>> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. MY NAME IS COUNCILMEMBER JAMAL OSMAN, THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE. BEFORE WE BEGIN THE MEETING, I WANT TO OFFER A FRIENDLY REMINDER THESE MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE TO ENABLE GREATER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
THEY INCLUDE REAL TIME CAPTIONING TO INCREASE THE ACCESSIBILITY OF OUR PROCEEDINGS TO THE COMMUNITY. ALL SPEAKERS NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THE RATE OF OUR SPEECH SO OUR CAPTIONERS CAN FULLY TRANSCRIBE ALL COMMENTS FOR THE BROADCAST. WE
ASK SPEAKERS TO MODERATE THE SPEED AND CLARITY OF THEIR COMMENTS. WE'LL BE USING SPEAKER MANAGEMENT. I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL TO VERIFY QUOR RUBBING. HAVE A TAP
CHAVEZ. >> PRESENT. >> VICE CHAIR CHOWDHURY. >> PRESENT. >> CHAIR OSMAN. >> FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT. >> WE HAVE A QUORUM. OUR AGENDA IS IN FRONT OF US. WE'LL BEGIN WITH CONSENT AGENDA.
EIGHT IS APPROVING ONE LIQUOR LICENSE. NINE IS APPROVING 19 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS. 10 IS APPROVING SIX GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWALS. 11 IS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AND APPROPRIATION FOR DEMOLITION SERVICES AT 1410 WEST
BROADWAY. 12 IS APPROVING A REZONING PLAN FOR M MORTENSON DEVELOPMENT 1027 ESSEX STREET.
13 IS MINNESOTA NATIONAL INDEPENDENT VENUE ASSOCIATION. 14 IS AUTHORIZING A CARRYFORWARD OF UNUSED 2025 REVENUE BOND FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM. 15 IS AUTHORIZING A JOINT POWER AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY
FOR SUPPORT AND OFFICE TO END HOMELESSNESS. 16 IS AUTHORIZING A CHANGE TO THE AMENDED 2026-2027 HOUSING TAX CREDIT QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN.
PROCEDURAL MANUAL. 17 IS AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND AVIVO TO PROVIDE FUNDING SUPPORT. 18 IS ACCEPTING AND AUTHORIZING THE BRING SPRING 2025 BROWNFIELD GRANTS. 19 IS AUTHORIZING A
PROGRAM REVISION FOR THE NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION FUND. AND LASTLY, ITEM 20 IS REFERRING TO STAFF AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY REGULATIONS ON SALE ESTABLISHMENTS. WITH THAT,
IF COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. SEEING NONE. I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF ALL ITEMS. AND REFER ITEM 20 TO STAFF. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYE HAVE
IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES. NOW WE'LL PROCEED TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF OUR AGENDA. FIRST, WE HAVE A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM OUR LAST MEETING ON OCTOBER 14. THIS ITEM IS AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE PERMITTING CANNABIS EVENT IN
THE CITY. I'LL ASK MANAGER OF BUSINESS, LICENSE, AMY LINGO TO BRIEFLY KIND OF EXPLAIN WHAT THIS ITEM IS. >. WELCOME. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. THANK YOU, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS AMIE LINGO. CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CANNABIS EVENTS ORDINANCE. THIS ORDINANCE IS ONE OF THE FINAL PORTIONS OF THE LEGALIZATION OF THE CANNABIS FOR THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS ALONG WITH THE STATE. THIS ORDINANCE WILL SET THE TIME, PLACE, AND
MANNER REGULATIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR EVENTS THAT ARE FOR CANNABIS THE VAPORABLE, SMOKEABLE PRODUCT FOR THOSE PUBLIC EVENTS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WILL,
UMM, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM? SEEING NONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS. SEEING NONE. I WILL APPROVE THIS ITEM. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES. OUR NEXT ITEM IS PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE HERITAGE
PRESERVATION REGULATIONS. THIS ORDINANCE UPDATES AND MODERNIZES A REGULATION. I'LL WELCOME SENIOR CITY PLANNER ROB FROM CPED TO PRESENT IT ITEM. WELCOME, SIR.
>.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M ROB, SENIOR CITY PLANNER IN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM. I'M EXCITED AND HAPPY TO BE UP HERE TO PRESENT THE COUPLE NATION OF A LOT OF WORK INTERNALLY WITH
STAFF AND ALSO COMMENTS FROM THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ON THE REVISED TITLE 23, CHAPTER 599 OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION
REGULATIONS. S SINCE THE LAST MAJOR UPDATE, A LOT HAS CHANGED WITH HOW WE LOOK AT HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. THE
ORDINANCE WAS LAST UPDATED IN 2001. SO THERE'S A LOT OF ITEMS THAT WE LOOKED AT THAT HAVE CHANGED OVER 20 YEARS IN THE SITUATION. THE WAY WE PROTECT HISTORIC PLACES HAS EVOLVED AND THE NEEDS OF COMMUNITIESES ARE DIFFERENT. MINNEAPOLIS HAS
GROWN AND THERE ARE MORE HISTORIC PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEEN DESIGNATED WITHIN THE 20 YEARS. BUILDING TECHNOLOGY AND THE WAY WE PROCESS PROJECTS AND APPLICATIONS AND THOSE TRENDS HAVE CHANGED. CPED HAS DESIGNATED STAFF THAT WORK IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION, NOW, AS
WELL. AND, OF COURSE, MINNEAPOLIS 2040 IS CHANGING HOW THE CITY IS BUILT. AND ALONG WITH THAT, WE SA SIMPLIFIED OUR PROCESS TO MEET CITY GOALS. WITH THIS, ALL OF CHAPTER 599, HERITAGE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS PROPOSED TO BE
REPEALED AND REPLACED. THERE ARE SOME SECTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO STAY AND SOME REORGANIZED. BUT THERE IS ALSO A LOT OF NEW TEXT THAT WAS ADDED AND SOME REMOVED. SO THE KEY CHANGES WE'VE BEEN HIGHLIGHTING HERE. WHAT IS THIS PLANNING TO ACCOMPLISH? WE WANT TO MAKE THE
STEPS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND FOR A LOT OF OUR PROCESSES. SO IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL LANDMARKS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS. REVIEWING DEMOLITION REQUESTS, REVIEWING DESIGN CHANGES TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES THAT ARE DESIGNATED, UPDATING DEFINITIONS IN OUR CODE TO USE MORE CLEAR
AND MODERN LANGUAGE. MAKING THE ORDINANCE MATCH OTHER PARTS OF CITY CODE ALONG WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. REMOVING PARTS OF THE CODE THAT ARE RARELY OR NO LONGER USED. AND I'LL GO OVER TWO OF THOSE IN A FEW SLIDES. AND THEN UPDATING THE FEE STRUCTURE, AS WELL, TO ALIGN
WITH INFLATION OVER TIME. WE'RE STREAM LINING HISTORIC DESIGN APPLICATIONS. IT'S A A LARGE PART OF THE ORDINANCE REWRITE. WE WANT TO THE MAKE IT EASIER TO PROCESS MORE PROJECTS ADMINISTRATIVELY AND HAVE MORE CLEAR EXPECTATIONS FOR THOSE
SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS TO STAFF FOR OUR REVIEW. SO WITH THAT, WE'VE ACTUALLY CREATED NEW TYPES OF APPLICATIONS TO ALLOW FOR THOSE MORE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS. THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE WE'RE NO LOFNGER REQUIRING APPLICATIONS TO ALLOW FOR CERTAIN REVIEWS FOR PERMITS
WHERE WE CAN REVIEW WITHIN A PERMIT, LIKE, A LOT OF OTHER AREAS OF CPED DO FOR REVIEWING PERMIT APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN. WE'RE SIMPLIFYING THE FINDINGS FOR THE APPLICATIONS. AND, ALSO, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE A LOT OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE
GONE FORWARD IN THE PAST THAT ARE UTILIZING HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX CREDITS AND A LOT FOR COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL REUSE TYPES OF PROJECT. WE WANT TOP MAKE IT EASIER AND STREAMLINE THE PROCESSES WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS WHERE POSSIBLE. WE ARE ALSO UPDATING
FEES. JUST TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION OVER TIME. AND THE APPLICATION CHANGES THAT WE'VE NOTED. WE'RE PLANNING TO IMPROVE CONSISTENCY. THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT WE'RE HAVING CITY COUNCIL NOW BE THE DECISION MAKERS ON. INSTEAD OF THE
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. ONE IS HAVING THE FINAL DECISION ON HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DISTRICTS AND LANDMARKS. AND, ALSO, HISTORIC NOMINATIONS ARE NOW ABLE TO BE APPEALED. SO THOSE PREVIOUSLY UNDER THE CURRENT CODE ARE THINGS THAT CAN'T BE
APPEALED. WE ARE IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY WITH NEW PROCESSES TO FORMALLY DOCUMENT HISTORIC RESOURCES. THIS IS AN AREA IN THE PAST WE'VE RECEIVED PUBLIC FEEDBACK IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT THE CITY IS EVALUATING OR WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTS WE HAVE THAT SHOW
WHEN A PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED POTENTIALLY HISTORIC. WE'RE MAKING CLEAR REVIEW STEPS FOR DEMOLITIONS OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. AND CLEARER STEPS FOR NOMINATING LANDMARKS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS, AS WELL.
