Good afternoon. I call to order the February 10th, 2026 regular meeting of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. For the record, my name is Maria Bjornberg and I serve as chair of the commission. Just a reminder to silence your cell phones and other electronic devices and to speak clearly
into the microphone when speaking at the dis or giving testimony. Would the clerk please call the role so that we may verify the presence of a quorum. >> Commissioner Alexander >> present. >> Booty present.
>> Curado is absent. Melbum is absent. Rodriguez >> present. >> Thomas >> present. >> Wallace >> present. Vice Chair Masten >> present. >> Chair Bjornberg >> present. >> Let the record reflect that we do have
quorum and that Commissioner Melbam provided proper notice that they have a conflict this afternoon and their absence is excused. Also that Commissioner Curado is now here. Our first order of business is to adopt the agenda for this meeting. We will
work from the agendas that are available by the clerk. Tonight we have one agenda item which is item number four700 50th Street West Ward 13. This application is for a demolition of a historic resource and will be discussed.
This item will have staff presentation, public comment, and commission discussion and action. Commissioners, may I have a motion to approve the proposed agenda? Masten so approves. >> Thank you, Commissioner Masten. Is there a second? >> Wallace seconds. Thank you, Commissioner
Wallace. Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. Any abstensions? The agenda is approved. Our next order of business will be to approve the minutes from our January 27th, 2026
meeting. May I have a motion to approve those minutes? >> Thomas so moves. >> Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Is there a second? >> Wallace seconds. Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I.
>> I. >> Those opposed say nay. Any abstensions, including commissioners who were absent. >> Alexander abstains. >> Okay. 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 applicant and commissioners may ask questions of the applicant. After that, we will invite public comment. If you wish to speak, we need you to do two
things. Please 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, you must state your name and address 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 they can be distributed and entered into the record. After public comments are complete, I will close the hearing and commissioners will deliberate and act on the application before us. So, our first item, item number four, 1700
50th Street West, Ward 13. This application is for a demolition of a historic resource and was continued from our January 27th, 2026 meeting. The staff report is presented by Rob Scali. >> Thank you, Chair Bjunberg, and good
afternoon, commissioners. I'm Rob Sci, senior city planner in the historic preservation team in CPED and today I'm presenting the demolition of historic resource application for the property located at 1750th Street West. Um, originally known as the
Mount Olivet Lutheran Church. The subject property includes a custod built in the Gothic Revival style rooted in the English tradition. The building is 2 and a half stories and it has a crossshaped plan with gable roof wings.
The building includes a gable roof um that appears to have its original slate. Stonework is rectangular cut and the church includes a square threestory tower at the north uh side of the east
which is the the side elevation. Um so the north side of the east elevation the property includes lancet windows and gothic and segmental arch windows throughout. Parapets have stepped gable projections and the building has masonry
buttresses and stone cornis courses. The building was designed by the architects bard in Vanderbilt in 1938. A permit was issued on January 6th, 1939 for construction of the stone veneer church. The church was planned under the
guidance of Reverend Ruben K. Young and was completed by the contractors JM Carlson by August 1939. It had a seating capacity of 500 people when it was completed and the first service was held in the building in September 10th uh September 10th of
1939. The church was identified as early as June of 1980 um through a Minnesota Historic Properties Inventory form, which noted the building was in excellent condition. The Minnesota State Historic Inventory
Portal, also known as Manship, currently does not record the property as individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. However, staff noted that um from the Southwest Minneapolis Historic Resources Inventory in 2005, that survey does note
it as potentially eligible for local designation or National Register of Historic Places listing. On December 22nd, 2023, CPAD staff determined the property was a historic resource through a historic review letter. The letter concluded that the
subject property appeared eligible for landmark designation under under criterion 4 as for architecture as an important and significant example of a Gothic revival church in Minneapolis. And also the property appeared eligible under criterion six as the work of master architects Bard and Vanderbilt.
for the application that was submitted that's being evaluated today. Landscape Research LLC did draft an eligibility study and examine the building following CPAD's historic review letter. This the study that was drafted suggests that the property is not eligible for local
designation due to a lack of historic significance whereas CPAD found the property to meet local designation criteria 4 and six. The eligibility study does argue that the building does not meet the criteria that CPAD noted and suggests that the property does not meet criterion 4
because the church is not the first Gothic Revival style church in Minneapolis nor is it exemplary of um this design. The study also suggested that the building is a late example of this style um and is not a distinctive example of this style. The consultant
also believed in the study that the property does not meet criterion six. Um since the building was not the first church or the only Gothic revival church designed by architects Bard and Vanderbilt and that there are other examples of their work in the city.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the building on the parcel and construct a new community focused building uh with the possibility of a brewery, coffee shop, and meeting spaces on the parcel. Staff did receive one public comment prior to the previous meeting that this item was forwarded at. Um that is in
support of the demolition of the property. The Department of Community Planning and Economic Development analyzed the application to demolish the Mount Olivet uh chapel located at 1750th Street West. Based on the findings for demolition of
um historic resource application for significance and integrity in CPAD's review, the subject property does appear eligible under a local designation criteria 4 and six. Uh staff noted under criterion 4, the property does appear to have significance as a highly intact
example of a Gothic revival church. The church was completed in 1939 in the Gothic revival style based in the English Gothic tradition. The church has many architectural features that are hallmarks of the style. Um, it retains its original slate roof. And while
Minneapolis has many Gothic churches, the subject property is unique to embody the Gothic Revival style. Um, in a way that's not often seen in churches of this age, just given how intact it is. Uh, since its completion in 1939, there's very little permanent evidence to suggest that u many alterations were
made to the exterior. The only exterior um alteration that we know and are aware of was the the ramp to access the the main entry at the tower. So as as such, CPAD believes the property is eligible for landmark consideration under criterion 4. Under
criterion six, the property exemplifies the work of master architects Bard and Vanderbilt. Um recent research has led staff to believe that the firm of Bard and Vanderbilt should be considered master architects in the the pallet of of architects that practiced in the city's history. uh and they were notable
for their work in local churches. They were very prolific church designers in the city of Minneapolis. Um and the firm was well known for doing that uh beginning in the late 1920s and up into the 40s. So with that, the subject property does appear to be one of the the best
remaining examples um and the most intact remaining one of the most intact remaining examples designed by the firm in Minneapolis. And as such, staff believes the property is eligible under criterion six um is the work of master architects.
