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY IS OR IS NOT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANCE. -- RETAINS SUFFICIENT INTEGRITY TO CONVEY ITS SIGNIFICANCE. THEREFORE, IT
IS ELIGIBLE F DESIGNATION UNDER CRITERIA. UNDER CRITERION ONE -- PERIODS THAT PATTERNS OF CULTURAL, POLITICAL, ECONOMI OR SOCIAL HISTORY. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY REPRESENTS A IMPORTANT PERIOD IN THE CITY'S MILLING HISTORY. UNDER CRITERION THREE, THE PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY, THIS PROPERTY AND ITS NEIGHBORS ALONG THE HIAWATHA AVENUE CORRIDOR ARE VISUAL LANDMARKS AND HAVE BEEN
PRESENT FOR OVER 100 YEARS. THERE WAS ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT CONCENTRATION OF GRAIN ELEVATORS AND SILOS NEAR THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, BUT MOST OF THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED. UNDER CRITERION FOUR, THE
DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF STYLE OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION BINS FROM 1914. AS OF 1920, THERE WERE 68 GRAIN ELEVATORS IN THE CITY. MANY OF WHICH HAVE
BEEN SINCE DEMOLISHED. STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY OVER TI WORKING MILL. HOWEVER, STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPERTY DOES NOT RETAIN SUFFICIENT -- SORRY, DOES RETAIN SUFFICIENT INTEGRITY TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR LANDMARK
DESIGNION. THE SECOND FINDING LISTING HERE IS THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BEEN DETERMINED IN THE LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEETS THE CRITERIA, FINDING
NUMBER 3 AND NUMBER 4 SHOWN HERE ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT DEMOLITION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE THIRD FINDING IS THAT DEMOLITION IS NOT NECESSARY TO CORRECT AN UNSAFE OR DANGEROUS CONDITION RELATED TO THE LATEST STRUCTURAL CONDITION. STAFF ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE ISSUES AT THIS PROPERTY RELATED
TO GRAFFITI, VANDALS, URBAN EXPLORERS, AND THEIR SETY AND ASBESTOS. HOWEVER, THESE ARE ISSUES THAT CAN BE MITIGATED. THE FOURTH FINDING IS THAT THERE ARE NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
TO THE DEMOLITION CONSIDER. IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED AS A MILL. THE PROPERTY OWNER SPENDS ABOUT $676,000 EACH YEAR FOR SECURITY TO TRY TO MITIGATE SOMEF THE SAFETY ISSUES PRESENT ON SITE. AND ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION WILL BE NECESSARYO PUT THE
SITE BACK INTO USE. STAFF DID RESEARCH OTHER EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATIVE USES FOR GRAIN ELEVATORS IN MINNEAPOLIS AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND PRESENTED THEM TO THE HPC. AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE MINNEAPOLIS EXAMPLES WE FOUND.
IN THE 1980S, THE LAYHART GRAIN ELEVATOR ON THE TOP WAS CONVERTED TO HOUSING. THE BUNGIE ELEVATOR COMPLEX WAS CONVERTED INTO HOUSING. THIS IS THE BOTTOM LEFT PICTURE. THE HPC REQUIRED
RETENTION OF THE HEAD HOE. THE MILL CITY MUSEUM ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE THE SILOS HAVE BEEN RETAINED, AND THE RUINS OF THE MILL ARE MAINTAINED AS AN INTERPRETIVE PIECE. STAFF RESEARCHED OTHER EXAMPLES FROM ACROSS THE
COUNTRY. AS SHOWN HERE. SOME HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED. SOME ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT. AND SOME ARE CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS. THESE CONVERSIONS ARE FOR HOUSING, LODGING, COMMERCIAL SPACE. AND THEY ARE RELATIVE FEW IN NUMBER WHICH STAFF BELIEVE BECAUSE THEY
E CHALLENGING PROPERTIES TO REUSE. STAFF DID NOT READILY FIND COSTS TO THESE PROJECTS TO OFFER COMPARISON. THIS CASE, THE DEVELOPER -- HOUSING UNITS,
WHILE DEMOLISHING THE RES OF THE PROPERTY. THEY DID CLARIFY THESE WOULD LIKELY BE FAMILY-SIZED UNITS. THEY COULD POSSIBLY DO UP TO 50 SMALLER EFFICIENCY UNITS. IT WOULD COST ABOUT $28 MILLION TO IMPLEMENT
THIS ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT, INCLUDG ACQUISITION, ENVIRONMENTAL ABATEMENT, AND REHABILITATION. WHICH WOULD MEAN ABOUT $1.1 MILLION PER UNIT IF THEY DEVELOPED 25. THEY DID NOT PROVIDE A DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OF THE SPECIFIC
TASKS NEEDED FOR REHABILITATION, WHICH IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THIS APPLICATION. IF THEY WERE ABLE TO DEMOLISH THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, THEY WOULD HOPE TO PROVIDE 240 HOUSI UNITS AT AN
ESTIMATED COST HER UNITF $400,000. IT HINGES ON WHETHER OR NOT DEMOLITION IS ALLOWED. SINCE THE PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER, STAFF ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HISTORIC TAX CREDITS COULD BE AN OPTION TO FSET THE COST. AT THE SAME TIME, IT CAN STILL BE
