WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=0TRvjnx3k0k

Part: 1

1
00:00:08.800 --> 00:00:24.800
Good afternoon. I call to order the August 4th, 2026 regular meeting of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. For the record, my name is Marie Bjornberg and I serve as chair of the commission. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a reminder to silence your cell phones and other

2
00:00:24.800 --> 00:00:40.879
electronic devices. These meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation and include real-time captioning as a method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their

3
00:00:40.879 --> 00:00:56.719
speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. Would the clerk please call the role so that

4
00:00:56.719 --> 00:01:13.840
we may verify the presence of a quorum? >> Commissioner Alexander >> present. >> Booty >> present. Curado is absent. Melbum is absent. Rodriguez >> present. >> Smith >> present.

5
00:01:13.840 --> 00:01:28.799
>> Thomas >> present. >> Wallace >> present. >> Vice Chair Masten >> present. >> Chair Bjornberg >> present. There are eight members present. >> Let the record reflect that we do have quorum and that Commissioner Melbourne provided proper notice that they have a conflict this afternoon and their

6
00:01:28.799 --> 00:01:44.240
absence is excused. First, we are going to organize the agenda for this meeting. Agendas are available on the table by the clerk. I'm going to read through each agenda item and state whether it is slated for consent, continued, withdrawn, or

7
00:01:44.240 --> 00:01:59.280
discussion. So today we have item number four, 122 Franklin Avenue West, Ward 7, which is for a demolition of potential historic resource and will be discussed. May I

8
00:01:59.280 --> 00:02:14.959
have a motion to approve the agenda? >> Masten so moves. Thank you, Commissioner Masten. Is there a second? >> Wallace seconds. Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. Those opposed say

9
00:02:14.959 --> 00:02:31.599
nay. Any abstensions? The agenda is approved. Our next order of business will be to approve the minutes from our July 21st, 2026 meeting. May I have a motion to approve those minutes? >> Alexander moves. >> Thank you, Commissioner Alexander. Is

10
00:02:31.599 --> 00:02:47.440
there a second? >> Smith seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed say nay. Any abstensions? While this abstains, Bjornberg also

11
00:02:47.440 --> 00:03:04.879
abstains. The minutes are approved. Before I open the hearing to public comments, let me summarize the process for conducting the public hearing. First, planning staff will present its report and commissioners may ask questions of staff. Then I will open the public hearing and we will hear from the

12
00:03:04.879 --> 00:03:21.040
applicant and commissioners may ask questions of the applicant. After that, we will invite public comment, but commissioners will not respond to public comments. If you wish to speak, please be sure to sign up on the sheet over by the clerk. If you haven't done this already, you can do so afterwards. When

13
00:03:21.040 --> 00:03:36.239
you come up to testify, you must state your name for the record. And please keep your comments specific to the application before us today. If you have materials to hand out, please give them to our committee clerk so that they can be distributed to the commission and entered into the record. Do not approach

14
00:03:36.239 --> 00:03:53.599
the commissioners on the dis. After public comments are complete, I will close the hearing and commissioners will deliberate and act upon the applications before us. With that, our first item is item number four, 122 Franklin Avenue West, Ward 7.

15
00:03:53.599 --> 00:04:16.320
This application is for a demolition of potential historic resource. And the staff report is presented by Aaron K. Good afternoon, Chair Bjornberg and commissioners. My name is Aaron Kay and I'm a senior city planner in the Department of Community Planning and

16
00:04:16.320 --> 00:04:31.919
Economic Development or CPED. I am here today to present a demolition of potential historic resource application for the property located at 122 Franklin Avenue West. Here is an aerial view of the property's location.

17
00:04:31.919 --> 00:04:46.880
And this is a view of the front elevation which faces south towards Franklin Avenue. It has a one-story section in front and a six-story section that rises behind it. The building was constructed in 1963 as the Minnesota Protestant Center, now known as the

18
00:04:46.880 --> 00:05:02.960
Minnesota Church Center. It was designed by Armstrong and Schlicking Inc. in the mid-century modern style and built by Adolfson and Peterson Inc. Here is an angled view of the front elevation which gives a better view of the Loia that is on two sides of the

19
00:05:02.960 --> 00:05:20.639
one-story section. This is the west elevation. This is the north elevation. Here is a close-up view of the main entrance canopy which is on the north elevation. And this is the east elevation.