WE ARE UPDATING THE DESIGNATION PROCESS IN A FEW WAYS. ADDING FINDINGS NEEDED TO DESIGNATE A LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT WHERE THEY DON'T CURRENTLY EXIST IN A CLEAR MANNER. WE'RE ADDING PROCEDURES TO REMOVE DESIGNATION. IN THIS SITUATION, WE'RE CLEAR THAT WE HAVE TO BE
SURE THAT WE'RE STAYING WITHIN OUR STATE GUIDANCE THAT IS GIVEN TO US AS A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR HOW TO DO THAT. WE'RE ADDING A DECISION TIMELINE FOR CITY COUNCIL FOLLOWING THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS VOTE ON A AT THE DESIGNATION TO ALLOW UP TO 180180 DAYS FOR COUNCIL TO
MAKE A DECISION AFTER HERITAGE PREZ VISION HAS. -- PRESERVATION HAS. WE'RE ADDING STEPS ACKNOWLEDGING DIFFERENT HISTORIES THAT HAPPENED AT DIFFERENT SITES. THERE ARE SECTIONS WE'RE REMOVING. ONE OF
THOSE IS TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. WERE ADOPTED IN 2001. THERE'S A COUNTER PART THAT EXISTS IN ZONING CODE. THIS IS ABOUT REMOVING A REDUNDANT PIECE OF TEXT THAT ISN'T USED. AND SAME WITH CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, WHICH IS A TOOL TO
ALLOW FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF REGULATION WITHIN AN AREA. IT'S SOMETHING THAT DIFFERENT CITIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY HAVE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF. THERE'S NOT CLEAR GUIDANCE ON. THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS DOES HAVE THIS. THERE HASN'T BEEN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT
RWARD WITHIN, YOU KNOW, THE OVER 10 YEARS WE'VE HAD THAT TOOL. IT OFTEN LEADS TO A LOT OF CONFUSION AMONG MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND HISTORIC DISTRICT IS.
WITH THAT, THE HERITAGE -- STAFF BROUGHT THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. AT THEIR SEPTEMBER 30th MEETING, THEY VOTED TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN THE DRAFT WITH THAT A FEW
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS. THERE ARE FOUR THAT STAFF IDENTIFIED HERE. AND STAFF DRAFTED A MEMO THAT WAS INCLUDED FOR COUNCILMEMBERS TO VIEW WHY STAFF SUPPORTS. ONE OF THEM AND THE OTHER THREE WHY WE HAVE CONCERNS
OF THOSE CONTINUING. THE FIRST AMENDMENT STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF IS JUST HPC POINTED OUT THERE WAS INCONSISTENCY IN HOW WE WERE MAKING DETERMINATIONS ON DEMOLITION OF POTENTIAL HISTORIC LANDMARK APPLICATIONS. STAFF WANTED TO HAVE IT AT FIVE YEARS
WHERE THE DECISION WAS VALID. AND THE COMMISSION POINTED OUT IT REALLY MAKES MORE SENSE FOR IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER LAND USE APPLICATION APPROVALS, WHICH ARE VALID FOR TWO YEARS WITH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION. SO STAFF AGREES WITH THIS. BUT IN OUR DRAFT TEXT, WE MODIFIED THE LANGUAGE JUST TO TAKE OUT PARTS
WHERE LANGUAGE WAS REDUNDANT. AND AREAS WHERE WE WANTED TO CLARIFY WHERE THE DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION WOULD BE FINALIZED THERE. FOR THE OTHER THREE RECOMMENDED CHANGES BY THE HERITAGE
PRESERVATION COMMISSION, THE FIRST ONE IS REALLY DEALING WITH A FINAL DECISION ON SOME APPLICATIONS. AND THERE ARE APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF NOTED THAT THE CHANGE THAT HPC VOTED TO ADOPT, AGAIN, IS A BIT REDUNDANT WITH THE LANGUAGE WE ALREADY HAVE. THAT
COLCOLOR CLEARLY SHOWS CITY COUNCIL'S APPEAL AND DECIDING ON THAT. FOR THE THIRD AMENDMENT, THIS WAS RELATED TO AN AREA OF EXTENDING THE DEADLINES FOR WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING APPLICATIONS AS THEY COME IN. SO WHEN WE TAKE AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS AND
STAFF NOTICED IT'S ANOTHER AREA WHERE IT'S KIND OF REDUNDANT. IF WE WOULD INCLUDE IT THERE AND, ALSO, IT DOESN'T REALLY ALIGN WITH HOW WE REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR COMPLETELY, IN GENERAL, THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO THAT'S ONE THAT STAFF IS NOT SUPPORTING GOING FORWARD. AND
PROPOSE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS ONE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS POINTED OUT. SO UNDER THE CURRENT CODE, THERE ARE FIVE PERSONS OR GROUPS THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE A PROPERTY FOR LANDMARK HISTORIC DISTRICT STATUS. THAT'S THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, THE PROPERTY
OWNER, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, OR A MEMBER OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. WITH THE NEW TEXT AMENDMENT DRAFT, STAFF WANTED TO MAKE A BIT MORE STRICT HOW WE ACCEPT THE NOMINATIONS. JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT NOMINATIONS COMING IN ARE BEING VETTED WITHIN OUR NEWLY ESTABLISHED SYSTEMS THAT WE MENTIONED WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE A
BIT MORE PUBLIC IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WANTED THE ABILITY TO BYPASS HAVING A PREDETERMINATION. THAT'S ABILITY THAT WE ARE GIVING TO ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE DO BELIEVE IT'S THE ABILITY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REPRESENT
THE WILL OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS. SO WITH THAT, WE DID NOT WANT TO INCLUDE THIS KIND OF EXCEPTION FOR COMMISSIONERS THAT WASN'T BEING GRANTED TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR PROPERTY OWNERS FOR
ALLOWING A NOMINATION TO PROCEED. SO THAT'S WHERE STAFF HAD CONCERNS WITH THAT CONTINUING AND RECOMMENDING THAT DOES NOT CONTINUE FORWARD. SO WITH THAT, I KNOW THAT'S A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY OF A LOT OF TEXT. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT HAVE ARISEN.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT PRESENTATION. BEFORE WE TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. SEEING NONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND, ACTUALLY, I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS. AND AS I TALKED
TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NEXT CYCLE. AND, UMM, AND GIVE US MORE TIME TO REVIEW. IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS FROM THE
COUNCILMEMBERS. THERE'S ENOUGH TIME FOR THAT. SO THE NEXT MEETING I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM AND, ALSO, SEE IF THERE'S ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ITEM. STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANSWERS. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE
MOTION SAY AYE. AND THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE RELATED TO MODIFYING WITHIN THE LAND
SUBDIVISION OF REGULATION CHAPTER. I'LL ASK ORDINANCE AUTHOR, COUNCILMEMBER CHAVEZ, TO BRIEFLY SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. >> CHAIR OSMAN AND COLLEAGUES. I'M EXCITED TO BRING CHANGES TO THE PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE. MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO
ADDRESS UNITS, FINANCED BY TRIABLE ENTITY. THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE APPLIES TO MANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT COVER MORE 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND. TYPICALLY THE DEVELOPER PAYS A FEE WHEN THE CITY ISSUES A BUILDING PERMIT. BUT THE FEE USED TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY CONTINUES TO MAKE PARKLAND
AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS AND VISITORS. UNDER THE EXISTING CODE, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE WHEN A PROJECT IS FINANCED IN WHOLE OR PART BY A LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE AND OCCUPIED
BY HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 60% AMI. THIS AMENDMENT SIMPLY ADDS TRIABLE GOVERNMENTS TO THE LIST OF EXEMPTED ENTITIES, PLACING THEM IN PAR WITH THEIR LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL COUNTERPARTS. I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH SOME PARK BOARD COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE PURSUE AN IDENTICAL AMENDMENT TO THE PARK AND RECREATIONAL BOARD
CODE OF ORDINANCES. I ASK FOR YOU APPROVAL TODAY. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM. SEEING NONE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER CHAVEZ. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER OSMAN. I JUST MOVE THIS ORDINANCE FOR APPROVAL. >> ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT MOTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE
IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. ITEM FOUR. NEXT A PUBLIC HEARING IS FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY CHEBA HUT LOCATED AT UPTOWN.