With that too, um given its intact nature, staff did note in the staff report that the property does retain very good historic integrity. In evaluating the destruction of a historic resource, there are two findings to consider in the application to um demolition of of historic
resource. Um the first is that the destruction is necessary to correct correct an unsafe or dangerous condition at the property. Um and staff noted that the applicant um does not state that there is a an unsafe or dangerous condition at the property that's would
be supported by evidence. So staff found that the demolition is not necessary to correct a condition. uh there was no structural report that was provided by a professional civil engineer that would support that the property is currently in dangerous condition. And with the second finding,
there are kind of the three sub findings within that one. Uh so that is that there are no reasonable alternatives to destruction. And 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 its current use, cost of renovation, and feasible alternative uses. So staff finds that there are feasible alternative uses to demolition under significance and integrity. We've um just touched on this previously. Staff believes that it retains
significance under criterion four and six and historic integrity to be considered for landmark status. For the economic value or usefulness of the structure, um this is where the applicant uh makes their the bulk of their argument in in their submission that uh the current conditions are not
what um is wanted or or possible to to reuse at the property. Um so with the economic value or usefulness, the applicant does uh point out that there are some concerns with the conditions assessments that were um done for the
property. Notably, they used a facility um conditions index or FCI and facility needs index or FNI um to note that the property is in um a poor condition according to their calculations. staff did point out that there still does
appear to be reasonable alternatives to demolition based on this finding given the information that was submitted in the application. Um, for example, staff note that the applicant does not show information in their their application to confirm um what was determined to
require replacement due to deferred maintenance. Uh so staff noted that a lot of the the scope of work that was pointed out really kind of covers a more comprehensive um interior reconstruction. Um a more emphasis placed on replacing materials instead of
looking at what can be retained. Um and given what the the condition of the church and how it appears to be in in relatively good condition. um staff believe that the materials weren't submitted um to make the case for for that for evaluating the the current use
of the property. The current use it was most recently used as a chapel and event space. So the applicant notes that the congregation began to re- imagine the space following the impacts of the co 19 pandemic. Um staff's not aware if the building has been used since 2020 or a
few years after. Uh based on evidence submitted in the applicant's materials, it does appear highly likely that the building could continue to be used in its current state with reasonable repairs and rehabilitation work. Um the applicant has not shown that the subject building cannot retain its current use.
For cost of renovation, um this is where the applicant notes that there are a lot of areas that appear to need repairs. um and they they pointed out some in their application submission here where you can see um general concerns from weather and moisture infiltration that um can
sometimes be common of of properties of this age. So with the cost of renovation, the applicant provided a rehabilitation cost estimate as as we noted uh which does include estimates for scopes of work that include items such as full repointing, full roof
replacement um with uh um interior construction and a new addition in addition to a potential uh new building on the parcel um for storage and and parking um with a garage
and then um changes to the parking lot as well. So staff notes that there's not sufficient evidence to show that the suggested alterations are required for the building to be used. So the suggested costs and total scope of repairs noted in the applicants noted in the applicant's materials don't appear
necessary to allow the building to continue to function as a church or to be put in a new or different use. And then the last part of that finding is looking at feasible alternative uses. So, the applicant does state that um there are no practical or feasible
alternative uses, stating that um the existing building does not offer those desired circumstances that they'd like for the parcel that would allow it for reuse as they would like to reuse it. Um, Cabbed staff understands the difficulty to reuse church buildings and ecclesiastical spaces and staff also
note on the other hand there are multiple examples within the past 5 to 10 years of churches that have been successfully reused, rehabilitated um, in the city of Minneapolis. So, you know, church bases in American cities have been reused as as many different
things from restaurants to breweries, cafes, community spaces, bookstores, event centers, um, and offices, things like that. Um, some church sites might not be the easiest to reuse, but um, that does not make either of these
options infeasible to to reuse it or to retain its current use. with that the potential rehabilitation and reuse cost assessments that were provided don't prove that reuse of the building would be economically infeasible.
Staff's findings, recommended findings are the following. The subject property has significance under criterion 4 and six as stated in chapter 599210 and retains the historic integrity to convey its significance. Therefore, the property is eligible for designation as
an individual landmark. The second is that the subject property was recommended as individually eligible for local landmark designation or listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 2005. Third is that unsafe and dangerous structural conditions have not been proven to exist at the property.
And the fourth is that there are reasonable alternatives to the demolition considering the significance, integrity, and economic value or usefulness of the existing building. Staff's recommendation is um that the Heritage Preservation Commission adopt staff findings for the demolition of
historic resource application by Nancy Nash of the Evangelical Mount Olivet Lutheran Church for the property located at 1750th Street West and recommend the Heritage Preservation Commission denies the demolition of historic resource application, establishes interim protection, and directs the planning
director to prepare or cause to be prepared a designation study of the property. Um, and with that, I am available as staff for any questions, but I do know that the applicant and property representative are here as well to speak. Thank you.