20
00:05:20.639 --> 00:05:36.160
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a new 145 unit affordable housing project. If the demolition is approved, any future development of the site is not subject to HPC review. For a demolition of potential historic resource

21
00:05:36.160 --> 00:05:52.639
application, one of three findings must be met in order to approve demolition. If demolition is denied, it automatically kicks off the designation study process. I will go over each of the findings, summarize the applicant's argument, and provide staff's analysis.

22
00:05:52.639 --> 00:06:08.160
Finding number one states, the demolition is necessary to correct a structurally unsafe condition on the property based on a certified structural report from a licensed engineer. The applicant has not provided a report from a licensed engineer and staff cannot confirm that demolition is

23
00:06:08.160 --> 00:06:23.600
necessary to correct a structurally unsafe condition on the property. Therefore, this finding has not been met. Finding number two states, "The property does not meet at least one of the criteria of significance found in section 599.710

24
00:06:23.600 --> 00:06:39.919
and does not retain historic integrity." The property was surveyed in 2013 as part of a city-wide survey and it was recommended potentially eligible for local designation under criterion 4 as a good representation of the neighborhood and contextsensitive redevelopment

25
00:06:39.919 --> 00:06:55.360
during the 1960s. [snorts] Based on this previous recommendation, staff determined the property is a potential historic resource. In staff's opinion, the property has significance under criterion one because it was constructed to provide a centralized and unified center for

26
00:06:55.360 --> 00:07:10.479
multiple Protestant denominations and organizations across the state. The intent was to improve collaboration and streamline resources across the Protestant faith. Although it was originally built specifically for Protestant organizations, they quickly expanded to welcome organizations from

27
00:07:10.479 --> 00:07:26.000
other faiths. This [snorts] union of multiple religious organizations reflects a worldwide movement to foster interdenominational connections that had started in the 1800s and continues today. [snorts] In staff's opinion, the property also has significance under criterion 4 as a

28
00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:42.880
strong example of the mid-century modern style applied to an office building. It has many character-defining features of this style, including minimal ornamentation, smooth brick walls, ribbon windows with spandrel panels and vertical fins, and simple rectangular volumes. [snorts] There have not been

29
00:07:42.880 --> 00:07:59.120
many changes since the building was built, and therefore, it does retain integrity in all seven aspects as detailed in the staff report. Uh therefore this finding has not been met in staff's opinion and the applicant also did not um analyze the potential eligibility under the criteria of

30
00:07:59.120 --> 00:08:15.759
significance. Finding number three states a rehabilitation is not economically viable to put the property to a reasonable use based on a cost estimate for a qualified rehabilitation using the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation.

31
00:08:15.759 --> 00:08:31.360
The applicant considered three options for the property. The first option was to rehabilitate the building and continue its use as an office building. In 2003, a facility assessment was completed that identified various deferred maintenance items, including

32
00:08:31.360 --> 00:08:46.800
issues with the windows, roof, HVAC system, lack of a sprinkler system, and presence of lead and asbestous. The applicant noted that many of these issues still exist. They estimate it would now cost $21 million to address the deferred maintenance, bring the

33
00:08:46.800 --> 00:09:03.600
building up to current code, and offer modern office amenities. In [snorts] their opinion, this is too high of a cost when you take into account what rental rates are feasible for this area. Nth Real Estate and Project Management also assessed the building and indicated that it is in their opinion functionally

34
00:09:03.600 --> 00:09:18.640
obsolete and not competitive in the market. The second option was to rehabilitate the building while converting it into 38 housing units and building a standalone building in the parking lot with 72 units for a total of 110 units. The

35
00:09:18.640 --> 00:09:34.880
applicant began the part one historic tax credit application process but decided not to proceed because they assessed that tax credits would still leave a funding gap of more than $4.3 million. They also asserted that converting the building into housing may face some challenges as far as complying with the

36
00:09:34.880 --> 00:09:52.399
Secretary of the Interior standards, specifically with window replacement and a desire to add more windows in the sections of blank walls uh for the housing units. [snorts] They estimate the per unit cost at $342,000 or sorry $342,272

37
00:09:52.399 --> 00:10:14.440
for a total of $37,650,000. The third option, which is the applicant's preferred option, is to demolish the building and construct a new 145 unit building on the entire site. [snorts] Through this option, the per unit cost is $245,888

38
00:10:14.880 --> 00:10:34.079
for a total of $37,375,000. Staff noted that the property has a large parking lot, which could allow for other development options, such as a cluster development or a common lot development. Although these options would offer other paths to providing housing on the site, they would not achieve the same density of units as

39
00:10:34.079 --> 00:10:50.880
proposed by the applicant. [snorts] In staff's opinion, although rehabilitation of the subject property may be technically feasible, the applicant has demonstrated that it is not economically viable to rehabilitate the building for continued office use or to convert the building into housing.

