Good morning.

Welcome to the Business Housing and Zoning Committee.

I will call this order this regular meeting in order for November 13, 2025.

My name is 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 live to enable greater public participation.

They include 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 for the broadcast.

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

We'll be using speaker management, so please sign up.

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

Councilmember Vita.

Present.

Present Jenkins is absent.

Chavez.

Present.

Vice Chair Chowdhury.

Present.

And Chair Osman.

Present.

There are five members present.

Well, the record, we have a quorum.

Our agenda front is front of us.

We'll be beginning with the consent agenda.

Consent agenda includes item 8 through 25.

Item eight is approving three liquor license.

Item nine is approving seven liquor license renewals.

Item 10 is approving 13 gambling license.

Renewals item 11 is accepting a grant from the state for dislocated workers.

Item 12 is approving uh the certification for three TIFF districts.

Item 13 is approving a comprehensive plan amendment to the river north development for the property at 201 West Broadway.

Item 14 is authorizing modification to the NOAA preservation fund for the Kermit Building.

Item 15 is authorizing amendment to the contract with KMA development for the proper property at 1200 West Broadway.

Item 16 is approving a new street name of Kirk Kirk Washington Jr.

submitted by Councilmember Allison.

Item 17 is also approving a new street name of Cheese Young.

Also submitted by Councilmember Allison.

Item 18 is approving an appropriation for demolition demolishing two city-owned properties.

Item 19 is approving rested land sales for emergency stabilization pilot program for uh to homes for homies.

Item 20 is setting a public hearing for December 2nd to consider amendment to the land sale side yard property resolutions.

Item 21 is setting a public hearing for December 2nd to consider modification to the tax increment financing plan for 59 TIFF district.

Item 2nd is setting a public hearing for December 2nd to consider three city planning commission appointments.

Item 23 is setting a public hearing for December 2nd to consider an ordinance related to the demolition and tracking of structures.

Item 24 is setting a public hearing for December 2nd to consider an ordinance related to the tenant protection and opportunity to purchase and lastly item 25 is setting a public hearing for December 2nd to consider approving a special assessment for the property at 22 9th Street South.

With that, is there any any of my colleagues have any questions?

Councilmember Fita.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I'd just like to pull um item 24 for discussion, please.

Right, I'm 24 for discussion.

Are there anyone else?

I'd like to recognize we have been joined by Councilmember Jenkins.

With that, uh I move approval for all items except item 24.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Now, Councilmember Vita.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

Just uh um a couple questions.

Item 24 is setting the public hearing for the um the TOPA ordinance, and I've had quite a few people reach out.

And um a couple of the questions I've been asked are about um why this wasn't reintroduced and uh I think we started having questions on this subject back in February or so of 2024, and this is the first that most people are hearing about it since then.

It went back for um some staff work.

So just wondering why it wasn't reintroduced and why we're just uh setting a public hearing for it instead of going through the reintroduction process.

Um Dr.

Hanson, Chair Osman, uh Councilmember uh Vita, my name is Eric Hansen.

I'm the director of CPED.

Uh we will get you the dates, but this was introduced separately a while ago for uh tenant opportunity and purchases.

There's also a community opportunity to purchase or which came forward to the council as the affordable housing preservation ordinance that was also introduced and that went through the city council last um last year.

Uh but this one was properly introduced.

Okay, is this the one from February of 2024?

Uh it's I think it's that time.

Okay, and so has there been any engagement around this since um it was introduced in February of 2024.

Uh Councilmember Osman, Councilmember Vita, there has been there's been engagement around uh opportunities purchase ordinances through the uh Affordable Housing Preservation Ordinance that went through, and the authors have been working on engagement.

Those authors are not in on this committee.

It's got the author, it's uh council, Vice President Chug Tai and Councilmember Ellison.

Um we do not have that prepped for conversation with the council today, but we can get you that information about um engagement.

So there hasn't been yeah, any first any information you can give me about engagement would be great, but I think I'm more interested in information around stakeholder engagement.

You know, when this was originally brought up, there were lots of landlords and um other folks uh who had been talking to us about hopefully having a voice at the table over that period of time that it would take for us to pass something, and I'm just concerned that that hasn't happened in this year, over a year, because it was February of 2024.

So just wondering if someone could, and that would be a staff directive, please, um clerks, to just give us um the information on what engagement has happened from staff to um, I'm not necessarily asking for council member engagement.

I'd like to know how staff has been engaging folks.

Uh Chair Osmond, if I may, um I would like to.

We we've been working with the authors.

The authors have been have been um uh kind of guiding this process.

So we'll be working with them to respond to uh the inquiry uh from you, Councilmember Vita.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, that's it, Chair.

All right.

Uh thank you.

Councilmember uh Chavez.

Uh thank you, Chair Osman.

I just want to get on cue to speak on item number 24.

The TOPA ordinance.

I just wanted I know we're just setting a public hearing, but I am excited that this is finally coming before the city council.

The tenant opportunity to purchase act is an opportunity to increase homeownership opportunities and give renters the opportunity to purchase a building.

Uh this ordinance is really important to my constituents.

The ward nine.

It is something that I hear on uh practically daily basis on why it is needed to establish a particular ordinance in our city.

I think about Miss Linda in the Part of Horn Park neighborhood that if we had this policy in place, perhaps would have been in a different situation rather than neighbors in Port of Horn Park having to come together and fundraise to make sure that she could get stay in her home and not be displaced.

And heard multiple instances on the ways that anti-displacement measures like TOPA can help keep people in their homes and increase home ownership, particularly those uh in our uh black, brown, and native and people of color communities who disapprovedly don't have access to homeownership.

So I at least wanted to talk about why I'm super excited that uh my colleagues are bringing forward the TOPA ordinance, and I look forward to approving that when the time comes.

Thank you.

Uh seeing no one else, I will move approval for uh setting a public item 24 for setting a public hearing for December 2nd.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

All right, our first item is an uh of public hearing is an ordinance related to the heritage preservation regulation.

This item was continued our last meeting on October 28th.

Uh and this is before us.

I'll uh ask staff to give us a presentation on this.

Good morning, Chair Osman and committee members.

My name is Andrea Burke, and I am the supervisor of the historic preservation team in CPAD.

I'm here today to give a quick update on this agenda item, which was continued from the October 28th, 2025 biz committee meeting.

CPAT has completed an update to the city's heritage preservation ordinance, which is Title 23, Chapter 599.

The last time this code was updated was in 2001.

Since then, we've rewritten the ordinance to make it clearer, more consistent, and better suited to today's needs for uh reviewing, evaluating, and protecting historic and potentially historic places in Minneapolis.

At the October 25th or excuse me, 28th meeting, staff gave a presentation that explained the proposed changes.

And today's staff is recommending that the bus committee support and approve the updated chapter 599 text as written.

That concludes my update, and I'm happy happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right.

With that, we are going to proceed.

Uh, taking the public comments.

I believe the item uh public comments was open.

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

Um seeing none, uh close the public heat and recognize councilmember.

Vice Chair Chowder.

Yeah, thank you, Councilmember Osman.

Um appreciate staff's time.

Um in this past committee meeting and the current one today.

I would like to move this ordinance forward for approval.

All right.

With that, uh all those in favor say aye.

And those uh I'm sorry.

What are you uh I'm in favor of the ordinance.

I just wanted to speak to a couple of what the improvements that I think are happening through this ordinance for just for public transparency.

Um what I think has been done here that's really positive, and thank the staff for their work is just making the process clearer for identifying potential landmarks and historic districts and reviewing demolition requests.

Uh reviewing design changes will make it easier for applicants.

And this is pertinent to another discussion item on the agenda today.

Uh it also streamlines design changes or review of design changes in historic districts and makes that faster, making historic tax credit projects eligible for administrative review instead of a public hearing.

Uh so that also streamlines that process and improving cost recovery uh with a 20% increase in application fees.

That's also good for the city to be able to staff this work.

Um so I just wanted to highlight some of those improvements and give my support for this ordinance.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh, just gonna repeat the with that motion from Councilman Vice Chair uh Chowdery.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Thank you so much.

All right, uh, next we have uh uh liquor and sidewalk cafe license application submitted by Bobby Kajun.

Um I welcome uh Greg from CFIT to give us a presentation.

Welcome, sir.

Thank you, Chair Osmond, committee members.

I'm District Supervisor Craig Eliason with licenses and consumer services.

Today I'm presenting an application from Baby Doll LLC, doing business as baby cajun, located at 1221 West Lake Street, suite 112 in ward 10.

The applicant is requesting an on-sale liquor, limited entertainment with Sunday sales and sidewalk cafe licenses.

If approved, they intend to offer casual dining with occasional live music and DJ entertainment.

They will offer seating for 81 patrons inside and 38 seats on a sidewalk cafe located alongside West Lake Street and Fremont Avenue South.

There will be no business license operating conditions for this license.

The hours of operation indoors are from noon to midnight daily and outdoors on the sidewalk cafe, noon to 10 p.m.

daily.

On October 23rd, 2025, 171 public hearing notices were sent to residents, property owners, and posted on all residential buildings with four more units within 600 feet of the premises.

Notices were also sent to the South Uptown Neighborhood Association.

The Uptown Business Association and Vice President Chugtai.

We have received one response in support from the community regarding this application.

That respondent also wanted to express his desire that Baby Cajun advertise to its customers the availability of off-street parking and to be mindful to remind customers to be mindful of the neighbors when leaving at night.

Found no significant issues concerning the business and issuance of these licenses.

The licenses and consumer services division recommends approval of an on-sale liquor, limited entertainment with Sunday sales and sidewalk cafe licenses.

This concludes my presentation, and at this time I will stand for any comments or questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

I'm going to proceed to open the public hearing.

Christians.

Yes.

Welcome.

And both of you come.

Thank you, Chair Osman, Council members.

Thank you for time this morning.

My name is Daniel Christians.

I'm counsel for Miss Bunta Vilae and Baby Cajun.

Miss Bunta Vila will express it herself.

I just want to say I'm excited for uh another restaurant to open up in the area.

I'm here essentially to answer any questions that may come up or assist Miss Punta Villai, but with that I will be quiet and give her the floor here.

Thank you.

Hi everybody.

My name is Sude One of Baby Cajun.

I'm excited to save C food boyo to everybody and community.

If anybody has any question or one sum C food boyo, just letting me know.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

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

See now, close the public here and recognize Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I will move this item for approval.

I'm really excited to see the former Buffalo Wild Wing space right in Uptown, have a new restaurant.

And it's been so great seeing just in the last few weeks several new restaurants coming through out for approval in Uptown.

Last week and now you and it's great.

It's really wonderful to see your activation of the Westlake Street Corridor.

So thank you so much for doing business in the area.

And I'll move this item for approval.

Thank you.

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

Aye.

And those opposed say nay.

I have it, and the motion carries.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yep.

Uh next uh is we have public heating we have is an extended hours operation license.

Obviously, submitted by U Tobacco at 808 Washington Avenue Southeast.

I'll welcome business license manager Amy Lingo to give us pre-presentation.

Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Osman and Committee members.

I'm manager Amy Linga with licenses at consumer services.

I'm presenting an application from Zane Incorporated, DBA as U Tobacco, located at 808 Washington Avenue, Southeast in Ward 2.

The applicant is requesting an extended hours of operation license.

If approved, they intend to extend their hours of operation to the current business, a tobacco store with confectionary section until 3 a.m.

daily.

This location recently opened October 7, 2025.

Continue.

The businesses agreed that for the first six months they will close at 2 a.m.

And if there are no issues, then they will continue to the 3 a.m.

as proposed.

The hours of operation, the current hours for that area are 7 30 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Sunday through Thursday, 7 30 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

Friday and Saturday.

Their proposed hours are 7:30 a.m.

to 2 a.m.

seven days a week for the first six months and then afterwards 7:30 a.m.

to 3 a.m.

daily.

On October 20th, 2025, 44 public hearing notices were sent to residents and property owners within 600 feet of the premises.

Notices were also sent to the Prospect Park Neighborhood Association and Councilmember Wansley.

We have received two comments from the community, both of which are in opposition.

Their concerns are the proposed hours being too late, negative impact on nightlife, and the promoting of the use of tobacco.

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

The second police precinct met with the owner and have signed off on their security and safety plan.

The police also commented that the owners have worked closely with them at their sister location and have been very responsive to any of their needs, whether for problems with late night crowds or providing video evidence to help identify issues that are in proximity but not necessarily related to their original business.

No significant issues concerning this business and issue of the licenses have been found.

The licenses and consumer services division recommends approval of the extended hours of operation license, with the exception of them being open till 2 a.m.

for the first six months and then 3 a.m.

afterwards if there are no issues.

This concludes my presentation.

At this time, I will stand for any comments or questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

I'm going to proceed to open the public hearing and um I see here the you tobacco Mustafa.

Welcome.

Good morning.

I'm Mustafa Said.

I'm one of the owners of B-Tobacco.

We're a family-owned business.

Fortunately, my dad wasn't feeling too well today to come with me, so it's just me today.

We're here applying for an extended hours of operation until 3 a.m.

We've done it for another business for about 25 years.

We've been good at it.

So any questions?

No.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Are there anyone who would like to speak?

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

And uh if I can uh have uh manager Emilingo, I do have a few questions.

I think the concern from the residents are valid because this area uh sometimes uh we have uh crimes that take place on here.

Um I know the business has been around for for a while and and hasn't been any problem, but uh what is the current hours they have right now?

Is it until the current hours for this location is 7 30 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Sunday through Thursday, 7 30 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

Friday and Saturday.

It is of note that in proximity to this location, there are other extended hours until 3 a.m.

The CVS and the raisin cannons are practically next door, and there are approximately eight um bars with 2 a.m.

licenses within um several blocks as well.