I'LL WELCOME MANAGER -- OH. I'LL WELCOME ALEXIS. YES. TO GIVE US A PRESENTATION. WELCOME. >> HI. THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I AM ALEXIS SORENSON WITH LICENSES
AND COP CONSUMERS SERVICES. PRESENTING AN APPLICATION FROM MR. GOOD TIMES DBA CHEBA HUT. WARD 10. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN ON SALE LIQUOR
LIMITED ENTERTAINMENT WITH SUNDAY SALES AND 2:00 A.M.LICENSE. IF APPROVED, THEY INTEND TO OFFER CASUAL DINING FOR SANDWICH SHOP WITH BAR THAT WILL HAVE OCCASIONAL LIVE MUSIC AND DJ ENTERTAINMENT. THEY WILL OFFER SEATING FOR 37 PATRONS ON THE INTERIOR. AND 26
PATRONS ON THE OUTDOOR PATIO LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATIONS FOR INDOOR HOURS ARE SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY 10:30:00 A.M.THROUGH MIDNIGHT. AND FRIDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, 10:30:00 A.M.THROUGH 2:00
A.M. THE OUTDOOR PROPOSED HOURS ON THE PRIVATE PATIO ARE SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY WITHIN 10:30:00 A.M.THROUGH 10:00 P.M. AND FRIDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, 10:30:00 A.M.THROUGH 11:00 P.M. ON OCTOBER 3rd, 2025, 124 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES
WERE SENT OUT TO RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS. AND POSTED ON ALL RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH FOUR OR MORE UNITS WITHIN 600 FEET OF THE PREMISES. NOTICES WERE ALSO SENT OUT TO LAURIE EAST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE UPTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, AND COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT CHUGHTAI. WE HAVE
RECEIVED NO RESPONSES. A REVIEW OF ANY COMPLAINTS, 3-1-1 CALLS, POLICE CALLS, AND OPERATING CONDITIONS I FOUND NO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES CONCERNING THE BUSINESS AND ISSUANCE OF THE LICENSE. A LICENSING AND CONSUMER SERVICES DIVISION
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF AN ONSALE LIQUOR, LIMITED ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME. I'LL ASK FOR ANY COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT PRESENTATION. I'M GOING TO PROCEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST AND SEE IF THERE'S
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. I DO SEE THE OWNER OF CHEBA HUT HERE. WELCOME, SIR. >> HELLO. I'M NICK WITH CHEBA HUT UPTOWN. EXCITED TO BE AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCESS. IF
YOU KNOW OR DON'T KNOW, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS. WE RECENTLY TOOK IT OVER ABOUT THREE MONTHS AGO. AND REALLY CLOSE TO GETTING IT OPEN. WE'RE SHOOTING FOR A DECEMBER 8th OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD
TO OPENING IN UPTOWN. IT'S AN AREA I'M FAMILIAR WITH. I'VE SPENT MY 20s IN THERE FROM 2000 TO 2008. MOVED TO COLORADO AND CAME BACK TO FINISH THIS UP. REALLY EXCITED TO BE PART OF THE UPTOWN REJUVENATION. IT WAS AN AREA THAT I LOVED AND STILL
LOVE. AND REALLY EXCITED ABOUT HELPING KIND OF BRING IT BACK TO ITS NEW VERSION. TALKING TO THE BUSINESS AND THE COMMUNITY AROUND THERE, AS WE BUILD IT OUT, SEEING A LOT OF EXCITEMENT AND A LOT OF HOPE. THE THING FROM BUSINESS OWNERS IS ONE OF
OPTIMISM. AND A LOT OF SUPPORT TO GET THIS OPEN. SO LOOKING TO SERVE A LOT OF GOOD SANDWICHES. WE HAVE A FULL BAR. THE ENTERTAINMENT PART IS GOING TO BE REAL MINIMAL. REALLY JUST TOWARD OUR GRAND OPENING AND
MAYBE THREE OR FOUR TIMES ALLOW. TO ALLOW A DJ OR LOCAL PERFORMER. A SMALL SPOT. ABOUT ONLY 40 PEOPLE INSIDE. IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE A BIG EVENT THERE. AND JUST LOOKING FORWARD TO BEING PART OF THE COMMUNITY AGAIN! AND BEING A GOOD
SHEPHERD OF -- AS A PROPERTY OWNER AND A GOOD EMPLOYER. SO ... THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD -- SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND RECOGNIZE VICE CHAIR CHOWDHURY.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR OSMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS ITEM FOR APPROVAL. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PUTTING IN ALL THE WORK TOWARD YOUR BUSINESS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT OPEN AND SEEING FURTHER ACTIVATION IN THIS REALLY AMAZING PART OF UPTOWN! WE WISH
YOU GOOD LUCK. >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. >> WITH THAT MOTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES. THANKS A LOT. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ONE. YAW
QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING. AND WE WILL GO TO OUR FIRST WE'LL TAKE ITEM FIVE AND SIX TOGETHER. THEY'RE RELATED. WE'RE CONSIDERING LICENSE REVOCATION
FROM PIN MENTO JAMI JAMAICAN KITCHEN ON NICOLLET AVENUE. ADDITIONALLY, WE'LL BE CONSIDERING ONE STRONG BEER LICENSE REVOCATION FROM PIM
MENTO JAMIE CA ME MEN -- I MENTO KITCHEN. >> THESE ARE REVOCATIONS OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH STATE TAX REQUIREMENTS. AS YOU ALL ARE AWARE, WE'RE REQUIRED TO PUT THESE REVOCATIONS FORTH. AS OF
THE MEETING, RIGHT NOW, STAFF HAS NOT HEARD BACK FROM THE APPLICANT ON EXACTLY WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO OR HOW THEY PLAN TO APPROACH THIS SITUATION. AND SO PENDING ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU MIGHT HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND IF IT'S THE WILL OF
THE BODY, MIGHT RECOMMEND THAT YOU, AS IT YOU NORMALLY DO, CONTINUE THIS WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL COUNCIL HEARING TO AWAIT THAT OUTCOME FROM THE APPLICANT. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO I WILL FORMALLY OPEN BOTH PUBLIC HEARINGS. BOTH ITEMS OF THIS.
IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. OR THE OWNER. SEEING NONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MAKE THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM FOR -- I'M SORRY. APPROVE THIS ITEM WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AND THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. LASTLY, WE'LL BE CONSIDERING A CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS APPEAL SUBMITTED FOR THE PROPERTY AT 948 18th AVENUE. ALSO KNOWN AS THE JOHN COOK HOUSE AND HISTORIC LANDMARK. I ALSO KNOW THAT WE'LL BE CONTINUING THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND ACCEPTING COMMENTS
UNTIL NEXT MEETING ON NOVEMBER 13th. I'LL HAVE ROB SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. WELCOME BACK.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. HELLO, AGAIN, COUNCILMEMBERS. ROB WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM IN CPED PLANNING. AND TODAY I'M PRESENTING AN APPEAL OF THE HPC'S SEPTEMBER 30th DECISION TO DENY THIS CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH THE JOHN COOK HOUSE. WHICH IS AN
INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK LOCATED AT 948 18th AVENUE NORTHEAST. THE HOUSE WAS DESIGNATED IN 2021 FOR SIGNIFICANCE IN THE AREAS OF SOCIAL AND ARCHITECTURAL
HISTORY. UNDER C CRITERION 1 AND 4. IT'S A LOCAL EXAMPLE OF A BRICK QUEEN ANNE HOUSE. JOHN COOK WAS A MASON AND HOUSE BUILDER IN NORTHEAST MINNEAPOLIS. HE BUILT THE HOUSE FOR HIMSELF IN 1889. LOCATED AT
THE CORNER OF TYLER STREET NORTHEAST AND 18th AVENUE NORTHEAST. THE HOUSE RECOGNIZES AN EXAMPLE OF IMMIGRANT HOUSING IN NORTHEAST MINNEAPOLIS. THE AREA HAD SIGNIFICANT SCANDINAVIAN IMMIGRANT POPULATION AT THE TIME THE HOME WAS BUILT. AND MANY PEOPLE OF SWEDISH AND NORWEGIAN DESCEND
LIVED HERE AFTER JOHN COOK MOVED OUT. MANY DID WORK AT NOTABLE MINNEAPOLIS BUSINESSES. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REGISTERED AS VACANT AND BOARDED PROPERTY SINCE NOVEMBER 2014. PUBLIC SALE RECORDS SHOW THAT THE DWELLING WAS LAST SOLD IN 2019.
