Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Councilmember Jamal Osman, and I'm the chair of this committee.

Before we begin the meeting, I want to remind everybody that this meeting are broadcast alive to enable greater public participation.

They include a real-time captioning to increase the 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 transcribe all comments to the broadcast.

We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments.

We will be using speaker management.

So members please sign up at this time.

I'll ask clerk to call the roll so we can verify a quorum.

Councilmember Vita.

Present.

Cashman is absent.

Jenkins is absent.

Chavez.

Vice Chair Chowdry, present.

And Chair Osman.

Present.

There are four members present.

Let the record reflect we have a quorum.

Our agenda is front of us.

We will be beginning with the consent agenda.

Item eight is approving one liquor license.

Item nine is approving 19 liquor license renewals.

Item 10 is approving six gambling license.

Item 11 is authorizing a cooperative agreement and appreciation of demolition service at 1410 West Broadway.

Item 12 is approving a rezoning plan to Mortenson development for the property at 1020 Essex Street Southeast.

Item 13 is authorizing a grant agreement with Minnesota National Independent Venue Association.

Item 14 is authorizing a carry forward of NUS 2025 revenue bond for multifamily housing program.

Item 15 is authorizing a joint power agreement with Hannebean County for support in office to end homelessness.

Item 16 is authorizing a change to the amended and rested 2026, 27 housing tax credit qualified allocations plan.

Item 17 is authorizing a contract with Hennebeen County and Avivo to provide funding support.

Item 18 is accepting and authorizing the spring 2025 Brownfield grants.

Item 19 is authorizing a program revision for the naturally accurate affordable housing preservation fund.

And lastly, item 20 is referring to staff and ordinance related to the public safety regulations on on-sale establishment.

With that, any of my colleagues have any comments or questions.

Seeing none, I will move approval of all items and refer item 20 to staff.

All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Now we will proceed to the public hearing portion of our agenda.

First, we have a continued public hearing from our last meeting on October 14.

This item is an ordinance related to the permitting cannabis event in the city.

I will ask manager of business licensing Amy Lingo to briefly kind of explain what this item is.

Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

Thank you, committee members.

My name is Amy Lingo, and I'm the manager for business licensing.

This is the continuation of the public hearing for the cannabis events ordinance.

This ordinance is one of the final portions of the legalization of the cannabis for the city of Minneapolis along with the state.

This ordinance will set the time place and manner regulations and restrictions for events that are for cannabis, the uh vaporable smokable product for those public events.

Are there anyone who would like to speak on this item?

Seeing none, uh close the public hearing and see if any of my colleagues have any questions.

Seeing none, I will approve this item.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, and those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Our next item is a public hearing for our ordinance related to the heritage preservation regulations.

This ordinance updates and modernizes regulation.

I will welcome senior city planner Rob from CBED to present this item.

Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Chair Osman, and good afternoon, Council members.

I'm Rob Skolecki, Senior City Planner in the historic preservation team in the planning division.

And today I'm very excited and happy to be up here to present the culmination of a lot of work internally with staff and also comments from the Heritage Preservation Commission on the revised Title 23, Chapter 599 of the Heritage Preservation Regulations.

Since the last major update, a lot has changed with how we look at historic preservation in the city of Minneapolis.

Um the Heritage Preservation Regulation Ordinance was last comprehensively updated in 2001.

So there's a lot of items that we looked at that have changed in over um 20 years in this situation.

So the way we protect historic places uh has evolved and the needs of communities are different.

Minneapolis has grown and there are more historic properties that have been designated within those 20 years.

Um building technology and the way we process projects and applications and those trends have changed.

CPED does have designated staff that work in historic preservation now as well.

And of course, Minneapolis 2040 is changing how the city is built, and along with that, we identified a need to really simplify our processes to meet city goals throughout that.

So, with this, all of um chapter 599 heritage preservation regulations is proposed to be repealed and replaced.

There are some sections that are going to stay, and some that'll be reorganized, but um there is also a lot of of new text that was added and some that was removed.

So the key changes we've been highlighting here.

What is this planning to accomplish?

We want to make the steps easier to understand for a lot of our processes.

So identifying potential landmarks and historic districts, um, reviewing demolition requests, reviewing design changes to historic properties that are designated, updating definitions in our our code to use more clear and modern language, making the ordinance match other parts of city code along with state and federal law, removing parts of the code that are rarely or no longer used, and I'll go over uh two of those in a few slides, and then updating the fee structure as well to align with inflation over time.

We want to make it easier to process more projects administratively and have more clear expectations for those who are submitting applications to staff for our review.

So, with that, we've actually created new types of applications to allow for those more administrative reviews.

There are situations where we are no longer requiring applications to allow for certain reviews for uh permits where we can just review with it within a permit, like a lot of other areas of of CPED do for reviewing permit applications that come in.

We're simplifying a lot of our findings for these applications.

Um and also we acknowledge that there are a lot of uh projects that have gone forward in the past that are utilizing historic preservation tax credits, and a lot of those are for um commercial to residential reuse types of of projects.

So we want to make it easier and streamline those processes with administrative reviews uh where possible.

We are also updating fees uh just to account for inflation over time and the application changes that we've noted.

We're planning to improve consistency.

So one of those is having the final decision on historic design guidelines for districts and landmarks.

And also historic nominations are now able to be appealed.

So those previously under the current code are things that can't be appealed.

We are improving transparency with new processes to formally document potential historic resources.

So this is an area in the past where we've received public feedback that it's not really clear what the city is evaluating or what kind of documents we have that show when a property has been considered potentially historic.

We're making clear review steps for demolitions of potential historic properties and designated properties and clear review steps for nominating landmarks and historic districts as well.