But the current locations for the zoning of the area are uh 10 p.m.

closure Sunday through Thursday, 11 p.m.

Friday and Saturday.

Okay.

Wonderful and um this first six months is until two and then three.

Okay, that's correct.

Yeah, all right.

Um apologize, uh, Councilmember Jenkins.

I know you're a short question.

Or thank you.

I um will approve this item, but also uh definitely talk to the owner and say that you know uh safety is very important in Dickingtown students and um we'll um hopefully uh assess those six months and see how things go and then come back and decide where we go from there.

But with that motion, uh all those in favor say aye.

And those uh opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Thank you so much.

All right, uh next item is we have uh uh another extended hours operational license application submitted by SIP of Silk at 333 Horan Boulevard.

Uh welcome Ben Zenel from Business.

Did I say that right?

You actually did.

Yes, our business license to give us presentation.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Osman and committee committee members.

I am licensed inspector Ben Zinnell with licenses and consumer services.

I'm presenting an application from Sip of Silk Incorporation, doing business as a Sip of Silk, located at 333 here on Boulevard Southeast in Ward 2.

The applicant is requesting an extended hours of operation license.

If approved, they intend to extend the hours of their operation to their current business, which is a coffee house and cafe.

The serves food and non-alcoholic drinks with no live entertainment.

They are asking for approval to be open till 11 p.m.

Sunday through Thursday until midnight on Friday and Saturday.

Current hours are just till 10 p.m.

Um Sunday through Thursday until 11 p.m.

Friday and Saturday.

They're just proposing the one additional hour.

So to be open till 11 p.m.

on weekdays and midnight on weekends.

On October 20th, 36 public hearing notices were sent to residents and property owners within 600 feet of the premises.

Notices were also sent to the Prospect Park Neighborhood Association and Councilmember Wansley.

We have received no comment from the community.

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

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

The MPD second precinct met with the business and found no issues and signed off on their safety and security plan.

The licenses and consumer service division recommends approval of an extended hours of operation license.

This concludes my presentation at this time, and I will stand for any comments or questions.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

I'm going to proceed to open the public hearing and recognize Ahmed.

Yes, sir.

Come on.

Abdul Hamid.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah, good morning, everyone.

My name is Ahmed.

I'm one of the owners of the new cafe open at Sip of Silk.

Just wanted to obviously apply for the extended license hour.

You know, to welcome you know anyone that wants to come in.

You know, we're just the coffee house we serve panini press sandwiches, um waffles, variety of pastries, hopefully coming soon, and obviously a variety of uh of drinks.

So yeah, just hoping uh everything goes well.

And um just want to say, Ms.

Chowdhury is very nice to see you last week.

Um on the grand opening, so thank you so much.

And if you guys have any comments or concern, just let me know.

Right.

Thank you so much uh for your testimony.

I bet anyone who would like to speak on this item seeing none, recognize council member uh Feist Chair Chowdhury.

Thank you, Chair Osman, and thank you so much for opening up this business.

Uh I understand that this is a business that you opened up with your wife, uh, my cousin, your cousin, and your family.

Yes, but I I think I got a chance to meet your wife.

Um, um the other owner is.

Okay.

Sorry.

I met somebody's wife.

She's like, I'm so and so's wife, but it was not your wife.

Oh, yeah.

Whoever that was, she was lovely.

Um I met somebody's wife.

But I am really excited to move this forward for approval, because I think this part of campus needs a type of coffee shop like this, but also just having an area that's open longer for students to study and also on the weekends.

Not everybody goes out and drinks, and so having a place where you can come together and gather on the weekends and have coffee, have a panini, I think it's a really great addition to campus life.

So thank you for opening up your business, and I wish you good luck.

All right.

Um I just want to make sure that I close the public hearing.

On that motion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye, and those opposed say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Next, we have a public hearing for 2025 levy for special assessment.

I'll welcome uh Nick Macrino from regulatory services to present that.

Welcome.

All right.

Uh good morning, Chair Osman and committee members.

I'm Nick McGrino from regulatory services here to present the uh 2025 special assessment levy for property-related violations.

Um this is an annual item that we do to approve all of the unpaid fees and fines that were issued by several city departments for things like administrative citations, reinspection fees, um, nuisance abatement, which includes things like mowing lawns, picking up trash, cutting vegetation, boarding buildings.

Uh, it also includes the vacant building registration, property demolition, and renter relocation assistance.

As part of this process, we send notice of intent to assess letters throughout the year.

Um, that gives people the opportunity to appeal their assessments to an administrative hearing officer.

We had 22 of those hearings in 2025, um, with one exception that I'll talk about in a few minutes.

Uh that notice of intent to assess letter outlines people's options for prepayment, appeal to district court or going to an administrative hearing officer.

It also mentions the um interest rate that are uh that's applied to special assessments.

Uh we did have a total levy.

This is as of October 31st of about 4.2 million dollars.

This includes um, you know, all the different things that are listed under there.

We did have a few new items this year.

The first item that I draw your attention to is the public health cleanup that's conducted under a different state statute than the rest of the assessments that are part of the levy.

There's no interest applied to that one, and there's also no public hearing requirement.

It's a little bit less prescriptive than the regular statute that we assess these under.

Um we did give the property owner an opportunity to file a written objection by October 20th, which we didn't receive, but it is part of the levy that's being considered here today.

We also have uh administrative citations from public works, which we haven't done in a few years.

This is for the combined sewer overflow and rain leader disconnect program.

That's the uh program where we're trying to get private property owners to disconnect their uh storm water drainage from the sanitary sewer, and they've started issuing citations that are accessible for uh that violation again.

And then the uh third new thing is that we have the prolonged vacancy enforcement administrative citations.

Those are regular chapter two administrative citations, but those were issued pursuant to a policy change and ordinance change about a year ago, where we take properties off the vacant building registration after two years and instead move to issuing monthly administrative citations, and those are starting to now work their way through the process, and we have a little under 400,000 dollars that are associated with that program.

And I believe we do have a presentation coming up uh from inspection services, if not the next bizycle meeting, um, then the next one.

Um, and I would also note uh with the time change that we had.

Uh typically this meeting is at 1.30.

Um, there were notices that went out that had 130 on them.

Um, and so I will be back at 1.30.

And if anybody does appear for that, um I'll be prepared to uh settle those cases, or if we're not able to settle, we would reset them to next year to make sure that we still meet that public hearing requirement.

And I'd be happy to stand for any questions that you might have.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

Um I will um open the public hearing and see if anyone who would like to speak on this item.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Council Council members.

Um, I am Claire Glenn.

I'm Hamoodi Sabria's attorney.

It's my understanding that the city is seeking to levy fines assessed against Mr.

Sabri's property in the capacity of the corporate entity, which is the MS properties.

I did just want to note several things for your consideration.

First, um Mr.

Sabri has been fined personally for these expenses, and those administrative hearings are currently pending.

We have an administrative hearing set for November 21st, in which I'm representing Mr.

Sabri.

Um the city also, in addition, sued Mr.

Sabri for injunctive relief and damages in district court.

I'm representing Mr.

Sabri in that case, and Mark Collinbotch, who's also here is representing the corporate entity in that case.

We actually had a hearing just this morning.

Um we had no notice of this tax levy.

Um as you heard, uh, there was one exception to the hearing that was provided apparently to everyone else, Mr.

Sabri is my understanding that he was that exception.

So Mr.

Sabri was not provided any opportunity to dispute this.

Um we just received last night at 4 o'clock PM.

Um, and because I I was with my child, I did not see it until very late last night a letter from Mr.

McGrino that was indicating that this um this meeting would be happening at 1.30 today and indicating that that time was incorrect.

That letter was never provided to us previously, despite the fact that I have been working and communicating with Mr.

McGrino um repeatedly over the past several weeks about the administrative hearing that's pending against Mr.

Mr.

Sabri and his personal capacity.

I'm very concerned that the city is essentially trying to triple dip, not just double dip, um, in assessing fines against Mr.

Sabri, and that in this case it is happening without any meaningful due process.

I understand my time is up.

If because I did not have an opportunity to submit any written objection, um, if I may just briefly continue.

Um if you can wrap it up.

Yes, and and just very quickly just to note in the district court case, which we had a hearing in this morning, it is undisputed that Mr.

Sabri was requesting from the city trash sanitation and port-a potty services at the encampment, and that it is undisputed that the city refused to provide those services.

It is also undisputed that Mr.

Sabri paid out of his own personal pocket to get port-a potties at that location, and it was the city that ordered the port-a potties removed.

So essentially assessing these fines against Mr.

Sabri's uh corporate entity at the same time that the city is going after him personally on multiple uh different venues at the same time, on top of the fact that uh Mr.

Sabri attempted to have these costs mitigated through um proactive services, and it now the city is trying to assess these on the back end.

It's just simply unfair.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um else who would like to speak.

I see Ms.

Sabri walking.

Do you no?

All right.

Um else.

See none.

Uh close the public hearing and recognize Council Margaret Cashman.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I had a question for staff.

The prolonged vacancy enforcement is a new tool that the city has put into place recently.

Um the city council passed the ordinance, I believe, last year, and now this year it's gone into effect.

And I know there are several properties that are being assessed these monthly increases for vacancy, and I'm wondering what happens when they're not paid.

And the reason I ask is because of property that we'll be discussing later in the agenda has I think tens of thousands of unpaid prolonged vacancy enforcement fees.

So what does happen in that case?

Um yeah, uh, Chair Osman and Councilmember Cashman.

Um so people do have the ability to pay that to the city as an administrative citation as they're receiving it, and then if it's unpaid at the end of the year, it goes on the taxes, which is what um this item's about.

It kind of depends, but you know, we put it on the taxes, and if it's not paid, it eventually the property owner will lose the property in tax forfeiture, which takes you know, could take three to five years.

Uh we do receive payments for the county if we get those payments, but it it does take a little while to recoup that money.

Okay, thanks.

It's just a bit of a concern because in so many of these cases, at least the ones in my ward, the property owners are unreachable and um, you know, sometimes not not making these payments, and so I am glad to hear that there's a process to make sure that it does get paid or that the city has the authority to take some action later on when it goes unpaid.

Um that's the only question I had.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Just a quick question.

Um, if you can address um uh the point that was raised about uh somebody not receiving uh notice, uh is there anything you can tell us on that?

Yeah, for sure, uh Chair Osman.

Um so we did send a notice October 3rd to MS properties, the owner of that lot, with the information about what the assessment was for, how much it was for, and how to submit a written objection that wasn't returned by the post office, and so it's presumed to have been delivered.

Um I did send yesterday an email, and I called Mr.

Sabri's attorney when I noticed that the time was incorrect and it does appear that they are here.

Um I do want to clarify.

Thanks for asking the question.

So there are, as Ms.

Glenn was saying, three different issues that are all obviously related, but they are different issues where we have the public health cleanup, and that was conducted under Minnesota statutes, chapter 145A, and we sent the notice to Mr.

Sabri citing that, giving him an opportunity to clean up the property.

He didn't do that by the due date, so the city ultimately went out and did the cleanup, and that's what the assessment is for.

Separate from that, there are administrative citations that are issued by the health department for the non-compliance, and there is a hearing scheduled for that on November 21st.

We do have a pre-hearing conference scheduled to hearing officer this afternoon to go over some of those legal issues, and then there is also thirdly the lawsuit initiated by the city in district court.

Um so there's three different issues that are all obviously a little bit related, but they're they're not the same.

Thank you so much.

I think there's more questions.

Uh I recognize Vice Chair Chowdhury.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Bagrino for answering some questions.

I'm gonna just have you repeat yourself on what the administrative hearing is for on the 21st.

Yes, um, so the uh Chair Osman and Councilmember Chowdhury.

So, the health department issued administrative citations for violations of city ordinance and state statute prior to the lot being cleaned up.

Um there's off the top of my head, I think six or seven that were timely appealed, and those will be considered at the hearing next week.

Okay.

So different different part of our code.

Yes, that's entirely.

Okay.

And then my next question is for the public health cleanups that occurred on July 25th and September 16th, was um MS properties notified that the cleanup was going to happen, and if it if they didn't clean up, like they would be assessed for it before the cleanup occurred.

There was um, Chair Osman and Councilmember Chowdry, there was a yeah, we sent the health department sent a notice to Mr.

Sabrie at his address, citing the state statutes for the public health cleanup, um, and saying that if it weren't complete by a certain date that the city would do it, and then ultimately we did end up completing that, or the public works department ended up completing the cleanup.

And that's a different than this letter dated October 3rd, 2025.

That is the same matter.

Yes, but it's separate letters.

So there was uh I presume a notice of some type before the 25th of July, and then a notice of some type on um before September 16th.

Yes, that's correct, that's different than this letter that is reminding them that the cleanup had occurred and this is a notice of intent to assess.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, great.

And then I this is just a question for our attorneys, because there is a statement made about triple dipping.

I just wanted to hear from you like the city's ability to assess this specific uh public health cleanup and why we're able to do that.

Thank you through the chair.

Um council member, I think Nick summed it up quite correctly that there are three separate uh laws that we're operating under, one for the injunction to uh stop the behavior on the property, one that is a administrative citation for um circumstances occurring at the property, and this one which is costs of cleaning up the circumstance at the property.

There are three separate issues.

Thank you.

And then is there any appeals process for this type of assessment or any type of yeah, any type of appeals process or recourse?

Um yeah, Chair Osman and Councilmember Chowdhury.

Um after the city council certifies the levy, um the property owner can appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals, and that's just specifically for the assessment.

Okay, great.

Um seeing all of that information, while it is uh a hefty uh amount, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't move forward with this, and so I will move this forward for approval.

Thank you, thanks.

Um see none.

Um 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, our next item uh was continue for our last meeting on October 28th.

This is an appeal considered concerning the John Cook House at 948, 18th Avenue.