Thank you for that report. Commissioners, are there questions for staff? I'm like, I'll let you drink of water, but um then I do have a question. if you can just remind us um so your
recommendation what the process of that is and and particularly about the um preparing that designation study and what the steps are in that. >> Thank you Sher Bernberg. Um, so if the
HPC votes to deny this application, uh, place the property under intern protection and call for designation study, that puts a a one-year, um, interim protection, uh, period on on the property. So, what that means is the building is
essentially evaluated as if it were a landmark. So, we would review changes to the building if if there would be any. A lot of times um you know we we might not get permits in that time to review uh but if a permit would come in for staff review we would re review those alterations to ensure they meet the
National Park Service Secretary of the Interior standards um for rehabilitation. So within that year's time um someone would also be drafting a designation study to to really dive into um
everything that can be found to to ensure that you know to to to see if if the property does actually um you know merit uh local landmark status. So within that time, you know, that study is being drafted and
ultimately there there are a few months at the end that it's another review period. So it it goes back to to you as HPC commissioners uh before that the state historic preservation office will have reviewed it and and commented on it. Um and then it ultimately goes up
through the council process based on HPC's recommendation. Um and if council, you know, is in agreement and and votes to designate it as a landmark, if if it is being recommended as a landmark at that point, um then that would be what
makes it a landmark. So, um I don't know if I missed anything in there. Um if other staff want to chime in, but I think that's a pretty good summary. >> Thank you. Just wanted to remind ourselves of what that process was. Um, Chair Bernberg, I just want to add
one part to what um, Rob mentioned is that whatever your decision is tonight, the applicant or any other member of the public would have a chance to appeal it to the city council. So, that is just the other path. So, this is not the end
of the road. They have a 10-day appeal period. So, that would play out should the applicant or any other member of the public desire desire to do that. Thank you. >> Thank you for that. Commissioners, are there other questions for staff on this item?
Commissioner Curado. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, in the most recent, I guess, study, uh, it was noted that because this was not the first or only example that was the main reason
they recommended it wasn't uh, eligible. That's is that the language that's within the criterion? Chair Bjornberg, Commissioner Curado, um the criterion under criterion for um or
I'm sorry, are was your comment related to it it not being the first um of of its architectural style or or by the architects because that that depends on which um criteria we're looking at here for designation. >> Uh I guess in both examples is it is the
first and only an actual requirement. Um, no it is not. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? >> Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I do just have a
question about um the existing study and the process. Maybe this is a better question for the applicant. Um, do you have a little bit of background um as to how that study came to be prepared? Chair Buremberg, Commissioner Rodriguez. Um
to to clarify that the study that was compiled by the consultant, is that correct? >> That's right. >> Um it is really up to an applicant that is submitting the application what route they want to take to to try to make the case for a demolition. Um, in this
situation, uh, the the applicant did choose to to hire a consultant to, um, do more research on the property, and staff understands that that actually happens relatively frequently with with these
applications. Um, the historic review letter to deem it a potential historic resource, that is, you know, just kind of base information. So more information that can be brought forward is always something we'll consider. Um so it's my understanding that the the applicant
commissioned that study to to be done to um put with their application materials. >> Sure. Thank you so much, >> Commissioner Masten. >> Uh thank you. Um Mr. Skeleaki, I just want to confirm with the
designation study, there would be a full review of other um Gothic style or neo gothic style churches and also churches by this architectural firm in the cities to to kind of verify is this the best or
um most represent >> representative, you know, buildings of this type so that we'd be able to see a comparison because I think that's something that we're seeing as the difference between that design or the the study done by the church and then what we're receiving from staff is some
discrepancies there. >> Chair Bjornberg, Commissioner Masten, um that likely would be, you know, one of um the things to look at through that designation study. Um yeah, I'll I guess I'll leave it at
that, but would be happy to answer more questions about about staff's evaluation. So, any other questions for staff? >> Okay, thank you. >> Thanks. >> Um, I'll now reopen the public hearing for this item and I understand that the
applicant is here. Um, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Hi. Uh, my name is David Los. I, uh, am the senior pastor at Manolivate Church on 5025 Knox South. I'm here with my colleague Nancy Nash, who is the actual
applicant, the name on the application, our uh, chief operating officer and also joined by Aaron Zable who is a representative of Krauss Anderson that did the facilities cons uh, condition assessment. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present and meet with
you. And I want to thank Rob as well. He has been an exceptional guide throughout this process. Uh at different points when we were on Zoom, I we would ask questions and I'd try to read his expression to get a sense of which way it was leaning and he was like the master poker player. So uh well done
across the board. Um thank you. So let me pull up the presentation I have prepared. um and hope that it appears. Yeah. Great. Um so the first few slides I won't take a lot of time but I do want
to share uh some of what we're hoping to accomplish because I think the what we want to do is as important as how we might get there. Um so just a little bit of history that was in the report. It's built in 3839 as the first church structure for Manolabic Congregation
which was founded in 1920. It outgrew it in less than a decade and built the new church across the street. So it was about 1,400 members when it moved and during the tenure of Ruben Young who built this that church grew to 10,000 uh under his leadership. It was at that
time and 39 sold to seventh uh church Christian Scientists to help pay for the new church. It was purchased back in the fall of 2011 from that congregation as it had dwindled to no longer be self- sustaining. Um since then, the first few years we use it for overflow for small
weddings or for Sunday stud Sunday school classes uh and overflow parking and of course our annual pumpkin patch uh that we do each year. Um it has not been used since the pandemic uh internally. We completed in 2017 a major