TO THE CURRENT OWNER. THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED FOR LACK OF MAINTENANCE IN JANUARY OF 2020. AND MINNEAPOLIS INSPECTION SERVICES DIVISION, STAFF HAVE BEEN MONITORING THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION FOR MANY YEARS. THE APPELLANT IS
REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WHO ARE SEEKING TO DEMOLISH THE JOHN COOK HOUSE AND THE ATTACHED -- DETACHED GARAGE. WE NOTE STAFF RECEIVED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE APPEAL AHEAD OF TODAY'S HEARING AND SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR
COUNCILMEMBERS FOR REFERENCE. THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION. STAFF'S ANALYSIS, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY DID NOT MEET THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
APPLICATION. STAFF NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED D DEMOLITION OF THE COOK HOUSE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION. AND ALTERATION BEING PLANNED IN THIS CASE, DEMOLITION, IS NOT WITHIN THE SPURT AND INTENT OF THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OR THE APPLICABLE POLICIES IN
MINNEAPOLIS 2040. IN ORDER TO APPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT INCLUDES DESTRUCTION IN WHOLE OR PART OF ANY LANDMARK, THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MUST MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. ONE, THAT A DESTRUCTION IS NECESSARY TO CORRECT AN UNSAFE OR DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE
PROPERTY. OR, TWO, THERE ARE NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO DESTRUCTION. IN DETERMINING WHETHER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES EXIST, THE COMMISSION SHALL CONSIDER BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO A THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY. B, THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROPERTY, AND C, THE ECONOMIC VALUE OR USEFULNESS OF
THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE CURRENT USE, COSTS OF RENOVATION, AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE USES. UNDER THAT FIRST FINDING FOR THE DESTRUCTION IS NECESSARY TO CORRECT AN UNSAFE AND DANGEROUS CONDITION. THE APPLICANT WAS CLAIMING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS UNSAFE AND NEEDED TO BE
DEMOLISHED TO CORRECT THE CONDITION. STAFF DID NOT AGREE WITH THIS. STAFF DID NOT BELIEVE THE SUBMITTED REPORTS VIDICON COLLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE BUILDING REQUIRES DEMOLITION TO CORRECT THE CONDITIONS NOTED IN THE REPORTS. AND THE HPC CONCURRED WITH
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION HERE. THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE TWO STRUCTURAL ENGINEER REPORTS. ONE FROM ANDERSONER LACQUER WHICH WAS COMPLETED IN 2022 AND ANOTHER FROM PAULSON AND CLARKE ENGINEERING COMPLETED IN 2025. BOTH STRUCTURAL REPORTS
NOTE CONDITIONS AT THE PROPERTY THAT REQUIRE ATTENTION FOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. BUT STAFF NOTED THESE TWO REPORTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT IN THEIR FINDINGS. AND THAT BOTH SUGGESTS THAT ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY APPEARED TO BE THE DRIVING REASON WHY THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE DEMOLISHED. STAFF
NOTED THERE APPEAR TO BE MULTIPLE ROUTES TO ENSURE THAT REPAIRS CAN BE COMPLETED TO HAVE THE PROPERTY PUT IN THE SAFER CONDITION. AND OTHER REPAIRS ARE SUGGESTED BUT NOT CONFIRMED WITHIN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS. SO CPED FOUND THE PROPERTY WAS NOT AN UNSAFE AND
DANGEROUS CONDITION REQUIRING DEMOLITION. AND THE HPC CONCURRED WITH THIS. UNDER THE SECOND FINDING THAT HAS THE THREE PARTS. ONE EVALUATING IF THERE ARE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO DESTRUCTION, INCLUDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY, THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE ECONOMIC VALUE OR USEFULNESS OF THE
EXISTING STRUCTURE. STAFF NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY STILL RETAINS SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY. IT IS A DESIGNATED LANDMARK. AND IT RETAINS ITS SIGNIFICANCE AS, YOU KNOW, DESIGNATED IN 2021. AND THE INTEGRITY IS ALSO STILL THERE. ALL THOUGH STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS FURTHER -- THE HOME HAS FURTHER DETERIORATED SINCE THE POINT OF ITS DESIGNATION IN 2021. ULTIMATELY CPED FOUND THAT
THE -- STAFF RECOMMENDED AND FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE REUSED. THE APPLICANT HAD NOT PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THE BUILDING LACKS USEFULNESS OR VALUE. THE APPLICANT HAD INCLUDED, AGAIN, THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER REPORTS, WHICH CONCLUDE REPAIR WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PLACE THE PROPERTY IN A
HABITABLE CONDITION. BUT WITH THE COSTS THAT WERE BEING ASSOCIATED WITH THE REPAIRS, AN ESTIMATED $1.5 MILLION, THE NARRATIVE WITH THE ITEMS DID NOT APPEAR CONSISTENT TO STAFF AND HPC CONCURRED WITH THE ITEMS PUT
TOGETHER. SO WITH THE ITEM ITEMIZED -- LINE ITEM ESTIMATE FOR SHOWING PROPOSED REPAIRS THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, IT DID NOT FULLY EXPAND ON WHY CERTAIN TREATMENTS WERE BEING PROPOSED IN THAT. AND, ALSO, THERE WERE REPORTS
THAT WERE SHOWING THAT REPAIRS COULD BE MADE TO THE PROPERTY. SO STAFF AND THE HPC CONCURRED THAT THE APPLICANT DOCUMENTS TOGETHER DID NOT SHOW THAT DEMOLITION IS REQUIRED OR REPAIRS ECONOMICALLY ARE NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. STAFF
AND THE HPC NOTED THAT A THOROUGH EVALUATION WAS NOT INCLUDED IN APPLICATION MATERIALS TO DETAIL REPAIRS NEEDED FOR ASSOCIATED REPAIR COSTS. BASED ON VISUAL EVIDENCE, CONTRACTOR DOCUMENTS, AND/OR ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. SO HPC CONCURRED WITH THE STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE STAFF REPORT TO DENY THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: ONE, THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RETAINS SIGNIFICANCE AS RECORDED IN THE BUILDING'S 2021 DESIGNATION RESOLUTION. TWO, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RETAINS ALL SEVEN ASPECTS OF HISTORIC
INTEGRITY. THREE, THE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED AS REQUIRED UNDER CHAPTER 599 ARTICLE I MAINTENANCE AND NEEDS MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY. AND
THERE ARE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE DEMOLITION CONSIDERING SIGNIFICANCE, INTEGRITY, AND ECONOMIC VALUE OR USEFULNESS OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. THE HPC VOTED TO DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH THE
JOHN COOK HOUSE LOCATED AT 9 940 18th AVENUE IN NORTHEAST. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. ARE THERE MORE SLIDES LEFT HERE? >> YES. I HAVE A FEW SLIDES THAT I CAN SHOW THAT STAFF INCLUDED IN THE PREVIOUS
PRESENTATION. SO THIS DOES SHOW SOME OF THE KEY TIER YOUR RATION DETERIORATION IS NOTED. THE ONE ON THE LEFT ARE CPED STAFF HAD GOING BACK TO WHEN THE PROBLEM PROPERTY'S UNIT WAS INSIDE THE BUILDING. WE HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM 2015 SHOWING IT WAS INTACT, AT THAT POINT.
THESE ARE THE PHOTOS THAT WERE SUBMITTED IN THE MOST RECENT COMPILED REPORT THAT WAS DONE IN 2025. SHOWING PRESENT DETERIORATION AT THE INTERIOR HERE.
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, WE'LL A ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. FIRST, I'LL ALLOW THE APPELLANT SEVEN MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE. AFTER
THAT, ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE SIGN UP AND YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK. SO I'LL PROCEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOGNIZE -- PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS JACOB WITH LARKIN HALFMAN. I
REPRESENT THE APPLICANT IN 1717 DEVELOPERS. STAFF INDICATED, THIS APPEAL IS SEEKING TO REVERSE THE HPC'S DECISION. AND REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING AT 948 18th AVENUE. AS STAFF,
AGAIN, INDICATED, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF STANDARDS UNDER THE CITY CODE THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED BEFORE YOU APPROVE THE DEMOLITION. THE FIRST THAT THE STRUCTURE IS UNSAFE AND DANGEROUS. AND THE SECOND THERE ARE NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES WHEN CONSIDERING A NUMBER OF FACTORS, INCLUDING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE USE OF THE
BUILDING, AND THE COST. WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE. I CAN ENSURE YOU THE APPLICATION HAS MET THE STANDARDS. AND THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION THAT THIS BUILDING IS UNSAFE OR DANGEROUS.
IN FACT, THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN CONDEMNED LONGER THAN IT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED A LANDMARK. CONDEMNED WE BY THE CITY'S OWN INSPECTORS. WHEN MY CLIENT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2019, THIS WAS ALREADY ON THE VACANT BUILDING REGISTRY FOR FIVE
YEARS. IT WAS IN REALLY CO TOUGH CONDITION. SO TOUGH, WITHIN LESS THAN A YEAR AFTER HE ACQUIRED IT, THE CITY'S INSPECTORS DETERMINED, AGAIN, THIS WAS AN UNSAFE AND HAZARDOUS BUILDING. AND CONDEMNED IT.
