Good afternoon. I call to order the August 4th, 2026 regular meeting of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. For the record, my name is Marie Bjornberg and I serve as chair of the commission. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a reminder to silence your cell phones and other electronic devices. These meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public participation and include real-time captioning as a method 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 capture and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. Would the clerk please call the roll so that we may verify the presence of a quorum? >> Commissioner Alexander. >> Present. >> Booty. >> Present. >> Corrado is absent. Melblum is absent. Rodriguez. >> Present. >> Smith. >> Present. >> Thomas. >> Present. >> Wallace. >> Present. >> Vice Chair Mastin. >> Present. >> Chair Bjornberg. >> Present. >> There are eight members present. >> Let the record reflect that we do have quorum and that Commissioner Melblum provided proper notice that they have a conflict this afternoon and their absence is excused. First, we are going to organize the agenda for this meeting. Agendas are available on the table by the clerk. I'm going to read through each agenda item and state whether it is slated for consent, continued, withdrawn, or discussion. So, today we have item number four, 122 Franklin Avenue West, Ward 7, which is for a demolition of potential historic resource and will be discussed. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? >> Masten so moves. >> Thank you, Commissioner Masten. Is there a second? >> Wallace seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. Any abstentions? The agenda is approved. Our next order of business will be to approve the minutes from our July 21st, 2026 meeting. May I have a motion to approve those minutes? >> Alexander moves. >> Thank you, Commissioner Alexander. Is there a second? >> Smith seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. Any abstentions? >> Wallace abstains. >> Fiorini Burke also abstains. >> The minutes are approved. Before I open the hearing to public comments, let me summarize the process for conducting the public hearing. First, planning staff will present its report and commissioners may ask questions of staff. Then, I will open the public hearing and we will hear from the applicant and commissioners may ask questions of the applicant. After that, we will invite public comment and but commissioners will not respond to public comments. If you wish to speak, please be sure to sign up on the sheet over by the clerk. If you haven't done this already, you can do so afterwards. When you come up to testify, you must state your name for the record and please keep your comments specific to the application before us today. If you have materials to hand out, please give them to our committee clerk so that they can be distributed to the commission and entered into the record. Do not approach the commissioners on the dais. After public comments are complete, I will close the hearing and commissioners will deliberate and act upon the applications before us. With that, our first item is item number four, 122 Franklin Avenue West, Ward 7. This application is for a demolition of potential historic resource, and the staff report is presented by Aaron K. Good afternoon, Chair Bjornberg and Commissioners. My name is Aaron K, and I'm a senior city planner in the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development, or CPED. I am here today to present a demolition of potential historic resource application for the property located at 122 Franklin Avenue West. Here is an aerial view of the property's location. And this is a view of the front elevation, which faces south towards Franklin Avenue. It has a one-story section in front, and a six-story section that rises behind it. The building was constructed in 1963 as the Minnesota Protestant Center, now known as the Minnesota Church Center. It was designed by Armstrong and Schlichting, Inc. in the mid-century modern style, and built by Adolfson and Peterson, Inc. Here is an angled view of the front elevation, which gives a better view of the loggia that is on two sides of the one-story section. This is the west elevation. This is the north elevation. Here is a close-up view of the main entrance canopy, which is on the north elevation. And this is the east elevation. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a new 145-unit affordable housing project. If the demolition is approved, any future development of the site is not subject to HPC review. For a demolition of potential historic resource application, one of three findings must be met in order to approve demolition. If demolition is denied, it automatically kicks off the designation study process. I will go over each of the findings, summarize the applicant's argument, and provide staff's analysis. Finding number one states the demolition is necessary to correct a structurally unsafe condition on the property based on a certified structural report from a licensed engineer. The applicant has not provided a report from a licensed engineer, and staff cannot confirm that demolition is necessary to correct a structurally