I'll welcome Andrea Andrew Burke from SIBA to give us recap of last meeting.

Yes, good morning.

Um I'm Andrea Burke and I serve as the supervisor of the historic preservation team in CPED.

I'm here this morning to provide an update on the agenda item concerning the appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to deny the demolition of the cookhouse located at 948, 18th Avenue Northeast.

This property is a designated historic landmark in Minneapolis.

Uh as was previously mentioned, the item was continued from October 28th, uh biz committee meeting, and during that meeting, council members requested additional information regarding vacancy enforcement at the property.

I will now address the three specific questions that were raised.

Number one, how many fines have been issued to the property owners since the building was placed on the vacant building registry in two 2014?

Reg services has assessed a total of 73,906.85 cents in fines.

These include charges under the vacant building registration program, the prolonged vacancy enforcement program, housing inspection citations, and nuisance related fees.

The second question was what is the current fee structure under the prolonged vacancy enforcement program?

The monthly fee for properties under PVE is currently $2,000.

And in addition, late fees of $200 per citation are applied when payments are not made on time.

And the third question is Is the city currently enforcing the prolonged vacancy enforcement program at this property?

Yes.

Enforcement under the program has been in effect at 948 18th Avenue Northeast since December 3rd, 2024.

The decision before you today is whether to grant or not grant the appeal of the HPC's denial of the demolition application for the cookhouse.

And this concludes my update.

I am available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh so we are continuing to take the public hearing.

Just a reminder if you have spoken last meeting, uh uh, you know, please uh just wait.

Uh right now I will um recognize uh Amanda T.

To come and speak.

Thanks so much.

My name is Amanda Temple, and I represent myself and my spouse.

We live on the 700 1700 block of Tyler Street Northeast in Minneapolis.

We've lived on the same block as the John Cook House for more than 24 years.

We've previously submitted a letter to the HPC, which should already be in part of the record for this issue, and we continue to stand by our statements of that letter.

We would like to add a few additional points regarding the statement made by the appellants representative during the previous meeting in order to correct the record.

Mr.

Steen stated that the building was in rough shape in 2014 when it was put on the VBR.

However, this house was updated with a new roof in 2018 and weather type prior to the sale to the current owner.

Additionally, photographs included with the staff report from around the same time clearly show that the interior dwelling was intact.

As Minneapolis residents who spend a great deal of our lives in close proximity to the cookhouse, we would disagree with Mr.

Steen's uh assertion that the client has made significant efforts to maintain the property.

All renovation work on the property ceased once the current owner took possession.

The property owner has not secured the building from trespassers, not performed preventative maintenance, and has not kept up with the uh to make efforts to keep the building weather tight.

The vacant building staff report reflects some of the work that the city has completed because the owner failed to act.

There's still active pending actions regarding trash and dumping on the site.

The 311 reports on the property have increased, and the limited scope of enforcement has not adequately addressed the issues of trespass and open windows above the first floor.

Regardless of today's outcome, this property deserves to be cared for, and the owners held accountable for the safety of that property and the community.

I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next person is Anna McAllison.

Good morning, Chair and Council members.

My name is Anna McCallum.

I'm actually a St.

Paul resident and came across this house over five years ago while just going down Central Avenue and passing 18th to go to a store.

And I love old houses, but something about this house really struck me.

Um I had been in contact with Kevin Reich that when I found out it was going to be condemned and hoped that it would be saved and was really happy that it was saved and put on the historic registry.

Now you fast forward four and a half, five years.

Um I drive by this house every week just to keep an eye on it.

I have a real passion for this house.

Um it's beautiful despite all of boarded windows and the chipping paint, and there's something that exudes historic integrity on this house.

Um over the past five years, I've been going by weekly.

I've seen that the yards, the house has not been kept up in even basic condition.

There's fines for things like grass not being cut, which is just a basic homeownership thing.

Um we talked about the fine schedule, and I don't think that's it enough just to assess fines.

I don't think that is incentive enough for this owner to take care of the property, especially historic property.

Um I had sent a lengthy email, which I'm not gonna reiterate here, um, but I do a lot of historic work and I do uh Minnesota History Day for students and communicate the importance of preserving our history.

Um and one thing I wrote in my email was that since the 50s um we've seen massive demolition of historic properties across Minneapolis, across St.

Paul, and then in the 70s and 80s, we created historic preservation commissions like the one you have here to make sure that buildings aren't obliterated so our history lives on.

That's why we have things like Mill City and the Art Godfrey House here to be able to teach our students, our current and future generations about the importance of our history and the contributions of people who have come before them and created beautiful neighborhoods like Northeast Minneapolis.

So I asked the um committee to please consider preserving this beautiful house for our own and for our uh future generations.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Um, are there anyone else who would like to speak who is on the floor?

All right, I see the applicants here.

I know I know you sp you speak, but if you can just uh some of the members were not here.

If you could just prop it up in two minutes, uh, absolutely.

Thank you, Chair.

Council members Jacob Steen with Larkin Hoffman.

Uh I want to just address the memo uh that you did receive from staff, and it does include some uh I think good information.

And uh unfortunately I think that memo actually underscores exactly the point that uh my client has been trying to make.

Uh it identifies nearly 75,000 dollars in assessments uh and and really underscores that this has not been uh what has been asserted as a demolition by neglect, but in fact, demolition by red tape.

Uh it further demonstrates that the city's done everything within its power to make abatement of this nuisance, which the city has is identified as a nuisance uh impossible.

I would note that this building was on the vacant building registry for five years, and 20,000 of those fines occurred before my client even acquired the property, because this property uh was in fact on the vacant building registry because it was vacant and boarded.

Uh $47,000 of those fines occurred after it was not just condemned first by the city, but then designated as a condemned building by the city.

And I think most disturbing of all, $20,000, more than a quarter of those fines have occurred after this application before you today was made.

So we've made the application and are going through the process that is available under the city's code, and the city continues to assess fines.

Uh not only is that unhelpful and problematic for finding a solution, which we'd very much like to do, uh, but it's unjust and it's unfair.

Uh we, as a reminder, you can't simply just pull a permit for a condemned uh building on the vacant building registry.

Uh there's a process and agreements that you have to enter into.

And similarly, you can't just go and pill pull a permit for exterior repairs.

You have to go through a hearing for a certificate of appropriateness.

So there is just layer and layer of additional process and adding $75,000 to the cost, I think very much uh emphasizes the challenge here.

And I think one thing I would also note is Mr.

McGrino stated, you're only incentivizing this to go to tax forfeiture.

Nobody wants that to happen.

We'd love to work with the city council uh and with the city.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, anyone else on the well, no?

Yes, please come on in.

Thank you for hearing me.

Um I was here last time and I just want to.

Did you speak last time?

Yes.

No, your time is up.

Right.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Uh I decided to let me speak because some of the members were not here at the end.

Anyways, I'll close the public hearing and I have asked if anybody's speaking.

Okay.

Uh please, uh, pre-opened the public hearing.

Please go ahead.

Stay to your two minutes.

My name is Catherine Kemp, and I live in Northeast Minneapolis near the Cook House and have found it to be a valuable part of our community.

And uh I am very pleased that uh our community was able to request that it become designated historic.

I understand the necessity of building our community, including uh building new buildings, and that that this demolition might help there be enough physical space for the uh trucks and things that would need to be parked while and and while uh putting new buildings up along Central Avenue, which is the next street over and across the alley from where the Cook House is.

Of course, our community wants to build and grow.

We also want to maintain our history and respect our history and know that the um that house was part of uh building the northeast community and uh that those were immigrants in the um in the scandinavian area that that lived here long ago and worked hard in uh low wage uh work and I think it's very important that we respect this and and uh bring things out I think that the the community would be interested in building up this uh shoring up this building and and saving its historic preservation thank you thank you so much I'll close the public hearing and I just have a few questions with the staff or maybe the uh obligant um so I'm I'm I'm looking at the uh the pictures of of that was provided um the building looks uh very uh bad shape shape uh and if I if I'm if I'm right I heard this building has been vacant for since 2014 which is like 12 years eleven twelve years um and um 2019 around that time uh was designated as historical site which nothing has been done ever since uh of that and the city continue to to give fines and nothing has been improved um either um pre-shaven or refixing the building um is that is that accurate chair osman that is correct it was um placed on the vacant building registration in 2014 uh council former council member right um had submitted a nomination I believe it was 2019 or 2020 um as I think 2020 and then the HPC recommended uh approval of the designation and so did the city council but it does not appear that there has been any um much work that is done on the property since then thank you and uh uh I guess there was a new owner and then uh did the owners took over um after it was designated or before it was designated how can you tell me about that yeah Chair Osman the the current owner was the owner when uh former councilmember Reich submitted the nomination to uh recommend request designation of the property.

And was there any um conversation notices that's required for the property owners to receive um being designated building being designated as historic site.

Chair Osman yes staff reached out to the property owner in written form multiple times I don't have the exact number but on along major steps of the process to request their input to notify them of the designation phone calls were made to uh you know invite them uh in to the hearings that were happening but staff did not receive a response from the property owner uh after attempts to reach them uh were made okay well uh I think just for me is that you know building being this vacant um and uh as last week we heard that uh the applicant says is it's not recoverable it's not feasible to to fix it um we're trying to meet a goal here uh do you know what the plan is or maybe the they can answer it um if they receive this demolition what what is their plan on on the building is there some kind of development plan they have or have you heard anything about the future look of this site and Chair Osman I'm gonna uh ask a question of clarification um what is uh let me reiterate the question is what is the plan if demolition is approved?

What is the next step um I do believe probably the attorney or if the owner is here would be be best able to answer that.

Thank you.

Chair Osman, Councilmembers.

What I can tell you is if if uh we do get the approval to demolish the building, our intent would be to uh follow through on that and uh bring forward the demolition.

I this was originally approved or or intended to be part of a uh redevelopment uh as uh one of the former speakers indicated.

So the goal would to be uh to construct a uh presumably a new home on the property.

Uh and I and I do want to clarify the timeline too.

Um it was actually 2014, it became uh on the vacant building registry, 2019 it was acquired, 2020 it was condemned, and then a year later it was designated.

Thank you so much.

Uh that's it for my questions.

I will recognize Councilmember McCashman.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

And for the attorney as well, uh the appellants and Turkey, I do have a question for you.

Mr.

Steen.

Um, why did your client purchase this home?

That's a great question.

Uh so at the time it had been on the vacant building registry for uh five years.

Uh he was bringing forward a development at uh immediately across the alley.

It was a, I think it's a former Burger King, uh, was brought forward for a redevelopment site.

Uh the entire site was one redevelopment.

The intent was to demolish this building.

It had been, uh it was in it was derelict, it had been on the vacant building registry for a long time.

After he bought it, it was condemned.

We at the time he didn't have an objection to that because that was his intent was to abate the nuisance.

Uh it wasn't until after it was condemned in the middle of the pandemic that it was uh designated.

So, and and I would note that uh, while we have heard that there were indications that he was contacted, he was not aware that this was being designated.

Uh and this was not something that if he understood the implications, he would have uh would have agreed to, particularly given the irreparable condition of the building at the time.

And how much did he buy it for at the time?

I believe it was $240,000.

Okay.

And why hasn't he paid the $19,000 and twenty-five dollars in fines?

Is that the fines that have been levied since this appeal started?

Well, the the fines that were levied since this appeal started, we assumed would be stayed.

Uh we were not aware that the city was going to continue to levy us as we were walking through your process to demolish it.

The demolition or the orders uh said that we were to abate the nuisance.

Uh so we applied for the demolition permit to the HPC.

Uh and ultimately, at this point, you know, as I noted, it's going to cost a million and a half dollars to repair this building.

We're between Iraq and a hard place.

Uh Mr.

DeBrill is uh very much understands the situation and that we are stuck between, you know, effectively two factions in the community, one that wants to see this building down and one that wants to see it up.

Uh there have been offers uh to buy this for pennies on the dollar.

And I think that's the challenge is uh, you know, this is really incentivizing uh a loss, uh a significant loss by my client.

Uh and the city's further citations will continue to incentivize that.

And why hasn't he accepted the offers to make this someone else's problem?

Well, there's always somebody to uh buy it for a dollar, right?

Um, you know, I I think that uh he shouldn't have to uh accept a loss, uh that is a significant property value.

Uh and uh he should not be compelled by the government to give up his property.

It's not our job to make sure that he gets a return either.

I mean, that was not a smart investment to to make.

Um, well, it was it was very different.

Uh he had very different uh investment backed expectations when he acquired the property that was on the vacant building registry.

They were also different when the building was condemned.

It was only when the city, on its own volition, designated it as a landmark, a condemned gem, uh, that it became problematic for him.

Well, I believe that if this was sold for pennies on the dollar, that someone in the community would be willing to make that investment in restoration of the building.

Or, you know, we don't know that someone wouldn't be willing to do that.

And I think what is so concerning is that the city uh is using its punitive powers to try to compel uh the loss of this property by my client.

Uh that is very concerning.

And we'd like to collaboratively work with the city.

We've reached out to the council members, spoke with them.

Uh the Council President Payne's office yesterday.

We'd love to continue to work with this city, but the truth is there's no way that you could use private dollars to have this thing be anything other than up upside down and underwater.

What does collaboration with the city look like from your perspective?

Just demolition.

Well, I think you know, our goal to demolish would be the reason we want to demolish it is to stop the bleeding.

If there was a way to make my client whole, uh or at least partially whole, I think we would we would happily engage with the city.

I understand the city doesn't have a lot of dollars for acquisition, but uh if there was a possibility to get what he put into this or at least close to it, I think we would absolutely entertain that.

And we we made that offer to the council member.

And uh we're continuously discussing with uh members of the community, but again, you know, there's always somebody willing to take it for a song, uh, but that uh shouldn't be compelled.