UNFORTUNATELY, PUZZLINGLY, LESS THAN A YEAR LATER, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PANDEMIC, THE CITY MOVED TO MAKE IT A LANDMARK. WHICH, AGAIN IS QUITE PUZZLING. AND UNFORTUNATELY, MY CLIENT
ADMITTEDLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT IT MEANT TO BECOME A LANDMARK. IF YOU HAVE DEALT WITH LANDMARKS OR PROPERTIES IN DISTRICTS BEFORE, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT ONCE YOU DESIGNATE A PROPERTY AS A LANDMARK, IT BECOMES SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE TO
REPAIR. SOMETIMES THREE, FOUR, EVEN FIVES TIME AS MUCH BECAUSE IT MUST BE DONE BY HAND. YOU NEED TO USE SPECIFIC CONTRACTORS, ORIGINAL MATERIALS, AND THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL PROCESSES. HOWEVER, WE HAVE, AS
THE STAFF REPORT INDICATES, TWICE AGAIN DEMONSTRATED AND PROVEN WHAT THE CITY KNEW ALREADY. THIS IS AN UNSAFE BUILDING. IN 2022, WE HAD A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ENTER THE BUILDING AND CONCLUDE THE SAME. IN 2025, AGAIN. SO THE SIMPLE
FACT IS THAT THIS BUILDING CANNOT BE REHABILITATED. IT IS TOO FAR GONE AND BEYOND REPAIR. AGAIN, THE RECORD WOULD INDICATE THERE'S NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE. THAT APPLICANT HAS
DEMONSTRATED AND PROVIDED ESTIMATES OF $1.5 MILLION. TO REPAIR THIS BUILDING. IT'S A LARGE BUILDING. IT'S FORMERLY A TRIF TRIPLEX. THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS $280,000. WE KNOW IT'S NOT
ALWAYS THE RIGHT VALUE, BUT LET'S SAY GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT IT'S WORTH TWICE AS MUCH. GIVEN WHAT MY CLIENT HAS PUT IN THE PROPERTY ALREADY AND THE COST TO REPAIR IT. THERE'S ZERO CHANCE, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO BE LESS THAN A MILLION DOLLARS UPSIDE DOWN ON THIS PROPERTY.
ONCE YOU REHABILITATE IT. IT IS THAT FAR GONE AND HAS BEEN GONE SINCE 2020 WHICH CONDEMNED. SO, AGAIN, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY IS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO REHABILITATE TATE THIS BUILDING. I WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE
MISINFORMATION THAT IS IN THE RECORD. AND THAT WAS DISCUSSED BY THE HPC. UNFORTUNATELY, IF YOU WATCH THAT VIDEO, IT SEEMS THAT THE DECISION WAS MORE BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF PENALIZING OR MAKING AN EXAMPLE OUT OF MY
CLIENT. BASED ON ASSERTION IT WAS DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT. I CAN ASSURE YOU IT WAS NOT DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT. THIS WAS DEMOLITION BY RED TAPE. THIS, AGAIN, WAS ACQUIRED IN 2019. BUILDING WAS ALREADY ON THE VBR. VACANT BUILDING REGISTRY. IT
WAS CONDEMNED WITHIN LESS THAN A YEAR. AND WHEN YOU CONDEMN A BUILDING, YOU SAY THERE'S NO POSSIBLE USE OF THAT BUILDING UNTIL IT'S COMPLETELY REHABILITATED. AND THEN YOU COMBINE THE ADDED UNCERTAINTY OF COVID AND THE MID COVID
DESIGNATION OF THIS BUILDING AND SIGNIFICANTLY TIED THE HANDS OF MY CLIENT. IT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED THE COST OF HOLDING THIS PROPERTY. AND DURING THIS TIME, HE IS NOT SAT ON HIS HANDS. HE PUT A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF EFFORT INTO TRYING TO AT LEAST MAINTAIN THE BUILDING. HE HAS MORE THAN 15 TIMES VACATED THE PREMISES FROM TRESPASSERS. EACH ONE OF THOSE TIMES HE HAS TO RESECURE THE BUILDING. BUT ALL THE SAME TIME, THE CITY IS REGULARLY SENDING TWO TO $10,000 BILLS ON
AN ANNUAL BASIS BECAUSE IT'S VACANT. ON ONE HAND, YOU HAVE THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT SENDING OVER $35,000 IN FEES DURING THIS TIME THAT HE'S OWNED IT. ON THE OTHER HAND, AND THEY'RE TELLING HIM TO CONDEMN OR DEMOLISH THIS CONDEMNED I WOU
BUILDING. ON THE OTHER HAND HPC IS SAYING WE CAN'T MAKE REPAIRS WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A HEARING. IT'S AN UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE. AND MY CLIENT ISN'T -- THIS IS NOT DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT. BUT PUT IN BETWEEN A ROCK AND HARD PLACE.
AND, AGAIN, IN FACT, IT WAS NOT UNTIL THIS WEEK WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING THEY WERE MADE AWARE THIS WAS HISTORIC BUILDING. AND TO HAVE THE CITY SAYING BOTH TEAR IT DOWN AND DON'T TEAR IT DOWN IN THE SAME WEEK IS REALLY A HARD PILL TO SWALLOW FOR MY CLIENT.
I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE ASSERTIONS ABOUT INTERIOR DEMOLITION. YOU'VE SEEN THE BUILDING IS IN ROUGH SHAPE. IT HAS BEEN IN ROUGH SHAPE SINCE 2014 WHEN IT WENT ON THE VACANT BUILDING REGISTRY. AND THE STAFF REPORT IS CORRECT. THERE ARE NO PERMITS IN THE RECORD. BECAUSE MY CLIENT HAS NEVER
AUTHORIZED OR GIVEN ANYONE PERMISSION TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING. BUT AS IS VERY COMMON DURING THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, PARTICULARLY DURING COVID, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO MAKE A QUICK BUCK. AND MANY OF THE TRESPASSERS HAVE PUNCHED HOLES IN THE WALLS,
PUNCHED HOLES IN CEILINGS TRYING TO GET AT COPPER PIPINGS, COPPER WIRE. NOTHING WAS AUTOR AUTHORIZED. EVERYTHING OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF TRESPASSERS. THE EVIDENCE AND THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THIS PROPERTY IS UNSAFE AND IT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY
VIABLE TO FACILITATE IT. OR TO REHABILITATE IT. AND WE WOULD SIMPLY ASK FOR YOUR PERMISSION TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING AND CLEAN UP THE BLIGHT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. I WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I WANT TO GO THROUGH THE LIST HERE. IF I
PRONOUNCE YOUR -- MISPRONOUNCE YOUR NAME, PLEASE EXCUSE ME. FIRST PERSON TO SPEAK IS FROM WARD 1, MELANIE INK. WELCOME.
>> HELLO GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MELANIE ING . I'VE LIVED IN NORTHEAST MINNEAPOLIS SINCE 2000. LIVE ON 18th AND TAYLOR, OR IT SPECIFIC. I SEE THIS BUILDING VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I'VE RECOGNIZED IT AS A STRIKING EXAMPLE OF QUEEN ANNE ARCHITECTURE. I'VE ADMIRED ITS BRICK WORK, ITS STAINED GLASS, THE BAY WINDOW, THE DECORATIVE GINGER BREAD TRIM. ALL OF THAT. TODAY I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING MORE CONCERNING AND I
FEEL THIS HAS BEEN THE SLOW AND DELIBERATE NEGLECT OF THIS HISTORIC HOME. OVER THE YEARS, I'VE WATCHED THE PORCH DE DECAY AND COLLAPSE, THE PAINT PEEL AWAY, THE ORIGINAL STAINED GLASS WINDOWS BREAK. IT'S HEARTBREAKING. ESPECIALLY WITH THE RECENT LOSS OF THE AARON KARLSSON BUILDING. DUE TO A
FIRE. THESE AREN'T JUST STRUCTURES. THEY'RE PIECES OF OUR SHARED HISTORY. AND MY PERSONAL HISTORY. I'M INVESTED IN MY COMMUNITY. AND THIS HOUSE, TO ME, IS PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S BEEN VACANT, AS NOTED, FOR OVER A DECADE. IT ENTERED THE CITY'S VACANT
BUILDING REGULAR CO REGISTRATION IN NOVEMBER OF 2014. IT PASSED FROM ONE LLC TO ANOTHER. EACH TIME SLIPPING FURTHER INTO DISREPAIR. FEES MEANT TO ENCOURAGE TIMELY RESTORATION WERE WAIVED YEAR
AFTER YEAR. 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017. ONLY IN 2018 WERE THEY SUPPOSED TO ENFORCED. IT'S ABOUT A TROUBLING PATTERN WHERE REAL ESTATE SPECULATORS WHO DON'T TYPICALLY LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORS PURCHASE PROPERTIES, ALLOW THEM TO DECAY, HOPING THE
CITY WILL EVENTUALLY APPROVE DEMOLITION BECAUSE THE PROPERTY AND THE DAMAGE HAS GONE TOO FAR. CHRONICALLY VACANT PROPERTIES DON'T JUST SIT IDLE. THEY CREATE PUBLIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS. I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE GOING IN AND OUT OF THAT BUILDING. THEY DRIVE DOWN
PROPERTY VALUES. IN THIS CASE, THEY DON'T CREATE A WELCOMING ENTRY TO THE GREAT NORTHERN BIKE GREENWAY. AND OUR ARTS DISTRICT. SO THANK YOU. I HOPE THIS BUILDING CAN BE SAVED. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN.