We are updating the landmark and historic district designation process in a few ways, adding findings needed to designate a landmark or historic district where those don't currently exist in a clear manner.

We're adding procedures to remove designation, and in this situation, we're very clear that we have to be sure that we're staying within our state guidance that is given to us as a certified local government for how to do that.

We're adding a decision timeline for city council following the Heritage Preservation Commission's vote on a designation to allow for up to 180 days for council to make a decision after the heritage preservation commission has.

And we're adding steps to explain how existing designations can be updated or where those designations can expand to acknowledge different histories that have happened at certain sites.

I mentioned earlier there are sections we are removing, so one of those plan for removal or transfer of development rights, which were adopted in 2001, but there's actually a counterpart that already exists in zoning code.

So this is more about removing a redundant piece of text that really isn't used.

And same with conservation districts, which is a tool to allow for a certain type of regulation within an area.

So the city of Minneapolis does have this.

There hasn't been a conservation district that's been brought forward within, you know, the over over 10 years we've had that tool.

Um and it often just leads to a lot of confusion among members of the public trying to understand the difference between what a conservation district and a historic district is.

Staff brought the final draft of um the text amendment to the heritage preservation commission.

And at their September 30th meeting, they voted to approve as written the draft with a few recommended amendments, and there are four that that staff has identified here, and staff also drafted a memo that wasn't included for uh council members to view why staff supports uh one of them, and then the other three, why we have concerns with those continuing.

So the first amendment that staff is supportive of is just HPC pointed out that there was this inconsistency in how we were making determinations on demolition of potential historic landmark applications.

Um staff wanted to have it at five years where that decision was valid, and the commission pointed out that it really makes more sense for it to be consistent with other land use application approvals, which are valid for two years with the opportunity for one year extension.

So staff agrees with this, but in our our draft text, we modified the language just to take out parts where language was redundant and then areas where we wanted to clarify where the decision on this application would be finalized there.

For the other three um recommend uh recommended changes by the Heritage Preservation Commission.

The first one is is really dealing with the final decision on on some applications and and their appeals to city council.

And staff noted that the change that HPC voted to it adopt.

Again, is it a bit redundant with the language we already have that that clearly shows City Council's duties within an appeal and deciding on that.

For the Third Amendments, um this was related to an area of extending the deadlines for when we're reviewing applications as they come in.

So when we take an incomplete applications and staff notice again, that's another area where it's kind of redundant if if we would include it there, and also it doesn't really align with how we review applications for completeness in general throughout the city.

So that's one that staff is not supporting going forward.

And the proposed fourth amendment is one that the commissioners pointed out.

So under the current code, there are five persons or groups that have the ability to nominate a property for landmark historic district status.

That's the mayor, a city council member, the property owner, uh the planning director, or a member of the heritage preservation commission.

With the new text amendment draft, staff wanted to make it a bit more strict how we accept those nominations, just to make sure that nominations coming in are being vetted within our newly established systems that we mentioned we're trying to make a bit more public in the first place.

So the Heritage Preservation Commission did want to have the ability to bypass having a predetermination, and that's uh ability that we are giving to elected officials.

Um we do believe that it's it's the ability of elected officials to represent um the will of of your constituents.

So with that, we did not want to include um this kind of exception for commissioners that wasn't being granted to the planning director or uh property owners for allowing a nomination to proceed.

So that's one where um staff had concerns with that continuing and is recommending that that does not continue forward.

So, with that, I know that's a very brief summary of a lot of text.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that have arisen.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

Uh before we take any questions, I would like to uh open the public hearing and see if there's anyone who would like to speak on this item, no.

All right.

Um seeing none, uh close the public hearing.

And actually, I do want to thank the staff for uh for their work on this.

And as I talked to some of my colleagues, uh, I would like to uh continue the public hearing for next cycle and um and give us give us more time for uh to review and if there's any additional amendment uh from the council members, uh there's enough time for that.

So uh the next meeting I will make that motion to continue this item and also see if there's one of my colleagues have any questions on this item.

Staffs available for for answers.

Right.

Uh seeing none, all those in favor of that motion say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Thank you so much.

Next, we have a public hearing for uh ordinance related to modifying definition within the land subdivision of regulation chapter.

I'll ask ordinance author, Councilmember Shavas to briefly speak on this item.

Chair Osman and colleagues, I'm excited to bring changes to the parkland dedication ordinance, modifying the definition of affordable housing units to address units finance in whole or part by a tribe or tribal entity.

Typically, the developer pays a fee when the city issues a building permit with the fee used to ensure that the city continues to make parkland available to residents and visitors under the existing code.

There is an exemption to the parkland dedication fee when a project is financed in whole or in part by a local, state or federal government entity for the purpose of creating housing that is affordable and occupied by households earning 60% AMI.

This amendment simply adds tribal governments to a list of exempted entities, placing them in par with their local, state, and federal counterparts.

I've been working with some park board commissioners who are pursuing an identical amendment to the park and recreational board code of ordinances.

I asked for your approval today.

Alright, thank you so much for that uh briefing.

I would like to open the public hearing and see if there's anyone who would like to speak on this item.

Seeing uh none, I'll close the public hearing.

I recognize Consumer Shavis.

Uh thank you, Councilman Osman.

I've just moved this ordinance for approval.

All right.

With that motion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

All right.

Uh item four, next uh public hearing is for a liquor license application submitted by JAPA hat located at uptown.

I'll welcome manager up I'll welcome Alexis.

Yes.

Uh Saranson uh to give us our presentation.

Welcome.

Hi.

Thank you, Chair Osman and committee members.

I am Alexis Sornson with licensing consumer services.