addition to the building across the street that allowed for expanded programs for music education and youth ministry. So we had no more need. and the condition of the building was getting such that we weren't comfortable having people meet there regularly. Um, so a little bit about Man Olivet. It is
a big part of this congregation to serve our community. We've done that historically through the Man Olivet home and Care View home, Man Olive Rolling Acres, which serves adults with uh disabilities. Uh, our Man Olivet Coun uh counseling center which has a sliding scale and a variety of services for
people uh struggling with mental health issues. More recently, we created an all week, all day, all year preschool. Um, we started summer day camps. Um, we host the Southwest uh farmers market as of this summer. And all of that I share because the word I've been trying to
cultivate in our congregation is the sense of this church as a parish. Um, in some context, those words are interchangeable, but originally that was a geographical designation, not describing an entity, a parish. uh like if you go to Ireland, it's Cook County
and then a variety of parishes. And that was when a church was responsible for whoever happened to be living in that geographic area. And so when we planned things like a preschool or summer day camps, um it is primarily trying to respond to the needs of those around us and the various affiliated ministries
through our history are evidence of that. So when I came to men in uh 2017, one of the first questions that I got repeatedly was, "What are you going to do with the chapel across the street?" because it had been repurchased and minimally used for a number of years. Uh
we had a centennial celebration coming up in 2020 and I said let's just get through the centennial. 2020 had other things uh in mind for us and the rest of the world. So coming out of that we began to think hard about how to use that space and that's where the idea emerged uh to have a community gathering
place anchored by a coffee house and small batch brewery. Recognizing that one of the things we learned through the pandemic was how isolated so many people were feeling and wanting to offer a way to come together. So the overarching goal of this project is to serve the community. It's been anchored by three
values of fostering connection, have something that is environmentally sustainable, uh, and promote neighborhood involvement. Um, it would be run as an independent not for profofit. All the net proceeds would go back to the community in the terms of grants and gifts. Uh just to be clear,
it is not to make money to support the ministries of the church. Um it's not to attract young people. It is to serve the community, to bring people together uh and enrich the life of our shared community. Um in terms of fostering connection, our hope is we provide space
for community groups to gather, meet, hold events, afterchool tutoring, or parent education, neighborhood associations um to address this pandemic of isolation. Um when you think about coffee houses or breweries, someone floated asked us if we could put a
bakery in there too. TBD, um those are often called those third spaces, not work at home where people gather and visit with one another. U one of the very first uh meetings we had with the architects that we chose, HGA, uh someone asked, one of the designers
said, "So do you want booths?" O O T Hs, not Oz. Um, and I had this very visceral immediate reaction. There's like no booths. And she said, "That's I feel the same way. I'm curious why." And I said, "Because I don't want it to be a place where people come and
say, "Hey, we'll have a table for four in the back." We wanted to be open where people naturally meet, hang out, get to know each other, spend some time with each other. Um, so our thought is as often as possible also to partner uh with other groups and events to bring food trucks from around the city, an ice
cream uh window in the summer for kids coming over from the park. Uh all of those ways of fostering connection. We want it to be environmentally environmentally sustainable. It's one of the primary reasons that we want to build new. Um we want to reuse uh rather
than demolish. We talk about deconstructing it so we can reuse as much of the Casota stone and other building materials as possible. Want to build it with a similar footprint to where it is now. Both for environmental concerns uh and also for parking resource. The phrase we've been
using is as environmentally sustainable as reasonably possible. That is we don't want to simply go for the highest certification to be a boutique because we might be able to raise money to do that. but rather we'd like to do it in a way where people come in, we could display and talk about educate the
choices we've made, whether it's the use of graywater or solar. Um, and people might say, "Hey, I could do that, too." That's a 10% additional cost, not 50% additional. Um, promoting neighborhood volunteerism again to host different groups and fundraisers and events, a
large digital notice board where people could find ways to volunteer and be aware of what's going on in their community. The working name we've been having is the Mount Olivet Volunteer Brewery or just the volunteer for short. I will meet you at the volunteer at 6 uh
to get to know our neighbors. So, I want to do I do want to say our initial goal was exactly the same as what's being recommended by the staff committee. We wanted to maintain the original building and it was a huge mental leap for me and others to kind of get beyond that. The
reasons were uh the historical connection to the existing church, the ambiance, there's something kind of cool about being there with the stained glass windows and all the rest. And we thought it would be economically more feasible, which is why we undertook two separate studies to test those assumptions. And
what we discovered was it was not economically feasible at all. So responding to the port directly the three uh items that have been lifted up as historical significance, the integrity of the building and are there reasonable or feasible alternatives. I
want to address this integrity one first because that's very easy. Um a couple at a couple of points the report mentions that we did not engage a structural engineer and that is accurate. It has not been our attention intention at any point to suggest that the building is
going to fall down or does not have uh structural integrity um or that it's dangerous um but rather that it's just too expensive to maintain or rehabilitate and we'll talk a little bit more about that. Um so in terms of significance as Rob's already shared
there were two criteria uh four and six uh and I've cited the criteria as well as the direct comment from the report there which you've had before you um and so I will simply then make our argument and yet um Bard and
Vanderbilt certainly designed other churches. The Mayflower Community Congregation Church uh is in the Spanish colonial revival style uh in 1936. That actually was the congregation of which Carl Bard uh was a founding member that currently serves as the museum of modern
Russian art. Another example of other styles is the Church of All Saints in 1940 which is built in the Romanesque revival. Um, and of course they did build a number of of Gothic Revival styles. That was the popular style for churches at that particular era,
including Living Spirit United Methodist Church built in 1940. Uh, and I just when I was looking up information, I saw it looks like their last Sunday is the Sunday, which made me a little sad. Uh, but there it is. Um, Union Congregational Church, built in 1937.