NEXT PERSON IS SETH MILLER. HI. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE JOHN COOKE HOUSE PRESERVED. BUT MORE THAN THIS, I WOULD LIKE THIS -- I WOULD
LIKE MINNEAPOLIS LANDMARK STATUS TO STAND FOR SOMETHING. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AN OWNER A HISTORIC LANDMARK HAS A DUTY TO MAINTAIN THAT PROPERTY. AND YOU CAN SEE UNTIL THE PICTURES FROM THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION THAT
THE SOME OF THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN OPEN FROM 2021 UNTIL TODAY. THAT DEMONSTRATES TO ME A FAILING AT THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN. THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SQUATTERS AND OTHER
OCCUPIERS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE HOUSE. URBAN EXPLORERS, AND YOU CAN SEE THE DAMAGE THAT HAS BEEN DONE. IF THAT IS ALL A QU DEVELOPER NEEDS TO DO TO GET THEIR WAY, THEN MINNEAPOLIS
REGULATIONS DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MEANING. ALL OF OUR HISTORY WILL SLOWLY BE ERASED BECAUSE PROFIT WILL DRIVE IT OUT. IF THE COST OF REPAIR HAVE SKYROCKETED, THAT IS THE FAULT OF THE OWNERS. THAT NEGLECT SHOULD NOT RESULT IN A PASSIVE
PROFIT FO FOR THIS DEVELOPER OR ANY DEVELOPER. WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE HOUSE WAS NOT GOING TO BE MAINTAINED, WHICH MINNEAPOLIS HAS SEEN, I WOULD HAVE LIKED MINNEAPOLIS TO STEP IN AND TAKE STRONGER
ACTIONS. THIS OWNER HAS, IN A LOT OF WAYS, SHOWN A DISRESPECT FOR OUR HISTORY AND THE REGULATIONS IN PLACE. THAT IS WHY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS DEMOLITION REQUEST DENIED. I DO NOT WANT THIS OR FUTURE DEVELOPERS TO SEE A PATH TO MINE
OUR HISTORY FOR PROFIT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. NEXT PERSON IS ELIZABETH RICHARDSON >> HELLO, THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH RICHARDSON. MEMBER OF THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY AND CO-OWNER AND OPERATOR OF RECOVERY BIKE SHOP IN NORTHEAST MINNEAPOLIS. AND I'M HERE TODAY TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE HISTORIC JOHN COOK HOUSE BE SAVED FROM DEMOLITION. THE JOHN
COOK HOUSE IS MORE THAN A BEAUTIFUL STRUCTURE. IT IS THE EPITOME OF WHAT NORTHEAST IS KNOWN FOR. ARTISTIC EXPRESSION AND HARD WORK. FOR MUCH OF ITS HISTORY, IT WAS A HOME FOR THE LABORERS WHO BUILT NORTHEAST INTO WHAT IT IS TODAY. A PLACE FOR BUILDERS AND CREATIVES AND
NEIGHBORS WHO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITY. IT IS RARE TO MEET A NORTHEASTER WHO DOESN'T KNOW OF THE HOUSE. IT IS SIGNIFICANT LANDMARK ON THE GREAT NORTHERN GREENWAY, THE FORMER NORTHERN BORDER OF MINNEAPOLIS IN ONE OF THE MOST TRAVELED THOROUGH FARES INTO THE CENTRAL AVENUE BUSINESS DISTRICT
TODAY. NOT ONLY IS THE JOHN COOK HOUSE ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PIECES OF ARCHITECTURE, IT CARRIES THE HISTORY OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED IN IT. AND PROVIDES MEANING AND CULTURAL IDENTITY TO THE ARTISTS, WORKERS, AND FAMILIES WHO CALL NORTHEAST HOME TODAY. NORTHEAST IS A COMMUNITY THAT VALUES CRAFT AND BEAUTY.
FROM THE JOHN COOK HOUSE LAST WENT UP FOR SALE, THERE WERE EIGHT OFFERS ON THE PROPERTY. AND THEY WERE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE INTEND HOW THE PROPERTY WOULD BE USED. THEY THEIR ASSESSMENT WAS IT WAS WORTH SAVING. WE ASSUMED IT WOULD BE
SAVED. IT HAS BEEN LEFT TO DECAY. EVERY TIME WE HAVE BIKED OR WALKED OR DRIVEN PAST IN THE SIX YEARS SINCE THE MOST RECENT CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, WE HAVE WITNESSED THE NEGLECT OF THE BUILDING. WINDOWS LEFT OPEN FOR YEARS. THE FRONT PORCH SAGGING WITH EACH PASSING MONTH. THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOUGHT TO SEE IT
SAVED. AND RECEIVED THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION BASED ON 80 PAGES OF RESEARCH. AS A HISTORICALLY PROTECTED STRUCTURE, WE ALL KNOW THE OWNERS HAD A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT IT FROM FURTHER DECAY. TO OUR GREAT DISMAY, WE HAVE OBSERVED NO ATTEMPTS TO SLOW THE
DAMAGE. AN INCREASE IN BROKEN WINDOWS ON ALL THREE STORIES, NOT ONLY ALLOW WATER INTO THE STRUCTURE, BUT POSE DIRE RISKS FOR PEOPLE ... THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. NEXT PERSON IS
KAREN. >> I'M KAREN. I LIVE DOWN THE BLOCK FROM THE JOHN COOK HOUSE. I DID TESTIFY AT THE LAST HERITAGE COMMISSION MEETING. AND THERE'S A DOCUMENT IN YOUR BINDER THAT I PREPARED. THIS IS
A VERY SAD SITUATION. BEING A CLOSE NEIGHBOR, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS NEGLECTED PROPERTY. WHETHER IT IS DEMOLISHED OR NOT, WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD? WE HAVE SQUATTERS IN THERE. PEOPLE
DESTROYING THINGS ALL THE TIME. THERE'S TRASH BEING DUMPED. AND THE RESPONSE TO THE CITY CALL 3-1-1. IT IS, WITHIN THE NEXT 10 DAYS WE'LL DO SOMETHING. WELL. MAYBE. THE WINDOWS CAN
ONLY BE BOARDED UP ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THREATEN THEN THERE'S A LADDER. THE ONLY WINDOWS BOARDED ON THE FIRST FLOOR ARE THE ONES BROKEN. SO MY REQUEST IS THAT SOMETHING BE DONE. AARON KARLSSON PROPERTY
BURNT. THAT MIGHT HAPPEN HERE. WE DON'T KNOW. SO PLEASE, PLEASE DO SOMETHING. WHAT CAN THE CITY DO? IT DEFINITELY HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A LONG TIME. AND WE DON'T SEE ANY POSITIVES
COMING FORWARD THE WAY IT IS NOW. I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT BE DEMOLISHED NECESSARILY. BUT THINGS NEED TO BE DONE. THE PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED. AND I'M NOT SURE IF THE CURRENT OWNER IS CAPABLE OF DOING THAT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THE LAST PERSON HERE IS KEVIN REICH. FORMER COUNCILMEMBER OF WARD ONE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. FOR THE TIME AND HEARING OF THE
WORDS OF MY NEIGHBORS, I THINK THEY'RE HEART FELT AND NOT UNABLE LOSED. I'LL CONCUR WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS. OUR EXPERTS THAT ARE CHARGED WITH ANALYZING THESE THINGS WITH A CLEAR EYE AND THIRD-PARTY NONSORT OF MOTIVATED APPROACH ALL POINTS WERE MET. AND I WOULD STANDBY
THEIR ANALYSIS ON THAT FRONT. ALSO, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY INTO THE TOPIC WHO ARE ON OUR COMMISSION, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF COMMISSIONS, TOPIC-BASED COMMISSIONS. ALSO REVIEWED IT WITH THEIR EXPERTISE AND PASSION AS SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS. THEY CONCURRED WITH STAFF. AND, ACTUALLY, HAD THEIR OWN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, AS WELL, THAT
REINFORCED IT FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. I STANDBY ALL OF THOSE ASSERTIONS. BOTH THE TECHNICAL AND THE PASSIONATE FROM THE REVIEW PROCESSES YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU. I WOULD SAY THEY OUTWEIGH THE CONVENIENT CONCLUSIONS, COUNTERCONCLUSIONS THAT WE'VE PRESENTED TO YOU BY
THE APPELLANT. THEY DON'T WEIGH OUT. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE SENTIMENTS AND POWER OF THE NARRATIVES YOU HEARD TODAY ARE MAGNIFIED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. JUST SO ONE KNOWS, THIS IS NOT AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IN-COVID TIMES OF DESIGNATION. IT WAS LIST I
WORKED ON A COMMUNITY ACTIVIST. WHEN I BECAME A COUNCIL PERSON, I TRIED TO SHIFT THROUGH THE LIST. YOU KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS. IT'S A RE REAL PROCESS TO GET SOMETHING DESIGNATED. IT'S NOT JUST FEELINGS AND GOOD STORY. IT'S TRUE ANALYSIS. AND
PRIORITIZE WHICH OF YOUR BUILDINGS WILL ACTUALLY GET ON THE LIST. AND TAKE STAFF'S TIME TO GET THE DESIGNATION. IN NORTHEAST, AS YOU KNOW, WE LOVE OUR COMMUNITY! THERE'S A LOT OF CHARACTER. WE DON'T HAVE THE INDUSTRY TIGHTENS BUILDING TO PROTECT. WE DON'T HAVE THE
CATHEDRAL THAT IS OBVIOUSLY IN MANY PEOPLE'S MINDS HYSTERIC WE HAVE BITS AND PIECES OF A WORKING-CLASS COMMUNITY. EVERY BIT AND PIECE WE IDENTIFY HAS A DEEP STORY FOR OUR COMMUNITY. WE WANT THAT PROTECTED. AND I COME TO YOU, NOT JUST AS A FORMER COUNCILMEMBER OR AS A TECHNICAL EXPERT, ACTUALLY, YOU
HAVE STAFF THAT ARE THOSE. I'M COMING TO YOU TO SAY YOU'RE THE LAST LINE. YOU'RE THE PROTECTERS. PROTECT OUR STORY IN NORTHEAST MINNEAPOLIS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM? LIKE I MENTIONED, I WILL
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NEXT CYCLE. AND NOW I WILL OPEN FOR QUESTIONS FOR MY COLLEAGUES. IF THEY HAVE ANY? I HAVE A FIRST QUESTION FOR STAFF. YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A
SOLUTION HERE. THE NEIGHBORS ARE HERE. THEY'RE SAYING THIS IS A HISTORIC JOHN COOK HOUSE. SHOULD BE KEPT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, ALSO, THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION FOUND THIS. BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, WE HEAR THE
PRESENTATION FROM APPELLANT WHO SAID THIS BUILDING IS NOT SAVEABLE. IT'S DONE. AND WE'RE HERE TO FIND A SOLUTION. AND WHERE WE CAN GO FROM THERE. SO, OBVIOUSLY, IN MY OPINION, THE BUILDING HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR
THAT LONG. SINCE 2026. WAS DATE? IT WAS .. CONDEMNED. OR VACANT. >> CHAIR OSMAN, IT WAS PLACED ON THE VACANT BUILDING REGISTER LIST, I BELIEVE, IN 2014. AND
THEN IT WAS 2020 WHEN IT WAS FORMALLY CONDEMNED. >> BEEN VACANT FOR 10 YEARS. ALMOST 10 YEARS. >> I BELIEVE, YES.