I'm presenting an application from Mr.

Good Times Uptown LLC, DBA Chiba Hut Uptown Minneapolis, located at 1118 Westlake Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55408, Ward 10.

The applicant is requesting an on-sale liquor, limited entertainment with Sunday sales and 2 a.m.

license.

If approved, they intend to offer casual dining for a sandwich shop with bar that will have occasional live music and DJ Entertainment.

They will offer seating for 37 patrons on the interior and 26 patrons on an outdoor patio located on private property.

The proposed hours of operations for indoor hours are Sunday through Thursday, 10 30 a.m.

through midnight, and Friday through Saturday, 10 30 a.m.

through 2 a.m.

The outdoor proposed hours on the private patio are Sunday through Thursday, 10 30 a.m.

through 10 p.m.

And Friday through Saturday, 10 30 a.m.

through 11 p.m.

On October 3rd, 2025, 124 public hearing notices were sent out to residents and property owners and posted on all residential buildings with four or more units within 600 feet of the premise.

Notices were also sent out to Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association, the Uptown Business Association, and Council Vice President Chug Tai.

We have received no responses.

A review of any complaints, 311 calls, police calls, and operating conditions.

I found no significant issues concerning the business and issuance of this license.

The licensing and consumer services divisions recommends approval of an on-sale liquor, limited entertainment with Sunday sales and 2 a.m.

license.

This concludes my presentation at this time.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

I'm going to proceed to open the public hearing first and see if there's uh anyone who would like to speak.

I do see the owner of uh Joba Hutt, Nick, here.

Welcome, sir.

Hello, I'm Nick with Chiba Hutt Uptown.

Um, super excited to be at this stage of the process.

Uh, if you know or don't know, this project's been going on for about three years.

Um, we recently took it over about three months ago and really close to getting it open.

We're shooting for a December 8th, open to the public.

Um we're looking forward to opening an uptown.

It's an area that I'm familiar with.

I've spent my 20s in there from 2000 to 2008.

Uh, moved to Colorado and came back to finish this up.

Um, really excited to be part of the uptown kind of rejuvenation.

Um, it was an area that I loved and still love and really excited about helping kind of bring it back to its new new version.

Um talking to the business and the community around there as we build it out, seeing a lot of excitement and a lot of hope.

Uh the theme from business owners is one of optimism and a lot of support to get this open.

Um, so looking to serve a lot of good sandwiches.

Uh, we do have a full bar.

Uh the entertainment part is gonna be real minimal, uh, really, just towards our grand opening and maybe three or four times a year to allow a DJ or a local performer.

It is a small spot.

I think only about 40 people inside, so it's never gonna be a big event there.

Um, and just really looking forward to being uh part of the community again and being a good shepherd of uh as a property owner and uh a good employer.

So thanks for having us here today.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Is there anyone else who would like to add or to speak on this item?

See none, I'll close the public hearing and recognize Vice Chair Towery.

Thank you so much, Chair Osman.

I would like to move this item for approval.

Thank you so much for putting in all the work towards your business.

We look forward to seeing it open and seeing further activation in this really amazing part of uptown.

We wish you good luck.

Yeah, thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Uh with that motion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Thanks a lot.

All right.

Next one.

Next item is a quad judicial uh hearing.

And um we will go to our uh first.

We will take item five and six together.

Since they are related, we will be considering two licensed for navigation from Mento Jamaica Kitchen on Nicolette Avenue.

One is a liquor revocation, and the other is a liquor catering vacation items.

Additionally, we will be considering on one strong beer license revocation from a minto on Lake Street.

I will have uh city attorney to speak a little bit about this item.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

These items are both um revocations due to non-compliance with state tax requirements.

So, as you all are well aware, we are uh required to put these revocations forth.

As of the meeting right now, um staff has not heard back from the applicant on exactly what they plan to do or how they plan to approach this situation, and so um pending any information that you might hear from the public hearing, and if it's the will of the body, I might recommend that you, as you normally do, continue this without recommendation to the full council hearing to await um that outcome from the applicant.

Thank you so much.

So I will uh formally open both of public hearings.

Uh both items of this.

If there's anyone who would like to speak on this item or the owner.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and make the motion to continue this item for um uh I'm sorry, approve this item without recommendation.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, and those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

All right, lastly, we will be considering a certificate of appropriateness appeal submitted for the property at 948 18th Avenue, also known as the John Cook House, a historic landmark.

I will also note that we will be continuing this public hearing and accepting comments until next meeting on November 13th.

I will have uh Rob again to uh speak on this item.

Welcome back.

Thank you, Chair Osman, and hello again, Council Members.

Rob Skelecki with the um historic preservation team in CPED planning.

Today I'm presenting an appeal of the HPC's September 30th decision to deny the certificate of appropriateness to demolish the Tyler Street Northeast John Cook House, which is an individual landmark located at 948 18th Avenue Northeast.

The Tyler Street Northeast John Cook House was designated in 2021 for its significance in the areas of social and architectural history under criterion one and criterion four.

The cookhouse is a significant local example of a brick Queen Anne House.

John L.

Cook was a Mason and house builder in Northeast Minneapolis, and he built the house for himself in 1889.

It's located at the corner of Tyler Street Northeast and 18th Avenue Northeast.

The House is also recognized as an uh example of immigrant housing in Northeast Minneapolis.

Um the area had significant Scandinavian immigrant population at the time that the home was built, and many people of Swedish and Norwegian descent lived here after John Cook moved out, and many of them did work at notable Minneapolis businesses.

The property has been registered as a vacant and boarded property since November 2014.

Public sale records show that the dwelling was last sold in 2019 to the current owner.