Our Savior Lutheran Church in Excelsier, 1933. A beautiful example, Pilgrim Lutheran Church 1941. Uh, another beautiful church in the same style and Ncomomas Heights Lutheran Church 1946. Um,
uh, and of the variety of those congregations, what I would suggest is Mount Olivet Lutheran Church was in 1939 was just one. And I don't think it is the one that is either the most beautiful or in the best condition. The north face, the back wall was never
completed. So it is a uh stucco background. They had intended at the time to add on an education wing uh and administrative space but they were not able initially to afford that and by the time they could they were outgrowing it and so built a much larger
church across the street. Um so our uh what we're suggesting is that given the number of extent churches built by B and Vanderbilt in the style many still housing living congregations and in better condition. And we agree with the findings of our consultant uh Amy Lucas
of landscape research that the 17 chap chapel is not the first Gothic revival style church in Minneapolis nor is it exemplary example of that design neither in its original form or current state. With regard to criteria six, um, as
illustrated by Mayflower uh, and the Spanish colonial and Church of All Saints and the Romanesque, we contend that the 1700 chapel is not emblematic of Bard and Vanderbilt's work. While they did complete a number of Gothic revival church designs, much of that was simply due to the styles revival across
churches during this period, not because of the particular influence or significance of Bard and Vanderbilt. None of their Gothic revival designs as far as we could tell were mentioned by newspaper architectural periodicals of the time and they were not noted as
being Bard and Vanderbilt were not noted as being particularly innovative in terms of these designs. Interestingly, what they were known for was their design of the St. Austin church in 1937, which the staff report notes is a significant modern influence
church that is now considered to have been the forerunner to modernism and progressive ecclesiastical church design in the state. As the report notes, Bart and Vanderbilt would become best known precisely for this modern influence design, not for their more generic
Gothic revival designs. The third item is is there a reasonable or feasible alternative? I wanted uh to take a moment and talk a little bit more about the uh facilities con condition assessment. One of the
comments uh at a couple of places again was that we failed to provide a report from professional civil engineer as to the structural integrity of the building. Um just a couple comments again. We don't believe the building is in danger of falling down or presents major life-threatening dangers, but we
do believe the cost to make it inhabitable and useful in its present state is prohibitively expensive for us or any other occupant. Um, and I think I don't feel that statement is accurate from the staff report uh that it needs to undergo extensive alterations and new
additions or constructions to be useful to our purposes. it needs to be useful at any way, shape or form to be habitable and useful as a as a current structure. Um, and so about facilities condition assessments, these are a
pretty standard uh set of criteria used across facility management industries and I just have a quote from the main purpose from the association of physical plant administrators. Uh this was conducted as I mentioned by Krauss Anderson who has
also provided FCAs for the Minneapolis public schools, Alina Health System, Fairview Healthcare, the city of Eden Prairie, City of St. Louis Park and others. The central metric of the FCA is the facilities cost index also a
nationally recognized uh um index. uh and in that there are a variety of categories based on the assessment of cost relative to the square foot value of building new and the FCI for the 700 chapel was a
point 68 placing it in the critical category. So some findings key findings from that report include the following. Um to address some of the safety conditions that are there, address immediate facility deferred maintenance items,
address aesthetic improvements. Most of these are not simply improvements or alterations, but are in fact necessary repairs needed to use the building for any purpose whatsoever. So some of the ones that were identified for instance are the site work, the foundation slab
and granite, the exterior enclosure, uh all of which at our state that cannot safely usefully be used without significant repair. The roof has been mentioned a couple of times. It's currently leaking in enough places that the assessment was that it needs to be
replaced. It can't simply be repaired to do the job. Uh and that's why we have water everywhere as well as water damage. uh mold removal, uh asbestous removal, and more. Same with plumbing, HVAC, electrical. None of these are we
wish we could do this to make it nicer. These are all things that any owner or occupant would want to do, that you would have someone who conducts your facility facility condition assessment would absolutely recommend that you have to do this. When you add those up by category, uh the estimated cost across
the board was 6.9 million. Uh when we had this done in April 2024, uh the estimate today would add 15% based on construction c costs increases across the industry bringing it to 7.935
million. In addition, if we wanted to make this building ADA code compliant, uh and none of those improvements are included in the earlier number of the 6.9 million, we would need to do the following. Add an elevator. Uh there are only bathrooms on the basement floor and
no way to get there except for steps. We would need to build an addition for that elevator and make room on the first floor for code compliant bathrooms. Add a sprinkler system, uh upgrade the HVAC. Those improvements come to 3 million in
2024. Today 3.45. The total project costs for any use if it's going to be ADA code compliant then would top $11 million. Um, all of this is for a building with only one small meeting room that is not in the basement. That is the fellowship hall basement area is
where the rooms are. Otherwise, there's one room on the second floor off of the organ loft. Uh, and for a building that was built to the environmental standards of the 1930s. Um, for that reason, it's our belief that the CPED staff report greatly
underestimates the cost and effort required to make the 1700 chapel useful as a church or in any other form. For the same reason, it's our belief that the staff report greatly overestimates the possibility of selling this property to another church or entity, as the cost