>> OKAY. WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A CONDEMNED BUILDING IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS? IS IT UNSAFE AND DANGEROUS?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT CONDEMNED BUILDINGS, THEY CLEARLY DO NEED REPAIRS. RIGHT. I THINK ONE OF THE MISCONCEPTIONS THAT WE HEAR JUST AMONG MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT A CONDEMNED BUILDING IT
ME MEANS IT HAS TO COME DOWN. SOMETIMES IT'S THE CASE. NOT ALWAYS. WHAT IT MEANS IS REPAIRS SHOULD BE MADE. AND THIS SITUATION, STAFF BELIEVES THAT REPAIRS CAN BE MADE TO PUT THE PROPERTY INTO A CONDITION BACK INTO A USE THAT WOULD BE
SUITABLE FOR THE HOME. SUCH AS A DWELLING. THAT'S WHERE STAFF EVALUATION FELL. THAT'S WHERE THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGREED WITH STAFF. YES, THERE'S DETERIORATION, BUT AMONG THE DESIGNATED PROPERTIESES IN THE CITY, THERE'S OFTEN GOING TO BE SOME
DE DEITER Y DETIER YOUR RATION THAT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED. >> SO THE LETTER THE CITY IS
SENDING TO DELL ACCO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING IS CORRECT IT AND FIX THE BUILDING. THAT'S WHAT THE LETTERS MEAN? THE CITY IS SENDING TO CONTINUE TO SEND THEM TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING. >> HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THE EXACT LANGUAGE ON THAT. OKAY
>> OKAY., YOU KNOW, SQUATTERS HAVE BEEN SHOWING UP. THE BUILDING PICK PICTURES LOOK LIKE BAD CONDITION. IT LOOKS LIKE THE BUILDING HAS BEEN NEGLECTED.
UMM, WHAT IS THE CITY TAKE ON WHEN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE OWNER DECIDES TO NEGLECT IT. WILL WE HAVE ANOTHER 10 YEARS WHERE IF WE DECIDE THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT BE CONDEMNED. I'M SORRY,
DEMOLISHED, THEN WHAT IS THE CITY TAKE ON? WHAT TUESD DOES THE CITY CONTINUE TO DO? FINE THEM AND EXPECT THE OWNERS? I KNOW I'M ASKING QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT NOT BE -- >> CHAIR OSMAN. I WANTED TO
JUMP IN. A QUICK MOMENT TO OFFER A QUICK CLARIFICATION TO YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION. MY NAME IS ANDREA, THE SUPERVISOR FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM IN CPED. CONDEMNATION MEANS THE CITY HAS ASKED THE OWNER TO GO AND FIX THE BUILDING. AND THEY
HAVE PRESCRIBED A LIST OF REPAIRS THAT NEED TO BE DONE. IT DOES NOT MEAN TO DEMOLISH. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, NO LETTER HAS BEEN SENT TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING. THAT CPED IS AWARE OF. AT THIS POINT. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION
BETWEEN DEMOLITION AND C CONDEMNATION. I'LL TURN THE QUESTIONS BACK. >> THAT'S HELPFUL. THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR CLARIFYING THAT. SO MY QUESTION TO YOUR, ROB, IS WHAT IS THE CITY GOING TO DO? IF THE OWNER
DECIDES TO CONTINUE FOR NEXT 10 YEARS THE SAME THING HE'S DOING. NEGLECTING THE BUILDING, FOR EXAMPLE, AS THE NEIGHBORS PUT IT. ARE WE GOING TO SIT AND CONTINUE TO SEND THEM LETTERS? IS THERE SOME KIND OF END TO
THIS? >> YEAH, THANK YOU CHAIR OSMAN. THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS INTERNALLY OF WHAT THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE. DEPENDING ON ITS WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT. IT'S NOT A COMMON SITUATION THAT WE HAVE A LANDMARK COME FORWARD FOR
DEMOLITION. AND ESPECIALLY IN A SITUATION WHERE THE CONDITION IS SHOWN AND EXPLAINED BY THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, IN WHATEVER DECISION IS MADE. WE WOULD ADDRESS, AT THAT POINT, WHAT THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE. >> SURE. >> THANK YOU. I'LL SAY THAT,
YOU KNOW, AS WE HEAR THE NEIGHBORS THAT THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN NEGLECTED. TO ME, IT'S DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE. AND THE APPLICANT HAS MENTIONED THAT IT'S UNSAVEBLE AND THE COST COULD BE MILLIONS. I'LL LEAVE IT THERE AND RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER CHOWDHURY.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. I WILL BE SUPPORTING YOUR MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM. I DO THINK WE NEED FURTHER DISCUSSION AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUST HAVE MORE OFFLINE DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR STAFF ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF THIS
LANDMARK. THE FIRST QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE NOMINATION PROCESS. WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF HISTORIC DEDICATION LANDMARK
CONVERSATIONS UP HERE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT A LOT OF STAFF TIME GOESES INTO IT. AND THERE IS A LONGER PROCESS. AND YOU NEED TO EARN QUITE A BIT OF SUPPORT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. I WOULD ASSUME
THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOTIFIED THIS WAS OCCURRING. DID THE PROPERTY OWNER OBJECT OR GIVE ANY INDICATION ABOUT WHAT THEIR PLANS WERE FOR THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE DEDICATION OCCURRED?