VERY CHALLENGING TO ADAPT GRAIN SILOS AND ELEVATORS FOLLOWING THE PRESERVATION STANDARDS. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS. ULTIMATELY, THERE ARE CHALLENGES TO REUSING PROPERTIES LIKE THIS ONE. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE
ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, STAFF AND THE HPC FOUND THERE ARE NO REASONABLE -- STAFF ANTICIPATE THERE ARE CONSIDERABLE COSTS TO MAINTAIN OR REHABILITATE THE BUILDING STRUCTUR FOR NEW USES. AT THE
HPC MEETING, THE DEVELOPER SHARED THAT THE SILOS WOULD BE CHALLENGING TO REUSE BECAUSE THEY ARE SMALLER THAN OTHERS IN THE CITY AND THAT THEY ARE THIN. THERE'S DISCUSSION ABOUT DIFFERENT WAYS TO INCORPORATE THE SITE'S HISTORY INTO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. STAFF RECEIVED ONE
PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS IN FAVOR OF FUTUREEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE. WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. TWO INDIVIDUALS SPOKE AT THE HPC HEARING. ONE PERSON WAS IN OPPOSITION TO DEMOLITION. COMMENTS ADDRESS THE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF HISTORY AT THE SITE, AND POSSIBILITY OF ADAPTIVE
REUSE. THE HPC DISCUSSED THESE TOPICS, AS WELL AS SAFETY ISSUES WITH GRAIN ELEVATORS. CHALLENGES TO REUSING SILOS, AND CHALLENGES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION IN THEIR DELIBERATION. ULTIMATELY, THE HPC VOTED TO APPROVE DEMITION SUBJECT TO
ONE CONDITION, WHICH REQUIRES A MITIGATION PLAN TO DOCUMENT OR RECOGNIZE THE SITE'S HISTORY, APPROVAL OF A DOLITION PERMIT. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO BELIEVES THERE ARE REASONABLE, VIABLE, AND COST EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES TO
MOLITION, AND IS REQUESTING DENIAL OF DEMOLITION. IF THE COMMITTEE CHOOSES TO GRANT THE APPEAL, THIS WOULD DENY DEMOLITION, ESTABLISH INTERIM PROTECTION FOR ONE YEAR, AND INITIATE A DESIGNATION STUDY OF THE PROPERTY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A QUICK NOTE ABOUT THE PUBLIC
NOTICING FOR THIS ITEM. PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT OUT 12 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING. BUT THE NOTICE FOR THE ITEM DESCRIBED A DIFFERENT PROJECT. SO CPED REVISED NOTICES, INCLUDING COPIES TO THE APPELLANT AND THE APPLICANT. SINCE THE ITEM WAS
NOTICED, I'VE RECEIVED NINE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, WHICH YOU HAVE RECEIVED. OPINIONS RANGE FROM SUPPORT OF DEMOLITION, TO SUPPORT OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND ADAPTIVE
REUSE, OPPOSE OF DEMOLITION. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M HAPPY TO STAY FOR QUESTIONS. THE APPELLANT IS HERE, JOEL ALB ALBERS, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. ANZACHARY GROUP WHO WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK.
>> WONDERFUL. THANK Y SO MUCH FOR THAT PRESENTATION. YES, I WILL PROCEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GIVE THE APPELLANT SEVEN MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMANND THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JOEL
ALBERS. I'M HERE TO APPEAL THE AGREED UPON DEMOLITION OF THE HISTORIC1914-ADM GRAIN MILL AT 3501 HIAWATHA AVENUE, WHICH WAS CLOSED IN 2019. MY BACKGROUND IS
IN HEALTH ECONOMICS RESEARCH. AND IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS I'VE BEEN STUDYING VIOUS PROPERTIES SUCH AS GRAIN MILLS. SOE ARE HERE TO APPEAL OUR GRASSROOTS
ORGANIZATION CALLED SAVE MINNEAPOLIS FROM THE WREING BALL. TO SAY THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE, ABLE, COST EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES TO DEMOLITION UTILIZING HISTORIC ADAPTIVE REUSE, PARCULARLY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THE SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TAX CREDITS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT. IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS KIND OF DECISION ON A HISTORIC
PROPERTY, AND REALLY AN ICONIC PROPERTY, THAT MADE THE CITY OF MIEAPOLIS WHAT IT IS TODAY. MADE IT A BIG CITY. THERE'S JUST ESSENTIAL INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE KNOWN SUCH AS A FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT. HOW CAN
YOU MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT KNOWIN ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS. EVEN BASIC ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS. ARCHITECTURAL MODELS, SQUARE FOOTAGE, COST ESTIMAS. SO IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE-BASED DATA, IF BECOMES
AN UNACCOUNTABLE PROCESS. AND YOU HAVE THE HANDOUT THAT I HAVE HERE. I DON'T HAVE A POWERPOINT ON THIS. SO ON PAGE 2, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS A PHOTO THAT I TOOK. THE DESCRIPTIONS ON THE
NEXT PAGE. BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO POINT OUT HERE IS WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT ADAPTIVE REUSE WOULD LOOK LIKE OF THESE HISTORIC GRAIN MILLS. AND THE CITY
