One minute tech check. You are all good to start whenever you need. >> [gasps] >> Good afternoon. I call to order the May 12th, 2026 regular meeting of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. For the record, my name is Marwa
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 electronic devices. These meetings are broadcast to enable greater public participation and include captioning as a method to increase
accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. Please moderate the speed and clarity of your comments and speak
clearly into the microphone when speaking at the dais or giving testimony. Would the clerk please call the roll so that we may verify the presence of a quorum? Commissioner Alexander is absent. Booty is absent. Corrado
Present. Melblom Present. Rodriguez Present. >> [clears throat] >> Smith Present. Thomas Present. Wallace is absent. Vice Chair Mastin Present. Chair Bjornberg Present. There are seven members present. Let the
record reflect that we do have quorum and that Commissioners Booty and Wallace provided proper notice that they have a conflict this afternoon. First, we are going to organize the agenda for this meeting. Agendas are available by the clerk. I'm going to read through each consent agenda item
first, and if you came to oppose a staff recommendation, please raise your hand when I read the item. If you came to give neutral or supportive comments about the item, please do not raise your hand. You will have a chance to speak later in the meeting. First up is item number four, 2220
Clinton Avenue, Ward 10. This is a commission preservation application and this item is recommended for consent. Is anyone here to speak in opposition to staff recommendations for item number four? Seeing none, we will keep that item on
consent. Next item is item number five, 2216 Clinton Avenue, Ward 10. A commission preservation application, this item is recommended for consent. Is anyone here to speak in opposition to staff recommendation for item number
five? That will stay on consent. Next item is number six, 708 First Street North, Ward 3. Commission preservation application, this item is recommended for consent. Is anyone here
to speak in opposition to staff recommendations for item number six? We will keep that item on consent. Next item is item number seven, 730 Washington Avenue North, Ward 3. Commission preservation application,
this item is recommended for consent. Is anyone here to speak in opposition to staff recommendations for item number seven? We will keep that item on consent. Are there any commissioners who would like to speak in opposition to staff recommendations for any of the consent
agenda items? Okay, so to review, agenda items number four, five, six, and seven will be on consent. Then we will discuss in a public hearing agenda item number eight, 3716 Cheatham Avenue, Ward 9, adjacent to
Ward 12, which is a demolition of potential historic resource application. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? Melvin so moves. Thank you, Commissioner Melvin. Is there a second? Mastin seconds. Thank you, Commissioner Masten. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed say nay. Any abstentions? The agenda is approved. Our next order of business will be to approve the minutes from our April 28th and May 7th meetings. May I have a
motion to approve those minutes? Masten so moves. Thank you, Commissioner Masten. Is there a second? Thomas seconds. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed say nay.
Any abstentions? Ackeroyd abstains. Thank you, Commissioner Ackeroyd. The minutes are approved. Before I open the hearing to public comments, let me summarize the process for conducting the public hearing. First, we will act on the consent agenda
we just set. Once items on the consent agenda are approved, the commission is done with those items and the applicants may contact planning staff tomorrow about next steps. After the consent agenda items are approved, 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 applicant and commissioners may ask questions of the applicant. After that, we will invite public comment. 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 you come up to testify, please state your name for the record and keep your comment specific to the application before us. If you have materials to hand out, please give them to the clerk so that they can be distributed to the
commission and entered into the record. After public comments are complete, I will close the hearing and commissioners will deliberate and act upon the application before us. So, I will now open the public hearing on the consent agenda items, which are again, item number four, 2220 Clinton
Avenue Ward 10. Item number five, 2216 Clinton Avenue Ward 10. Item number six, 708 First Street North Ward 3. And item number seven, 730 Washington Avenue North Ward 3. Again, do
commissioners oppose staff recommendation for these items? Are there any members of the public who oppose staff recommendations? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing on the consent agenda items. May I have a motion to approve staff findings and recommendations for these
items? Melbom so moves. Thank you, Commissioner Melbom. Is there a second? Corrado seconds. Thank you, Commissioner Corrado. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. >> I. Those opposed say nay. Any abstentions?