The property was condemned for lack of maintenance in January of 2020, and Minneapolis Inspection Services Division staff have been monitoring the property through the vacant building registration for many years.

The appellant is representing the property ownership who are seeking to demolish the John Cook House and the attached the detached garage.

We will note that staff have received additional public comment on the appeal ahead of today's hearing and should be available for council members for reference.

The staff report for the certificate of appropriateness recommended denial of the application.

In staff's analysis, the certificate of appropriateness to demolish the property did not meet the required findings for a certificate of appropriateness application.

Staff noted that the proposed demolition of the cookhouse is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation, and the alteration that was being planned, in this case demolition, is not within the spirit and intent of the preservation ordinance or the applicable policies in Minneapolis 2040.

In order to approve a certificate of appropriateness that includes destruction in whole or in part of any landmark, the Heritage Preservation Commission must make the following findings.

One, that a destruction is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property, or two, that there are no reasonable alternatives to destruction.

In determining whether reasonable alternatives exist, the commission shall consider but not be limited to A, the significance of the property, B, the integrity of the property, and C the economic value or usefulness of the existing structure, including its current use, costs of renovation, and feasible alternative uses.

Under that first finding for the destruction is necessary to correct an unsafe and dangerous condition, the applicant was claiming that the property was unsafe and needed to be demolished to correct this condition, and staff did not agree with this.

Staff did not believe the submitted reports provide a conclusive evidence to show the building requires demolition to correct the conditions noted in those reports.

And the HPC concurred with staff's recommendation here.

The applicant did provide two structural engineer reports, one from Anderson Erlocher, which was completed in 2022, and another from Paulson and Clark Engineering, which was completed in 2025.

Both structural reports note conditions at the property that require attention for repair and maintenance, but staff noted that these two reports are not consistent in their findings and that both suggests that economic feasibility appeared to be the driving reason why the property should be demolished.

Staff noted there appeared to be multiple routes to ensure that repairs can be completed to have the property put in a safer condition, and other repairs are suggested but not confirmed within the application materials.

So CPED found the property was not an unsafe and dangerous condition that would require demolition, and the HPC concurred with this.

Under the second finding that has those three parts when evaluating if there are reasonable alternatives to destruction, including the significance of the property, the integrity of the property, and the economic value or usefulness of the existing structure.

Staff noted that the property still retains significance and integrity.

It is a designated landmark and it retains its significance as it was designated in 2021, and the integrity is also still there, although staff acknowledges that it has further the home has further deteriorated since the point of its designation in 2021.

Ultimately, CPED found that the sta uh CPED found CPET staff recommended and found that the property could be reused.

The applicant had not provided evidence that proves the building lacks usefulness or value.

The applicant had included again those structural engineer reports, which conclude repair would be required to place the property in a habitable condition, but with the costs that were being associated with those repairs, an estimated 1.5 million dollars.

The narrative with these items did not appear consistent to staff, and HPC concurred with these items put together.

It did not fully expand on why certain treatments were being proposed in that, and also there were reports that were showing that repairs could be made to the property.

So staff and the HPC concurred that the applicant's doc documents together did not show that demolition is required or that repairs are economically are not economically feasible.

Staff and the HPC noted that a thorough evaluation was not included in application materials to detail repairs needed for associated repair costs based on visual evidence, contractor documents, and or architectural drawings.

So HPC concurred with the staff recommendations in the staff report uh to deny the application based on the following findings.

One that the subject property retains significance as recorded in the building's uh 2021 designation resolution.

Two, the subject property retains all seven aspects of historic integrity.

Three, the property has not been maintained as required under Chapter 599.

Article 11, maintenance and currently needs maintenance and security.

Four, no unsafe or dangerous conditions which would necessitate demolition have been proven to exist at the property.

And five, there are econom there are reasonable alternatives to the demolition considering the significance, integrity, and economic value or usefulness of the existing building.

So again, the Heritage Preservation Commission voted to deny the certificate of appropriateness to demolish the Tyler Street Northeast John Cook House, which is an individual historic landmark located at 94818th Avenue Northeast.

I'm available for any questions on the application and the appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh are there more slides left here?

Yes, I have a few slides that I can show that uh staff included in the previous um presentation.

So this does show some of the deterioration that was noted.

Uh the photos on the left are ones that um CPED staff had going back to um when the problem problem properties unit was inside the building.

We have photos from uh 2015 showing it was it was intact at that point.

Um these are the photos that were submitted in the most recent compiled report that was done in 2025.

Um so showing present deterioration at the interior here.

Okay.

All right.

Well, thank you so much.

If there's any questions, we will ask those questions after the public hearing.

So first I will um allow the appellant uh seven minutes to address the committee.

After that, any balloters who would like to speak.

Please sign up, and you will have two minutes to speak.

So I will proceed to open the public hearing and recognize please introduce yourself.

Thank you, Chair.

Council members, my name is Jacob Steen with Larkin Hoffman, and I represent the applicant, uh Mr.

Abu Bakr Jabril and 1717 developers.

As staff has indicated, this appeal is seeking to reverse the HPC's decision and uh request your approval to demolish the building at 948 18th Avenue.

Uh as staff again indicated.

There are a couple of standards under the city code that must be considered before you would approve demolition.

The first is that the structure is unsafe and dangerous, and the second is that there are no reasonable alternatives when considering a number of factors, including the existing structure, the use of the building, and the cost, and and whether or not there's a feasible alternative.

I can assure you uh that the application has met these standards and the record demonstrates that.

There is absolutely no question that this building is uh is uh unsafe or dangerous.

Uh in fact, this building has been condemned longer than it has been designated a landmark.