40
00:10:50.880 --> 00:11:06.160
Based [snorts] on the cost estimates provided by the applicant, it costs about the same to convert the building into housing and build new housing on the parking lot as it is to demolish the existing building and build housing across the entire site. Demolition would allow a higher yield of housing units

41
00:11:06.160 --> 00:11:23.760
145 compared to 110 and reduce the per unit costs making this option more economically viable. Therefore, finding number three has been met in staff's opinion. staff recommend that the HBC adopt staff findings and approve the demolition of potential historic resource application.

42
00:11:23.760 --> 00:11:38.959
Uh, two public comments were received today. One is a letter of support from the neighborhood group and one is a letter of of objection from a neighbor. I think you all have received those copies today. This concludes my presentation. I'm happy to stay for questions. The applicant is also here

43
00:11:38.959 --> 00:11:55.923
and would like to make a presentation. >> Thank you for that report. Commissioners, are there any questions for staff on this item? And please let the record reflect that Commissioner Cra is now here.

44
00:11:55.923 --> 00:12:18.440
[snorts] Any questions? Okay. Thank you. I will now open the public hearing for this item. And if the applicant is here, please come to the microphone and state your name for the record.

45
00:12:26.720 --> 00:12:41.519
Good afternoon. I'm John Dickerson. Good afternoon, uh, Chairman Bjornberg and members. Um, I'm, uh, president of Diversified Equities Corporation. I'm a general partner of the

46
00:12:41.519 --> 00:12:57.839
u ownership of the um property since February of 2026 and I'm also u the developer of the property that's making the new proposal and uh [snorts] is applying for the uh permit to uh

47
00:12:57.839 --> 00:13:15.600
demolish the building. Uh so of course with uh I think it's no secret that uh with the uh costs the geopolitical conditions and the ongoing costs of construction uh and cost of materials

48
00:13:15.600 --> 00:13:34.320
uh that it's difficult to uh get these projects to be feasible under the current conditions. We did take a good look at uh in fact when we first started looking at the property. Um I was kind of excited about the opportunity to uh

49
00:13:34.320 --> 00:13:50.240
maintain the historic buildings. We we've done that once before earlier with our Stonehouse Square project in northeast Minneapolis. But as we started to dig into it um and look at the uh limitations of the building uh for

50
00:13:50.240 --> 00:14:06.320
example um one problem with the existing building for from the standpoint of housing is that it's a narrow a very narrow tower. So um uh it's you can't really get a double loaded corridor. So you have to have a single loaded quarter

51
00:14:06.320 --> 00:14:23.040
which is not a very efficient um building for from a housing standpoint. So that would be one limiting factor. Uh the other uh factor would be that another factor I think as uh the staff already rec mentioned is the problem

52
00:14:23.040 --> 00:14:39.839
with the windows. Uh there are some blank walls in the property that in order to have housing wh I'm breaking your breaking your system here. Not sure why this is there. I'll just set it over here.

53
00:14:39.839 --> 00:14:57.279
Um so with the window problem with the windows uh if you start cutting in openings and changing walls this this probably is a conflict with the some of the historic uh requirements um necessary to uh qualify the building

54
00:14:57.279 --> 00:15:15.199
for tax credits which would be uh necessary if you were going to try to do historic rehab. So another problem was with the elevators. Uh the current elevators do not meet the uh current uh code standards. They're too small. And so you'd have to uh probably punch out

55
00:15:15.199 --> 00:15:31.839
through uh one of the sidewalls in order to uh make elevators that are would be uh able to meet the codes. And along with some of the other things that have already been mentioned, the the windows, for example, um when our market analyst

56
00:15:31.839 --> 00:15:48.160
Mary Bujo looked at the property, she commented with the windows that are there. There are these um uh center center the operable ones are center pivot windows where they they pivot on an axis. So that these would not be uh

57
00:15:48.160 --> 00:16:04.480
suitable for housing because um you can't put a bug screen on. You can't really they're not you can't put a screen on and they would let rain in and so forth. So she said awning windows will be necessary for for housing.