we've identified would make it prohibitively expensive for a small congregation or other entity to imagine undertaking. Um, and it's our belief that it would take a significant additional investment to make the current building useful as a community gathering space as we propose. Again,
there is no additional space which is why the congregation left the back wall uh bare. They had hoped to add on but couldn't do it at the time. Beyond that, just as importantly for us is we don't really want to sell this building. We don't want to sell the space. Man Olivet
is one of the few churches that is actually growing today. The following is a chart of the decline in membership of the six mainline traditions between 1985 and 2000 were the top middle. But across the board uh the the loss has been
significant in church membership and attendance. It gets even worse if you look at the trends before 1970 when church membership continued to grow at a rate that mirrored population growth. when you look at that it's even more disastrous. It's not a church uh it's
church is not in decline it has been decimated. Um in that context Mount Olivet church is a positive anomaly. The period of significant growth was post-war under Ruben Young 1938 to 1968. It grew from 3,000 or 300 to 10,000
members. That's about 323 members annually. I've marked this off in terms of the lead pastors because it had several very long tenur senior pastors. Uh after Ruben Youn uh died in 1968, his son Paul
became the senior pastor. Uh and that was the period of maintaining this large uh organization that had been created and also continued to grow from 68 to 2011. It moved from 10,000 to 135. Um Pastor Young Doll died in 2011. There
was a three-year interim. They brought in another senior pastor who within a year had developed a brain tumor and then also eventually died and brought in another interim. So it was six years of transition uh and trauma and tragedy. And yet the church still continued to
grow 135 to 14,000 members. Current growth over the last eight years including 12 months with no inperson worship during the pandemic. We've grown from 14,000 to 16,500. That is about 312 members a year,
including bringing in 602 members last year. So, we are at a point of growth that is mirroring the early explosive growth of this church in its history. Um, and so in the last eight years, we've expanded the Minneapolis campus
itself to provide education, music, and youth programming. More room for that. We add an addition to our west campus and those numbers include uh attendance at our west campus in Victoria. It's much smaller but still a part of the church that's growing. We've post
pandemic seen a return to 2019 in person attendance. We've seen an explosion of digital participation from 100 to 120 on any given Sunday to typically a thousand or more viewing services digitally by live streaming or the archive. And we've
seen a decrease in on-site weddings. Just as many people are getting married, but more and more would prefer to have the ceremony and the reception at the same venue. So over the last eight years of growth and in light of our expansions, we've not needed the sanctuary, the basement rooms, or the single upstairs meeting room, the 1700
chapel. And so it has been standing empty. We have though continue to value the parking lot a lot. Uh we regularly every Sunday need that. And for large services, of course, it's essential. Uh and so just a word about parking. We hope to preserve about the same number
of parking spaces we have now. We neither want to pull the building down simply to make room for more parking. At the same time, we don't want to build something where we lose a lot of parking and potentially burden our neighbors with cars in front of their houses on Sundays or certainly if we had an event
center going as well. Um, so just a reminder, we really did start this endeavor wanting to preserve this building, but cannot justify that level of cost. So we want to build something new that serves the community. We believe that the not for-p profofit community gathering place would be the
ticket. We've had a lot of positive feedback from our neighbors with regard to the Lynhurst Association board. And then we held last June uh a community openhouse and across the board great questions, interest, suggestions, and overwhelming support for that. And for
that reason, again, we're helping to build an environmentally conscious space that brings people together. Um this is just a a view to kind of contrast the lack of meeting space with meeting rooms as well as gathering spaces. a couple of exterior renderings. All of this is so
early, but we wanted at least to give a sense that we would hope it have would have some tie to the existing church as well as be fit to the neighborhood. Um, in close, I'll just say we absolutely recognize that one of the chief values that you hold is preserving our heritage
as it's embodied in architectural design and uh and we appreciate that. At the same time, we're respectfully asking that you balance that with another value, which is strengthening our common life and promoting opportunities to build community, get to know each other, and work together for healthier
neighborhoods. Maybe the boldest way to say that is right now, given what's going on in our world, in our city, do we need another husk of a church, empty church sitting there, or even a small struggling church, as opposed to a place to bring people together where they can get to know each other and work for the
health of their community? Thank you. >> Thank you for that presentation. Commissioners, are there questions for the applicant? >> Commissioner Curado, >> um, when was the last time significant
maintenance was done on the structure? >> I mean, we haven't done significant maintenance. We've done we have the heating structure going. You know, we keep it at 65, but we've done no significant maintenance. We purchased the building in 2011.
And um at that time, we did a little interior remodeling, adding an altar and a pulpit because they had removed it from the Christian Science when they owned it. >> I'm sorry to interrupt. Could we have you step up to the podium and say your name for the record, please? >> Yes. Thank you. I am Nancy Nash. I'm the
senior director of operations for Monolith Church. In 2011, we purchased the property back. Um the Christian Science um religious beliefs, they had removed many of the alter pieces. So, we had an
altar. We added a pulpit and a lectern. The pews remained and we recarpeted. That was mostly what we did in anticipation of potential small weddings or baptisms. So, 2011 Thank you, >> Commissioner Thomas.