Condemned by the city's own uh inspectors.

Uh when my client purchased the property in 2019, it had already been on the city's vacant building registry for five years, and it was in really, really tough condition.

Uh so tough that within less than a year after he had acquired it, the city's inspectors determined, again, that this was an unsafe and hazardous building and condemned it.

Unfortunately, and quite puzzlingly, less than a year later, in the middle of the pandemic, the city on its own volition moved to make this building a landmark, which again is quite puzzling.

And unfortunately, my client admittedly did not understand the implications of what it meant to become a landmark.

And if you've dealt with landmarks or properties in districts before, you would know that once you designate a property as a landmark, it becomes significantly more expensive to repair.

Sometimes three, four, even five times as much because it all must be done by hand.

You need to use specific contractors, original materials, and there is substantial process.

However, we have, as the staff report indicates, twice again demonstrated and proven that this what the city knew already, which is that this is an unsafe building.

In 2022, we had a structural engineer enter the building and conclude the same, and in 2025 again.

So the simple fact is that this building can cannot be rehabilitated.

It is too far gone and it is beyond repair.

Again, the record would indicate that there is no reasonable alternative.

The applicant has demonstrated and provided uh estimates of one and a half million dollars to repair this building.

It's a large building, it's a formerly a triplex.

And just for note, the assessed value of this property is 280,000.

And we know that is not always the right uh value, but let's say even given the benefit of the doubt, it's worth twice as much.

Given what my client has put into the property already and the cost to repair it, there is zero chance, it is impossible to be less than a million dollars upside down on this property once you rehabilitate it.

It is that far gone and it has been that far gone since 2020 when it was condemned.

So again, there is no possibility, it is not economically feasible to rehabilitate this building.

And I do want to address some of the misinformation that is in the record uh and that was discussed by the HPC.

Unfortunately, if you watch that video, it seems that the decision was more based on uh interpretation of penalizing or making an example out of my client, based on the assertion that this was demolition by neglect.

And I can assure you uh that this was not demolition by neglect, this was demolition by red tape.

Uh this, again, was acquired in 2019.

The building was already on the VBR, the vacant building registry, and it was condemned within less than a year.

And when you condemn a building, you sa you say that there is no possible use of that building until it is completely rehabilitated.

And then you combine the added uncertainty of COVID and the mid-COVID designation of this building, and you significantly tied the hands of my client.

It substantially uh increased the cost of holding this property, and uh during this time, uh he is he has not sat on his hands, but he has put a significant amount of effort into uh trying to at least maintain the building.

He has more than 15 times uh vacated the premises from trespassers, and each one of those times he has to resecure the building, but all the same time the city is regularly sending uh two to $10,000 bills on an annual basis because it is vacant.

So, on one hand, you have the housing department sending over $35,000 in fees during this time that he's owned it.

On the other hand, uh, and they're telling him to condemn or to demolish this condemned building.

And on the other hand, the HBC is saying we can't demolish it.

We can't even make repairs to the exterior without going through a public hearing.

So, yes, uh it is an unfortunate circumstance and uh in my client uh really is isn't uh this is not demolition by neglect, but he's been put in between a rock and a hard place.

And again, in fact, it was not until this week when I spoke with the Director of Housing that they were made aware that this was uh historic building.

And uh to have the city saying both tear it down and don't tear it down in the same week is really a hard pill to swallow for my client.

I also want to address uh the assertions about uh interior demolition.

As you've seen, the building is in really rough shape.

Uh, it has been in really rough shape since 2014 when it went on the vacant building registry.

Uh and the staff report is correct.

There are no permits in the record because my client has never authorized or given anyone permission to demolish the building.

But as is very common uh during the last couple of years, particularly during COVID.

Uh, there are a lot of people who are trying to make a quick buck.

And uh many of the trespassers have punched holes in the walls, punched holes in ceilings, trying to get uh get at copper pipings, copper wire.

Nothing was authorized, everything has occurred as a result of trespassers.

So the evidence in the record clearly shows that this property is unsafe and it is not economically viable to facilitate it or to rehabilitate it.

And we would simply ask for your permission to demolish the building and clean up this blight.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

I will continue the public hearing and I'm gonna go through the list here.

Uh and if I pronounce it, if I mispronounce your name, uh, please excuse me.

Um first person to speak from World One is Melanie Eng.

Welcome.

Hello, good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Melanie Ng.

I've lived in Northeast Minneapolis since 2019.

Or 2009, excuse me.

I live on 18th and Taylor to be specific.

So I see this building virtually every single day.

And I've recognized it as a striking example of Queen Anna architecture.

I've admired its brickwork, its stained glass, its hexagonal bay window, the decorative gingerbread trim, all of that.

But today I do want to talk about something more concerning, and I feel this has been the slow and deliberate neglect of this historic home.

Over the years I've watched the porch decay and collapse, the paint peel away season after season, the original stained glass windows break.

It's heartbreaking, especially with the recent loss of the Aaron Carlson building due to a fire.

These aren't just structures, they're pieces of our shared history and my personal history.

I'm invested in my community, and this house to me is part of our community.

It's been vacant as noted for over a decade.

It entered the villa the city's vacant building registration in November of 2014.

It's passed from one LLC to another, each time slipping further into disrepair.

These meant to encourage timely restoration were waived year after year, 2014, 15, 16, 17.

Only in 2018 were they finally supposed to be enforced.

To me, this isn't just about one house, it's about a troubling pattern where real estate speculators who don't typically live in our neighborhoods, purchase properties, allow them to decay, hoping the city will eventually approve demolition because the property and the damage has gone too far.

Chronically vacant properties don't just sit idle, they create public and safety concerns.