My client should be compelled to have to take uh take a property or give up his property for pennies.

I guess I just find it sad that the properties now being given up just the value here is how much can this owner get profit out of this building?

Trust me, there will be no profit.

Well, I think that uh this building was condemned and deemed uh a nuisance and a hazard to public health before it was uh deemed to be a landmark.

So I think that the city zone inspectors uh would agree that this is necessary to uh the demolition is necessary to remedy an unsafe condition.

Okay, thanks for your answers.

And I do have a question for Ms.

Burke as well.

I'm curious about these.

This 19,325 dollars, and if the demolition is approved, will they still still have to pay it?

And and if so, when would PVE end?

Chair Osman and Councilmember Cashman, forgive me, I don't believe I am able to answer that question.

I guess I am curious if there is a member of Reg Services that could answer that question in terms of payment of the fines.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council, Chair Osman, committee members.

My name is Brian Starry, uh field manager with Reg Services.

Uh I manage all the vacant and boarded buildings throughout the city in Minneapolis, including the property that we're talking about uh currently uh as far as the prolonged vacancy enforcement uh the the current charges.

So um when we found out about the appeal, uh the owner's attorney did request that we pause uh citations moving forward until after the hearing and a decision was made.

And so uh based on our conversations with the city's attorney's office, that was the directive.

So we are currently in a pause status uh uh as of November of this month.

So we did not charge a $2,000 citation uh based on the outcome for the the hearing and a decision to be made.

Uh as far as the payment uh of what's been assessed or or already imposed.

Uh that would be a conversation that I would have with my boss uh to figure out what the best course of action would be moving forward on that.

So I wouldn't have a there there is no one size fits all.

Uh we're always going to do the uh imposed the fines, or if we would waive them, it would be dependent on conversations and the outcome of what the council requests, what what the desire for the community is at this location?

Okay, I'll just say I think that they should have to pay what they've been fined, even if demolition is an outcome here, which we have to expect is one of the outcomes that comes out of PVE, either it's remediation or sale or demolition, those are kind of the three things that come out of a building like this, and we have to expect that they'll still have to pay what what was owed for the VVE during the during the lead up to that.

So those are my two cents, but of course you guys will make that decision.

Thank you.

Councilmember Vita.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

Um I had a couple questions for the um the attorney.

Um my question is about did you say that that the plan is to build a new home on this um property if it's torn down?

Yeah, thank you, Chair Councilmember Vita.

Uh, you know, that is certainly that would be the likely outcome.

Um, you know, and and uh Mr.

Jabrill has has acknowledged that that he would happily build uh property or even a duplex or triplex.

I think you know that we would have to look at what you can build on the site.

Uh originally this was intended to be part of the project next door, uh, but I don't think that's the the plan right now.

But as of yesterday, we discussed, you know, what what else can we do?

And I think we're open to all options.

And if that was a uh condition, I think we'd happily entertain uh, you know, what what that would look like, uh, and we would work with staff to find something that meets the city code.

Yeah, I I appreciate you saying that, but uh that's not like why I'm asking the question.

I'm asking the question because nothing's been done to preserve and keep the property um up to parts.

So I'm just wondering where funding is gonna come from and with the price of materials and all the things that are happening right now around building new properties, uh a duplex, a single family home, whatever, I can imagine it's gonna be well over a million dollars to build something new.

So where where is this coming from?

Like where is the funding coming from?

So the economics are really quite different for rehabilitation versus repair.

When when you have a designated building that's brick in particular, you know, our one and a half million dollars contemplates having to take it down brick by brick and replace as many of those uh with the same bricks, right?

It's a it's incredibly labor and craftsman intensive process.

Whereas a new building, uh you don't have that those same uh issues, right?

You don't have leaded paint, you don't have asbestos, uh, you don't have to take it down brick by brick.

So I think that we would work with uh either, you know, Mr.

Jabril would do it himself or we would work with a builder.

Uh and you know, this is a very nice place to live.

This is a great community, and I think we would happily work with uh work with those builders to do that.

Yeah, I mean I understand that.

I I live in a hundred and three-year-old house.

My house is very old, and I know what it like what it's like to just need a porch brick replaced, right?

Versus like getting a block of cement.

And that's something I committed to when I bought a house that was that old, was making sure that I maintained it and I kept it um, you know, with its curb appeal and charm, not just for myself, but for the people who drive by and see it every day and the people who visit it, and that that's like a huge commitment when you purchase a house.

And I don't think any of us purchase homes that old without understanding that the investment in, you know, things that crack or break are much different than um a new home, right?

Or even building a new home.

So I'm having a hard time with this one because your client purchased this knowing that it was an extremely old home that needed some preservation and um replacement, and there's no way you purchased this without understanding a commitment to that, and that it cost a lot more.

I mean, some it took me three years to find someone just to fix the plaster because people just don't do that work anymore.

But like you have to be patient and you have to get the right people, and it costs a little more, but like that's your commitment to purchasing that.

So I'm really having a hard time with you all.

Like, it feels like you're taking the easy way out on this.

It's like um that's old and it's dilapidated, but you're part of the reason for that, and then now it's like we're just gonna get something new and start fresh, and a lot of us don't get to do that.

Yeah, and I think that you make a really good point.

I mean, the expectation when he bought it is that the building was in uh pretty rough shape.

It had been on the VBR for five years, and there was nothing prohibiting him from demolishing it.

And he fully intended to demolish it in conjunction with the adjacent development.

Uh it wasn't until, and in fact, the city agreed, right?

They condemned it within a year of him buying it.

Uh, and it wasn't until after it was condemned that it was designated as a landmark.

And that's when all of a sudden it became very challenging and significantly increased the cost because repairing the exterior of a designated landmark requires a public hearing and craftsmen.

You have to go through the Secretary of Interior standards for repairs.

It's very labor intensive.

Very different expectations than when he purchased the property.

Yeah, but I also like condemned doesn't mean the building needs to be torn down either, right?

Like there's some things that get condemned that the city is requiring you to just go in and fix them, right?

And fix them in a certain way, especially if it's a historic landmark.

So I I feel like you're using condemned like the city was saying tear it down, and then the city said no, it can stay.

No, there are things that need to be fixed in older homes.

It was a historic landmark, it got designated a historic landmark.

That does set the bar a little bit different.

But at that point, if you don't want to commit to it, you sell it.

You get back what you paid for it and you get out of it because you know that I mean that that is how you make decisions as a homeowner or purchaser or whatever.

When you realize, okay, this is a historic landmark, and I the amount of um people who have reached out to me in this community about this house, I'm almost positive.

If he decided right away that he didn't want this, that this community would have rallied together, even if they had to set up a GoFundMe to get this house preserved and fixed up for purposes of community.

These sorts of things, it's not about if a house is going to be there, it's about how they bring community together.

It's about the neighbor that's standing next to you and you're looking at the beautiful charm and the, you know, uh, you're looking at the brick.

It's it's not just about like having a house on this lot.

This community really cares about the preservation of the culture and the and the community and how this house brings them together.

And I mean, I've heard from people who say we bought a house on this block because that house was on this block, and it's been super hard to just watch this house kind of fall apart right before our eyes and not have someone that is directly connected to say, hey, community, let's rally together and fix it, or but to just have an absent person who is not helping, um, or not even working with the community to try to preserve it.

So I'm not saying that the expense is not huge.

It's it's a lot.

Like, been there, done that.

It it takes a lot of money to preserve these things.

But like at some point you have to decide like this is not the commitment I want to make, and that feels like that should have been it in 2019 and not in 2025 to me.

Yeah, and I I absolutely agree that you know you you're you're right.

I mean, the right move here is to sell it and get what you put into it.

This isn't a money making venture at this point.

The whole reason this application is before you is because uh we want to stop the bleeding, right?

We want to figure out a way to get out of this, but we can't, you know, we've we've got these these uh nuisance orders uh saying that you need to abate these nuisances, and we've got the HPC that that ties our hands so I think we would happily work with the community.

Uh, but you know, there are many people in the community who are also willing to again just take it for a song.

So we we'd love to continue to work with uh with the community and even the city if there's a way to try to at least uh you know stop the bleeding and get what he put into the property.

Thank you for that.

I'll just end with you cause the nuisance.

Like you keep saying you want like it's a nuisance.

You caused it.

The nuisance is from you all.

Like it's as the owner, you're responsible.

You know, it there's violations around cutting the grass.

I mean, that doesn't feel neighborly.

That doesn't feel like I want to work with this community when things like that are happening, when you know like the house needs to be boarded up, maybe with mesh boarding and not just regular boarding because people keep going in the house.

Like I'm super active in these sorts of situations in my community because of these reasons.

And guess what works better?

When the property owner is willing to sit down and work with me in the community on making sure that we have the proper boarding, and making sure that they're not continuing to rack up fines because there is gonna be bleeding if you keep racking up fines and not doing the right thing.

Sometimes that cost comes on the front end where you have to make some decisions and do the right thing.

But I mean, a big piece of this is taking responsibility for your role and and the part that you all have played in this, and it doesn't feel collaborative and it doesn't feel like community.

It feels like a blame on the city, and I'm okay with the city taking responsibility for what we've done, but you all need to actually, if you want to work with the city and the community on this, then you got to take responsibility for the parts that you have uh the the parts you've played in making this a really bad situation for this community.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, uh, thank you so much.

Um I uh put myself in queue, and I would like to make the motion to approve the appeal because there are no reasonable alternatives that are financially feasible in the property.

The property is uh unsafe and dangerous condition.

I doubt it's staff to support the finding accordingly.

With that, all that all those in favor say aye.

Or can it clerk?

Can you call the role, please?

Thank you.

On the motion to grant the appeal.

Correct.

Councilmember Vita.

No.

Cashman.

No Jenkins is coming back right now.

Would you want to revote after shift?

I don't know.

Just recently.

I would just withdraw.

Okay.

Um, Senator Color, I would like to withdraw my motion and move it without recommendation.

Call the roll now.

To send forward without recommendation.

Councilmember Vita, no.

Cashman.

Aye.

Jenkins.

No.

Chavez.

Aye.

Vice Chair Chowdhury.

Aye.

Chair Osman.

Aye.

There are four ayes and two nays.

And that motion passes.

Thank you.

Next we have a chavez here.

Uh Councilmember Travis.

And Chair Osm, could you just clarify to the public what it means to move it forward with our recommendation in case people are confused?

Uh what that means is that uh the full council will make the final decision.

Next Thursday.

Next Thursday.

Next next Thursday morning, 9 30 p.m.

Where am I trying to get lost here?

I think we are on the discussion.

Oh, sorry.

The last quad.

No.

Sorry.

We are on our last quadra judicial uh hearing, and uh it's a variance appeal for property at 2821 Brookwood Paris.

This appeal system uh symptoms from the zoning board adjustment.

I welcome Miles uh Campbell from CBET to give us the presentation.

Welcome, sir.

Uh thank you, Chair Osman, committee members.

Um, as mentioned, we are discussing today an appeal of a decision made by the zoning board of adjustment regarding uh variants at a property located at 2821 Brookwood Terrace, located more 13.

Um again, there were two variances that were heard by the zoning board of adjustments.

This appeal is specific to a decision granting a variance to allow development within 40 feet of the top of a steep slope in the shoreland overlay district.

This property is located just uh directly north of uh me Haha Creek Park Board property and the creek itself.

In terms of the existing conditions, and I don't want to go into too much detail.

This is all provided in the materials to you all, but um the home was built in 1927 and had that attached garage off the rear, which you can see in this image here.

The current garage is 18 feet in width and 22 feet in depth.

It does have an enclosed sunroom and roof deck above.

Um, one thing that we'll be able to see from some future slides is that the lot grid does drop off very significantly as you move further south towards the creek itself.

Although the garage itself here is located on a relatively flat portion of the property.

Again, that original proposal that went to the zoning board of adjustment was for an addition to that garage to bring that garage to 28 feet by 23.

Again, you can see here in the blue would be that original proposal of the new addition.

The yellow is the existing footprint.

Again, there were two variances there.

One was also a required side yard variance to basically carry forward that existing sidewall along the shared property line between 2021 and 2025 Brookwood Terrace.

The zoning board of adjustment did deny that side yard variance request while they did approve the steep slope variants.

So again, on the left is that original what went to the zoning board of adjustments.

On the right is the revised plan so far, shifting it to meet a five-foot side yard setback.

It's also slightly shorter in terms of kind of the depth into the rest of the lot.

This also gives you a bit more of an idea, again, of where this is falling on the lot.

And as you can see, as you move to the south, there's an existing retaining wall, where the grade does drop off dramatically and continues to drop down towards the creek itself.

Again, what we're discussing here today is the decision by that uh board to grant the steep slope variance.

What the city code says is that land having an average slope of 18% or greater measured over a horizontal distance of 50 feet with a change in height of 10 feet is considered a steep slope.

We restrict development within 40 feet of the top contour of that steep slope.

One thing that's interesting, I think, and maybe isn't apparent, it's obviously very apparent that south of that retaining wall, there is a very steep slope, obviously going down.

You can see line B here in red is uh showing that kind of drop, a 37% grade change from the um uh 50-foot run from the parkboard property to the retaining wall.

But in this case, that steep slope definition actually also includes um land above the retaining wall itself.

Um the blue arrows there are meant to illustrate what a uh potential 40-foot buffer from the uh top contour of the steep slope, which in this case would be uh 869 feet of elevation.

Um, note here is that the existing garage actually already falls within this um 40 foot area, this buffer around the steep slope itself.

Um, so even replacing what is there today would still be in that you know impact zone around the steep slope.

Again, I'm not gonna hit on the side yard variants that was denied, and there um is no appeal from the appellants uh Ms.

Haginson in regards to that side yard variance.