PLANNER, ERIN QUE FROM CPED JUST POINTED OUT NUMEROUSXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL ADAPTIVE REUSE TO HOUSING BOTH IN MINNEAPOLISND NATIONALLY. SO HERE IS THE MILL HERE. IT'S SIX STORIES. THIS IS
WHE ALL THE PROCESSING TAKES PLACE. THERE'S 17 WINDOWS ACROSS FIRST STORY, AND LENGTH WISE. AND THE WIDTH IS SIX WINDOWS. EASILY, THERE COU BE 100 TO 120 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN THIS BUILDING. WHICH I WON'T REPEAT BECAUSE IT WAS AEADY STATED BY CPED THAT THIS BUILDING HAS STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. THESE ARE SAFE BUILDINGS. YES, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE MITIGATION HAVE
BUILDINGS. OKAY. NOW THIS NEXT BUILDING HERE TO THE LEFT IS ABOUT A THIRD THE SIZE OF THE MAIN, THE SIX-STORY PROCESSING BUILDING. THAT'S WHERE THE CONVEYER BELTS BRING THE PROCESSED FLOUR AND WHEAT. ON
THEIR WAY TO THE SILOS. AND THAT COULD CREATE FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE, THAT COULD BE ABOUT 25 UNITS OF AFRDABLE HOUSING IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. OKAY. AND
THEN LET'S LOOK AT -- I THINK IT'S THE THIRD PAGE HERE. THERE ARE AUALLY 12 SILOS AS THE CONVEYER BELT BRINGS THE PROCESSED FLOUR AND WHEAT, IT THEN GOES UP A GRAIN ELEVATOR INTO THE SILOS. THERE ARE 12 SILOS HERE. YOU COULD SEE FROM
ONE OF THE PHOTOS THAT WAS SHOWN BY ERIN FROM CPED THAT EVEN THIS CIRCUMFERENCE SILO CAN BE USED. YOU CAN USE THESE CONCRETE SILOS
FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE FOR HOUSING. YOU JUST SAW NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF THIS IN THE POWERPOINT. AND AGAIN, CPED JUSTOINTED OUT THERE'S NO PROBLEM AT ALL WITH THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS GRAIN SILO, ANDFRANKLY,
ALL THE OTHER ONES ALONG HIAWATHA AVENUE.O WINDOWS COULD BE PUT ON THERE. AND YOU KNOW THESE GRAIN SILOS ARE FROM 1914. THESE ARE MADE TO LAST. OKAY. SO THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF
THEM. AND SO THE QUESTN IS WITHOUT THIS APPEAL AND WITHOUT SAVING THIS GRAIN MILL FROM DEMOLITION, THE LIKELY CONSEQUENCE IS THAT WE WILLND UP WITH MORE MARKET RATE, UPSCALE AND LURY APARTMENTS IN
AN ALREADY SATURATED MARKET. I COULD LIST FOR YOU 10 UPSALE MARKET RATE APARTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS ALONG HIAWATHA, AT 46th AND MINNEHAHA. ALL NEW ONES
THERE THAT ARE UPSCALE. AND ON NOWAHADA AVENUE, YOU'VE GOT THE SHALE, AND BECK 46. THE STARTING RENT IS $1,400, PLUS $200 FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING. WE NEED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ADAPTIVE REUSE. AND THERE'S NO REASON WHY THIS CAN'T BE ACCOMPLISHED. AND SO AGAIN, AS CPED WAS JUST SAYING, THIS PROPERTY IS COMPLETELY ELIGIBLE FOR LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AND THE TAX
CREDITS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT. WE NEED TO START QUANTIFYING THIS STUFF. 40% IS THE NUMBER THAT I CAMECROSS IN THE LITERATURE. AND THEN -- OKAY. SO
WE MENTIONED -- YOU ALREADY SAW THE SLIDE ABOUT THE SUCCESSFUL ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THREE GRAIN MILLS IN MINNEAPOLIS TO ADAPTIVE REUSE FOR HOUSING.ND WE'RE STRONGLY ADVOCATING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THEN
FINALLY, I UNDERSTAND THE TIME LIMIT HERE. TO GET MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHY THESE ARE SO STORIC, WE THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO TIE HISTORIC PRESERVATION, YOU KNOW, TO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RECLAMATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN
LAND. WHICH THIS SITS ON. WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD -- WE NEED TO BUILD TRUST IN THIS CITY. RIGHT. AND THERE CAN BE MANY COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES. SO AGAIN, THREE GROUPS THAT WOULD
REALLY BE IMPORTANT -- DO YOU MIND IF I TAKE 30 SECONDS HERE? >> WRAP IT UP, PLEASE. >> I'LL MAKE IT QUICK. THESE MILLS DID CREATE JOBS FOR THE MASS SCANDINAVIAN IMMIGRANTS WHO CAME HERE THAT MADE MINNEAPOLIS A CITY. THE HIAWATHA GRAIN MILL
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXPANDED THE NEIGHBORHOODS ALL AROUND THERE. IN OTHER WORDS, THESE NEIGHBORHOODS EXPANDED AND BECAME NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THE HOUSING WAS BUILT BECAUSE THESE ARE ICONIC IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. SO I ALREADY MENTIONED NATIVE AMERICAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT,
AND WHAT CAN BE DONE IN TERMS OF RECLAMATION ON THIS LAND AND THESE BUILDINGS IN TERMS OF HOUSING. SOLVING THE HOMELESS CRISIS. >> THANK YOU. >> ALSO DISCRIMINATION. THERE WAS MUCH DISCRIMINATION OF
AFRICAN AMERICANS OF JOBS. AND YET, AFRICANMERICANS WERE RELEGATED TO BEING SEGREGATED TO LIVE LITERALLY ON THE NEXT BLOCK FROM THESE MILLS. AND SO SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. >> SURE. >> OKAY. >> YOU'RE OUT OF TIME, SIR.
THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. THANKOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. AND NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE APPLICANT OR THE DEVELOPER. WELCOME. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU HAVE SEVEN MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME. MY NAME IS LOUIS ZACHARY AT THE ZACHARY CONSTRUCTION GROUP LOCATED AT 26 EAST 22nd STREET IN BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA. I'M
GOING ON MY 36th YEAR IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. NOW SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT I'M BIG REAL ESTATE. I'M NOT BIG REAL ESTATE. I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. NOW I'VE WORKED FOR BIG REAL ESTATE. I'VE WORKED FOR COMPANIES LIKE
UNITED PROPERTIES, AND OPUS, AND RECENTLY THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF CONSTRUCTION AT DOEM MPANIES. SO I KNOW WHAT IT TAKES TO WORK THESE SITES. WHAT WE'RE HERE IS
TO DISCUSS THE FACTS ON HAND. HO THE TRANSIT 15 BUILT FORM OVERLAY WITHOUT ANY VARIANCES. WE ALSO WANT TO DISCUSS THE FACTS THAT HAVE TRANSPIRED THUS FAR. THE FACT IS THE CPED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION ANDHE HPC APPROVED THE DEMOLITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE. ALL PARTIES AGREED EXCEPT MR. ALBERS. WHAT MR. ALBS HAS JUST PROPOSED IS SOMETHING THAT'S
EXTREMELY RISKY AND ECONOMICALLY UNREALISTIC. THE IDEA DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS' COMEHENSIVE PLAN. PLAIN AND SIMPLE, THE BODIES THAT WE'VE ENTRUSTED TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS HAVE ALREADY
APPROVED IT AND AGREED WITH OUR POSITION. THE FACT IS THAT OUR VISION FOR THE SITE ALIGNS WITH THE GREATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.
EQUALLY IMPORTANT, WE'RE NOT SEEKING ANY VARIANCES FOR THIS TRANSIT 15 CORRIDOR. FACTS. WE'LL BE SEEKING CONSULTATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY
STAKEHOLDERS AS WE CONTINUE TO LOOK FOREVELOPMENT ON THIS PROJECT. NOW RELATIVE TO THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE'LL BE ADDRESSING OVER 15 OF THE POLICIES WITH OUR VISION FOR MIXED INCOME PLAN. AND I'M NOT
GOING TO SIT HERE AND READ ALL OF THOSE POLICIES FOR YOU BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO DO IT. BUT I'LL WHIZ THROUGH A COUPLE OF THEM VERY BRIEFLY. POLICY ONE IS ACCESS TO HOUSING AND INCREASE TO HOUSING. POLICY 38, AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEAR
TRANSIT AND JOB CENTERS. POLICY 33, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ODUCTION AND PRESERVATION. THE ZACHARY GROUP IS NOT PREPARED TO PUT BABIES IN CONCRETE BOXES ON
HIAWATHA. AS AN ORGANIZATION, WE JUST CAN'T DO THAT. THE MILL IS NOT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. AND C APARTMENT MAKES AS MUCH SENSE AS CONVERTING AN APARTMENT COMPLEX
TO A FLOUR MILL. SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT NEAR EXISTING PLAN. POLICY 96, CULTURAL HERITAGE AND PRESERVATION AND RECOGNITION. WE'RE ADDRESSING THE PRESERVATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MITIGATION PLAN THAT WE'VE
ALREADY PRESENTED TO THE HPC. AND I'LL BE BRIEF. I'LL BE CLOSING. WE HAVE PHOTOS UP THERE FOR YOUR VIEWING.HE FROWN MILL AND THE NACOMAS MILL. ONE OF THE MILLS IS A POSTER CHILD FOR HOW
YOU DON'T WANT TO DO ADAPTIVE REUSE. YOU ALL KNOW THE STORY OF THE FROWN MILL. ARE WE REALLY PREPARED TO HAVE ANOTHER SITE SIT EMPTY FOR ANOTHER 50 YEARS? NOW I'M ALMOST 60 YEARS OLD. IF
NOTHING HAPPENS HERE TONIGHT, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, I'LL PROBABLY BE DEAD AND GONE BEFORE SOMETHING GETS DEVELOPED ON THIS SITE. AND THAT'S A FACT. THE FACT IS MY ORGANIZATION, WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE THE CITY FORWARD WITH A PROGRESSIVE MANNER THAT
WILL INCREASE THE TAX BASE AND HELP SOLVE THE HOUSING CRISIS IN THE CITY ULTIMATELY, ACTUALLY, WE WANT THE SAME THING. BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION. ARE WE GOING TO SAY THAT THE 2040 PLAN DOESN'T
TTER? ARE WE PREPARED TO PUT BABIES IN CONCRETE BOXES? ARE WE GOING TO SAY THAT THE CPED STAFF WAS WRONG? ARE WE GOING TO SAY THAT THE HPC WAS WRONG, AND ARE WE GOING TO SAY THAT WE DON'T CARE ABOUT HIGH DENSI HOUSING THAT MAXIMIZES AFFORDABILITY?