Those items are approved as recommended by staff on the agenda and applicants may contact planning staff about next steps. Thank you. >> [gasps and laughter] >> Our last item is item number eight, 3716 Cheatham Avenue, Ward 9 adjacent to Ward
12. This application is for a demolition of historic resource and the staff report is presented by Aaron K. Good afternoon, Chair Bjornberg commissioners. My name is Aaron K and I'm a senior city planner in the historic preservation subsection of the Department of Community Planning and
Economic Development or CPED. I'm here today to present a demolition of potential historic resource application for the property located at 3716 Cheatham Avenue. Here is an aerial view of the property's location on the right and the Google
Street View of the primary elevation of the property facing Cheatham Avenue on the left. The property was built as a grain elevator. Based on historical research, staff believe that some of the steel grain bins on the north end or the right side of the photo date to 1912.
The remaining reinforced concrete grain grain bins to the north and south date to 1926 to 1930. The workhouse or headhouse in the middle dates to 1930. There are also two one-story buildings on the property that date to the mid-1940s.
The property functioned as a grain elevator for various companies from 1902 through 2013. The property was surveyed in 2009 for a cultural resources study of the Minnehaha Hiawatha Corridor. Through this survey, it was determined to be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or NRHP as a contributing resource to the Hiawatha Corridor Grain Industry Historic District. It was also recommended to be potentially individually eligible under NRHP criterion C for its 1912 steel
grain bins that date to an important period in elevator design. In 2023, CPED staff completed a historic review letter and determined the property was a potential historic resource at the local level based on the following criteria. Criterion one for its association with a prominent grain
industry in Minneapolis, criterion three as a distinctive element of city or neighborhood identity due to the high concentration of grain elevators along Hiawatha Avenue, and criterion four as an example of all steel elevator construction dating from the experimental period circa 1895 to 1920
according to the NRHP multiple property documentation form called grain elevator design in Minnesota. The Hiawatha Corridor Grain Industry Historic District includes seven flower related complexes as shown here. One has already been demolished, which is the
Purina Mills complex. Just over a year ago, the HBC reviewed a demolition of historic resource application for the Nokomis Mill property at 3501 Hiawatha Avenue. The HBC approved demolition. For your awareness, a wrecking permit application has not yet been submitted
for that property, the Nokomis Mill property. Uh over the past year, the property was sold to the intended developer, uh who is the one who submitted the demolition of historic resource application. I believe they are still in the early stages of securing financing for the future housing development.
For this project uh at 3716 Cheatham, the applicant is proposing to demolish the north and south sets of attached grain bins, the 1947 office building, and other site structures. The applicant is proposing to retain the historic workhouse or head house at the center of
the property. If demolition is approved, the site will be subdivided into two parcels for the development of two separate housing projects. The north half or left side of this plan will be an affordable housing project with 98 units led by Trellis Company. They have already secured
funding for this development through a variety of sources, including several sources that are either allocated by or passed through the city of Minneapolis. The south half of the site or the right side of the plan will be developed into a market rate apartment building by Hall Sweeney Properties or another developer.
The historic head house in the middle will be rehabilitated to include a new lobby for both apartment buildings and other resident amenities. >> [snorts] >> Any future development of the site is not subject to HBC review. Um any new construction would be subject to site plan review and may have other
requirements in the entitlement process that could go before other boards or commissions. For your awareness, the project is also currently undergoing a Section 106 environmental review. Consultation was initiated on March 20th, 2026. SHPO
responded on April 13th, 2026 and concurred that the undertaking will have an adverse effect on the NRHP eligible historic district, of which this property is a contributing resource. SHPO requested additional information before they can proceed into a
conversation about appropriate forms of mitigation. CPED staff are participating in this process as a consulting party on behalf of the Minneapolis HPC. I'll note that this is the first demolition of potential historic resource application to come before you
since the new preservation ordinance went into effect. I will explain the findings and staff's analysis under each of the findings for this project. In order for the HPC to approve demolition of this potential historic resource, at least one of the three
findings must be met. Number one, 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 indicated that demolition is not necessary to correct correct a
structurally unsafe condition, and staff agrees, which means this finding has not been met. Number two, the property does not meet at least one of the criteria of significance found in section 599. 710 and does not retain historic integrity.