58
00:16:04.480 --> 00:16:21.360
Um the other problem is with this with this uh existing curtain wall. It's uninsulated wall and it's rather leaky, uh, drafty and so in the opinion of the contractors as we dug into it, it would all have to be replaced, which of course

59
00:16:21.360 --> 00:16:38.720
is is is very expensive. Um, also, uh, if we change the look of the the type of window and the look of the window, this would also be a conflict uh, it seemed with the historical standards. So that again would would also hamper you know

60
00:16:38.720 --> 00:16:56.000
the ability to have the tax credits. So um if we [clears throat] in order to uh um have a chance to make it feasible we looked at constructing some additional new units on the uh parking lot of the site and uh [snorts]

61
00:16:56.000 --> 00:17:12.959
uh that seemed like a good idea. The only problem with that is is that uh if you try to connect the two buildings together, that would be also violation of the of some of the historical uh requirements. So if you have two separate buildings, then you're going to

62
00:17:12.959 --> 00:17:28.559
have to have two separate sets of elevators, two separate entrances, two separate HVAC systems, two separate everything. And there would be the parking would all be in one building and there wouldn't be um you know the people from the that were living in the uh

63
00:17:28.559 --> 00:17:45.840
other building would have to walk outside in order to get access to the parking and the amenities in the other building. [snorts] So u adding it all up plus then looking at cost it just didn't uh look like it was going to be very feasible to go that route. So, um, as I

64
00:17:45.840 --> 00:18:02.080
think, uh, the staff already recommended, even if everything went smooth and we're able to get the tax credits and so forth, we estimated that we would still have a over in excess of a $4 million uh, gap. So, it just didn't seem like it was going to be feasible,

65
00:18:02.080 --> 00:18:18.400
which is why we kind of uh, went to the new construction option. And the more we looked at that, it seemed like it would be an opportunity to uh bring uh more more people into the neighborhood and enliven the the street.

66
00:18:18.400 --> 00:18:35.200
Um bring some people in that could be able to support the b nearby businesses and uh uh actually the building would have a lower profile uh a four-story building [snorts] uh which would be actually a lower profile than the uh present six-story

67
00:18:35.200 --> 00:18:50.880
building. And uh we are incorporating a lot of uh our plan incorporates a lot of uh nice features. We have uh uh for example for 145 units uh we plan to haveund

68
00:18:50.880 --> 00:19:07.120
140 units of underground parking with [clears throat] all of the parking access off of the alleyway. So it won't be adding a lot of additional uh traffic for for the existing uh neighbors. And uh also we're planning to uh include

69
00:19:07.120 --> 00:19:24.160
geothermal heating which would be uh a very efficient uh method of providing heating and uh cooling for for the property. And we would have an opportunity to insulate and uh uh have windows and insulation that would be up

70
00:19:24.160 --> 00:19:40.320
to uh uh current energy standards uh be a much more efficient building. So that's [snorts] kind of where we're at on it. And uh we have a uh if you're interested in seeing uh what our plan is for uh the property after

71
00:19:40.320 --> 00:19:56.480
uh the demolition occurs, uh we have a member of the architects are here and they could show you some uh drawings if if you're interested in seeing that. I don't know if you want to take the time to do that or not, but I thought I would offer. Otherwise, uh I'll just stop and

72
00:19:56.480 --> 00:20:14.000
uh see if you uh have some questions. Thank you for those comments. Commissioners, are there questions for the applicant? [snorts] Commissioner Thomas, >> it's not really a question. Um, just more of a comment. I appreciate you looking thoroughly through the different options and trying to save the building.