I know that there have been people going in and out of that building.

They drag down property values, and in this case, they don't create a welcoming entry to the Great Northern Bike Greenway and our Arts District.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

I would like to recognize that we have been joined by Councilmember Cashman.

Next person is Seth Steph Miller.

Hi, thanks for the opportunity to speak.

I would uh like to see the John Cook House preserved.

Um but more than this, I would like this I would like Minneapolis landmark status to stand for something.

Um my understanding is that uh an owner of a historic landmark has a duty to maintain that property.

And uh you can see in the pictures from the historic designation that uh some of the windows have been open from 2021 until today that demonstrates to me a uh failing at the duty to maintain.

Um that's just one example.

We've talked about squatters and other occupiers that uh that have been in the house, urban explorers, uh, and you can see the damage that has been done.

Um, the um if that is all a developer needs to do to get their way, then Minneapolis regulations don't have a lot of meaning.

Um, and all of our history will slowly be erased because profit will drive it out.

Um if the costs of repair have skyrocketed, that is the fault of the owners.

Um that neglect should not result in a path to profit for this developer or any developer.

Um, when it became clear that the house was not going to be maintained, which Minneapolis has seen, um, I would have liked Minneapolis to step in and take stronger actions.

Um this owner has in a lot of ways shown a disrespect for our history and the regulations in place.

Um that is why I would like to see this demolition request denied.

I do not want this or future developers to see a path to mine our history for profit.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh, next person is Elizabeth Richardson.

Hello, thank you, Council members.

Um, Richardson, member of the Northeast community and co-owner and operator of Recovery Bike Shop in Northeast Minneapolis.

Um, and I am here today to respectfully request that the historic John Cook House be saved from demolition.

The John Cook House is more than a beautiful structure.

Um it is the epitome of what Northeast is known for: artistic expression and hard work.

For much of its history, it was a home for the laborers who built Northeast into what it is today: a place for builders and creatives and neighbors who care deeply about their community.

It is rare to meet a Northeaster who doesn't know of the house.

It is a significant landmark on the Great Northern Greenway, the former northern border of Minneapolis, and one of the most traveled thoroughfares into the Central Avenue business district today.

Not only is the John Cook House one of our most significant pieces of architecture, it carries the history of all the people who have lived in it and provides meaning and cultural identity to the artists, workers, and families who call Northeast home today.

Northeast is a community that values craft and beauty.

When the John Cook House last went up for sale, there were eight offers on the property, and prospective buyers were required to submit their intent for how the property would be used.

The previous owners were experienced property developers and contractors whose assessment of the house was that it was very much worth saving.

We assumed it would be saved, but instead it has been left to decay.

Every time we have biked or walked or driven past in the six years since its most recent change of ownership, we have witnessed the neglect of the building.

Windows left open for years, the front porch sagging more with each passing month.

The neighborhood fought to see it saved, and it received its landmark designation based on over 80 pages of research into its architectural and cultural significance.

As a historically protected structure, we all know the owners have had a legal obligation to protect it from further decay.

But to our great dismay, we have observed no attempts to slow the damage, and in fact, an increase in broken windows on all three stories that not only allow water into the structure, but pose my dire risks for people.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Uh next person is Karen.

I'm Karen Gribna.

I live down the block from the John Cook house.

I did testify at the last um Heritage Commission meeting, and there's a document in your binder that I prepared.

This is a very sad situation.

And being a very close neighbor, we are concerned about this neglected property.

Whether it is demolished or not, what does the future hold?

We have squatters in there, people destroying things all the time.

There's trash being dumped, and the response to the city we call 311 is within the next 10 days we'll do something.

Well, maybe the windows can only be boarded up on first floor.

Well, then there's a ladder.

And the only windows that are border on first floor are the ones that have been broken.

So my request is that something be done.

Aaron Carlson property burned.

That might happen here.

We just don't know.

So please, please do something.

What can the city do?

It definitely has been neglected for a very long time.

And we don't see any positives coming forward the way it's now.

I'm not suggesting it be demolished necessarily.

But things need to be done.

The property needs to be protected.

And I'm not sure if the current owner is capable of doing that.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

And the last person here is Kevin Reich, former council member of War One.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and members of the committee, for the time and hearing out the words of my neighbors.

I think they're hardfelt and not unanalyzed.

I will concur with staff's findings, our experts that are actually charged with analyzing things with a clear eye and a third party, non-motivated approach.

All points were met, and I would stand by their analysis on that front.

Also, the people who are really into the topic who are on our commissions, and we have a lot of commissions, topic-based commissions, also reviewed it with their expertise and passion as subject matter experts.

They concurred with staff and actually had their own findings and conclusions as well that reinforced it from their perspective.

I stand by all of those uh assertions, both the technical and the passionate, uh, from the review processes that you have before you.

I would say that they outweigh the convenient conclusions, counter-conclusions that have been presented to you by the appellant.

They just don't weigh out.

Um, I would also say that the sentiments and power of the narratives that you heard today are magnified throughout the community.

Just so one knows, this was not an arbitrary and capricious in COVID times designation.

It was already on a list that I had worked on as a community activist in the mid-oughts.

When I became a council person, I went to try to chip through that list, and you know how difficult it is to get through this process.

It's a real process to get something designated.

It's not just feelings, it's not just a good story, it's really true analysis, and you have to prioritize which of your buildings will actually get on that list and take staff's time to get that designation.

Um, in Northeast, as you know, we love our community, it has a lot of character, but we don't have the industry titans building to protect.

We don't have the the the cathedral that is obviously in many people's minds uh historic.

We have bits and pieces of a working class community, and every bit and piece that we identify has a deep story for our community.