The applicant indicated that the property meets at least one of the criteria of significance and retains historic integrity, and staff agree. In reviewing the available historical materials, staff believe that the property has significance under criterion one because it was built during Minneapolis's peak period of
flower milling along a corridor that has over a century of milling industry. Staff also believe that the property has significance under criterion three as a visual landmark along a prominent grain corridor. Staff also believe that the property has significance under criterion four due to
the six steel grain bins that date from 1912 during an experimental and important period in grain elevator design. In reviewing the seven aspects of integrity, staff believe that the property retains sufficient integrity in all areas to convey its historic significance. Therefore, this finding
has not been met. As noted in the staff report, we do have several extant designated properties that are tied to the city's milling history, including the Washburn A Mill, Pillsbury A Mill, and the Sarasota building, all of which are in the Saint Anthony Falls Historic District. Other
grain elevators remain extant throughout the city that are not designated, including the Highlight Tower in Northeast and the Lamar Condominiums near Bedlam Cosgrove, among other examples. The third finding is 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. >> [snorts] >> The applicant concluded that the rehabilitation of the grain bins is not economically viable. This was based on
the following reasons: the need to address substantial deferred maintenance, presence of hazardous materials that require remediation, difficulties adapting grain bins into housing based on the bins' dimensions, and the need to build a complete interior structure.
Incompatibility for adaptive reuse of the grain bins into housing while also complying with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. For example, installing new window and door openings in the grain bins would not likely meet the standards. As [snorts] presented by the applicant,
they estimate a full rehabilitation of both the north and south sets of grain bins, which would provide approximately 100 housing units, would cost almost $109 million. dollars. Because they would not likely meet the standards, they would not be eligible for historic tax credits.
The applicant is proposing to retain and rehabilitate the head house. As presented by the applicant, the cost estimate to rehabilitate the head house while demolishing the rest of the site to build housing in the north half is about 27 million dollars. This does not include development on the south half
because those numbers aren't known yet. That being said, the applicant presents this as a considerable cost savings. Based on the materials submitted by the applicant, CEPED finds that 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, thereby meeting finding number three. >> [snorts] >> Staff recommend that the HBC adopt staff findings and approve the demolition of potential historic resource application subject to the following condition.
Number one, the head house shall be retained. Although the applicant is proposing to retain the head house, staff recognize that plans can change as the development evolves. Uh since it is feasible to retain the head house, we recommend including this condition to ensure that this happens when it comes time for the
wrecking permit application to be submitted. The former Bunge elevator offers a good example of a housing project that retained the head house, uh which would help us honor this part of the property's history. >> [snorts] >> For the HBC's decision today, in order to approve demolition, at least one of
the findings must be met. If the HBC decides that the findings have not been met and that a rehabilitation is 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, then you would overturn staff recommendation to deny demolition, which will kick off a designation study of the property. Um in your packet, you received one public comment in support of demolition. Uh since the agenda was posted, I
believe there were there was an additional comment, and we got another one right at the start of the meeting, which has been distributed to you. I also think there are several uh uh members of the public who may wish to speak on this item today. And the applicant is also here as well.