I' CHARGED WITH DATA AND FACTS. THIS IS AS SIMPLE ASTHAT. AND IN MY BUSINESS, HOPING TO GET GRANTS IN THIS POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT WHEN THE FEDERAL BUDGETS ARE BEING HIT WITH A SWITCHBLADE IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.
LASTLY, I'LL LEAVE U WITH THIS. I'M GNG TO QUOTE PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND HIS QUOTE HAPPENS TO BE ON THE HOME PAGE OF THE LONGFELLOW COMMUNITY COUNCIL. CHANGE WILL NOT COME IF WE WAIT FOR SOME OTHER PERSON OR
SOME OTHER TIME. WE ARE THE ONES YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR. AND WE ARE THE CHANGE THAT YOU SEEK. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NOW I WANT TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION OF
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PUBLIC. I SEE HERE ZANIA BUZAK WARD 9. AND NEXT PERSON WILL BE DEBORAH HENDERSON. WELCOME. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS NICK PUZAK, I OWN 3556. SO I HAVE A LITTLE SKIN IN THE GAME. WE'VE BEEN THERE 23 YEARS. I LIVE IN
NNEAPOLIS. AND WORKED IN REAL ESTATE FOR 40 YEAR I'M RETIRED NOW AS A LICENSED APPRAISER. SO
I HAVE MY FIRST INCLINATION IS JUST PROFESSIONALLY TO CONSIDER THE MASSIVE, THE TREMENDOUS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S BEEN ALREADY INVESTED IN THERE ON OUR LIGHT RAIL LINE FOR MINNEAPOLIS.
TODAY, SPECIFICALLY, I CAME TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF TWO OF OUR FEMALE-OWNED BUSINESSES. THEY'RE AT 3556, WHICH IS KIND OF ON THE HIND END OF THIS PARCEL. BUT IT'S IMPACTED.
AND IT WOULD BE IMPACTED, IT HAS BEEN IMPACTED FOR HOWEVER MANY YEARS NOW. BY THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS PARCEL. AND ALTHOUGH THE OWNER H PRIVATE SECURITY OUT
THERE. SOMEBODY MENTIONED $50,000 A MONTH. THE CONDITIONS IN THIS SPECIFIC AREA WOULD BE FAR WORSE IF IT WASN'T FOR THE TOW TRUCK DRIVERS AT SADER
TOWING WHO ARE AROUND THIS PARCEL24/7. THAT IS ULTIMATELY NEIGHBORHOOD PRIVATE SECURITY THAT NOBODY IS PAYING FOR. THAT WOULD YOU HAVE A LOT MORE PROBLEMS IN THIS AREA IF IT WASN'T FOR THE GENTLEMEN WHO ARE DRIVING THOSE TOW TRUCKS. THAT'S
ST KIND OF A NUANCE OF WHAT WILL BE REALLY BAD AUND. THE FEMALES ARE VERY MUCH APPRECIATIVE OF THOSE GUYS. >> SIR, YOU'VE RUN OUT OF TIME. >> OH, I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO TWO OF MYRIENDS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'RE OWNER OCCUPANTS. THEY BOTH SUPPORT DEMOLITION. WHICH IS VERY INTERESTING. T HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS AN APPRAISER. I APPRAISED THE SILOS CONVERTED TO RESIDENTIAL. >> THANK YOU. >> PEOPLE DON'T WANT THEM. IT'S
TOO MUCH WASTED SPACE UNLESS YOU OWN CURVE COUCHES. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE, COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS. >> HI. WELCOME. >> HI, I'M DEBBIE HENDERSON. I
THINK THERE'S A HIDDEN GEM OF GOING WITH ADAPTIVE HOUSING. AND THIS IS KIND OF CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH. THAT WHY OUR BRAINS PREFER CURVES IS ONE STUDY. ANOTHER ONE IS THE IMPACT OF
ROOM SHAS ON EFFECTIVE STATES AND CREATIVE OUTPUT. THAT'S BY K. STOCKMAN, REAGAN AND OBAM. THESE ARE PUBLISHED IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS. THEY
MEASURE HEART RATE A AFFECT STATE, AND CREATIVITY AND DIVERGENT THINKING. ALL THOSE THINGS WT UP BY BEING IN KIND OF CIRCULAR STATES. AND THIS IS KINDA GOT ME EXCITED ABOUT IT WHEN I WAS KINDA LOOKING AT THIS
THING FOR MY FRIEND JOEL. THEY DID REAL EXTENSIVE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T -- OKAY. ONE MINUTE. OKAY. THEY REALLY WENT THROUGH THE
WHOLE GAMUT WITH USING SCIENTIFIC PARAMETER AND STUFF. PEOPLE DID A WHOLE LOT BETTER IN CIRCULAR SPACES. THEIR CREATIVITY WAS WAY UP. AND THEY TUALLY WANT TO USE THIS FOR