In terms of the variance approved for the steep slope, again, this was approved at the zoning board of adjustment with three conditions.

Um, one that the approval of final site elevation and floor plans will be reviewed and approved by the community planning economic development department, that all site improvements shall be completed by October 16th, 2027, unless extended by the administrator or the permit may be revoked for non-compliance.

And then finally, that erosion control measures shall be implemented prior to construction and shall remain in place until construction is complete.

In terms of staff's findings for the variance, I would say staff feels that the zoning board of adjustment made the correct determination.

This case, this feels like a very um, I mean, no variance is ever typical, they're always quite unique from one another.

Um but in terms of a shoreland variance, uh, this is one where the proposed addition is in a flatter portion of the lot.

It's not uh proposing to modify that existing retaining wall or the existing portion of the lot that's a steeper slope.

Um again, the presence of that topography change really limits almost any buy-right addition that could be done on this property, especially when taking into account some of our other requirements in terms of an addition on the front of the building itself.

Um staff will note again the existing vegetation, anything south of that retaining wall.

There is no proposed um changes to that area in terms of existing trees, vegetation shrubs that are providing a lot of um visibility blocking, especially over spring and summer.

Um, and then the other thing that we'll note here is just in terms of uh the surrounding context of the creek.

Obviously, this is a unique area where we have that natural context from the creek, but also the urban context.

I mean, this is a neighborhood that's had homes in it's again going back to the early 1900s.

Uh there are some historic properties.

Staff does not feel that this addition is going to impact or change kind of that um local context, physical context of the area.

One thing that I will note is um at the appellants' request, we did take a look at what other variances have been um sought for steep slopes in the past in this area.

We looked between uh Zenith Avenue to the west and Morgan Avenue to the east.

Um, and in that area we found 11 variances that had been taken to the Board of Adjustment.

One of those had been withdrawn, the other 10 were all approved by the Board of Adjustment, and that's from a period between 1994 and earlier this year.

Um again, every variance is unique.

There's always unique circumstances that go into kind of the review of them.

Um what I do think that speaks to is really again the spirit intent of the complain, the ordinance, the the spirit intent of that shoreland overlay district to um serve as a checkpoint really and an extra point of review for these types of projects and also speaking towards kind of the consistency of that view or of that addition from uh the creek as well as in comparison to other properties nearby.

With that all said, again, staff is recommending that the um appeal is denied and again the decision of the zoning board of adjustment is affirmed.

Um I'm happy to stand for any questions.

The other thing I will note is we have received um four public comments against this item, two public comments in support of it.

And we did also just yesterday receive a copy of a public comment from the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, a copy of which was included in the materials online on limbs.

I don't know if we have anyone from the park board here to kind of speak on the project, and I don't want to really color their own letter with my own views.

Um they do note that there are reluctant support variances within the shoreland overlay district, as the district is intended to protect the scenic environmental character of waterways, largely managed by MPRB.

Um in this case, we recognize that the slope itself is not proposed to change, and then an existing low wall would remain in place.

However, it's difficult to assess the potential visual impacts of the proposed project, and they remain cons uh concerned about the need for a variance.

Um they do provide two recommended um kind of action items were this to move forward.

One being that the applicant would provide a survey to the park board and clearly delineate that property boundary between the park board property and the private property in this case.

And that secondly, they would um provide additional details at time of building permitting on how runoff will be managed and an erosion control plan, which um I will just point out is a condition of approval that was originally set by the zoning board of adjustments.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

Uh I'll proceed to open the public hearing and give uh appellant and applicant uh seven minutes each.

Uh please come up and introduce yourself and anyone else who would like to speak.

I'll give them two minutes.

Uh come on.

Thank you, Chairman Heis Hoffman and board members or um uh committee members.

My name is Marsha Haginson, and I live directly next to um 2821 Brookwood Terrace, and I'm here to appeal um the variance um that was granted in the board of adjustment meeting.

I'm sorry, no, it's fun.

So the clerks coming to help you.

If you can pause the minutes, or restart.

We just went over this.

There we go.

Yeah, yeah, thank you.

So um the first slide here actually shows you what the back of that set house looks like.

Um within the past week, this picture was taken.

And um the next slide, actually shows you again what um miles brought up earlier in terms of where the house is located.

It's located along the creek.

It's within this turquoise triangle.

And it the location rises above Minnehaw Creek adjacent to the parkboard property, and there's a new Mini Haha Creek hiking trail that has been started that is now in segment one, running from Zenith to Morgan.

And what that what the purpose of that trail is is to allow for hiking along Minnehaha Creek, very much similar to the kind of thing we have for the grand rounds for biking.

This is a new trail that's being developed from the edge of Minneapolis all the way down to Minnehaha Falls.

And so it's very important that we take that into consideration because that hiking trail is directly behind this property.

Here's an example of where the creek runs.

You can kind of see that green area on this slide.

And what we're looking at is we're looking at if you can see Upton, it's about in the middle of the slide, and then about halfway up is Brookwood Terrace, although it's not specifically identified here.

The purpose of this slide is to show you that the first segment of the trail is going to be 1.7 miles on Minneapolis public works property.

Here is a kind of a blowup of that area, and the red star indicates the house that we're talking about.

The yellow stars indicate those houses that are a block away and for many blocks all the way up to Morgan, where we have a steep slope in the shoreland overlaid district.

This is the back of the property, the visual impact.

I guess Parkboard uses the word view shed.

This is the view shed from the hiking trail to the back of their home.

And the other items here, the other pictures actually show from the hiking trail looking up to the other homes on this block.

Here shows those other streets that I was talking about that had the steep slope area.

This is what the view is from that part of the hiking trail to the backs of their homes.

And you can see that you can see the houses, but they aren't necessarily projecting out.

Square feet and we can see just from this diagram here that there's already a lot of impervious surface.

Uh one thing I wanted to uh one thing I wanted to point out is that the back of that lot comes back and it comes back to a um retaining wall.

Well, one part of that retaining wall is a really a structural retaining wall.

The other part is really a backdrop to a garden, and it's maybe two or three or four bricks deep, and I'll show you that uh in just a second.

If we're to look at why we would want to grant this variance, we'd want to look at the rationales for being able to uh show practical difficulty, and I'd like to show you that we cannot show practical difficulty here from a reasonableness standpoint, a uniqueness standpoint, an essential character standpoint.

I'd also like to uh point out that this um addition is not in harmony with the 2040 plan, and additional consideration should be made for the fact that the park board is building this new trail.

It's right on the top of a steep slope in the shoreland overlay, and it will have an impact on the enjoyment of natural of the natural environment by anyone who wishes to participate in any sort of outdoor activities in that area.

From a practical uh difficulty standpoint, if we look at reasonableness, the big point here is that without the variance, they cannot make reasonable use of the property.

That is not true.

This is a five-bedroom, four-bath home.

They can make reasonable use of the property.

They need to be able to, what they are saying they want to do is to do an addition with a two-plus three-car garage, and uh shift that property out towards the creek and the steep slope and into the shoreland overlay.

My question here is have other uh have there been other considerations about locations or orientations.

Can you build a garage that is uh a non-attached garage?

Um I I really believe that reasonableness has not been met in this case.

Here's the back of the house.

The back, what they want to do is pull off the back shed, which is like a sunroom, uh family room, and a deck over the garage and put another structure two stories high for 38 feet back.

Yep, you run out of time, okay.

Um, what I'd like to do, did did was I able to get any of the minutes back from the we did reset, yep.

Oh, you did reset.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, I have submitted to you uh this entire packet.

Okay, might I just say that I I'd like to finish with the fact that this addition um uh infringes, I believe, on not only my property, other properties, but for the public enjoyment of the creek and parkland, and I do not believe in any way, shape, or form that it meets the 2040 goals.

There are they are not there, and if you look at this packet, you will see the opportunity to um see how um not approving this variance will actually help to meet the 2040 goals that we have as a city.

Thank you so much.

There are anyone else who would like to come speak.

Yes, please come on in.

I'll bring it up.

Yeah, I just want to have the visual after I just okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh maybe we'll just quickly introduce ourselves.

So my name is Jake Anderson.

Um I'm one of the homeowners at 2021 Brookwood Terrace.

Hi, my name is Amy Anderson.

Um I am the other homeowner at 21-28 or 2821 Brookwood Terrace.

Hi, Jeff Hoxie, Hoxie Homes uh contractor hired to work with Jake and Amy.

Hello, Mike Eckert, Arcos Architecture and Design, the Architect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Apologies, I'm a little nervous, so I'm going to read from some notes here.

I just want to start by thanking the city staff for all their time.

Miles has been great in just helping us through this process and working with our builder to find a design that meets our families' needs while also respecting the Minnehaha Creek area, a place that we truly love and enjoy year-round.

We float down it with our kids in the summer.

We walk along it with our kids in the winter.

It's excellent.

When we first stepped into our home to look at it for the first time, we immediately fell in love with its 1927 character and the old Minneapolis feel of the home.

We took efforts to restore the original woodwork that was in the home and make it look like new again throughout the home.

We have lived there for five years and we love so much about the home.

But one thing we've realized is that the addition that's there now for the garage that was built decades ago just doesn't work well for today's needs.

Right now, we can't fit our cars into the garage, which makes our everyday life a challenge, in the especially in the Minnesota winters.

We have three kids in Minneapolis Public Schools at three different locations.

So we're constantly on the go, minivan loaded up with our kids, our neighbors' kids, we're commuting to work, and we're doing neighborhood activities.

And we love using the city's bike trails and system.

And so for us, our vehicles and our bikes are a big part of daily life in Minneapolis.

We've worked closely with the city staff to make sure our design meets the intent of the Shoreline overlay rules, and we've even reduced the width of the proposed garage and deck to meet some of the feedback from the appellant and to further minimize the impactfulness on the surrounding area.

We've really tried hard, tried hard to find the right balance between what our family needs and what's best for the natural area around us.

The revised proposal is a typical two size two-car garage, 22 by 26, which is similar in scale to the standard 24 by 24.

It's just a different shape to meet the side yard variants.

It's large enough to park our cars inside and store our bikes and gear.

It also gives us the added benefit of opening up more yard space for our kids to play without running into our cars as they're trying to run around.

And we're being very intentional about how this new garage will look.

The current edition does not match the look and feel of the home in a meaningful way.

We plan to match many of the home's original 1927 details, including Stucco Cove Eaves, and complementary materials.

We want this edition to look like it's always been part of the house and fits naturally with the character of the neighborhood.

And even with the added space, our home will remain in keeping with the scale and character of the Fulton neighborhood.

At the same time, our property will continue to be one of the least visible along this stretch of Creek of Minnehaha of Minnehaha Creek, thanks to the fact that the way our lot works up, there's more woodland behind ours, and none of that will be touched during this project.

So we really appreciate the previous approval and the thoughtful feedback that helped get us to this point.

We hope the board will uphold the decision so we can move forward with a design that respects our neighborhood, preserves the natural setting, and helps our family make the most of our home and our community.

Thank you for your time and for everything you do to make Minneapolis such a wonderful place to live.

Thank you so much.

And if I could just for a moment try to give people a sense, is it up there?

Can people see it?

Yep.

Okay.

I just want to make sure that if someone doesn't live along this stretch, they can sort of understand what you see as you move down the street.

So as you move from, here I'll try to make it a little bigger.

As you move from Upton Avenue onward, you can see it's very common to see man-made structures and homes not only within 40 feet of the bluff, but also um fully visible year-round.

And so we feel that well, our lot is actually one of the most wooded along that stretch, especially in the summertime.

In the fall, the leaves fall off, everything's more visible.

But we really feel even we're proposing a two-story addition.

Our neighbors on both sides have done three story editions above their garage.

Um also visible from that same trail.

So just wanted to give people a sense that it isn't all just woods in our house.

There is plenty along this stretch that is quite visible already.

Okay, wonderful.

You want to add anything else?

I will add a couple things very quickly.

Um Jake and Amy have always been very passionate about their home when they came to me.

We worked together years ago on a previous home.

Um they love this home, they want to make it their own, and the home is beautiful.

The back garage edition isn't, and so when we started designing it with Mike, the architecture will be a complete match to what the rest of the original home is.

So it works great, it looks good, it will look better from the creek, in my opinion, because it will architecturally be the same.

Um we can provide surveys, we've done all those if the park board would like to see that.

Uh erosion control, stormwater management common practice in every city we work in.

Um, totally comfortable doing all of that.

Um from the original approval, we have uh shrunk the addition three and a half feet, um a foot and a half to the garage, two feet to the deck.

Also pull it off the property line to give more room for the existing trees, no trees need to be removed.

Um the retaining wall doesn't need to be touched.

Um so really trying to get the best functional space for what will fit within the property.

And looking at other areas, I mean, if we were to move it to a different location in the backyard, it's it complies it has to comply with all the ordinances that are required to get a building permit.

So it does it does yes, increase uh building coverage and impervious coverage, but they all fall under the allowables that the city requires.

Yep.

All right, thank thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Right.

I see if anyone else who would like to speak.

I see Aaron here.

Welcome.

Well, good morning, everybody.

My name is Aaron Youngdal, and uh I live within 350 feet of the property.

I'm actually uh five houses to the west, and uh I'm here in support of the variants.

I was one of the uh 11 recipients of a variance in my home um probably like 10 years ago, which allowed me to go from uh like a one and a half garage to a two-car garage.

Still a little tight, but it is two-car.

And my and just thinking about this and listening, my garage door is 18 feet, which is what their whole garage currently is.

And you know, they're proposing to get to I think 23 feet.

Well, if you have an 18-foot garage door, you can't still can't fit two cars.

So I think it's pretty reasonable.

Um along that stretch, I walked the creek a couple three times a day, and so I'm looking around, and you know, Jake is right, there is a lot of wood coverage, woods coverage, and I think that you know, I don't I don't think this is gonna make any difference, at least on my behalf or my family's behalf.