So, this concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to stay for questions. Thank you for your presentation. Um Commissioners, are there questions for our staff? >> [snorts] >> Thank you. Okay, I will now open the public hearing
for this item, and I understand that the applicant is here. If you'd like to come to the microphone and state your name for the record. Hi, Chair and Commissioners. I'm Rachel Peterson with Hess Rice and Company. I'm representing the uh project team on this application for the demolition of a
potential historic resource. Um thank you to staff for a very thorough presentation. I won't repeat a lot of the great information. I know we've all been here for a while already. Um but just wanted to reiterate that this property type, especially a terminal grain elevator like the Checkerboard elevator, that is primarily grain
storage bins, they are exceptionally difficult to adaptively reuse, and even more difficult to reuse while meeting the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. That's what drives the over $1 million per unit uh cost to rehabilitate the structures that you'll see in our application as
our cost estimate. Um and justifies our our request to demolish the property under uh finding three. Um Other members of the project team are also here to have uh to to answer any questions, and I think they have a couple of comments to make. Um
otherwise, thank you for your time, and we're here. Good evening, uh members of the commission. Um My name's Dan Walsh. I work for Trellis, the developer and future owner of the new affordable housing project on the north half of the site. Um
Trellis uses historic tax credits all the time. Uh we really we really love historic reuse developments. Uh we looked really hard at turning the silos into housing, uh which the staff report does a really good job of of going into.
Um we actually studied turning the silos into like roundy round parking garages, um which I thought was a clever idea, but the diameter is much too short uh to be at all efficient. Um we talked to commercial brokers and other
about an other industrial or commercial uses, and they all ran into the same cost and logistical problems that that housing does. Um I think again, I think HPC staff did a great job outlining these issues. Um
mainly I I want to add that that quality apartments for a range of populations and incomes is a really good outcome for this site. Uh we're a nonprofit owner with our own management company, um and we intend to own the buildings forever. Um
the housing mix includes deep affordability, um and our project is working to close this fall in 2026. I am very glad that we can preserve the head house, um which is an awesome South Minneapolis landmark that you can see uh
pretty much from everywhere. Uh and I'm excited about the next chapter for this long for this large site in the Longfellow neighborhood. So, thank you. And I'd be happy to answer and Rachel would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for those comments.
Commissioners, are there questions for the applicant. Commissioner Smith. Thank you. Um I believe Rachel mentioned the cost of rehabilitation comes out to approximately $1 million per unit planned. Um
without the cost of rehabilitation and with the staff findings, what what would be the estimate cost per unit built and completed? Yeah, it's about $270,000
a unit. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from commissioners for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak for this application? If
so, please step forward and if you can make sure to sign up at the clerk's desk as well, that would be very helpful. And then if you want to come up to the microphone and state your name and then you can start your testimony, please. Good afternoon.
I'm Betty Washburn. I live in the shadow of the silos. That's the term that I learned in 1952 when I moved into that house that I now own. I don't see a likelihood of fighting the
issue, but I have one major concern. That concrete, when it's imploded, is going to go all over the place.
I want to have a reassurance from you folks that every due care and caution, meaning tenting, of our structures will be done so that we don't have the kind of damage that that wave of concussion could cause. And we
really don't need all that stuff inside our homes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Um I'm going to read off my email that I sent earlier. Just a That's what Can you
state your name, please? >> Yes. Oh, sorry. My name is My name is Alex Pares. Um I live next to Betty at 3736 Snelling Avenue. My garage is on Cheatham. I bought my house in 2022
and I fell in love with the silos. They're such an amazing like feat of engineering. They are just I I find them to be extremely beautiful, gentle giants that sort of
protect the neighborhood. And I would like to just say that um I find that these elevators are part of the landscape and tearing them down simply because they are not profitable
to me feels like a huge disappointment and disservice to the neighborhood. Um, I know there was another letter submitted um by Daniel Nathan. I don't know him personally, but he lives nearby me based on his email that he sent. And um
he said that they have no historical significance and are basically a blight upon the neighborhood and compared them to uh uh Roman ruins in the way that they are absolutely not comparable to
should be destroyed. I really disagree with that. I think that these elevators are the the Roman ruins of the Howe neighborhood and they are a really important historical landmark.