unsafe condition on the property. Therefore, this finding has not been met. Finding number two states the property does not meet at least one of the criteria of significance found in section 599.710 and does not retain historic integrity. The property was surveyed in 2013 as part of a citywide survey, and it was recommended potentially eligible for local designation under criterion four as a good representation of the neighborhood and context-sensitive redevelopment during the 1960s. >> [snorts] >> Based on this previous recommendation, staff determined the property is a potential historic resource. In staff's opinion, the property has significance under criterion one because it was constructed to provide a centralized and unified center for multiple Protestant denominations and organizations across the state. The intent was to improve collaboration and streamline resources across the Protestant faith. Although it was originally built specifically for Protestant organizations, they quickly expanded to welcome organizations from other faiths. This [snorts] union of multiple religious organizations reflects a worldwide movement to foster interdenominational connections that had started in the 1800s and continues today. >> [snorts] >> In staff's opinion, the property also has significance under criterion four as a strong example of the mid-century modern style applied to an office building. It has many character-defining features of this style, including minimal ornamentation, smooth brick walls, ribbon windows with spandrel panels and vertical fins, and simple rectangular volumes. >> [snorts] >> There have not been many changes since the building was built and therefore it does retain integrity in all seven aspects as detailed in the staff report. Uh therefore this finding has not been met in staff's opinion and the applicant also did not um analyze the potential eligibility under the criteria of significance. Finding number three states, a rehabilitation is not economically viable to put the property to a reasonable use based on a cost estimate for a qualified rehabilitation using the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. The applicant considered three options for the property. The first option was to rehabilitate the building and continue its use as an office building. In 2003, a facility assessment was completed that identified various deferred maintenance items including issues with the windows, roof, HVAC system, lack of a sprinkler system, and presence of lead and asbestos. The applicant noted that many of these issues still exist. They estimate it would now cost $21 million to address the deferred maintenance, bring the building up to current code, and offer modern office amenities. >> [snorts] >> In their opinion, this is too high of a cost when you take into account what rental rates are feasible for this area. NTH Real Estate and Project Management also assessed the building and indicated that it is, in their opinion, functionally obsolete and not competitive in the market. The second option was to rehabilitate the building while converting it into 38 housing units and building a standalone building in the parking lot with 72 units for a total of 110 units. The applicant began the part one historic tax credit application process but decided not to proceed because they assessed that tax credits would still leave a funding gap of more than $4.3 million. They also said They also asserted that converting the building into housing may face some challenges as far as complying with the Secretary of the Interior standards, specifically with window replacement and a desire to add more windows in the sections of blank walls for the housing units. >> [snorts] >> They estimate the per unit cost at $342,000 sorry $342,272 for a total of $37,650,000. The third option which is the applicant's preferred option is to demolish the building and construct a new 145 unit building on the entire site. >> [snorts] >> Through this option the per unit cost is $245, $888 for a total of $37,375,000. Staff noted that the property has a large parking lot which could allow for other development options such as a cluster development or a common lot development. Although these options would offer other paths to providing housing on this site, they would not achieve the same density of units as proposed by the applicant. >> [snorts] >> In staff's opinion, although rehabilitation of the subject property may be technically feasible, the applicant has demonstrated that it is not economically viable to rehabilitate the building for continued office use or to convert the building into housing. Based [snorts] on the cost estimates provided by the applicant, it costs about the same to convert the building into housing and build new housing on the parking lot as it is to demolish the existing building and build housing across the entire site. Demolition would allow a higher yield of housing units 145 compared to 110 and reduce the per unit cost making this option more economically viable. Therefore, finding number three has been met in staff's opinion. Staff recommend that the HBC adopt staff findings and approve the demolition of potential historic resource application. Two public comments were received today. One