[0:15] >> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING [0:21] OF BUSINESS, HOUSING AND ZONING COMMITTEE FOR JANUARY 6, 2025. I'M JAMAL OSMAN, THE CHAIRMAN OF [0:26] THIS COMMITTEE. I WANT TO REMIND ALL MEMBERS, STAFF THAT THIS [0:32] MEETING IS BROADCAST LIVE TO ENABLE GREATER PUBLIC [0:37] PARTICIPATION. THEY INCLUDE REAL-TIME CAPTIONING. THEREFORE, ALL SPEAKERS NEED TO BE MINDFUL [0:43] OF THE RATE OF THEIR SPEECH SO THAT OUR CAPTIONERS CAN FULLY [0:48] CAPTURE AND TRANSCRIBE ALL COMMENTS FOR THE BROADCAST. WE ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO MODERATE THE [0:54] SPEED AND CLARITY OF THEIR COMMENTS. WE WILL BE USING SPEAKER MANAGEMENT. [1:00] >> COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE IS ABSENT. CASHMAN. >> PRESENT. [1:06] >> JENKINS. >> PRESENT. >> CHOWDHURY. >> PRESENT. >> VICE CHAIR ELLISON. [1:12] >> HERE. >> AND CHAIR OSMAN. >> PRESENT. >> THERE ARE FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT. >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE A QUORUM. BEFORE WE PROCEED [1:19] TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, WE WILL FIRST [1:25] TAKE OUR CONSENT AGENDA WHICH IS ITEMS 3 THROUGH 13. I'LL [1:31] RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE WHO HAS JOINED US. ITEM 3 IS APPROVING TWO LIQUOR [1:38] LICENSE. ITEM FOUR IS SEVEN LIQUOR LICENSE. SEVEN IS [1:55] AUTHORIZING AN EXTENSION TO SHERMAN ASSOCIATES. EIGHT APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CITY'S [2:04] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. NINE IS APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [2:11] LOCATED AT 3010 12th AVENUE [2:17] SOUTH. 10 IS AUTHORIZING CPED. [2:26] ELEVEN IS APPROVING DEACCESSION OF PUBLIC ARTWORK. 12 IS SETTING [2:34] PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC [2:40] COMMENT 2025-29 ACTION PLAN. [2:49] ITEM 13 IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. WITH THAT, DO ANY OF MY [2:55] COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR [3:00] OSMAN. I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT ITEM 7, I'M WONDERING IF STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO COME UP [3:08] AND JUST EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF EXTENDING EXCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND WHEN WE FIRST [3:13] APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND WHAT'S THE NATURE FOR THE NEED OF AN EXTENSION. [3:28] >> COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN THROUGH THE CHAIR OSMAN, I'M EMILY THROUGH CPED, I HAVE BEEN [3:35] WORKING WITH SHERMAN ASSOCIATES SINCE WE ISSUED THE REQUEST FOR [3:42] PROPOSALS FOR THIS PROPERTY IN 2018. I BELIEVE WE OFFICIALLY AWARDED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO [3:48] SHERMAN INITIALLY IN 2019. AND WE HAVE EXTENDED THOSE RIGHTS [3:56] MULTIPLE TIMES DUE IN PART TO -- I SHOULD BACK UP AND SAY THE [4:02] ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS INCLUDED SOME DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA THAT ARE NO [4:07] LONGER IN EFFECT AT THE TIME. ONE OF THE CORE REQUIREMENTS WAS [4:14] THAT THAT THE DEVELOPER SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR A LARGE SCALE MARKET. AND SHERMAN DID THAT. [4:20] SHERMAN ASSOCIATES WAS THE ONLY RESPONSIVE DEVELOPER TO THAT RFP. AND THEY DID SUBMIT A [4:27] PROPOSAL FOR THAT MARKET ALONG WITH SOME HOUSING AND COMMUNITY [4:32] SPACE. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO GET FINANCING. THEY WORKED FOR A BETTER PART OF A [4:38] YEAR TO TWO YEARS TO TRY TO GET FINANCING AND AN OPERATOR FOR THAT MARKET AND THEY WEREN'T [4:44] ABLE TO GET EITHER. AND SO WHEN WE LAST WENT BACK FOR AN [4:50] EXTENSION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE ALLOWED THEM TO KIND OF PIVOT ON [5:00] THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO WORK MORE DIRECTLY WITH THE PARK BOARD, THE MINNEAPOLIS PARK [5:05] BOARD, WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN WORKING ON A PLANNING EFFORT AS PART OF THE CURRY PARK [5:12] REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION DOING EXTENSIVE OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ON THAT. AND SO THE PLAN OR WHAT THE PARK BOARD'S [5:19] HOPE AND THIS REMAINS TO THIS DAY IS TO EXPAND THE FOOTPRINT [5:26] OF CURRY PARK. DEMOLISH INCLUDING WHERE THE CENTER [5:31] CURRENTLY IS AND BUILD A NEW FACILITY ON THIS SITE WHICH IS ADJACENT TO CURRY PARK. SO THAT [5:42] KIND OF PIVOT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS, YOU KNOW, EXTENDED THE TIME FRAME NEEDED FOR SHERMAN, [5:48] AGAIN, AS THE MASTER DEVELOPER. AND THEN THE OTHER BIG PIECE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH WAS [5:55] OR IS A LARGE SCALE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT, AFFORDABLE [6:01] RENTAL PROJECT. AT THE TIME THE REQUIREMENT, THE ZONING REQUIREMENT FOR THE SITE WAS A [6:07] MINIMUM 10 STORIES. SO SHERMAN TRIED TO COMPLY WITH THAT REQUIREMENT, AND AGAIN, HAD A [6:13] LOT OF DIFFICULTY GETTING FINANCING FOR SUCH A LARGE SCALE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT [6:18] INCLUDING THROUGH OUR TRUST FUND JUST BECAUSE THE SIZE OF THE ASK [6:25] OR THE REQUEST FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS FROM THE CITY OR THE STATE WOULD BE JUST LARGER [6:32] THAN WOULD REALLY NOT ALLOW FOR THE RESOURCES FOR THOSE PROGRAM RESOURCES TO BE SPREAD AMONG [6:37] OTHER PROJECTS. AND SO THERE IS RIGHT NOW OUR COLLEAGUES IN PLANNING ARE UNDERGOING A [6:46] CITY-WISE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS TO ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY NOT JUST IN THIS [6:52] SITE BUT OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY TO ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO [6:58] HEIGHT. BOTH SHERMAN'S CURRENT HOUSING PROPOSAL WHICH IS NOW A SIX-STORY BUILDING AND THE PARK [7:04] FACILITY WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATION [7:09] FOR THE SITE ONCE THE COM PLAN IS AMENDED WHICH IS EXPECTED LATER THIS YEAR. THAT'S A LONG [7:15] WINDED WAY OF SAYING THERE'S BEEN SOME TWISTS AND TURNS ALONG THE WAY AND THE SHERMAN TEAM HAS [7:20] HAD TO GO BACK AND REFORMULATE THEIR PROJECT A COUPLE OF TIMES. [7:26] AND SO THE PROJECT THAT THEY HAVE NOW IS A MUCH MORE FEASIBLE [7:32] PROJECT, BOTH THE HOUSING COMPONENT AND THE PARK BOARD COMPONENT WHICH ALREADY HAS SOME [7:38] FINANCING FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THEY'RE BACK AT [7:43] THE STATE LEGISLATE, THIS CURRENT SESSION TO TRY TO GET THE REST OF THE CAPITAL [7:48] FINANCING FOR THAT. >> THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION. I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THE PLAN HAS [7:54] CHANGED SO MUCH AND THAT WE ISSUED THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT SIX [8:01] YEARS AGO NOW. IS IT TYPICAL FOR US TO EXTEND WITH NO PROGRESS FOR SO MANY YEARS? THIS IS A [8:07] QUESTION