REHABILITATION. SO HERE WE'VE GOT THE SPACE THAT COULD HOUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE AND KIDS. AND WHO KNOWS, YOU KNOW, 30, 40 YEARS FROM NOW, THEY COULD LOOK BACK AT THIS WOW. THIS WHOLE POPULATION WAS SO CREATIVE AND THEY GAVE OUR WORLD THIS MUCH.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT. AND ALSO BY TEARING EVERYTHING DOWN AND STARTING FROM THE BEGINNING, I KNOW THIS ISN'T HOW THE WORLD WORKS, BUT THIS IS WHAT I VALUE. RIGHT NOW
CALIFORNIA, YOU KNOW, AND ALL THESE PLACES, ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER THEY NEED THE BUILDING MATERIALS. SO ANYWAY. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OTHIS ITEM? WELCOME. PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME. >> MY NAME IS STERLING BROWN. I' A JUNIOR DEVELOPER. I LIVE AT THE SHELL APARTMENT. AND I'M ACTUALLY MOVING OUT OF THE SHELL BECAUSE THE TENT CITY IS STARTING TO MOVE TO THE FALLS. YOU KNOW. WE ALL NEED APARTMENTS. SO KINDA LEAVE IT AT
THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. SEEING NO ONE ELSE SPEAK, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL RECNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON. >> THANK YOU. JUST WANTED TO HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
AND I DO PLAN TO MAKE A MOTION. BUT YOU KNOW, I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE IMPULSE FOR WANTING TO LEAN IN TO PRESERVAON. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE. BUT I WANTED TO -- THERE WERE SOME OF
THOSE EXAMPLES OF CONVERSIONS. MIGHT NOT KNOW THIS, BUT WERE THOSE DEVELOPERS WHO CONVERTED THOSE, WERE THEY COMPELLED TO DO SO OR DID SOMEONE HAVE A VISION AND ENGAGED IN THOSE PROJECTS? DO YOU KNOW? >> CHAIR OSMAN, VICE CHAIR
ELLISON, I DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. I THINK IT PROBABLY VARIES ACROSS EXAMPLES. YOU KNOW. I THINK ONE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S NEAR THE BEGINNING IS SILO CITY IN BUFFALO. IT WAS HARD TO FIND
INFORMATION IN HOW FAR ALONG IN THAT PROJECT THEY ARE. SOME PROBABLY HAVE USED TAX CREDITS. BUT I DON'T KNOW THE SPEFICS OF THOSE EXAMPLES THAT WERE SHARED. >> OKAY. BUT ONE THING THAT'S CERTAIY TRUE IS THAT THE YEAR THAT THEY WERE BUILT WHENEVER THEY WERE DONE, THAT'S GOING TO
AFFECT COST. SOMETHING THAT MIGHT HAV BEEN FEASIBLE 30 YEARS AGO, WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE COMPARABLE COST TOY. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN INFLATION IN RECENT YEARS AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN THE IMPACTS OF T PANDEMIC ON CONSTRUCTION COSTS, SUPPLY AND
DEMAND, THAT SORT OF THING. >> AND THEN COULD YOU REMIND ME AGAIN, I KNOW THIS WAS COVERED. BUT WHAT'S THE CURRENT USE OF THE SITE RIGHT NOW. >> SO THE CURRENT USE IT IS -- WE CATEGORIZED IT INTERNALLY AS VACANT IT'S STILL OWNED BUT
THEY CLOSED THE MILLING OPERATION IN 2018. >> LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY WE'RE 10 MINUTES, 30 MINUTES INTO THE FUTURE HERE, AND THE MOLITION IS GRANTED. IF IT'S GRANTED BY THIS COMMITTEE. IF THE DEVELOPER WAS TO DO FURTHER
RESEARCH AND DECIDE OF THEIR OWN VOLITION, ACTUALLY THERE'S A PORTION OF THIS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE OR COULD PRESERVE, IS THAT OPTION ON THE TABLE FOR THEM? COULD THEY STILL GET TAX CREDITS, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T COMPELLED TO PRESERVE?
>> AT THIS POINT WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT TO -- A DEMOLITION PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN FILED YET. IF THE DEMOLITION IS GRANTED, THAT WOULD MEAN WHEN AND IF T DEMOLITION PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR, WE COULD CERTAINLY
GN OFF ON IT. CERTAINLY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THIS SITE, WHETHER THE DEVELOPER SHOULD CHOOSE TO RETAIN PORTIONS OR DEMOLISH IT ALL, THAT WOULD GO THROUGH A PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW. THERE WOULD BE MUCH MORE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE PROPOSED FOR THIS.