is a letter of support from the neighborhood group and one is a letter of of objection from a neighbor. I think you all have received those copies today. This concludes my presentation and I'm happy to stay for questions. The applicant is also here and would like to make a presentation. Thank you for that report. Commissioners, are there any questions for staff on this item? And please let the record reflect that Commissioner Cradock is now here. >> [snorts] >> Any questions? Okay. Thank you. I will now open the public hearing for this item and if the applicant is here, please come to the microphone and state your name for the record. >> Good afternoon. I'm John Dickerson. Good afternoon, uh Chairman Bjornberg and members. Uh I'm uh president of Diversified Equities Corporation. I'm a general partner of the uh ownership of the um property since uh February of 2026 and I'm also um the developer of the property that's making the new proposal and uh >> [snorts] >> is applying for the uh permit to uh demolish the building. Uh so, of course with uh I think it's no secret that uh with the uh costs, the geopolitical conditions, and the ongoing costs of construction, uh and cost of materials, uh that it's difficult to uh get these projects to be feasible under the current conditions. Uh we did take a good look at uh in fact, when we first started looking at the property, um I was kind of excited about the opportunity to uh maintain the historic building. We we've done that once before earlier with our Stone House Square project in Northeast Minneapolis. But as we started to dig into it um and look at the uh limitations of the building, uh for example, um one problem with the existing building for from the standpoint of housing is that it's a narrow a very narrow tower. So uh uh it's you can't really get a double loaded corridor. So you have to have a single loaded corridor, which is not a very efficient um building for from a housing standpoint. So that would be one limiting factor. Uh the other uh factor would be that uh another factor I think as uh the staff already mentioned is the problem with the windows. Uh there are some blank walls in the property that in order to have housing it Whoop. I'm breaking your breaking your system here. Not sure why this is there. I'll just set it over here. Um so with the window problem with the windows, uh if you start cutting in openings and changing walls, this this probably is a conflict with the some of the historic uh requirements um necessary to uh qualify the building for tax credits, which would be uh necessary if you're going to try to do a historic rehab. So another problem was with the elevators. Uh the current elevators do not meet the uh current uh code standards, are too small. And uh so you'd have to uh probably punch out through uh one of the side walls in order to uh make elevators that are would be uh able to meet the codes. And along with some of the other things that have already been mentioned, the the windows, for example, um when our market analyst Mary Bouget looked at the property, she commented with the windows that are there, they're these um cent- center the operable ones are center pivot windows where they they pivot on an axis, so that these would not be uh suitable for housing because um you can't put a bug screen on, you can't really they're not you can't put a screen on, and they would let rain in and so forth. So, she said awning windows would be necessary for for housing. Um the other problem is with the with the uh existing curtain wall, it's uninsulated wall, and it's rather leaky, uh drafty, and so in the opinion of the contractors, as we dug into it, it would all have to be replaced, which of course is is is very expensive. Um also, uh if we change the look of the the type of window and the look of the window, this would also be uh a conflict, uh it seemed, with the historical standards. So, that again would would also hamper, you know, the ability to have the tax credits. So, um if we [clears throat] in order to uh um have a chance to make it feasible, we looked at constructing some additional new units on the uh parking lot of the site, and um >> [snorts] >> uh that seemed like a good idea. The only problem with that is is that uh if you can try to connect the two buildings together, that would be also violation of the of some of the historical uh requirements. So, if you have two separate buildings, then you're going to have to have two separate sets of elevators, two separate entrances, two separate HVAC systems, two separate everything. And there would be the parking would all be in one building and there wouldn't be um you know, the people from the that were living in the uh other building would have to walk outside in order to get access to the parking and the amenities in the other building. So, [snorts] um adding it all up plus then looking at cost, it just didn't uh look like it was going to be very feasible to go that route. So, um as I think uh the staff already recommended, even if everything went smooth and we're able to get the tax credits and so forth, we estimated that we would still have a over an excess of a $4 million uh gap. So, it just didn't seem like it was going to be feasible, which is why we kind