I think they show like the people's history of Minneapolis of what sort of built up this city and the people who worked there. >> [snorts] >> And um they bring Minneapolis history to life and
I don't think I need to remind the Heritage Preservation Commission of the importance of place and um the built environment that acts as reminders of our past, present, and future. Minneapolis is the home of the P. V. Haglin experiment in St. Louis Park. I
don't know if you're familiar with that, but it's the very first concrete cylindrical grain silo that was built. It's next to the Nordic Ware uh factory now. It's got their symbol on it, but you if you're on like Highway 100 169, you can see it. And um I just think it's
so cool that it originated here and I live among the descendants of that uh experiment that they thought would fail. Um I think they add visual interest to the neighborhood. Something that a a rectangular apartment
building could never take the place of. And besides just this sort of uh historical value that they add to the neighborhood. I do feel deeply concerned about the demolition process and the
amount of dust and asbestos and lead that is going to be released into the air. I understand there's probably methods of cutting them down like they won't might
not necessarily be imploded, but um I just I work in construction. I the even just demoing a wall, you got to put up plastic and make a whole tent. And I
don't I'm I feel very concerned about the health of my neighborhood with this project. And so I I just I play with my niece and nephew in the yard. I eat dinner outside. I don't really want to be living in a
construction site. Um there it's literally in my backyard. And I this I just imagine you just have like these the you have a whole
apartment building just going up and all of these silos coming down. It's I I dread the day that this project starts. And I I think I feel very disappointed that
the historic preservation commission has sort of recommended to go ahead and approve this. Um and sort of like making a concession to this real estate company is actually with the head house remaining.
But ultimately it feels like this is just coming down to profitability and real estate market. And um they're not making any money right now. So, let's get rid of them and profit off of people's need for housing more and
I think there's other solutions to making the area more secure. I know security is a big concern in this and how much ADM is spending on security,
but I feel like the solution to that is not to just tear these historical landmarks down. I I feel like there are other options to solve the the problems that
I guess the owners of that property are experiencing, but I feel very concerned about this project and I will be very sad to see them go. So, thank you for listening. Thank you for your comments. Next, I
have Katie Thornton. Hi everybody. Thanks. Um my name is Katie Thornton. I am also neighbors with Betty and Alex. Um like Alex, I I love the silos and the entire structure. Um and like Betty, I also understand
there's probably uh little little value in fighting against it against um this the silos themselves being demolished. Um I understand that the north half of the site is intended to be developed as affordable housing and I am in support
of that. The question that I have or the statement I want to make I suppose is about the the south half of the structure, which will be market rate. I know we didn't get as many specific numbers on units. Um I would really advocate for the consideration uh of for the market rate
units to to push the developer to figure out if there is a way to still use those silo buildings and to to do an adaptive reuse project um with the existing buildings for the
market rate units in particular. I understand that silos are notoriously difficult to do adaptive reuse projects on. We've done it in Minneapolis, it's been done other places, but I do understand they're very difficult to adapt. They're also very difficult and very costly to demolish because they
were so over-engineered um in those in the experimental days um you know, in the numbers that we were just given by some of the of the uh developing development staff here uh it's you know, a approaching the quarter, you know, or four times the
cost to adapt to reuse to reuse the silo space rather than to build new. I understand that is a significant cost, but I just urge the commission to consider how do you place a value on the importance uh how do you place a value
on inspiring a future generation to get interested in history. You all are convinced of the historic value of these buildings, I understand that. You presented that well. um and I encourage you to consider requiring the market rate part of the
development to look into adaptive reuse much more seriously. A very quick personal aside, I am born and raised in South Minneapolis. There are not very many places in the South Minneapolis landscape that you actually get to see our history, see evidence of our
history. um when I was young, I would ride my bike down Cheatham Avenue and I would I just fell in love with the silos from a very young age because it inspired me to look back at history and it was visible evidence of history in the landscape. I've gone on to build a career in history and historically
informed writing and journalism. um have done a piece for for national magazines and podcasts about these very silos. um I understand that things will change, things must change. I support the north half of the development and I really
encourage the commission to push for adaptive reuse for the market rate portion of the development. Um you have to gauge what's a reasonable cost-benefit and I think that um if these are going to be market rate, the value of inspiring a next generation to become interested in the history of the
city that they live in um is is worth a lot. It might be worth that four times the the value. So. Thanks. Thank you for those comments. The last person's name I have is Brian Meadows.