We want that protected, and I come to you not just as a former council member or as a technical expert.

Actually, you have staff that are those.

I'm coming to you, say you're the last line, you're the protectors, protect our story in Northeast Minneapolis.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Are there anyone who will like to speak on this item?

Like I mentioned, we I will um continue the public hearing uh for next cycle.

And now uh I will open for questions for uh my colleagues if they have any.

Uh I do have my first question for for the staff.

Um, we're trying to find a solution here.

The neighbors are here that are saying that you know this is a historic John Cook house, should be kept.

Um the staff's are commending that.

Also, the Heritage Preservation found those things.

But at the same time, we also hear the presentation from uh appellants who say that this building is not savable.

It's it's done.

Um, and we're here to make to find a solution and where we can go from there.

So obviously, in my opinion, that this building has been neglected for for that long since what is it since 2026?

When was the date that was it would it was um condemned?

Or vacant?

Uh Chair Osman, it was placed on the vacant building register list, I believe, in uh 2014, and then it was 2020 when it was formally um condemned.

It's been vacant for 10 years.

That's 20 almost 10 years.

I believe yes.

Okay.

Um what would you define are condemned buildings uh unsafe and dangerous?

I mean, your presentation uh obviously you say that the staff found this was not um unsafe building, but uh what are the definition of a condemned buildings in the city of Minneapolis for is it is it unsafe and dangerous?

Thank you, Chair Osman.

So when we look at condemned buildings, they clearly do need repairs, right?

I think um one of the misconceptions that we hear um just among members of the public is that a condemned building means that it has to come down, and that's sometimes the case, not always the case, uh, but w what it means is that repairs should be made.

Um in this situation, staff believes that repairs can be made to put the property into a condition um back into a use that would be suitable for the home, such as a dwelling.

Uh that's where staff evaluation fell, and that's where the heritage preservation commission agreed with staff that yes, there is deterioration.

Um, but among the designated properties in the city, there's often going to be some deterioration that needs to be repaired, right?

And in this situation, staff did not believe that what was presented constitutes something that requires uh immediate demolition due to what is being shown in the reports.

Okay.

So the the letter city is sending to demolish the building, basically saying that correct the building, correct it and fix the building.

That's what those letters mean.

The letter they're talking about the city is sending to continue to send them to demolish the building.

Chair Osman, I would have to double check the exact language on that.

Okay.

Uh uh a bad condition, and it does look like the building has been uh neglected.

Um, what is the city take on when for example the the owner decides to neglect and are we gonna have another 10 years where if we decide uh building should not be condemned?

I mean, I'm sorry, demolished, then what is the what is the city take on?

Where does the city go?

Do we continue just to give them fine and expect the owners to do it even if they decided not to do it?

I'm trying to find a solution.

I know I'm asking questions that might not be.

Yeah, uh Chair Osman, I wanted to jump in just a quick moment to just offer a quick clarification to your previous question.

My name is Andrea Burke, and I'm the supervisor for the historic preservation team in CPED.

Condemnation means that the city has asked the owner to go and fix the building.

And they have prescribed a list of repairs that need to be done.

It does not mean to demolish.

To our knowledge, no letter has been sent to demolish the building.

Um, that CPED is aware of at this point.

So I just wanted to make that clarification between demolition and condemnation.

But I will turn the questions back to Helkalecki.

That's helpful.

Thank you so much for clarifying that.

So my question uh to you, Rob, is what is the city gonna do our for if the owner decides to continue for next 10 years the same thing he's doing, or neglecting the building, for example, as the neighbors put it.

Um are we just gonna sit and continue to send them letters?

And is there some kind of um end to this?

That's just a yeah, thank you, Chair Osman.

Um that's something we've had a discussions internally of what the next step would be depending on.

It's uh we have discussed it, it's not a common situation that we have a landmark come forward for demolition, um, and especially in in a situation where um the condition is shown and explained by the applicant.

Um so in the situation, you know, whatever decision is made, we would address at that point what the next step would be.

Thank you.

That uh yeah, I'll just end saying that you know, um, as we hear the neighbors that this building has been neglect.

Uh to me it's dangerous and unsafe, and also the applicant also has mentioned that it's unsavable and the cost could be millions.

Uh uh, I'll leave it there and recognize Councilmember Chowdhury.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I will uh be supporting your motion to continue this item.

I do think we need further discussion, and I would love to have an opportunity to just have more offline discussions with our staff about the context of this um landmark.

The first question that I had has to do with the nomination process and then the process itself to get historic dedication.

Um we've had a couple of um historic dedication landmark conversations up here in just the last couple years.

It's very clear that a lot of staff time goes into it, and there is a longer process, and then you need to earn quite a bit of support to make it happen.

Um I assume the property owner was notified that this process was occurring.

Did the property owner ever object or give any indication about what their plans were for this property before the dedication occurred?

Yeah, thanks, Chair Osman, Councilmember Chowdhury.

Um staff at the time of designation notified the property owner of record and was not given a response as to whether or not they were in support of the nomination going forward.

Um so that was an area where we weren't certain and the nomination process um continued with without them weighing in on uh the opinion on it.

So staff were not certain of what their opinion was the whole time the nomination was going forward in the designation.

Was there any communication from the property owner?

So sorry, uh, before I see the city attorney, what do you like to up?

It can wait until yeah, was there any communication with the property owner to the city at all?

About the process, or was it like no communication?

I think there's a difference between they didn't weigh in or they didn't speak to the city.

Sure, I understand the question.

Um so whenever uh in the situation it it was nominated by former council member Reich of Board One.