>> Thank you, Chair. Um, I just have a question. When you were doing your cost analysis of um, restoration versus demolition and building new, were there any considerations put forward into putting this on the National Register of Historic Places and making it
potentially eligible for tax credits, grants, things like that? uh we have not explored that possibility. One of our members is uh one of the founding partners of ESG architects uh and is on our our planning
committee and he has assured me across the board it does not merit that designation from architectural design. So so that was the length of our exploration of that. >> Okay. If this does go forward as a potential designation, I would recommend
looking into it again. Just >> other questions. >> I do have one question. Oh, sorry, Commissioner Alexander. >> I I guess I was just going to piggyback on that comment. I think I definitely think it's worth looking into. Um the I
mean it's 40% tax credits for a a project that's nationally registered. Um I don't know what the budget is for you know some of the the conceptual stuff we saw there but at $11 million 40% I mean
that's a little over $4.5 millionish. Um, so it's it's not insignificant offset of of potential costs. >> And I think you you did bring up a good point about um some of the charm, the
character, the history uh all could be contributing factors in this new use of a a brewery, a bakery, a a coffee shop. um that could actually really accentuate um and make it uh you know kind of give
this legacy, this history, you know, a new life, a continued life. Um, additionally, you know, as we you know, I've worked on a few churches. I worked on the sanctuary lofts over on 34th in Minihaha, which we converted into
housing. um uh also not in great condition when we when we started but um it's it's a great place now where people are living lives, building memories. Um the uh sorry I had one more point. Um
ah if it if it comes back I'll I'll chime back in. I think where we've hesitated on that is, as I mentioned, we have absolutely no use for it as a sanctuary or as a religious institution given all
that we have across the street and have put into that. Um, if we were to use it for anything else, it would not only be the rehab, but as I mentioned, there is no other space to meet or to have gatherings. uh it would require a
substantial investment to get it to a place where we could use it. In addition to the rehabbing, the renovation of the existing building even as a historical monument, it would be a substantial investment that feels beyond uh beyond what we've wanted to undertake. The
other thing that occurred to me uh in Rob's report, it was listed on a 2005 Minneapolis survey or inventory as Rob mentioned in I think it was 2013. The city commissioned another review which
included kind of all of the inventories that have been done up to that point. Uh it focused on postWorld War II buildings. So, it didn't include this one precisely, but it did note that part of the reason the new study was being done was because there were too many
religious institutions that were ticking that box and being identified uh as a cultural resource than they thought really warranted it. When they went forward, uh Bardam Vanderbilt didn't build that much further postwar. I think
they brought things to a close in 48 or so, but of all of the designs they completed, only one made that registry also. So, it has been harder to persuade us that it really merits that designation even if it could
possibly be pushed through. >> Commissioner Alexander, >> it came back. Um you you you mentioned the the new proposed the con the conceptual designs we looked at um being
uh you know a learning opportunity demonstrating these environmental um strategies and I guess that that's I think probably an anchoring um issue for a lot of us up here as well uh is the the most sustainable building
is the one that already exists like it's carbon debt has already been paid. >> Um, and so I think therein also lies kind of >> the the argument for trying to extend and give this thing another life, a
further life um >> without having to tap into new resources and things. Um, so just another thought. The other concern we have and we haven't invested in doing an analysis is uh the church across the seat street. This is a
really wet area of the city is anchored by I think 26 huge concrete pylons that were put into the ground to provide a foundation. When they were building this uh 10 years earlier, it wasn't concrete pylons. It was wood and steel pylons which have now been sitting in damp soil
for pushing 90 years. We looked into having an analysis done of the integrity of that foundation. It was a $20,000 cost that we didn't want to undertake until we went through this process. If we need to appeal to the city, which we will do, then of course we would spend the money and and make sure that that is
a place that we want to invest six or eight or 12 or whatever it might be in that particular area. Water in my experience always finds a way and it has been a very wet area. Other questions from commissioners?
Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I do have one question about how you're conceptualizing space maybe um with this church because you talked about the building that you want to um build new being on a pretty similar footprint to
what exists now. Um and then you talk a lot about uh a lack of space in the existing building. Are you how are you conceptualizing if you would have potentially saved the building or if you if you wanted to um reusing kind of the
main space because you talk a lot about uh kind of basement or extra meeting rooms but you don't talk much about potential uses of the main space and in a lot of church conversions um you know that main space isn't left um as a as a
sanctuary I guess but is kind of fully integrated into reuses and I Just wondering kind of how you conceptualized that. >> We have not uh uh paid architects do that conceptualization work yet. The first floor is entirely sanctuary. Um
second floor a balcony and organ loft with one meeting room and then and then the basement. And so when we started hitting totals of you know 7 8 9 10 11 million to make it usable at all we did not take the additional step to do the
plans or what it would cost to convert that further. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'll just add to that. I had a very similar question especially since you had mentioned that um it sounds like you had engaged HGA to some degree even if
it's just for um the renderings that you had and I was like oh great they've worked with historic projects so um hopefully they could have um given you some ideas but um it sounds like that that sort of wasn't what you went to them with it it was more of this is the
new >> um >> concept >> they have been with us. We began doing what I didn't go into detail here before the facilities condition assessment. We did a little
work with ESG to do some preliminary um surveys of the work that would need to be done and if we were going to make it ADA compliant, what kind of design would we need to do to add bathrooms and elevator and all of the rest? of the initial conceptual
and both their comments and the initial conversation with HGA, nobody was encouraging us to try to use the existing building um for a host of reasons and they would probably all be able to speak to it better than I am,
but we had no one saying on that side of things, you really could do X, Y, or Z and it's worth that level of investment. Nor did we pay someone to imagine that though to be fully transparent.