Hello. Um my name is Brian Meadows. I live at 3728 uh Snow Ave. Um these are my neighbors here. Uh I'm taking a different direction. I moved in about 14 years ago with my wife. Um we did not have a family yet. When we moved in, it was beautiful. The
workhouse still had a light in it. We could see it from all of the neighborhood. There wasn't any spray paint. There might have been some on the front half. But if you've driven by there recently, it is just in shambles. Everything's broken out. Um as I was reading through the report, uh
I noticed that it said there's over 50 calls to 911. I'd say over the past 3 years, a dozen of those are from my household particularly. Um when they sold the uh property in 2018, the rest of the security that
followed ADM left too. So, and then with the explosion of social media, it has just exploded with people coming there all times of night. Um I have a ring camera, so we know people it's always the same type of people going up there, young, 20, younger, uh groups of six to 10. Um
I've personally been physically assaulted twice. Um one was by a group of more than 30 people. Um I wasn't able to call 911, but luckily uh Hennepin County security guard was driving by and he allowed me in his car. Otherwise, I may not be speaking to you today.
Um, we've had people go up to the top, um, throw objects off into our backyards. Um, I have a daughter who's eight, um, and one who's two. Uh, the eight-year-old has been subject to words I don't want to say in front of you. Um, I've been subjected to that.
Um, and this is I've been in contact with my city councilman, um, uh, the fire inspector, um, the police department detectives. There's nothing anyone can do. You call the cops and they can't go up there. Um, obviously no one's going to come down if the cops are there. So,
that's the point I'm speaking on. I think this should have been demolished and taken care of yesterday if I had my way. Um, but, uh, I to speak on a little bit more, we've had people defecate in our driveway, urinate in our driveway, and all this is caught on camera. Again, um, it's it's
something that is very hard to live with. And unlike the rest of my neighbors, I am one of the only ones with children on the block and everything hits a little bit different for me with that. Um, uh, knowing that I am the one that's supposed to take care of the household, take care of the family family, and
everywhere I go I get turned on to someone else, brought to someone else. So, um, if it was taken care of and maintained and had security, keep it, but there's no use for it anymore. Get rid of it, please. Thank you. Thank you for those comments.
Um, is there anyone else who would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing [clears throat] and commissioners, let's discuss. Thoughts on this item.
Um, I permission to speak. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you. Um, I recognize that the southern half of the development is not within our purview um at this stage, but I do appreciate um the thoughtful comments regarding
uh consideration for um adaptive reuse in the uh potential market rate housing um project for that and I just want to reiterate that for the record um
as and note that that is a smart compromise. Um perhaps should we reach to that come before us, let's remember that. Um but I and I want to just thank you all um for your comments uh hearing from the
neighborhood and what uh the your experience has been both positive and negative um with the silos in your neighborhood. Thanks Commissioner Smith. I'm like I don't know if Andrea wants to say anything. No. Okay. >> [laughter]
>> Other comments from Commissioners? Commissioner Melbom. Commissioner Thomas and then Commissioner Melbom. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say I wish I also wish that the how the demolition is done was part of our purview as well.