Um, if you looked at the other 11 variances that were given, you know, I'm sure I I'm quite confident that some of the respondents who are in opposition to that and to this project were recipients of those variances, so that's a little confusing.

Um the Andersons are a great family.

As they mentioned, they have three kids in the public schools.

We want that to continue, and I think this is gonna be a great addition to our neighborhood.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else who would like to speak?

See now, I'll close the public hearing and recognize Council Member Tower.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

I just had a quick question for staff.

Thanks for coming up, Miles.

Could you just um share what was the change that was made in the Board of Adjustment and Zoning from the original application?

Yes, absolutely.

So uh Chair Osman, Councilmember uh Chowdery.

The change in this case, again, the original variance, there were two requests.

One would have had, I mean, I'll see if I can't pull up the image as well.

So again, the original request had two variances.

One would have been, again, the steep slope variance that we're discussing today.

The other was a side guard variant.

So the existing home falls, I think uh between three and three point one feet off of the property line, whereas code today requires a five-foot separation from an interior side property line.

So again, the original request was to basically carry that sidewall forward.

You can see on the left here.

Um that area in blue would have been the addition in that original proposal.

In the revised version, again, um, in theory, the existing garage kind of location could remain where it is.

The applicant is electing to shift that entire kind of garage structure to meet a five foot set yet on the um the west side of that building.

In terms of again, the kind of change in the scale for the structure.

Again, the original request was to have a 28 by 23 garage.

This would put it at, I believe the last time I spoke with uh the team at a 26 and a half by 22 and a half.

Um obviously that is subject a little bit to still change between now and building permitting.

Um typically what we do tell folks is that you know it cannot expand beyond the original scope of the variance, but something here where it's being um revised to actually move in response to that variance denial is allowed basically before permitting.

Um so again, a slight change in terms of it looks like again about a foot and a half off of the I guess you call it the depth in this case of how far it goes to the south.

Um, and then the deck also you can see here, so it's labeled as balcony on both I believe two feet off of that, so going from an eight-foot balcony to six feet.

Great, thank you.

And then last question for me is that um this is compliant with all of the shoreline code requirements that we have.

Correct.

Uh so the shoreline code besides the steep slope requirements does have some other additional requirements for um example things like clear cutting of vegetation.

Um, as far as staff is aware, there's no issues with the shoreline overlay district requirements or with other um sections of the code.

I know it was uh brought up in terms of kind of impervious surface for lot cover.

This addition is compliant with um the requirements.

This is a UN one urban neighborhood one property would have a maximum of 60 percent of the lot being allowed as impervious surface.

This is still well below that uh percentage.

Great, thank you so much for answering those questions.

I'll just say looking at staff findings, looking at the conversation with the Board of Adjustment, and then also hearing the testimony today.

I feel like this meets all of the requirements necessary under us as a city, and I also appreciate that the applicant of the variance uh made a compromise and made it a little bit smaller.

I think it's also helpful to understand what has occurred within the neighborhood as well.

Um so with that, I just kind of concur with staff findings and will um move to deny the appeal.

Second, uh Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

Question for staff.

Can you just remind me what uh the you know additional 540 some square feet of impervious of impervious surface?

If that is in compliance with city code, because I heard kind of different um interpretations of that in the two testimonies.

Uh correct.

Uh, Chair Osman and Councilmember Cashman.

I don't have the exact percentage of impervious off the top of my head, but this is below again that 60% maximum for the lot itself.

So that would be of the lots uh total square footage area, 60% of that is allowed to be um structure footprint, pavement, um, even things like landscaping beds that have um a plastic underneath that doesn't allow permeation of rainwater.

Um again, I don't have the exact percentage, but this is well below that 60 percent mark.

Okay.

Understood.

Um thank you.

I'll also support uh the motion to deny the appeal.

Seeing none, I'll ask city clerk to call the roll.

If I call the motion to suggest at your leisure a slight suggestion to the wording of that to deny the appeal and adopt the findings in the staff report.

Absolutely motion to deny the appeal and adopt the staff findings in the report.

Councilmember Vita.

Aye.

Cashman.

Aye.

Jenkins.

Aye.

Chavez.

Aye.

Vice Chair Chowdry.

Aye.

And Chair Osman.

Aye.

There are six ayes and no nays.

And that motion passes.

Thank you.

Now we will return our portion of discussion.

First, I will have uh I will welcome Greg Goldberg from CBED to present 2025 of World Housing Trust for an award nominations.

I just want to remind members that we will have to get out of here by 1.15.

One o'clock, one o'clock.

We can do that.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Chair Osman.

Do you want me to wait one more second?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt.

Please go ahead.

Okay.

I'm conscious of your time frame that you just mentioned.

I'm going to do a very brief presentation and allow you to ask any questions that you have.

Good afternoon.

I'm Carrie Goldberg, and I'm with the city CPED residential finance team, and I'm here to present the recommendations for the 2025 affordable housing trust fund.

The affordable housing trust fund program is the city's largest program that assists in financing the production and preservation of affordable and mixed income rental housing projects with 10 units or more and with at least 20% of the units affordable to households at or below 50% of the area median income.

This year the city received 14 applications requesting just over 24.6 million, and staff is recommending nine projects for trust fund awards that total 14.5 million.

The trust fund notice of funding availability that is issued in June each year contains the criteria established to assist staff in evaluating an application's completeness and financial viability.

All the applications are analyzed using the underwriting standards and criteria that are approved by City Council.

Staff analyzes the project's sources and uses, the financial gaps, the management management and operating budget and expenses, the project's reserves, and cash flow.

The project's financial viability informs whether the project is ready to move forward in comparison to other projects and putting the trust fund dollars to use more quickly by getting affordable units constructed sooner.

Construction cost increases, interest rate increases, and lower tax credit pricing all continue to be present challenges to securing full project funding and beginning construction timely.

And in addition, the increased management and operating expenses have a significantly impacted the sustainable solvency of affordable housing projects.

Increased insurance costs, increased security costs, high staff turnover, and revenue losses due to vacancies or unpaid rents have strained the capacity and continued operations of numerous existing projects and developers.

The NOFA also contains the criteria established to assist staff in reviewing, evaluating, and scoring applications.

And all applications are scored and ranked according to the selection criteria, which is also approved by city council.

It's important to note that the scoring is only one component of the evaluation for the award recommendations, as I mentioned earlier and identified the other things that we look at.

Lower ranking applications may be recommended for funding over higher ranking applications based on project readiness, prior awards, and or other committed funding or criteria as indicated in the NOFA.

Before I highlight the projects being recommended for awards, I'd like to just highlight the success reflected in the numbers on this slide.

The projects this year will create or preserve 597 units.

In order to be competitive for funding through the trust fund, the projects must include deep affordability, support services, rental assistance, homelessness, and larger units.

These goals are all what are incentivized in the scoring.

These next several slides will highlight the projects being recommended, and they are more fully described in the RCA.

I'm just going to briefly go through them.

The first is Linquist Apartments.

This is a 26-unit preservation project that provides 24 units for youth exiting homelessness.

The Wellstone is also a rehabilitation project.

There are 49 units that serve families, 100% affordable.

Zari Apartments, this is the second phase of the 3030 Nicolet redevelopment site, which suffered damage during the civil unrest in 2020.

This project consists of a number significant number of affordable larger family units, and this project received a partial award last year.

This project has done a very good job of continuing to secure its financing, and so we are giving the remaining qualifying award to this project this year.

Penwood Village and Community Market, this is a new construction mixed-use project with 86 affordable family-sized units.

Lindale Avenue Apartments, this is a new construction project with 40 deeply affordable units.

Oops.

That's the one I just did.

Sorry.

Trying to go quickly, sorry.

Flower Exchange, this is an adaptive reuse of the flower exchange building downtown, and that will consist of 110 units of mixed income housing with a significant significant number of units that will have rental assistance.

The Jordan is a 41 unit mixed income rehabilitation project for families.

And I think that's my last slide.

So in conclusion, all the applicants deserve a round of thanks for working so hard to submit applications that incorporate the many city priorities for affordable housing.

I'd also like to thank the residential finance team who reviews, underwrites, and analyzes these projects so we can make recommendations to you, putting the trust fund dollars to work as quickly as possible.

And I'd also like to thank the city's funding partners who also assist in the review of applications and financing of these projects.

Without them, the city would not produce and preserve the amount of affordable housing that we do so successfully.

And with that, I'll take questions.

Councilmember McCashman.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm very excited to see this award for the Trellis Project at the Flower Exchange.

So thank you for that.

And this all looks really great.

Thank you for the presentation, and I'll move this item for approval.

Awesome.

Um great.

Thank you so much, Steph, for uh for your work on this.

I know it takes a long process of all this.

Uh it's always a great C projects popping up and getting support.

Uh, can you talk about a little bit of well stone?

Uh that's located in what six.

Is it is it a rehab?

What are they what is the money for?

Yes, it is a rehab.

So the Wellstone and the Jordan are both owned by Hope Community.

They are both existing projects and have families living in them.

They are doing two phases of rehabilitation to these buildings, and this first phase is doing some of the larger infrastructure to it.

Um the HVAC systems, some of the um more the utility-related items for it.

Um, so though that will be the first round.

I do anticipate, they're not doing uh individual unit um rehab at this time.

It's possible they will come back for a second phase.

Uh, but they are proceeding with just the the major infrastructure for the building at this time.

Great.

Thank you.

Councilmember Jenkins.

Thank you, Chair Osman, and thank you for that um presentation.

It is really exciting, uh, particularly to see the Zarya project, phase two of the 3030 Nicolet.

You know, that site was demolished, I guess, in the uprising, the fires, etc.

And now there's already a hundred units of affordable housing, deeply affordable housing there that has large apartments for the tenants and residents and immediate area, and so this addition is is very welcome.

And I believe it's gonna include some opportunities for businesses on the first floor two are the main level.

So just really excited about the project and um the developer is a woman of color, so it's a great project.

Great, thank you.

Uh seeing no one else uh with the motion for uh councilmember cashman.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those will say nay, the ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Um next item is the nine percent uh low income housing tax credit.

Uh good afternoon, Chair Osman, members of the committee.

I'm Emily Carr, supervisor on the residential finance team in CPED, and I'm here today to present our annual nine percent housing tax credit recommendations.

Um every year, CPED administers an allocation of nine percent low-income housing tax credits, acting on behalf of the Minneapolis St.

Paul Housing Finance Board.

The housing tax credit program provides a reduction in federal tax liability to investors in qualified low-income rental housing developments that comply with federally imposed rent and income restrictions for a minimum of 30 years.

Um I want to highlight that nine percent housing tax credits are a very valuable tool to create deeply affordable housing and provide approximately 70% of a project's equity.

It needs to be financed.

The city can only typically finance one of these projects a year with our allocation.

The city council approved a two-year qualified allocation plan or QAP and procedural manual for this year's notice of funding availability back in June.

The QAP establishes a scoring and selection criteria for the housing tax credit program.

The program timeline is similar to the trust fund each year, and application for this applications for this year's housing tax credits were due on July 28th.

Um this year, CPET is administering an allocation of 1,777,841 in year 2026 nine percent housing tax credits.

We received four applications requesting a total of approximately six point five million in tax credits.

The summary list of projects, amount of tax credits requested, and unit breakdown is shown in the reports attached 2026 application summary.

The applications were scored according to the scoring criteria established in the adopted QAP.

Scoring for each of the projects is summarized in the attached housing tax credit scoring summary.

They need additional credit credits this year beyond what we were able to allocate last year.

And so they came in and requested 1.4 million dollars in additional credits to close their gap and hopefully get to the closing table early next year.

With our 1.7 million in credits, staff are recommending that the 1.48 million in their request be funded, which leaves a balance of approximately 289,000 to allocate.

Claire 5 housing project was a second highest scoring project, and so staff is recommending that we apply that balance of our allocation and award it to the Claire 5 housing project.

Both 2116 Nicolet and Clare Five were housing projects that were awarded through the trust fund in previous rounds.

Claire five is a 33-unit new construction project proposed in Ward 1 that will serve seniors living with HIV and AIDS.

So both of these projects have deep policy alignment with city goals, provide very low-income housing, and low barrier housing for people that are most vulnerable in our community.

So with that, I am happy to take any questions.

I also want to thank all of our applicants this year for their continued commitment to providing affordable housing in our community.

Thanks for that presentation.

Are there any questions for members?

Seeing none, I'll approve this item.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And those up will say nay.

The ayes have it, and the motion carries.

Alright, so next one will be signs.

Yes, last discussion on the item is ordinance related to the zoning code, especially on off-premise signage.

The public hearing for this ordinance was held at the city planning commission on November 3rd, and is now before us for discussion.

I will welcome Sarah Roman from CPED for Peace presentation.

Thank you, Chair Osman, members of the committee.

My name is Sarah Roman.

I'm a planner in CPED, and I will be presenting the sign code amendment for you today.

So about a year ago, staff was asked to examine how signs could be used as a tool to increase vibrancy, arts and culture, and a sense of safety downtown.

So as part of that work, we looked at on-premises signs, so those are local business signs and off-premises signs, otherwise known as billboards.

We also looked at how signs could be used to improve visibility for downtown businesses, including Skyway businesses.

So the majority of the recommendations that you'll see today do focus on downtown, but we also want to call out that there are some recommendations that apply citywide and some recommendations that apply to specific districts or to specific uses.

So moving into the changes to increase flexibility for signs or to make a process around obtaining a sign easier for downtown specifically.

And so there are a few ways that we are proposing flexibility for signs.

We are proposing to allow more signage in more locations, so additional sign allocation on non-primary building walls, so those are walls that don't face a public street.

We are proposing to extend a minimum sign allowance for Skyway businesses and exempting directory signs.