>> Thank you. >> Other questions from commissioners for the applicant, >> Commissioner Alexander. >> Sorry. What is the square footage of the existing? >> Is it 15,000? >> I thought that's what said, but I just
wanted to >> give a little bit. Give or take a little bit. Yeah. I mean, a new construction project of that square footage is you're probably in the ballpark of 6 millionish. >> Yes, very much so. The the lower end would be six and a half. The higher end
would be between 9 and 10. >> So, with tax credits, I mean, >> yeah, and we could look the same in terms of environmental credits as well and explore those possibilities, too. >> Yeah. Go ahead. I just want to add I think we the tax credits because we're a
501c3 get a little complicated for us to benefit from and we would have to explore that more but thank you. Yeah. >> Any other questions for the applicants team? >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you again very much for your consideration. >> Okay. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak for or against this application? If so, please step forward and state your name. Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public
hearing. Um, commissioners, let's discuss. Who wants to go first? >> Commissioner Alexander. >> Yeah, sorry. Um yeah, I guess I I'm not feeling that it meets the criteria that are established
for for the demolition. Um the first I think they've sort of conceded that they didn't even really pursue showing that it was a a danger, a structural danger. Um, the second I mean I I do think there
are reasonable alternatives to demolition that could at the very least be further explored, >> other commissioners. Commissioner Curado, >> I guess this comes up in almost all of these applications, but um I guess the
ongoing concern about deferred maintenance um it's a property that got sold to a different uh entity and then repurchased. So it it's not on necessarily the the applicant but it it is a challenge. It's
a challenge that's kind of prevalent across our country. I guess in some ways a little obsessed with infrastructure right now and you know the last 5 years national park system invests a substantial amount of
money into trying to catch up and only got I think a percent of their way into catching up but that took 5 years. >> Um and just thinking that if the alternative is demolishing everything what do we lose? and when does it stop? And um I think it's a hard pill to
swallow. I think the building overall is in is in uh I wouldn't say good shape, but it's it's standing. It's it's not in danger of falling down. Um we don't build building like the buildings like this anymore or at least not very often. And
so I think it's a real shame to see it to go. I you know whether it's exemplary or not I think further studies would be needed to make that decision. I mean, I drive by it all the time, and I I do find it to be a a little gem that sits there along 50th,
which um it's just nice to look at every now and then. and I'm just driving by, so it's not like I'm staring at it or standing in front of it. And maybe there's more to it than I not seeing, but um so I think it's really hard for me to
uh swallow all of that cost being kind of applied all at once. >> Thanks. I'm just going to add one thing to that because I think that I also saw Commissioner Rodriguez uh raise her hand. But um yeah, I I think that one of
the reasons that I was sort of coming back to asking sort of like what the process is is that for me it also comes down to this question of like okay, is this a historic resource or not? And do we have enough information to be evaluating that before we get to the point of is there enough information um
to go through those those three like attributes for demolition. And um I think that it was really helpful to hear um Commissioner Massen, you talk about okay, a designation study would go into a little bit more about um other church
examples, expand upon that. Um so I think that part of me is like trying to get back to that question. Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Thank you, Chair. That is almost my exact point. Um I you know I think that
I'm in agreement with Commissioner Alexander and Commissioner Curado um the points that have been made and I think that one important thing that a designation study would do um in addition to kind of digging into the history of this specific church which
you know we've already seen some work has been done but a historic context um not just for these architects but for neo gothic churches in the city in particular, I think would really help kind of position uh the significance or
potential lack thereof of this church. And I don't think we have that yet, but I do think it has real potential. >> Thank you. Other comments from commissioners, Commissioner Thomas, >> I echo everything here. I just want to
say that I think looking at this as a demolition application, I just don't think it meets the criteria for needing demolition as a potential resource. So just based on that alone, um I do think there's enough integrity. It looks almost exactly the same. Um it's not
unsafe and there are reasonable alternatives. So just based on purely the fact that it's a demolition application, I don't think they've met the criteria for dem demolishing. >> Other comments from commissioners. Commissioner Rodriguez.
>> Should I make a motion? Um, I move that the Heritage Preservation Commission denies the demolition of the historic resource application, establishes interim protection, and directs the planning director to prepare or cause to be prepared a designation study of the
property. Thank you, Commissioner Rodriguez. Is there a second? >> Masten seconds. Thank you, Commissioner Masten. Any further discussion? Would the clerk call the role? >> Commissioner Alexander
>> I. >> Booty >> I. >> Curado >> I. >> Rodriguez >> I >> Thomas >> I >> Wallace >> I >> Vice Chair Masten >> I. >> Chair Bjornberg >> I. >> There are eight eyes.
>> Thank you. That motion passes and that concludes our public hearing items. Do staff have any announcements? Thank you, Chair Brewberg. Yes. Um, we do. I am Andrea Burke and I am the supervisor for the historic preservation
team in CPAD. I just have a few announcements. One is just to update you. I believe at a previous meeting um had notified you that we did receive an appeal for a project um that you had heard earlier in December um at 2011 Franklin Avenue
East. Uh due to some restructuring of council committees recently that has not yet been heard, but that is on the agenda for the February 17th larger committee of the whole for the city council. So, we anticipate to get
uh an answer or decision um is more correct way to say it on that appeal and I will update you once that comes through. Um also um as you noted uh voted on the last calendar at the last meeting on the 27th, the 2026 calendar.
I did set out a reminder to please add those to your own calendars or tracking device of your choosing to um now that we have the full calendar for 2026 including the two retreats. Um and as they know as I had mentioned to
they don't always necessarily fall every other week but it's it's two select Tuesdays of of each month for most of the year. Um, also just a reminder that in less than one month there will be the Minneapolis Preservation Awards on March
5th at the Granada Theater. Um, I believe they are from either 5 to 7:30 or 5:30 to 7:30. Um, I'm very close within about 30 minutes there. So, um, you do need to register although the
cost of attendance is free. Um but there is the link on um that I had sent out uh to commissioners with the registration. Um, and then just one more item to note. um our uh one of our staff, Aaron uh
Kay, who um is not here this evening, uh but uh also uh a historian at the 106 group and then another historian who served on the African-American Heritage Work group are giving a free lecture um which is presented by Preserve
Minneapolis on March 18th at the Henipin History Museum which is titled Preserving Minneapolis's Black History Um, and I can send out more information of that on anybody who is interested in attending. And that concludes my
updates. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any commissioner announcements? Okay, with that, we've completed all items on the agenda for this meeting. There being no other business to come before the meeting. And without
objection, I will declare the meeting adjourned. The next regular meeting of the HPC is February 24th, 2026. Thank you.