Um unfortunately it is not, but I do share your concerns. Um so I just wanted to express that to you. Thank you. Commissioner Melbom. Thank you, Chair Bjornberg. Um >> [clears throat] >> I think one of the
one of the difficult things for myself, probably for others, is that there the legislation or the regulations that we work to uh clearly articulate that this project
doesn't meet the economic viability criteria. I think that was number three, that uh uh Ms. Kay shared. And therefore, it it doesn't [clears throat] give us a lot of leeway to rule otherwise.
A lot of the arguments stated I they're really lovely, and I appreciate people coming and speaking. Um unfortunately, our role is to interpret the regulations, not to uh I would say step beyond that, and
that's often difficult for us. So, um I would I would advise the people who feel passionately about this project to cons- to contact your city council person because
any ruling that we make needs to be um either uh accepted or rejected by the city council, and they can override our recommendations, and that's where I think the the emotional and the quality of life arguments really come into play for this
kind of conversation. Um but having [clears throat] also I will say that being an architect and having looked at these types of projects, they're very very difficult to make work for all the reasons that um Ms. Kay uh
outlined um in the staff report. And so, uh for that reason, I will unfortunately uh um unless otherwise I hear from the other commissioners, I'll probably vote for the demolition. Although, it makes me sad because this is a little part of
the city that we will never get back. Thank you, Commissioner Malcolm. Commissioner Corrado? Sorry, I'm trying to get my orders. Thoughts in order. Um I guess I always struggle with the economics, and I think we always have this conversation, but
you know, sometimes I feel like the adaptive reuse number is the most expensive version of it, and then the new construction is the least or the most optimistic cost estimate for a new build. Um and that always clearly
sways the argument, but it's it's hard of set on both sides of that, so I know that works. I guess the part that I struggle with most, particularly with this district, is we keep approving demolition, and at some point we got to stop talking about
this place as a potential historic district. It's just not going to be. And I don't know when that line gets crossed. I feel like we're getting closer and closer to that line. I think the reports that we There were seven potential um one's already gone, second's going to
be gone. Um this will be three out of seven, and this is a very large one that spans an entire block. So, at that point, do we stop talking about Minneapolis as a Mill City, as the Mill City Museum, just a cute little relic from that we like to hang on to
because it's a tchotchke, you know, I And at that point, I don't really see the point of keeping the Head House, quite frankly. I mean, if it's not going to be a potential district, then then there's no really point to a little tower in the middle of nowhere, just cuz it's there. I mean, I think of
the one in near the Van Cleve Park. I remember those silos, and I see that tower left now, and I it takes me a long time to to remember what that was, and quite frankly, I don't really know if anybody really associates that with with the the milling history of the city. So,
um to me, it's kind of an all or nothing proposition in that regard, and I don't know how when when we discuss that potential historic district not being one, and not having the same conversation over and over, I guess. That's sort of my take.
Commissioner Everybody else. Thank you. Um I agree with my fellow commissioners and I'm really sensitive to the arguments that were made for and against. I really appreciate the people who came out and spoke to us. Um I guess the thing
that I or the way that I see it um I think looking at the numbers and I really appreciate the care that was taken with this application um and the information that was compiled to present to us. Um
you know, I do think that economically we we will essentially have to um approve this demolition. But um I see the head house as kind of a key part of the mitigation of of this uh
resource. Um we we have lost uh resources here. We will probably continue to um but the mitigation, the the remainders um even as small as they are, will be a really
important way of interpreting and propagating that history um even as the the physical landscape changes um and so I'm comfortable um with the process. I know it's ongoing um
and you know, partially because uh of the interest that the developer is taking in this, partially because it's a federal process and so they will have to go through 106 mitigation. Um I'm I'm comfortable with the steps that are um
being proposed to us um to to move forward and to uh preserve aspects of this history even with demolition. So those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Rodriguez. Yeah, I I want to sort of echo that and I will