of went to the new construction option. And the more we looked at that, it seemed like it would be an opportunity to uh bring uh more more people into the neighborhood and enliven the the street, um bring some people in that could be able to support the nearby businesses. And uh uh actually the building would have a lower profile, uh a four-story building, >> [snorts] >> uh which would be actually a lower profile than the uh present six-story building. And uh we are incorporating a lot of uh our plan incorporates a lot of uh nice features. We have uh For example, for 145 units, uh we plan to have a 140 units of underground parking with all [clears throat] of the parking access off of the alleyway. So, it won't be adding a lot of additional uh traffic for for the existing uh neighbors. And uh also we're planning to uh include the geothermal heating, which would be uh a very efficient uh method of providing heating and uh uh cooling for the for the property. And we would have an opportunity to to insulate and uh uh have windows and insulation that would be up to uh uh current energy standards. Uh be a much more efficient building. So, that's [snorts] kind of where we're at on it. And uh we have a uh if you're interested in seeing uh what our plan is for uh the property after uh the demolition occurs. Uh we have uh member of the architects are here and they could show you some uh drawings if you if you're interested in seeing that. I don't know if you want to take the time to do that or not, but I thought I would offer. Otherwise, uh I'll just stop and uh see if you uh have some questions. >> Thank you for those comments. Commissioners, are there questions for the applicant? >> [snorts] >> Commissioner Thomas. >> It's not really a question. Um just more of a comment. I appreciate you looking thoroughly through the different options and trying to save the building. Um I just want to say I do appreciate the thoroughness in which you did that. >> Oh, thank you. >> Do other commissioners have questions? Commissioner Corrado. >> Um you mentioned that the built new building potentially has a lower profile. Is there a reason why you did not match the profile, the height, and therefore increase density? >> Well, I think um I could speak to it a little bit, but uh maybe I'll uh ask Joe is uh here with BKV Architects. Perhaps he could uh comment on that, but I think as far as I I mean, I think in terms of shadowing and some of these other issues, uh density, and ability to have uh one-to-one parking, I think were some of the limiting factors, but uh uh I don't know. Joe, do you want to make >> I think that's I think that's a good >> Okay. He says that was It's answer, so >> [laughter] >> we'll uh rest on uh on that. >> Any other questions for the applicant from commissioners? Commissioner Alexander. >> Um I thank you. I guess I'm curious about the option two um the building new on the adjacent parking while also converting, I think it was 38 units >> Yes. >> in the existing tower. Um I think that said it was capped at, I don't know what it was, 78 units or something in the new build and I guess I'm I'm just wondering where that is coming from as well. Like if >> We had a total We would have a total of 110 units with that option. >> Combining both. >> Combining both. The two the new and plus the units that we could develop >> Right. >> It's pretty limited for that existing building cuz it it looks like a large building, but it's actually really very not a very big building cuz it's very very thin. >> Yeah. >> So I think we could only get I think it was 38 30 38 units in that tower space and that's assuming that we used all of the first floor which normally would be amenities and so forth. I would assume that we used all of that for apartments and even then we could only get so you know, 38 units there. >> Right. I I actually I'm an architect too. I looked at this project a while ago and did fit plans and we we ran into some similar issues. I guess I'm I'm curious about though is the the new build that would be a part of that part two approach and why why that's maxing out at it sounds like about 75 80 units. >> 70 72 I believe it was. Joe? >> Yeah, 72 units. >> Um well >> Do you want to >> First thoughts on that? >> This is uh Joe Brown. He's a a partner with the BKV Architects. >> Yes. Yep. Um, with the space that's left uh after you account for zoning uh setbacks, um, the the available area uh giving the new build or the existing building some room, uh we were kind of uh left with a smaller building, I believe, at that point. And uh and then also uh there's a family mix to the units, so they're larger rather than smaller. We could get a lot of units, a lot of small units in that space, but that was not the the program that we were we were given. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other questions from commissioners for the applicant? Commissioner [clears throat] Rodriguez. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I have a question about the figure, the numbers that you presented on this. Um, so for option two, um, for the rehab in the new building, uh you presented a total cost of 37,650,000, if I wrote that down correctly. Um, does that figure include uh or take out what you would receive in tax credits, or does that not include um any consideration of the historic tax credits? >> well, that would [clears throat] be the construction construction cost. That that wouldn't be the total development cost. That would be just the uh the contract, you know, what the contract, the general contractor would charge for for that uh construction. So, tax credits would be a you know, a source, but it wouldn't be a use. That would be the 37 million would be a cost. >> Right. Right. >> And then, you know, if we sold tax credits, then we would sell that to investors, and then that would be a part of the financing. >> Okay. Other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Corrado. >> Uh in the option to demolish and to replace, is the budget accounting for a dismantling of this building and salvaging as much that might have a market value due to its historic nature or is it a complete just wrecking ball kind of thing? >> Well, I think what uh what that would be uh Fran and Group is our is our um contractor, so they would uh salvage what they can, but uh most of the steel uh which would be the probably the most salvageable item is is wrapped and covered with with asbestos, so depending on uh what method uh is eventually used for um the uh demolition and disposing of that, the uh the project manager with Fran I thought that probably the most cost-efficient would be just to take remove the steel uh with the asbestos and just, you know, dispose of it all that way and it would be uh there wouldn't be that much value uh for the steel, but yeah, they they would generally uh try to they'll have a plan, you know, a demolition plan that would uh provide for salvaging anything that could be salvaged. >> [snorts] >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from commissioners for the applicant? Okay, thank you for that. >> you. >> Uh and then I have the next person up for public comments is Adam Schneider. Apologies if I mispronounce that. >> Hello Madam Chair and Commissioners. Um, my name is Adam Schneider. I'm the greening and development coordinator for Steven Square Community Organization. We're this building um the neighborhood we serve the neighborhood that building is in. Um, I'm speaking today on behalf of our specifically our neighborhood development and events committee um in support of this application. Um, throughout this entire process John and his team have been um very active partners. They bought this property in February and they came to our March meeting. This is not usually the speed or um We usually get developers to come so quickly to speak to us, but we were super happy um they did. Um, they have given us a lot of opportunities to review their plans and provide feedback, much of which they have incorporated um in their plans, particularly on preserving the green space on the south side of the property, which we greatly appreciate. Um, and overall we are just looking forward to supporting and guiding this project to best serve the Steven Square and Lauren Heights neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you for those comments. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak about this application? Okay, seeing none I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, let's discuss. Any comments on the proposed application? Commissioner Wallace. >> Um, to me I feel like this this is one of those applications that we want to see where there's been a lot of due diligence and a lot of tees crossed and eyes dotted >> [snorts] >> and obviously community engagement around the project. So I given everything that's been laid out and the and the city staff's very thorough and clear guidance, I would have no problem uh voting to approve this. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Other comments from Commissioners? Commissioner Alexander. >> Yeah, I mean I I agree. I do I do have problems with, you know, demoing this building, but I would commend you guys for um because we've seen other folks come before us that do not make as convincing um and thorough an argument uh dotting the eyes and crossing tees and and showing the math. Um uh it's it is unfortunate. Uh like I said, I I looked at this project as well, and we could not make it go. So, I I I get it. Um but reluctantly, yes, I could I could also support this uh the staff's uh recommendation. >> [snorts] >> Any other Commissioners? Commissioner Corrado. >> Um I used to live here, so nearby, so I used to walk by this building. I loved it. I knew it was not functioning very well very well, but I think it has a character um to it. And I think and I guess my struggle is at what point are we going to have every single building in this city condemned the same way, right? Cuz it just didn't get kept up. That's not the new owner's responsibility, but every building has a life cycle to it, and I think as architects, we know how long things are supposed to last and when they need to be replaced and what needs to be maintained. And it just feels like this is another building that just didn't get the care it needed, and, you know, if we build a new building, is it the same thing? And are we going to tear it down in 50 years? And is that at some point not sustainable for us? So, I struggle with