CPAD staff determined the property was a historic resource through a historic review letter. The letter concluded that the subject property appeared eligible for landmark designation under under criterion 4 as for architecture as an important and significant example of a Gothic revival church in Minneapolis. And also the property appeared eligible under criterion six as the work of master architects Bard and Vanderbilt.

The subject property has significance under criterion 4 and six as stated in chapter 599210 and retains the historic integrity to convey its significance. Therefore, the property is eligible for designation as an individual landmark. The second is that the subject property was recommended as individually eligible for local landmark designation or listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 2005. Third is that unsafe and dangerous structural conditions have not been proven to exist at the property. And the fourth is that there are reasonable alternatives to the demolition considering the significance, integrity, and economic value or usefulness of the existing building.

Our initial goal was exactly the same as what's being recommended by the staff committee. We wanted to maintain the original building and it was a huge mental leap for me and others to kind of get beyond that. The reasons were uh the historical connection to the existing church, the ambiance, there's something kind of cool about being there with the stained glass windows and all the rest. And we thought it would be economically more feasible, which is why we undertook two separate studies to test those assumptions. And what we discovered was it was not economically feasible at all.

The central metric of the FCA is the facilities cost index also a nationally recognized uh um index. uh and in that there are a variety of categories based on the assessment of cost relative to the square foot value of building new and the FCI for the 700 chapel was a point 68 placing it in the critical category.

Maybe the boldest way to say that is right now, given what's going on in our world, in our city, do we need another husk of a church, empty church sitting there, or even a small struggling church, as opposed to a place to bring people together where they can get to know each other and work for the health of their community?

The most sustainable building is the one that already exists like it's carbon debt has already been paid. Um, and so I think therein also lies kind of the the argument for trying to extend and give this thing another life, a further life um without having to tap into new resources and things.

I guess this comes up in almost all of these applications, but um I guess the ongoing concern about deferred maintenance um it's a property that got sold to a different uh entity and then repurchased. So it it's not on necessarily the the applicant but it it is a challenge. It's a challenge that's kind of prevalent across our country.

I just want to say that I think looking at this as a demolition application, I just don't think it meets the criteria for needing demolition as a potential resource. So just based on that alone, um I do think there's enough integrity. It looks almost exactly the same. Um it's not unsafe and there are reasonable alternatives. So just based on purely the fact that it's a demolition application, I don't think they've met the criteria for dem demolishing.