>> BUT DENYING THIS APPEAL WOULDN'T AUTOMATICALLY SAY YOU CAN'T PRESERVE ANY PORTION OF THIS SITE. >> CORRECT. DENYING THE APPEAL AND ALLOWING DOLITION WOULD NOT DICTATE HOW DEMOLITION IS CARRIED OUT ON THIS SITE. >> RIGH THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. YOU KNOW, I'M
GOING TO GOHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL. I THINK THAT YOU KNOW, THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND ALL THE OTHER BODIES WHO HAVE RULED ON THIS ON STAFF WHO
HAVE GIVEN THEIR ADVICE. I THINK THEY GOT IT AS WELL HERE. I THINK THAT THERE'S STILL A LONG ROAD BETWEEN HERE AND BREAKING GROUND ON ANY FUTURE PROJECT. AND I KNOW THAT'S KIND OF IMMATERIAL TO THE DECISION HERE. BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE CAUSE, AND I THINK WE HAVE FINDINGS TO
GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD. A LOT CAN HAPPEN AT THIS SITE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, PROCESSING GRAIN AT THIS SITE. AND SO I JUST THINK THAT THE CONVERSIONS, THE DESIRE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU KNOW,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BY THE WAY, ISLL A LOT OF IT MOST OF IT SUBSIDIZED. SO THAT'S SORT OF A PROJECT THAT WE'RE ALSO SORT OF IMPLICATED IN IF THAT'S A FUTURE PROJECT THAT OCCURS THERE. AND SO YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I QUITE BELIEVE THAT NEW UNITS
WOULD BE $400,000, AND THEN THE OTHERS WOULD BE $1.5 MILLION. BUT CERTAINLY PRESERVATION WOULD BE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ACTUAL END NUMBERS ARE. FOR THAT REASON I THINK THAT IT IS WORTH WHILE FORS TO DENY THE APPEAL AND
UPHOLD STAFF RECOMMENDATION. AND I'M HERE FOR ANY OTHER, OPEN TO ANY OTHER DISCUSSI. >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. NO, I AGREE WITH THE MOTION AND WILL SUPPORT THAT AS LL. I'M A HUGE FAN OF ADAPTIVE REUSE, AND I'M
AWARE OF THE HISTORIC MILLS. BUT AS FAR AS I'M AWARE NONE WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE MILL IS BRINGING FORWARD A VISION. AND I'M GUESSING THAT IN THE STATE
OF DISREPAIR CONDITION THAT IT'S IN RIGHT NOW, A PROJECT LIKE THAT WOULD NOT FINANCIALLY PENCIL OUT EVEN WITH TAX CREDITS. SO DENYING THE DEMOLITION WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE SED ON A HOPE AND A WISH THAT SOMEONE WOULD BRING FORWARD. A WHOLE BUNCH OF MONEY AND A VISION FOR HOUSING. BUT AT THIS
TIME, IT'S A FAR GREATER BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC TO ALLOW FOR THIS PROPERTY TO HAVE NEW LIFE AS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, AND MORE HOUSING IN OUR CITY RIGHT NOW IS DESPERATELY NEEDED, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE SEEING SUCH LOW LEVELS IN INVESTMENT IN HOUSING
AT THIS MOMENT. SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON'S MOTION. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WANTED TO SEE IF THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE OPENO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. HI.
>> HI. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING S IS IN THE 9th WARD BUT THE 12th WARD IS AROUND IT, SO COUNCIL MEMBER CHAVEZ AND I HAVE DECIDED WE WILL SHARE THIS AREA. SO I'MS
FOR YOU LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE OF MAINTAINING PARTS OF THIS OR THINKING HOW SOME OF THE STCTURES OF THE GRAIN MILL, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO BE A PART OF YOUR PROJECT? I'M NOT SAYING FULL ADAPTIVE REUSE, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE THOUGHT OF? IS THERE A FEASIBILITY IN
KIND OF MAINTAINING SOME OF THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE NOT MAYBE DOING A FULL ADAPTIVE REUSE? >> YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, WHAT I WILL TELL YOU IS WITH A LOT OF
THE NEW INFORMATION THAT WE'VE GOTTEN OVE THE PAST WEEK. I MEAN, THE SITE IS SEVERELY CONTAMINATEDSO YOU KNOW, ALL THE HURDLES WE'RE GETTING IS IT'S JUST GETTING MOREND MORE COMPLICATED TO TRY AND CONSIDER THAT. THE SITE HAS TO CLEANED
UP. AND IT'S $1.5 MILLION TO CLEAN THE SITE UP. AND THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS TO REMOV THE BUILDINGS, CLEAN THE SITE UP AND START ANEW. IF IT WAS ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS TO LEAVE THE BUILDGS IN PLACE,
WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU AS A DEVELOPER, WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONETHAT. WE WOULD HAVE CONTEMPLATED THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SILLY TO TEAR DOWN SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD REUSE. AND SO I HAVE STUDIED THAT. I AD
WHAT I'LL TELL YOU IS AT MY COMPANY, I'VE GOT TO WEIGH THE RISK VERSUS THE VALUE THAT WE'RE GETTING. WE'RE IN A SITE THAT HAS HIGH DENSITY. THE BEST WAY TO GET DENSITY IS TO CLEAR
WHAT'S THERE. THAT MEETS THE NE >> THANK YOU. SHOULD A DEMOLITION PERMIT BE GRANTED AND THEN ONE BE FILED, WHAT'SOUR TIMELINE FOR DEMOLITION? WHAT'S YOUR TIMELINE FOR STARTING ON A PROJECT? >> WE'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS I'D LIKE TO GET THE BUILDING DOWN BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. >> THANK YOU, SIR. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. REALLY APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU. >> SO AS A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT
REPRESENTS A LOT OF THE PEOPLE AROUND THE AREA, ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN PERSISTENT PHONE CALL THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED IS THE ISSUES AROUND THE GRAFFITI. SAFETY ISSUES AROUND INDIVIDUALS BREAKING IN TO THE GRAIN MILLS
AND THE SILOS. TEENAGERS CLIMBING UP ON IT. I WENT ON A FIRE RIDE ALONG AND THAT WAS AN ISSUE. NEIGHBORS HAVE FOR A REALLY LONG TIME NTIONED WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR ACTIVATION ON THIS SITE? I
CERTAINLY SEE MR. ALBERS' POINT ABOUT WANTING TO PRESERVE THESE GRAIN MILLS. AND I DO THINK THERE ARE THINGS WE HAVE TO WEIGHUT IN THIS MATTER. I THINK AS A SUPPORTERF ADAPTIVE
REUSE, I'LL JUST ECHO. IF THERE WAS A VISION FOR THIS SITE AND INVEST THE CAPITAL. AS A BODY, WE CAN'T COMPEL A DEVELOPER OR
LANDOWNER. THAT'S NOT WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. THAT'S NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW. I DO SUPPORT THE INCREASE OF HOUSING AND CAN STATE YES, THERE'S BEEN INCREASED DEVELOPMENT ON 46th AND HIAWATHA. AND THE NEIGHBORS THERE, A LOT OF THEM ARE
BENEFITINGROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND OUR NEW NEIGHBORS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT FOUND AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN THE COUNITY ARE ON TRANSORIENT DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS WITH NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA. THERE'S ALSO EXPANSIVE SAFETY CONCERNS, AS I MENTIONED
BEFORE, INUST HAVING AN ACTIVE SPACE. AND SO MY FEAR IS WITHOUT A DEMOLITION, WE'RE GOING TO JUST SEE NEITHER ADAPTIVE REUSE NOR NEW ACTIVITY THAT WOULD BRING LIFE TO THIS AREA AND OUR COMMUNITY AND WE WOULD JUST BE
AT A STANDSTILL. OR PERHAPS THERE COULD BE ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL THAT WOULD COME BEFORE A BODY AND TRY TO FIND ANOTHER WAY TO DO DEMOLITION OR DO THAT TYPE OF WO. I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS. AND
SO AT THIS TIME JUST WGHING OUT THE PROS AND CONS AND JUST HEARING FROM CONSTITUENTS IN THE AREA, I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THE PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION OR WHAT THE HPC HAS PUT FORWARD. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT BOTH OUR STAFF AND THEN THE HPC RECOMMENDED THIS UP TO THIS BODY. IT SOUS LIKE THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE COMING TO. SO IN CONSIDERATION OF ALL THOSE
FACTS BEFORE US, IT FEELS LIKE THAT'S THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN THIS MOMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT I'LL BE SPORTING. >> COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. I GUESS I'LL JUST RISK BEING
DUNDANT AND ONLY FOR THE FACT TO REALLY CLARIFY THAT I, TOO, AM A HUGE PROPONENT OF ADAPTIVE REUSE. I'VE WORKED TIRELESSLY ON THE MIDTOWN GLOBAL MARKET, WHICH
WAS A FORMER SRS BUILDING. IT WAS A BIG CHALLENGE TO REDEVELOP THAT SITE. BUT IT WORKED OU AND IT'S THRIVING. AND THERE'S HOUSING. RETAIL, AND ALL KINDS
OF USES THERE. BUT THIS IS NOT THAT. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND THE MOTION THAT'S PUT FORTH BY COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON. SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I ALSO
SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER, VICE CHAIR ELLISON'S MOTION. I THINK WE ALWAYS WANT MORE HOUSING FOR CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND HAVING THE SITE EMPTY JUST REALLY
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. STARTING THE JOB SOONER WILL CREATE JOBS. AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTS. I DO APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER FOR SPEAKING TO US TODAY. I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER
RAINVILLE. >> THANK YOU, MR. ZACHARY. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY. I WILL VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS TO DENY. BUT THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO FOR THE CITY. AND TO MY COLLEAGUES, I JUST DID SOME ROUGH MATH. AND
WITH $676,000 A YEAR IN SECURITY, BEING EMPTY SINCE 2019, THAT WOULD HAVE PAID FOR ABOUT 10 UNITS OF HOUSING AT $400,000 A UNIT. SO BY NOT DEVELOPING THE SITE, THERE'S 10 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT
HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT. THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS, OTHER COMMENTS. >> YEAH, THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. I'LL BE VY BRIEF. BUT I JUST WANTED TO AGAIN ACKNOWLEDGE AND
RECOGNIZE THIS IS EXALY WHAT THE LIGHT RAIL WAS INTENDED TO SPUR I DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS THE 2040 PLAN. SO THIS PROJECT FALLS DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH CITY
GOALS AND METRO COUNCIL GOALS, ET CETERA. YEAH, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ON THE MOTION FOR TO DENY THE APPEAL, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AND THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY.
THE AYES HAVE IT, AND THE MOTION CARRIES. SEEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFE US WITH NO OBJECTION, I'LL DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.