say I grew up in this neighborhood as well and so like I have very fond memories of this area and I feel like um I work with grain silos every day and they are just like very very
challenging structures and it is hard every single time we talk about one up here. Um and I would also sort of um like to really appreciate everybody coming to voice their opinions on this
and I would also say that hopefully the developer that is here is also hearing the concerns about um the potential demolition and is able to think about those things as they potentially move forward with the project and um do the best that they can to be good
neighbors throughout that process as well. Commissioner Maston. Um as a Longfellow resident myself, I I have no pleasure in reviewing this case and
thinking about losing another one but as my [clears throat] my fellow commissioners have stated you know, the economic numbers we reviewed, um it's it's such a difficult building type um
and if we [clears throat] were to state it is a historic feature, you're also limited then with what you could actually do to make it usable for something else. Um So yeah, I think that's my with no pleasure
um reviewing this case. I I think it's hard. Yeah. Commissioner Melbom. Thank you, Chair Biernburg. I have a question for Andrea. Um can we add potentially a um
a condition to that would that would be connected with the actual demolition itself or is that outside of our perview? Like could we suggest that the air quality needs to be monitored the whole time during
that by some qualified agency or organization? Chair Biernburg and Commissioner Melbom, Andrea Burke, supervisor for the historic preservation team in CPED. You can add conditions, however, that
condition is very much outside the purview of the HPC um and one I would not recommend making. I can't say you can't, but I wouldn't recommend it be just because just of how far it outside of your purview it is. I
also wanted to make one clarification just about since I am directing to your response, Commissioner Melbom, something you had just said a little bit earlier in the discussion about the council's um decision on your decision. Um
what I believe you're talking about is the appeals process, but I just wanted to state for the record and for the public. So, this decision that you make this evening has the ability to be appealed by any member of the public or by the applicant. Um and that happens in the 10 calendar
days after this meeting. And should an appeal be received, the decision that you make this evening will be taken up again at a committee of the city council to may be made at a final decision as the city council. So, that I just wanted to to clarify that's only if an appeal
is received it isn't an automatic the decision goes to the city council next. Um just just state that for the record. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you for including that cuz I think that's good information for the public that they may not know, which was the only reason that I added my piece
of. Thank you. Any other comments or thoughts from commissioners? Commissioner Corrado. This may be very well outside the purview of our commission, but I think it's always interesting when we talk about grain elevators that
it's either on this site or not. You know, it's only when we talk about on the site. There's a lot of large properties that aren't contributing structures to this potential historic district that seem to stick around.
I find that disappointing, I guess. Other comments from commissioners? Commissioner Melbom. Yeah, um seeing that nobody's offering comments, I'll just move forward with making the recommend recommendation. Um I um Ooh.
I um put forward a motion that the Heritage Preservation Commission approves the demolition of the potential historic resource application subject to the following condition, that the head house shall be retained. Thank you, Commissioner Melbom. Is there
a second? Rodriguez seconds. Thank you, Commissioner Rodriguez. Any further discussion? Will the clerk call the roll? Commissioner Corrado. Nay. Malblum. Aye. Rodriguez. Aye.
Smith. Aye. Thomas. Aye. Vice Chair Maston. Aye. Chair Birenberg. Aye. There are six ayes and one nay.
Thank you. That motion passes and that concludes our public hearing items. Thank you everybody who has stuck around for this meeting. Do staff have announcements? Chair Birenberg, I just have two very
quick announcements. I know it's already been a long evening. Um just that we'd have a bit of a skip in our rest of the month. So, our next HPC meeting will be June 2nd. Um and that just we will have more information about volunteer opportunities for the National Alliance
of Preservation Commissions Forum conference after tomorrow. So, I know for several of you that waiting to hear that, hope to have more information tomorrow in the afternoon. That is all I have for updates. Thanks. Thank you. Do Commissioners have any
announcements? Okay. With that, we've completed all items on the agenda and there being no other business to come before this meeting and without objection, I'll declare the meeting adjourned. The next regular meeting is Tuesday, June 2nd. Thank you.
>> Mhm.