73
00:20:14.000 --> 00:20:30.480
Um, I just want to say I do appreciate the thoroughess in which you did that. >> Oh, thank you. >> Do other commissioners have questions? Commissioner Cado, >> um, you mentioned that the bu new building potentially has a lower profile. Is there a reason why you did not match the profile, the height, and

74
00:20:30.480 --> 00:20:48.159
therefore increase density? >> Well, I think um I could speak to it a little bit, but uh maybe I'll uh ask Joe is uh here with BKV Architects. perhaps he could uh comment on that. But I think as far as I

75
00:20:48.159 --> 00:21:04.000
I mean I think in terms of shadowing and some of these other issues uh density and ability to have a onetoone parking I think were some of the limiting factors but um uh I don't know Joe do you want to make >> I think that's I think that's a good

76
00:21:04.000 --> 00:21:18.880
>> okay he says that was a good answer so [laughter] we'll uh rest on that. Any other questions for the applicant from commissioners? Commissioner Alexander. >> Um,

77
00:21:18.880 --> 00:21:33.280
>> sorry. Thank you. Uh, I guess I'm curious about the option two. Um, the building new on the adjacent parking while also converting I think it was 38

78
00:21:33.280 --> 00:21:52.080
units in the existing tower. Um, I think that said it was capped at I don't know what it was 78 units or something in the new build. And I guess I'm I'm just wondering where that is coming from as well. Like if >> we had a total we would have a total of

79
00:21:52.080 --> 00:22:09.360
110 units with that option, >> combining both >> combining both the two the new and plus the units that we could uh >> develop. It's pretty limited for that existing building cuz it it looks like a large building, but it's actually really very not a very big building cuz it's

80
00:22:09.360 --> 00:22:24.640
very very thin. >> So, I think we could only get I think it was 38 30 38 units in that tower space. And that's assuming that >> we used all of the first floor, which normally would be amenities and so forth. It would assume that we used all

81
00:22:24.640 --> 00:22:39.600
of that for apartments and even then we could only get saw uh you know 38 units there, >> right? I I actually I'm an architect, too. I looked at this project a while ago and did fit plans and we we ran into some similar issues. I guess I'm I'm

82
00:22:39.600 --> 00:22:57.760
curious about though is the the new build that would be uh a part of that part two approach and why why that's maxing out at it sounds like about 75 80 units. >> 70 72 I believe it was Joe.

83
00:22:57.760 --> 00:23:21.840
>> Yeah, 72 units. Um, well, >> this is uh Joe Brown. He's a a partner with the BKV6. >> Yep. Um, with the space that's left uh after you account for zoning uh setbacks, um the the available area uh

84
00:23:21.840 --> 00:23:37.440
giving the new build or the existing building some room, uh we were kind of uh left with a smaller building, I believe, at that point. And uh and then also uh there's a family mix to the units, so they're larger rather than smaller. We could get a lot of units, a lot of small units in that space, but

85
00:23:37.440 --> 00:23:52.320
that was not the the program that we were we were given. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other questions from commissioners for the applicant? Commissioner [clears throat] Rodriguez. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I have a question

86
00:23:52.320 --> 00:24:08.320
about the figure, the numbers that you presented on this. Um so for option two um for the rehab in the new building uh you presented a total cost of 37 million650,000 if I wrote that down correctly. Um does

87
00:24:08.320 --> 00:24:25.760
that figure include uh or take out what you would receive in tax credits or does that not include um any consideration of the historic tax credits? >> Well, [clears throat] that would be the construction construction cost. That that wouldn't be the total development cost. That would be just the uh the

88
00:24:25.760 --> 00:24:42.880
contract, you know, what the contract the general contractor would charge for for that uh construction. So tax credits would be a you know a source, but it wouldn't be a use. That would be the 37 million would be a cost.

89
00:24:42.880 --> 00:24:59.440
>> Right. Right. >> And then you know if we sold tax credits then we would sell that to investors and then that would be a part of the financing. >> Okay. Other questions

90
00:24:59.440 --> 00:25:18.880
from commissioners? >> Commissioner Curado >> uh in the option to demolish and to replace. Is the budget accounting for a dismantling of this building and salvaging as much that might have a

91
00:25:18.880 --> 00:25:36.400
market value due to its historic nature or is it a complete just wreck and ball kind of demo? >> Well, I think uh what that would be uh Frana Group is our uh is our um contractor. So they would uh salvage

92
00:25:36.400 --> 00:25:54.000
what they can but uh most of the steel uh which should be the probably the most salvageable item is is wrapped and covered with with asbestous. So dependent on uh what method uh is eventually used for

93
00:25:54.000 --> 00:26:09.919
um de uh demolition and disposing of that the uh the project manager with Frana thought that probably the most costefficient would be just to take remove the steel uh with the asbestous and just you know dispose of it all that

94
00:26:09.919 --> 00:26:27.083
way ra and it would be uh there wouldn't be that much value uh for the steel but yeah they they would generally try to they'll have a plan, you know, a demolition plan that would uh provide for salvaging anything that could be salvaged.