it, not happy with it. Hopefully, whatever comes new is as impactful to the neighborhood as a as a place and as a space. Cuz I think there used to be like a cafe on the ground floor. Um, that was open to the public. And that garden is is very nice. There's a frontage on Franklin, which is is a street struggles for its streetscape, so hopefully it can retain some of that character and and help uh continue the vibrancy of the neighborhood and not grow it. >> Commissioner Thomas. >> I I echo um >> [clears throat] >> Commissioner Corrado's comments as well. This is a difficult decision to make. Um, it is a beautiful building and I really I agree if we just keep tearing them all down cuz it's not economically feasible, then we'll tear everything down at some point. Um uh what I would strongly like to just recommend is that there is a a real concerted effort towards salvage. Um, I know the stone probably be salvaged, the bricks could likely be salvaged. I know that that may increase some of the demolition costs, but um you know, the state of the environment would really appreciate salvaging as much as could be saved. Thank you. >> Other comments? Anybody want to make a motion? Commissioner Mastin. >> I I can go forward with a motion um that the Heritage Preservation Commission approves the demolition of the potential historic resource application at 122 Franklin Avenue West. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Wallace seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Any further discussion? Seeing none, would the clerk call the roll? >> Commissioner Alexander. >> I. >> Booty. >> I. >> Corrado >> Aye. >> Rodriguez >> Nay. >> Smith >> Aye. >> Thomas >> Aye. >> Wallace >> Aye. >> Vice Chair Mastin >> Aye. >> Chair Bjornberg >> Aye. >> There are eight ayes and one nay. >> Thank you. That motion passes and that concludes our public hearing items. Do staff have announcements? >> Thank you, Chair Bjornberg. Yes, I have a few announcements. I am Andrea Burke and I'm the supervisor for the historic preservation team in CPED. Um my first announcement is the August 18th meeting for the HPC has been cancelled. Um I believe that notice went out on GovDelivery, so you should have all seen that. If not, here is your notice. Um also August recruitment um the open appointments is now open this month for new commissioners for the next year. We have one new appointment um that we will be filling for sure and we also have three reappointments that are up. You know who you are. Um I know I've reached out, so um let me know if this is something you're still interested in doing. If not, that is okay, but um applications are being received this month um through the 31st. So also, if you know other folks who might be interested on sitting on the HPC, now is your month to reach out. And if you need direction on where to apply, please just contact me and I can provide all that. Also want to just thank everybody for their participation in the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Forum conference the other week. I had fun seeing everybody there. I was really tired from everything that was going on. Um but it was it was really exciting to engage with everybody and seeing you all there that could make it. Um and I have overall just heard a lot of really good comments and feedback from folks that attended and how much they really enjoyed Minneapolis. They enjoyed seeing what we had to offer. They enjoyed the events. Um and even heard from one person who is interested in applying for a job in the metro area. So. Um but I wanted to remind commissioners who got a CLG scholarship for the conference to submit your documents by Friday or just work with staff, in this case Aaron, on a deadline that works uh between the two of you. Um and I also have one more um item that I'm going to uh transfer to Aaron for. >> Thank you, Chair Bjornberg. I know several of you were with us, but not all of you could be there, so we wanted to share with you the award that the Minneapolis HPC received from the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions uh for best practices in identification and registration in recognition of all of the work that we have done a lot by staff, but certainly with your support as the HPC for the Minneapolis African American Historic and Cultural Context Study. So, here's a chance for you to see it. Um we believe we're getting a media kit from an APC um to share out and we are hoping to to find a place to display the awards that we've received for this project. So, thank you all for the support you have provided and uh congratulations on the honor. >> Can I make a comment? Is that okay? I wanted to say congratulations everybody, but especially to Aaron and the city staff for all of their amazing work on that project. It's just wonderful to be a part of. Well deserved. Thanks. >> I'll echo those comments, too. I feel like all of us will probably echo those comments. >> [laughter and gasps] >> Um, uh, do any commissioners have any announcements? Okay. With that, we've completed all items on the agenda for this meeting. And there being no other business, without objection, I will declare the meeting adjourned. And the next regular meeting of the HPC is September 8th. Thank you. >> Mhm.