So those would be signs on the exterior of a building that are telling people on the street what's located on the inside of a building.

In terms of allowing new sign types, we are looking to allow light projection signs.

So that's an example of an artistic application on a historic structure, but this would allow advertisement in the form of light projections downtown.

This is great for historic buildings where we don't want to have significant impact on a structure.

And we're also proposing to allow portable signs, also known as sandwich boards, and building wrap signs as a first step on Skyway bridges.

Skyway bridges were also seen as a great opportunity for increasing vibrancy downtown.

So we're carving out some allowances for Skyway Bridges and flexibility in what you can do on them and inside of them.

We're proposing to allow permanent art, temporary art, and temporary on-premises signs for no longer than 90 days, as well as allowing events within Skyway Bridges.

And then in terms of changes for on-premises signs that would apply citywide, these are primarily process improvements.

So we are simplifying the sign permit fee.

It's currently a tiered fee and would just be moving to a flat fee.

We are proposing to revise regulations for temporary signs to a 60-day maximum, exempting sign replacements from permitting requirements.

So if you're an existing business or a new business moving into an existing space that already has signs, you would not be required to pull a permit for that.

And so that's just a cost savings for our small businesses that we're really excited about.

The other thing that we think will be a really interesting and wonderful improvement for the city is an exemption for painted wall signs from regulation.

So the city has a really rich history with painted wall signs, going from our historic ghost signs moving into the murals and advertisements seen along Lake Street today.

And this would just allow these painted wall signs to occur anywhere on a building as long as they meet height requirements in that district for signs.

So we are proposing to remove a roof sign penalty that was initially enacted to ensure that roof signs weren't having an outsized impact on commercial corridors.

But this would remove the penalty and just allow roof signs to be counted in a standard way, the way any normal other sign would be counted.

We are also proposing to increase the sign area allowances for CM3 properties.

So that would allow more signage or increased signage along our commercial corridors for our CM3 properties to match what CM4 properties are currently given.

That was something that was unintentionally rolled back during the land use rezoning property, and so it would reinstate sign allowances for existing businesses and new businesses that were coming in could enjoy that additional signage that would be allowed.

And so the next bucket of changes that we're proposing are around our off-premises sign regulations.

And so these are otherwise known as billboards.

We are at a unique place in time with our billboard system.

So we are doing all of this visioning work around downtown and thinking about revitalization and vibrancy efforts and how billboards can play a role in that.

But we are also looking at a stagnant billboard credit system.

And so our billboard system has been in place for the past several decades.

It incentivizes the removal of billboards from neighborhoods outside of downtown in order to obtain a credit.

Those credits can be used to build billboards within our downtown or within our highways.

But within the past several years, we've really seen that program stagnate.

We're not seeing the removal of billboards that we once were in our neighborhoods.

And so that brings us to a moment where we can consider how we want to move forward with regulating billboards through a new program.

The first recommendation that we're proposing is to retire the sign credit system, so no longer require credits for building new billboards, but to prohibit the installation of new billboards and the conversion of billboards from static to digital in a time limited sense that I will discuss further.

We are also proposing to deter subsidization of vacant structures through a requirement that billboards be placed on an active use.

So after we have new sign regulations in place around billboards, if you build a billboard on your property on top of your building and that property becomes vacant, you would be required to remove that billboard.

And so today we have properties that have remained vacant or have pushed back against redevelopment because they're still obtaining revenue from billboards.

This would ideally prevent that from happening into the future.

We are also proposing an exemption for off-premises signs related to civic cultural and sports events and organizations downtown.

So some of our most loved signs downtown related to our sports teams in particular, currently are not conforming to our code, and this would allow those types of signs like our timber wolves banners to occur legally in the city.

And then we are also proposing an exemption of off-premises sign regulations for signs located on city owned properties.

So that just gives the city the ability to determine how we would like to handle billboards on city owned properties into the future if we decide to pursue that option.

And so to move back to the rationale for the prohibition, the majority of the discussion at City Planning Commission was around the code regulation that states that new billboards would be prohibited and the conversion of billboards from static to digital would be prohibited.

Staff has always talked about this prohibition on new billboards as a pause.

The intent is for this to be time limited while the city undertakes a number of very specific steps.

And so while there isn't the ability in a standard ordinance to enact a date where regulations would sunset, this is absolutely intended to be a pause on allowing new billboards while we create a new system.

And we have staff and policy member support on that.

And so there are three things that we would like to do while we're creating this new system, while this pause is occurring.

And so, firstly, the city is currently completing a CultureScapes visioning process.

So our arts and cultural affairs department has been working with artists and placemakers and community members around the idea of what our downtown could be.

And out of that work is going to come specific recommendations around how billboards can be used as a tool for vibrancy.

The second is that we are planning to move forward with a legislative ask to allow revenue sharing or some other revenue generation process for new billboards.

And so this has been a popular idea in cities like Denver and Atlanta and San Antonio, where new billboards generate revenue for arts and cultural programming, for public arts, and for other initiatives.

The city is not currently permitted to undertake such an effort, but we will be asking the legislature at this upcoming session to allow us to do so.

And so whether that be a larger permit fee or a revenue sharing model or a taxing district, the idea of allowing billboards in a very thoughtful way for a specific public purpose is appealing to our policymakers and also to staff.

The other point of success around these programs in other cities is that those cities generally do not permit billboards otherwise.

And so there is momentum built up and a demand built up by not allowing billboards that allows this buy-in into these revenue generation programs to occur.

CPED would also like the opportunity to do outreach with downtown property owners and with our residents.

So we have met for many, many, many hours with media companies and with billboard operators and with property owners who have billboards over the last year to talk about the billboard program and what it could be in the future.

And where we haven't had the opportunities to speak with residents about how they feel about billboards.

It is not a straightforward issue, it is very nuanced about how people feel about billboards, and so this would just give us the opportunity to create that balance in this conversation.

And so at Planning Commission, there was a recommendation to allow a date into the ordinance.

The memorandum that was prepared for you, that was sent prior to the biz hearing, outlined the reasons that the city attorney's office and the city clerk's office doesn't believe that we can add a sunset date into the ordinance.

If the committee is interested in not moving forward with a prohibition around billboards and just allowing the system to stay in place, then we would recommend that an amendment be made to keep the credit system in place because the credit system is really what's prohibiting the proliferation of billboards, and so at least with the current system in place, we'll have the same process that has been going on for the past several years, where if you're in a district that requires credits, you have to get credits.

If you're in a district that doesn't require credits, you don't need credits, but we sort of stay the same while we examine how we can move forward.

So staff would just ask today that you make a recommendation to move forward with uh the staff's language as we've proposed it, um, but I certainly understand that there's a lot of uh nuance to these discussions, and so I'm happy to stand for questions.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

I will recognize uh councilmember Cashman.

All right, thank you, Chair Osman.

Um I just want to thank uh Sarah Roman.

You've done an amazing job on this, and Meg and Jason, also from the planning department, have just done a really great job, and we've been working on this together for over a year, so thank you so much.

I believe that these ordinance changes will really help with the vibrancy of our commercial corridors, not only downtown, but throughout the great streets of our city, through the cultural districts, through all of the uh small business corridors, throughout all wards of the city, and so I think there's a huge benefit to doing this.

And I just want to name a few of the improvements that we have in this ordinance that I'm most excited about moving forward for approval.

Uh, one is that painted wall signs will no longer be regulated citywide.

Um, this removes the need for a costly permit for small businesses and creates more opportunities for artists.

Actually, one of our vibrant storefronts awardees in Loring Park owns a business that does painted wall signs called Sharp Signs.

You've probably seen them around all throughout the South Side, and it's a really affordable way for a small business to advertise their building without having to invest in some of these really expensive physical structures of a sign.

So I'm excited that we're moving forward with deregulating that and making that more accessible.

I'm also excited about expanding signage allowances in general.

I think that blade signs and the types of signs that help pedestrians navigate a corridor as they're walking around and find their destination are a really important tool for us to improve walkability in our city, improve the vibrancy of uptown and other neighborhoods that we're so deeply committed to revitalizing.

Also happy that billboards will no longer be allowed to subsidize vacant buildings.

I think that's an important value to be keeping in mind in phase two as well, because I think that that might hold back some owners from making investments in their buildings that they should be making that we want them to make.

Um I also am glad that replacing signs with similar ones will no longer require a permit and a fee.

I think that streamlining that process is good for businesses.

Skyways is something that we worked a lot on and creating more allowances to advertise what's up in the skyways on the street level so that the pedestrians and visitors to our city can see what's up there and navigate up there so those opportunities, even for the directories on the ground floor level to advertise skywood level businesses will be an improvement.

And then finally, new sign types like building wraps and light projections are things that I've experienced in cities that I've lived in, like Montreal, which is a very creative city, and really help with the arts and cultural experience of the city, and I think we'll offer a lot of opportunities for artists and creatives to experiment more and make our downtown a really exciting place to be.

So thank you so much for all the work on this.

I'm going to move this approval for approval today, and I'm also bringing an amendment.

So I will explain the amendment briefly and then move that for approval as well.

This amendment is related to some feedback we got at the public hearing at the at the planning commission about off-premises signs, and so some of the concerns were about the pause on new billboards and conversion to digital billboards in the area near the target center.

And given the uncertainty of the future of the target center, we don't want to, I don't want to take away an option that those building owners currently have to drive more traffic and um and vibrancy of their buildings.

So this amendment allows for the building owners in the uh downtown West Entertainment Billboard District to transition their existing billboards to digital only in this specific area, or basically preserves the ability that they currently have to convert their static billboards to digital in this area.

So with that, I'm going to motion to approve this amendment.

I'm going to move to approve the ordinance as a whole and ask that my colleagues support it.

We have very little time left in our term.

And I will not be coming back next term.

So I ask for your support in helping us get this across the finish line.

I also ask for uh colleagues to continue carrying the baton on phase two next year.

I know our IGR chair Chowdhury will uh be you know willing to go to the state legislature for some of the asks that staff have laid out too.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, I've been myself in Q.

I just wanna uh say thank you, and also the I think the the two topics.

One is the the billboard and the other one is the lights.

You know, uh you know, technology is growing, um lights do bring uh customers to your place, and it's uh um I like to see it more uh uh less regulation on that sense, and not just focus on downtown, but what are we doing on cultural uh corridors?

What are we doing on Franklin Lake Street places like that?

Uh, are there anything that's included uh in this ordinance uh that you can highlight on those cultural corridors and or even outside downtown?

Uh thank you, Chair Osman.

And so we do have those a few sets of improvements around um additional sign allocations for our CM3 districts, um, but certainly staff would be more than willing to look at making additional recommendations into the future around amendments for um our areas outside of downtown.

I think downtown's a great um place to kind of test some of these regulations and see how they fit within a the context of a more um heavily urban environment, and then we can move towards our other corridors um moving with the success of this project.

Yes, and also I agree.

I think the billboard uh system is outdated, need to be improved.

I understand that maybe like one or two companies that are probably on majority of it and I like to see it uh more open to uh businesses and um you know um the system uh credit uh which I don't really understand most majority of the time, but it would get rid of it.

So that's a good thing.

Uh so yeah, just uh, you know, let it let's make sure that we are uh create an opportunity for um, you know, not just a couple companies but more like uh property owners in that area, the community owners, the the businesses and expanding that.

I like to see it.

So yeah, let's put a date on time and get that ordinance going.

I will recognize uh, Vice Chair Chowdhury.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

Um, I wanted to see if you could just share a little bit more about how uh a revenue sharing model could operate, because the thing that I am very sensitive to is doing a conversion from static to digital without having an opportunity to have revenue sharing, and I want to get a better understanding of like if we work with our state legislative delegation to get something, what do we seek to get to benefit the rest of downtown and our city and the plan for vibrancy there?

Uh through the chair, Vice Chair Chowdry.

Um, so the way that we are proposing to bring this to the legislature is is in an open-ended manner, and so there are several ways that um a revenue sharing model can occur.

It could be a taxing district where new billboards are taxed on a portion of their revenue.

It could be a revenue share agreement that they're required to enter into, and so a portion of the revenue that's generated from those billboards goes directly to the city.

The state legislature would decide if that's the general fund or into a specific place.

So for example, Denver diverts all of that funding into specific categories for like arts improvement and public arts and festivals and things of that nature.

So that's that's a bit of up to bargaining at the state legislature if they would decide to move that forward.

And then there's also a fee option where the fee for a billboard would be X amount of dollars.

Currently, fees are limited to the cost that it takes to administer code.

And so that fee for a billboard is just the fee that it takes us to inspect that billboard.

Other cities like San Antonio, those fees can be upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that money then goes either to the general fund or is diverted to specific funding mechanisms through city council.

And so where the dollars are really occurring in the billboard market is through digitization.

And so there is this there is a portion of revenue that is generated through static billboards, but there is much more revenue generated through a digital billboard.

And so if we don't do a pause on a temporary pause, a prohibition on conversions from static to digital billboards, we are in essence like leaving that money on the table to have a future revenue generation system that could go into arts efforts or or elsewhere.

Yeah, thank you.

I feel like that's really should be one of our big priorities looking into the next few years, and that's why I feel pretty confident about us having a prohibition for now, and I feel pretty confident about us pursuing that phase two.

I think there's like a lot of deep alignment between council members, the mayor's office, our city staff on that.

I did want to ask a question just about the amendment that's before us because it's essentially creating an exemption for a certain area of the city.

Could you kind of speak to what we seek to leave, or just some thoughts on staff's perspective because you didn't include an exemption in the original ordinance and just wanted to get a stronger feeling for your thoughts on it?

Uh Vice Chair Chowdhury, could you clarify the which exemption you're speaking of?

The city-owned buildings exemption?