95
00:26:27.083 --> 00:26:48.240
[snorts] >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from commissioners for the applicant? >> Okay, thank you. Uh, and then I have the next person up

96
00:26:48.240 --> 00:27:10.720
for public comments is Adam Schneider. Apologies if I mispronounce that. Hello, Madam Chair and commissioners. Um, my name is Adam Schneider. I am the greening and development coordinator for Steven Square Community Organization where this building um the neighborhood

97
00:27:10.720 --> 00:27:26.559
we serve the neighbor the hood the building is in. Um I'm speaking today on behalf of our specifically our neighborhood development and events committee um in support of this application. Um throughout this entire process John and his team have been um very active partners. They bought this

98
00:27:26.559 --> 00:27:42.720
property in February and they came to our March meeting. This is not usually the speed or um we usually get developers to come so quickly to speak to us but we were super happy um they did um they have given us a lot of opportunities to review their plans and

99
00:27:42.720 --> 00:27:57.919
provide feedback much of it which they have incorporated um in their plans particularly on preserving the green space on the south side of the property which we greatly appreciate. Um, and overall we are just looking forward to supporting and guiding this project to

100
00:27:57.919 --> 00:28:16.880
best serve the Steven Square Lauren Heights neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you for those comments. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak about this application? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, let's

101
00:28:16.880 --> 00:28:36.774
discuss. Any comments on the proposed application? Commissioner Wallace. Um, to me, I feel like this this is one of those applications that we want to see where there's been a lot of due diligence and a lot of tees crossed and eyes dotted

102
00:28:36.774 --> 00:28:52.240
[snorts] and obviously community engagement around the project. So, I given everything that's been laid out and the and the city staff's very thorough and clear guidance, I would have no problem uh voting to approve this.

103
00:28:52.240 --> 00:29:08.159
>> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Other comments from commissioners? Commissioner Alexander? >> Yeah, I mean, I agree. I do I do have problems uh with you know demoing this building but I would commend you guys

104
00:29:08.159 --> 00:29:25.279
for um because we've seen other folks come before us that do not make as convincing and thorough an argument uh dotting the eyes and crossing tees and and showing the math. Um uh it's it is unfortunate. Like I said I

105
00:29:25.279 --> 00:29:43.360
I looked at this project as well and we could not make it go. So I I I get it. Um but reluctantly, yes, I could I could also support this uh the staff's uh recommendation. [snorts] >> Any other commissioners? Commissioner

106
00:29:43.360 --> 00:29:58.880
Cra, >> um I used to live here, so nearby, so I used to walk by this building and loved it. I knew it was not functioning very well, very well, but I think it has a character um to it. And I think and I guess my

107
00:29:58.880 --> 00:30:13.840
struggle is at what point are we going to have every single building in this city condemned the same way, right? Because it just didn't get kept up. That's not the new owner's responsibility, but every building has a life cycle to it. And I think as

108
00:30:13.840 --> 00:30:30.240
architects, we know how long things are supposed to last and when they need to be replaced and what needs to be maintained. And it just feels like this is another building that just didn't get the care it needed. And you know, if we build a new building, is it the same thing? And are we going to tear it down

109
00:30:30.240 --> 00:30:46.880
in 50 years? And is that at some point not sustainable for us? So, I struggle with it. Not happy with it. Hopefully, whatever comes new is as impactful to the neighborhood as a as a

110
00:30:46.880 --> 00:31:02.399
place and as a space, cuz I think there used to be like a cafe on the ground floor um that was open to the public. And that garden is is very nice as a frontage on Franklin which is as a street struggles for its streetscape. So

111
00:31:02.399 --> 00:31:20.799
hopefully it can retain some of that character and and help uh continue the vibrancy of the neighborhood and help grow it. >> Commissioner Thomas, I I echo um [clears throat] Commissioner Cra's comments as well. This is a difficult

112
00:31:20.799 --> 00:31:36.320
decision to make. Um, it is a beautiful building and I really I agree if we just keep tearing them all down cuz it's not economically feasible, then we'll tear everything down at some point. Um, uh, what I would strongly like to just recommend is that there is a a real

113
00:31:36.320 --> 00:31:51.360
concerted effort towards salvage. Um, I know the stone could probably be salvaged, the bricks could likely be salvaged. I know that that may increase some of the demolition costs, but um you know the state of the environment would really appreciate salvaging as much as

114
00:31:51.360 --> 00:32:14.799
could be saved. Thank you. Other comments? Anybody want to make a motion? >> Commissioner Mast. I I can go forward with a motion um that the Heritage Preservation

115
00:32:14.799 --> 00:32:31.840
Commission approves the demolition of the potential historic resource application at 122 Franklin Avenue West. >> Thank you. Is there a second? Wallace seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Any further discussion?