>> THANKS, CHAIR OSMAN. COUNCILMEMBER CHOWDHURY. STAFF, AT THE TIME OF DESIGNATION, NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF RECORD. AND WAS NOT GIVEN A RESPONSE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE NOMINATION GOING FORWARD. SO
THAT WAS AN AREA WHERE WE WEREN'T CERTAIN. AND THE NOMINATION PROCESS CONTINUED WITHOUT THEM WEIGHING IN ON THE OPINION ON IT. SO STAFF WERE NOT CERTAIN OF WHAT THEIR OPINION WAS THE WHOLE
TIME. THE NOMINATION WAS GOING FORWARD. >> WAS THERE ANY COMMUNICATION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER? >> I'M SORRY. I SEE THE CITY ATTORNEY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO -- OH. >> IT CAN WAIT. >> OKAY. >> WAS THERE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE
CITY AT ALL ABOUT THE PROCESS? OR WAS IT, LIKE, NO COMMUNICATION? I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE DEFEAT THEY DIDN'T WEIGH IN OR THEY DIDN'T SPEAK TO THE CITY. >> SURE. I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. >> YEAH. >> IT WAS NOMINATED BE I THE
FORMER COUNCILMEMBER REICH OF WARD ONE. WHR A PERSON, NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOMINATING A PROPERTY, STAFF WILL TRY TO NOTIFY THEM AS SOON AS WE'RE AWARE THIS IS GOING FORWARD. AND IN THAT SITUATION, WE'RE RELYING ON WHAT INFORMATION WE
HAVE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT BE, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC ADDRESS OR AN E-MAIL THAT WE'RE GIVEN TO REACH OUT TO THEM. WE REACHED OUT
MULTIPLE TIMES AND WE DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK, LIKE, THAT IS VERY -- THAT'S WORTH UPLIFTING. AS A PART OF WHAT WAS SHARED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THERE REALLY SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES BEFORE THE ACTUAL DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY
OWNER TO COMMUNICATE WHERE THEY STOOD ON THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND LANDMARK STATUS. I THINK IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS COMMENT 2022. THAT'S WHEN THEY STARTED COMMUNICATING WITH THE CITY THAT THEY HAD INTENDED
TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY. AND AS TESTIFIERS HAVE SHARED, AND THE FORMER COUNCILMEMBER SHARED, THIS WAS ALSO IN THE WORKS SEVERAL, SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE
THE DESIGNATION PROCESS EVEN BEGAN. IT WAS ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY HAD IN ITS MIND. AND ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY HAD DISCUSSED. WAS THERE EVER A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP? OR THE SAME OWNERSHIP THAT THE CITY OF
MINNEAPOLIS SPOKE TO? WAS IT ALWAYS 1 1717 DEVELOPERS? >> DURING TIME OF THE NOMINATION AND DESIGNATION, YES. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S HELPFUL. AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE STAFF EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT STATE
OF THE COOK HOUSE AND THE DAMAGE. WHEN WAS THE LAST EVALUATION DONE? >> COUNCILMEMBER CHOWDHURY, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE LAST STRUCTURAL REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED? >> YEAH. THE DAY WE HAVE WAS
EARLIER THIS YEAR. SO IT WAS THE 2025 REPORT. AND THEN THAT'S THE ONE THAT INCLUDED THE PHOTOS SHOWING THE INTERIOR WITH THE DEMOLISHED INTERIOR WALLS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S HELPFUL. I'LL CLOSE WITH IT'S
VERY CLEAR IN OUR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A DUTY TO MAINTAIN AND A DUTY TO PREVENT KEY DETERIORATION. IN MY OPINION, I THINK IT INCLUDES SECURING THE
BUILDING. AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE ISN'T PEOPLE COMING IN CREATING DAMAGE. I THINK THAT'S A VERY CLEAR PART OF PROPERTY -- PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. AND SO THAT GETS ME A LOT OF PAUSE.
AND I THINK THERE ARE JUST DEEPER QUESTIONS I WANT TO THE GET INTO THAT AREN'T, I THINK, MEANT FOR THE DAIS TODAY. BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE REPAIRS OR SECURE THE PROPERTY AND NOW
WE'RE COMING HERE IN 2025 TO ASK FOR A DEMOLITION. AND WE HAVE HPC AND OUR STAFF SHARING IT DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A PROCESS TO MAKE REPAIRS AND
FIXES WHEN YOU HAVE A LANDMARK. AND THEY ARE EXTRA STEPS. BUT THIS ARE MANY LANDMARKS IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS THAT HAVE TO BE REPAIRED AND MAINTAINED. THOSE OWNERS GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO DO SO. I THINK DOING
REPAIRS OVER TIME AND NOT WAITING TO DO THEM WOULD BE A MEASURED WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. SO I'LL JUST LEAVE MY COMMENTS THERE. AND PASS IT ON TO THE CHAIR. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. CITY ATTORNEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO JUMP
IN OR SHOULD I RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER -- >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WANTED TO NOTE THAT YOU'RE IN A UNIQUE SITUATION. BECAUSE YOU ARE LEAVING THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING THAT NOT ONLY CAN YOU NOT MAKE ANY CONCLUSIONS ON THIS TOPIC WHILE THAT IS PENDING. BUT I WOULD ADVISE THAT YOU REQUEST A
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVE TO STAFF TO BRING FORTH ANY ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >> SURE. >> BACK TO THE DAIS RATHER THAN HAVING THE CONVERSATIONS PRIVATELY. >> OH. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND, UMM, THANK YOU FOR THE STAFF WORK ON THIS. AND I KNOW THAT OUR VACANT BUILDING REGISTRY AND THE FEES ASSOCIATED ARE MEANT TO RECOUP THE COST OF ALL THE CITY'S WORK ON THIS SIDE. AND I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, LIKE, HOW MUCH -- HOW MANY FINES HAVE BEEN
ADMINISTERED TO THE OWNER. FOR THE VACANT BUILDING SINCE IT WAS PLACED ON THE REGISTRY. CAN YOU SAY IN 2014? AND SINCE WE PASSED AT COUNCIL PROLONGED VACANCY ENFORCEMENT IN THE LAST YEAR, AND THAT WENT INTO EFFECT, NOW WHAT IS
THE CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE? I WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH THEY'RE BEING FINED FOR THE CITY FOR THIS SITUATION. >> THANK YOU. UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME NOW. IT'S SOMETHING STAFF IS AWARE OF. PRESERVATION STAFF
BUT NOT SOMETHING WE'RE ACTIVE IN WITH THE ENFORCEMENT, OF COURSE. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY OWNER -- I FORGOT WHAT THEY MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY. BUT WOULD BE A BETTER RESOURCE TO
ANSWER THAT. OKAY. ARE WE ADMINISTERING PROLONGED VACANCY ENFORCEMENT ON THE PROPERTY? ARE THEY RECEIVING MONTHLY FINES? MAYBE SOMETHING TO ASK FOR FOLLOW UP FOR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING. BUT I THINK THAT'S
GOOD TO KNOW. THAT IS OUR TOOL. WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE T TOOLS IN THE BOOK. BUT WE HAVE A TOOL WHERE WE CAN INCREASE FINES MONTH AFTER MONTH ON PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT TAKING CARE OF REMEDIATING THEIR
PROPERTY OR SELLING THEIR PROPERTY. I THINK IS THE OBVIOUS, LIKE, INCENTIVE STRUCTURE HERE. IF YOU CAN'T KEEP IT UP, SELL IT TO SOMEONE WHO WILL. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH WE'RE FINING AND WHAT WE HAVE PLANNED TO
CONTINUE HOW PROLONGED VACANCY ENFORCEMENT WI WILL ESCALATE IN THE MONTHS TO COME AFTER THIS ACTION. I CAN REQUEST THE CLERKS TO NOTE IT FOR FOLLOW UP. I WANT TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY -- IF THE HOUSE HAS BEEN PUT
ON THE MARKET AT ALL. IS THERE ANY EXTRA STEPS TO SELLING A HOUSE THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH WITH HISTORIC DESIGNATION. >> THANK YOU. I'M NOT AWARE OF THE PROPERTY BEING PLACED ON THE
MARKET RECENTLY. I BELIEVE THE CURRENT OWNER IS THE MOST, YOU KNOW, RECENT OWNER IN PERSON TO PURCHASE IT THROUGH ANY TYPE OF LISTING. SO I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY LISTING FOR THAT. I KNOW
THERE HAS BEEN INTEREST FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WERE INTERESTED IN BUYING IT. THERE WAS ONE NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT CAME FORWARDED TO STAFF ABOUT POTENTIALLY PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. AND WANTED MORE INFORMATION. KIND OF ASKING A SIMILAR QUESTION LIKE YOU DID. WHAT
PROCESSES -- >> YEAH. >> AND AS FAR AS SELLING A DESIGNATED PROPERTY, IT'S REALLY THE SAME PROCESSES SELLING ANY PROPERTY IN THE CITY. JUST BEING TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE DESIGNATION STATUS OF THE BUILDING AMONG SELLER/BUYER. >> OKAY. THERE'S NOT ANY EXTRA HOOPS THAT ONE HAS TO GO THROUGH
TO SELL A PROPERTY THAT'S HISTORIC DESIGNATED. >> NO. OKAY. THAT OPTION IS DEFINITELY ON THE TABLE, AS WELL, FOR THE OWNER. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, DEMOLITION IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION HERE. THAT WAS ALLUDED TO IN THEIR TESTIMONY. WHEN YOU'RE ON THE
VACANT BUILDING REGISTRY WE'RE ASKING DEMOLITION. IT'S NOT THE CASE. WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS REMEDIATION. AND TO SECURE THE BUILDING AND TAKE CARE OF THE BUILDING. OR SELL IT TO SOMEONE WHO WILL. I WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT WITH THE WAY OUR POLICIES ARE. THAT WE'RE NOT -- NO ONE
AT THE CITY IS ASKING FOR OWNER TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS FOR NOW. I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM. >> OKAY. >> I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR COMING. WE'LL CONTINUE NEXT CYCLE. NOVEMBER 13. THIS CONVERSATION. AND THANK YOU,
NEIGHBORS, FOR COMING AND THE OWNER FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. WITH THAT MOTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AND THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES. WILL ALL RIGHT. I WILL DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED
WITH NO BUSINESS BEFORE US. THANKS.