No, the alterations for digitization on the downtown West entertainment billboard district.

The motion by Councilmember Cashworth.

Yes, exactly.

Uh yeah, and so this speaks directly to the question of allowing this momentum to build for this revenue sharing model.

Um so originally we had um just considered this pause to be a pause on any new billboards and on the alteration of billboards.

Um we're comfortable with changes to existing signs to allow them to change area or height within the bounds of what's existing, but um the digitization is really the alteration that um was most important to maintain this this idea around creating a new system.

Um and then the downtown West Entertainment Billboard District question was really around the comments that we received at Planning Commission and the concern from downtown property owners that have billboards that this prohibition just would not end and um we would not uh reinstate their ability to have digital billboards into the future.

Yeah, thank you.

I mean, I hear that concern.

I feel like again, you have a trifecta in the in council members, mayor's office, and staff committing to phase two, which is like a huge place of agreement where we those things that's a big deal here in the city of Minneapolis.

How many how many can you approximate how many static billboards are in the downtown West Entertainment Billboard District?

I'm trying to get a an understanding of how many could digitize should we approve this amendment?

Um thank you for the question.

I don't have an answer to that question on hand.

Um we could certainly do uh a walkthrough and and get that information for you, but it's not something that I have in front of me.

I imagine it's um, you know, a handful.

Okay.

Yeah, I think the thing that I would like to get a better understanding of is what's the level of impact that we would see.

How many billboards would we see digitize in that area?

Um, should we make the change?

Um without that information, I'm not able to support the amendment before us.

I do feel like it's important for us to do the the visioning um to also engage with residents, but even more importantly, have the conversation about the future of downtown and the rest of the city because downtown is a huge part of our tax base.

Um, with our state legislature and work with them to see what their appetite is to make changes for revenue sharing.

Councilmember Fita.

Thank you, Chair Osman.

And um thank you, uh Councilmember Cashman for working on this.

I know you said it's been over a year, but it really does feel a little rushed for me.

Um, and it's not because you all haven't done a fantastic job at trying to figure out some solutions, but I I just feel like there's no clear vision.

And I'm not, you know, most of the conversations are about downtown, and I'm more concerned about Lowry Avenue, Upper Harbor Terminal, you know, some of the places um on the north side where there's just like a random billboard.

Like what does that look like for the community, right?

Um, what does that look like?

Um over the Dairy Queen on Lindale.

You know, all these just kind of random one-off billboards, and I don't feel like um what I've had a chance to understand, um, really answers questions that I have for uh the ward that I live in.

The freeway is in my ward, right?

Like, what does that look like?

We've recently seen people take things that have been on display that car that's been there for I don't know how many years over 94 in ward four that has been taken down, right?

And this makes me feel like maybe it could have stayed.

It's art, and we're doing some different things with art in the city now on display.

So it's just a little um, it just doesn't feel clear to me.

And I'm I support what Councilmember Cashman is doing.

Um I I love that you said there's opportunity for phase two or amendments and those things in the future, and I I will be in touch to make sure that um ward four currently and future projects can benefit from this.

I have a lot of questions around revenue estimates and like what that means for what exists in ward four and you know, how do we is there a way for us to offset some of that revenue to help with the growing uh property taxes?

And you know, the things that people are asking about specifically in my ward.

So my office will be in touch to um set up a briefing probably before this next meeting.

I'm gonna support it today, but I really do um want to work with you all on what phase two of this looks like and um and how we can make sure that it's beneficial to communities that have billboards, and it's not this is not just like a conversation that is felt like it's about downtown.

Thank you.

Right, thank you so much.

Uh seeing no one else, I will ask City Clerk to call uh Mr.

Chair.

Oh, go ahead.

I apologize for the interrupt uh interruption.

Joel Fossey from the City Attorney's Office.

Um I wanted to note in procedurally, it might be best to vote on Councilmember Cashman's motion that she's put before the the uh the committee.

I also wanted to note in the limbs file in the staff memo document, there is also on the second page a recommended text amendment or motion um that just changes a little bit of wording, but it's one that the city attorney's office uh recommends for a different section.

It doesn't it it just kind of locks in a couple things on on the wording that we think would be uh advisable to adopt as well.

So um it's certainly up to you as a chair, but I think it might be best to vote on council member Cashman's initial motion, and then we would ask that somebody also move this uh subsequent motion after that.

Is that an option to do this uh on the council meeting or I haven't seen the language?

I would ask Chair if you could send me that proposed amendment.

I'd be happy to look at it and then bring it at council next week.

It was the amendment language that was in the memorandum that was committee.

So the clarifications around events and um non-related events for off-premises signs or uh civic cultural and sports organization signage and also event signage.

There's just a clarification there, and then a clarification around the requirement that there be a contract in place for a billboard to be constructed on city owned property.

Okay, fine with that.

Let's just take the Chair Osman.

May I just speak?

Um, that language is already in the revised ordinance.

So we have thank you so much for that.

Thank you.

A lot easier to all right.

First, we'll take the council member uh Coshman amendments uh can you please call the role.

Yes, on cashman's amendment, council member vita.

Aye.

Cashman.

Aye, Jenkins, aye, Chavez.

Aye.

Aye.

Vice Chair Chowdhury, nay.

Chair Osman.

Aye.

There are five ayes and one nay.

The motion passes.

Now, please call the roll for amended um language.

Councilmember Vita.

Aye.

Cashman.

Aye.

Jenkins.

Aye.

Chavez.

Aye.

Vice Chair Chowdery.

Aye.

And Chair Osman.

Aye.

There are six ayes and no nays.

Thank you so much.

That motion passes.

All right.

We do have one more item left on the agenda.

Lastly, we will receive a report.

Uh presentation on tenant relocation assistant.

I will welcome Nicole Gonzalez from Regulatory Services to present that item.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Justice here.

No.

All right.

All right.

Good afternoon, Chair Osman and committee members.

My name is Nicole Gonzalez, the manager of regulatory services alternative enforcement team.

I'm here today to present on the tenant relocation assistance legislative directive.

This legislative directive requested information in three primary areas.

As you can see here, it's always our goal is to minimize displacement and support renters who face complex housing situations.

So we appreciate the opportunity to respond to this legislative directive and share about the ways we can prevent and respond to displacement.

As it relates to this legislative directive, it's important to understand when a renter qualifies for assistance and how funds are given and recovered by the city.

Tenant relocation assistance helps renters who are displaced due to severe maintenance or repair issues caused by a property owner's negligence.

When both of these conditions are meant, renters may qualify for relocation assistance equals to three months of the rent that they pay.

When a renter qualifies for relocation assistance, we issue an order to the property owner.

They have two weeks to pay the funds.

They can appeal it within that time.

If they do not pay the funds, then the city does.

If the city pays the funds, then the rental property owner must pay back the city.

And if they choose to not to, it goes to a property tax assessment.

The city is only allowed to recover relocation funds from a property owner because the owner held liability in the issue.

That means that events caused by factors outside the property owner's control, such as arson, criminal activity, natural disasters, and issues affecting only part of the unit do not qualify.

The process of collecting payments from a property assessments typically take several years.

In most cases, the quickest timeline for collection is approximately two years.

Some assessments may never be collected if the property owner fails to pay the property taxes and the property goes through tax forfeiture.

As we talk about the recovery rate of funds, it's important to remember how long it can take to recover these funds.

Between 2021 and 2024, we've given 170,523 to displaced renters in need.

We've been very grateful to be able to offer this as a resource to renters when they are facing tough circumstances.

As for the amount of funds recovered by the city, while the amount looks low at this point in time, it does not capture the full picture.

As I mentioned, recovering costs can take years as cases work their way through the appeals or special assessment process.

As of the end of October, there's nearly $77,000 in funds that could still be recovered in the future.

Some of these cases are in the phase where the property owner still has time to voluntarily pay back the city, and others are working their way through the normal assessment hearing process, which will give us another chance to collect the money through property tax special assessments.

There are also some unique cases that further contribute to this number being lower, such as properties that went into tax forfeiture, or the city repaid waived the repayment of funds due to the owner showing proof that they were not negligent.

One final factor that skews this data is the Bell Offs case.

In this situation, residents were displaced by flooding, and although the city issued relocation assistance, we couldn't recover all the funds after learning that the sprinkler system had been properly maintained.

After we provided the renter assistance, the property owner provided proof that he was not at fault, so we negotiated to allow only a partial reimbursement of the support we gave to renters.

Now that we have a solid foundation of the current program, I'll address needed resources and policy framework for an expanded tenant relocation assistance that covers temporary displacement.

As my team and I worked to answer this legislative directive, we worked closely with city the city attorneys.

We found that the only way we could legally provide assistance for temporary displacement, meaning situations where the property owner was not at fault is by the city awarding a grant to renters.

To be clear, the city would not recover these funds from property owners because asking them to pay for relocation when they were not at fault would violate their due process.

Additional staff, such as inspectors and supporting roles, may also be needed to fully implement this, and we would need to conduct a full staffing study to determine how many staff would be needed.

We would use the city funded grant for two primary instances.

The first force majority events, also known as acts of God, such as tornado or fire damage, that are beyond the control of both the property owner and the renter.

Secondly, for actions also beyond the property owner's control that could result in the property being condemned.

Assistance for the renter would go until the unit is inhabitable again.

The tenant has relocated, the maximum length of time for assistance is reached, or when a renter's insurance kicks in.

We recommend three timeline categories for different levels of assistance.

For immediate assistance would be up to 24 hours, an emergency hotel voucher or a stipend.

For short term is 24 to 72 hours or up to 30 days for repairs happening but are but are not immediately resolved, and midterm from 30 to 60 days for major systems.

System repairs requiring more times and reinspections.

There are notable challenges related to these timelines.

These are operational considerations for staff, but they're worth noting as council considers resource needs for such a policy.

First, cutting a check for relocation assistance right now takes two weeks under city processes.

Because approvals are required from multiple teams in regular services and other departments.

We may not be able to provide financial assistance as quick as a policy would require.

Secondly, we would likely need resources such as long-term contracts with hotels throughout the city that could quickly take in people when needed, and we'd want to have multiple options throughout Minneapolis so people could stay as close to their homes as possible.

Thirdly, providing assistance to a larger number of displaced renters, such as apartment buildings that could have 200 to 300 renters will require greater resources from the city.

And then lastly, we regularly have low-income renters decline assistance because accepting the funds may push them above the income thresholds for other support that they receive.

We expect to see the same barriers to participating with any assistance for temporary displacement.

To help us gauge the potential demand for temporary assistance, we found only six cases that were ineligible for tenant relocation assistance over the last four years.

These were cases where arson caused a fire, a bullet struck the building's fire suppression system causing flooding.

In three different situations, in order to correct apply to just one bedroom, not the entire unit, and then lightning struck a building and caused a fire.

This policy is implemented.

We could see more demand for temporary assistance as awareness of support increases and more of these cases are brought to the city's attention.

But as of now, it appears that these few there are few cases not currently covered by tenant relocation assistance.

If someone needs to relocate because their unit is unfit, there are a couple resources available now.

We encourage tenants to get renter's insurance if possible because if they have it, they may be able to get support during emergencies for temporary housing or personal property losses.

Red Cross and Emergency Partners, the rental housing liaison team and regulatory services collaborates with organizations like the Red Cross to provide immediate shelter and emergency assistance in unforeseen events.

Both of these resources may limit the number of times the city would need to step in and provide assistance for temporary displacement.

Based on our experience, we know that early intervention can prevent problems that might otherwise lead to displacement.

Severe violations such as lack of heat, electrical hazards, or fire damage do not always require renters to move.

This is because our team focuses on achieving compliance before issues escalate.

Some of the alternative enforcement tools we use include the emergency housing repair board.

This is a board that allows regulatory services, gives reg services the authority to order urgent repairs or take corrective actions when an owner fails to address hazardous conditions.

Tenant remedy actions and emergency tenant remedy actions, the legal tools that allow the city in certain cases to seek court orders requiring landlords to make necessary repairs to restore essential services, keeping residents housed safely.

Rental license operating conditions, their custom license conditions that can be voluntarily or imposed on property problem properties to ensure compliance, such as more frequent inspections or for a last resort effort to gain compliance before proceeding with revocation action.

The good cause program.

It allows us to identify and inspect more frequently property managers that have a history of mismanagement.

And then portfolio inspections.

This allows us to assess and address systemic issues across multiple properties under one common ownership.

In closing, the tenant relocation assistance legislative directed provided us an opportunity to evaluate how the city can better support renters experiencing temporary displacement while maintaining fairness and legal integrity for property owners.

Our analysis shows that expanding the existing tenant relocation assistant program to include temporary displacement is not legally feasible under its current structure, as it would require charging property owners for situations beyond their control.

However, creating a city-sponsored grant offers a lawful and equitable path forward, one that ensures tenants are not left without support when unforeseen events make their homes temporarily uninhabitable.

Establishing such a fund would require new resources, cross-departmental coordination, and a clear policy framework to guide when and how assistance is provided.

While there are operational challenges to address, particularly around defining timelines and staffing capacity, this approach represents a balanced solution that prioritizes tenant safety, upholds due process, and strengthens the city overall housing stability strategy.

Thank you, Chair Osman and committee members, for your time today.

Thank you so much uh for that wonderful presentation.

Definitely we can learn a lot from improving um tenant relocation program.

It is.

Uh, but we need to get close to that.

We're we're able to reach residents that are um you know dealing with this crisis and help them.

Um but I know this stuff uh staff have been doing wonderful job uh with uh connecting with Red Cross and working with the residents and I want to praise uh uh Dr.

Henrique for for his work on that.

So thank you so much.

That uh see no one else in queue, so I will ask uh City Clerk to receive them file.

Thank you.

All right.

And see you know for the business before us with no objection, I'll declare this meeting adjourned.

Thank you.