Um so whenever a person who's not the property owner is nominating a property, um, staff will try to notify them as soon as we're aware that this is going forward.

Um, in that situation, we are relying on what information we have, you know, whether it be their public um address or an email that we're given to to reach out to them.

And and we reached out to them multiple times throughout the process, uh, just letting them know this is what's going on, and again, we didn't get a response, so okay.

Thank you.

I think like that is very that's worth uplifting as a part of what was shared in our um staff report is that there were several opportunities before the actual designation for the property owner to communicate um where they stood on this historic designation and landmark status.

And I think in the staff report it says come into 2022, that's when they started communicating with the city that they had intended to um demolish the property, and as um testifiers have shared and the uh former council member shared.

Um this was also in the works several several years um before before the designation process even began.

It was always something that the community had in its mind and was always something that the community had discussed.

Was there ever uh a change in ownership, or was it the same ownership that um the city of Minneapolis spoke to?

Was it always um 17 17 developers?

During the time of the nomination and designation, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's really helpful.

Um then in terms of the staff evaluation of the current state of the cookhouse and the damage.

Um, when was the last evaluation done?

Councilmember Chowdery, um are you referring to the last um structural report that was submitted?

Yeah.

The date we have um was earlier this year, so it was a 2025 um report, and then that's the one that included the photos showing the interior with with the demolished interior walls.

Okay, thank you.

That's really helpful.

And I'll just close with um, it's very clear in our landmark designation um and code of ordinances that the property owner has a duty to maintain and a duty to prevent deterioration.

And in my opinion, I think that it includes securing the building and making sure that there isn't people coming in creating damage.

I think that's a very clear part of property private property ownership uh in our city, and so that gives me a lot of pause, and I I think there are just deeper questions that I want to get into that aren't, I think, meant for the dais today, but um it is it is difficult to see that there were probably many opportunities to make repairs or secure the property, and now we're coming here in 2025 to ask for a demolition, and we have HPC and our staff sharing that it doesn't meet the criteria.

Um I understand that there's a process to make repairs and fixes when you have a landmark.

Um, and they are extra steps, but there are many landmarks in the city of Minneapolis that have to be routinely repaired and maintained, and those owners go through the process to do so, and I think doing those repairs over time and not waiting to do them would be a measured way to go about it.

So I'll just leave my comments there and pass it on to the chair.

Thank you so much.

Um, would you like to jump in or should I recognize Councilmember?

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to note that you're in a unique situation because you are leaving the public hearing open here for a quasi-judicial hearing that not only can you not make any conclusions on this topic while that is pending, but I would also advise that you request a legislative directed directive to staff to bring forth any answers to questions you have back to the dais rather than having those conversations privately.

Oh.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Uh Councilmember Cashwin.

Thank you, Chair.

And um, thank you for the staff work on this.

And I know that um our vacant building registry and the fees that are associated are meant to recoup the cost of all the city's work on this side, and I just wanted to understand like how much how many fines have been administered to this owner uh for the vacant building since it was placed on the registry, did you say in 2014?

Um, and since we passed as a council the prolonged vacancy enforcement in the last year, and that went into effect.

Now, what are what's the current fee structure?

I kind of want to understand how much they're being fined for the city for this situation.

Thank you, Chair Osman, Councilmember Cashman.

Unfortunately, I don't have those numbers in front of me right now.

That's you know it's it's something that staff is aware of, preservation staff, but it's it's not something that we're active in with the the enforcement, of course.

So um that would be something that I think you know the property owner um I forgot what they mentioned previously, but um would be a better resource to answer that.

Okay, so are we administering prolonged vacancy enforcement on this property?

Um are they receiving monthly fines?

Councilmember Cashman.

Maybe something to ask for follow up for next uh committee meeting that I think that's good to know because that is our tool we don't have all the tools in the book uh but we do have a tool where we can um increase fines month after month on properties that are not taking care of remediating their property or selling their property which I think is the obvious like um incentive structure here is if you can't keep it up sell it to someone who will um and so I I would like to understand how much we're finding and what we plan to continue how prolonged vacancy enforcement will escalate in the months to come um after this action so I can request the clerks to to note that down for follow up at the next committee meeting and then I also wanted to ask if there have been any if this house has been put on the market at all and if there are any extra steps to selling a house that you would need to go through with his with historic designation.

Thanks Councilmember Cashman um so I'm not aware of the property being placed on the market um recently I I believe the the current owners is the most you know recent owner in person to um purchase it through any type of listing so I'm I'm not aware of any um listing for that I know there has been uh interest from property owners who were interested in in buying it there's one at least that we noted in the staff report that came forward um to staff about potentially purchasing the property and just wanted more information kind of asking a similar question like you just did you know what what processes go into that um and as far as you know selling a designated property it's it's really the same process as selling any property in the city just being transparent about the designation status of of the building among seller buyer so okay so there's not any extra hoops that one has to go through to sell a a property that's on that's historically designated no okay so that option is definitely on the table as well for the owner just wanted to make sure that was clear because you know demolition is not the only option here and that was alluded to in their testimony that when you're on the vacant building registry that we're requesting demolition and that's not the case what we're requesting is remediation and to secure the building and take care of the building or sell it to someone who will and I think I wanted to make that point with the way our policies are that we're not no one at the city is asking for this owner to demolish the building um thanks that's the questions that I had for now and I'll support the motion to continue the item.

Okay.

Well I do want to thank everyone for coming we will continue next cycle which is November 13 this conversation and uh thank you neighbors for coming and and and the owner for your presentation I with that motion all those in favor say aye.

And those opposed say nay the ayes have it and the motion carries all right see no further business before us with no objection I would declare this meeting adjourned thanks.