116
00:32:31.840 --> 00:32:47.440
Seeing none, would the clerk call the role? >> Commissioner Alexander >> I. Booty >> I Curado >> I >> Rodriguez >> nay >> Smith

117
00:32:47.440 --> 00:33:02.399
>> I >> Thomas >> I >> Wallace >> I >> Vice Chair Masten >> I >> chair Bjornberg >> I >> There are eight eyes and one nay. >> Thank you. That motion passes and that

118
00:33:02.399 --> 00:33:20.320
concludes our public hearing items. Do staff have announcements? >> Thank you, Chair Bjornberg. Yes, I have a few announcements. I am Andrea Burke and I'm the supervisor for the historic preservation team in CPAD. Um, my first announcement is the August 18th meeting

119
00:33:20.320 --> 00:33:36.799
for the HPC has been cancelled. Um, I believe that notice went out on gov delivery, so you should have all seen that. If not, here is your notice. Um also August recruitment um the open appointments is now open this month for

120
00:33:36.799 --> 00:33:53.919
new commissioners for the next year. We have one new appointment um that we will be filling for sure and we also have three reappoints that are up. You know who you are. Um I know I've reached out so um let me know if this is something

121
00:33:53.919 --> 00:34:09.359
you're still interested in doing. If not that is okay. But um applications are being received this month um through the 31st. So also if you know other folks who might be interested on sitting on the HPC now is your month to reach out

122
00:34:09.359 --> 00:34:26.480
and if you need direction on where to apply please just contact me and I can provide all that. Also want to just thank everybody for their participation in the National Alliance of Preservation Commission's forum conference the other week. I had fun seeing everybody there. I was really

123
00:34:26.480 --> 00:34:43.440
tired from everything that was going on. Um, but it was it was really exciting to engage with everybody and seeing you all there that could make it. Um, and I have overall just heard a lot of really good comments and feedback from folks that attended and how much they really

124
00:34:43.440 --> 00:34:58.320
enjoyed Minneapolis. They enjoyed seeing what we had to offer. They enjoyed the events. Um, and even heard from one person who was interested in applying for a job in the metro area. So, um, but I wanted to remind commissioners who got

125
00:34:58.320 --> 00:35:15.839
a CLG scholarship for the conference to submit your documents by Friday or just work with staff, in this case, Aaron, on a deadline that works uh between the two of you. Um, and I also have one more um item that I'm going to uh transfer to

126
00:35:15.839 --> 00:35:42.400
Aaron for. Thank you, Chair Bjornberg. I know several of you were with us, but not all of you could be there. So, we wanted to share with you the award that the Minneapolis HBC received from the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions uh for best practices in

127
00:35:42.400 --> 00:35:58.800
identification and registration in recognition of all of the work that we have done a lot by staff, but certainly with your support as the HPC for the Minneapolis African-American Historic and Cultural Context Study. So, here's a chance for you to see it. Um, we believe

128
00:35:58.800 --> 00:36:15.440
we're getting a media kit from NAPC um to share out and we are hoping to to find a place to display the awards that we've received for this project. So, thank you all for the support you have provided and uh congratulations on the

129
00:36:15.440 --> 00:36:33.680
honor. Can I make a comment? Is that okay? I wanted to say congratulations to everybody, but especially to Aaron and the city staff for all of their amazing work on that project. It's just wonderful to be a part of. Welld deserved. Thanks.

130
00:36:33.680 --> 00:36:50.560
>> I'll echo those comments, too. I feel like all of us will probably echo those comments. [laughter and gasps] Um uh do any commissioners have any announcements? Okay, with that we've completed all items on the agenda for this meeting and

131
00:36:50.560 --> 00:37:01.720
there being no other business and without objection I will declare the meeting adjourned and the next regular meeting of the HPC is September 8th. Thank you.