I GUESS FOR THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AND PEOPLE WHO [8:15] HAVE BEEN ON BHZ LONGER. THAT'S WHAT'S ON MY MIND ABOUT THIS. IT [8:20] DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE PLAN IS COMING ANYWHERE CLOSE TO FRUITION. WOULD IT BE MORE [8:26] APPROPRIATE TO JUST REISSUE THE RFP UNDER A NEW SET OF [8:31] CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD BE MORE FEASIBLE? >> I'LL RECOGNIZE DIRECTOR. [8:36] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN AND COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN. I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL [8:43] NATURE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE VERY COMPLEX. WE KNEW THAT GOING IN [8:49] WHEN WE ISSUED THE RFP BACK -- I THINK THE ORIGINAL -- I THINK WE'RE OFF A COUPLE OF YEARS. THE [8:56] ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WERE IN 2021. BUT THIS IS A COMPLICATED DEVELOPMENT SITE [9:02] WHERE IT HAS TAKEN THE TWISTS AND TURNS. THAT IS NOT ATYPICAL [9:08] FOR SUCH A LARGE SITE. AND WE SEE WE HAVE MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS AT THIS SITE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE [9:15] PARTNERS WITH MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND RECREATION BOARD, AND SOME CHANGES AROUND SOME REAL BARRIERS THAT WE HAD TO TEST IN [9:20] THE MARKETPLACE. NOW THAT WE THINK WE HAVE THOSE BARRIERS [9:26] IDENTIFIED, WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS SOLUTIONS. THESE NEXT TWO YEARS IS THE MOMENT WHERE WE [9:31] THINK WE CAN GET THE DEAL TOGETHER. IF THE DEAL ISN'T TOGETHER, THEN WE WILL REFER BACK TO SEEING IF THERE'S [9:38] ANYBODY ELSE. THERE'S NOT ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT PARTNER WE SEE IN THE MARKET RIGHT NOW THAT COULD BE AS FAR ALONG AS THIS [9:44] DEVELOPMENT WITH SHERMAN ASSOCIATES AND THE LEAD AND THE PARK BOARD TOGETHER. THE PARK [9:51] BOARD BEING ABLE TO RAISE MONEY THROUGH THE STATE FOR THE FACILITY. WE THINK THIS IS THE NEXT RIGHT THING TO DO. [9:57] >> THANK YOU FOR THAT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. I THINK YES, WE CAN HOLD OURSELVES TO THAT TWO-YEAR [10:04] DEADLINE. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD IF IT'S NOT WORKING IN TWO [10:10] YEARS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN. I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE STAFF ON THIS ITEM. THIS IS LOCATED IN MY WARD. AND [10:17] JUST A LITTLE BIT, MY COLLEAGUES, TO THE HISTORY BEHIND THIS LAND. THIS IS LOT A. [10:22] A LONG TIME AGO, COMMUNITY WAS PROMISED A CULTURAL MALL. AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. AND SHERMAN [10:32] ASSOCIATES WAS THE ONLY DEVELOPER THAT CAME FORWARD. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME WE'RE EXTENDING. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT [10:38] THE LIMIT IS. I DO HAVE AN ISSUE ON THAT. BUT I'M -- AS THE PARK [10:48] BOARD CAME FORWARD AND SAY THEY'RE WILLING TO PARTNER AND BUILD SPACE, IT'S MUCH NEEDED. [10:53] THIS IS A VERY DENSE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE'S SPACE FOR YOUTH TO HAVE ACTIVITIES IS [10:59] REALLY WONDERFUL. I HAVE TALKED TO SHERMAN ASSOCIATE STAFF AND OTHERS, I SAW THE PLAN. IT LOOKS [11:05] GREAT. IT'S JUST THE IDEA OF CONTINUE TO EXTEND IT IS AN ISSUE. SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN PUT [11:11] THIS THE LAST ONE WE DO IT. AND MAKE SURE THE WORK IS BEING DONE. THE HOUSING IS NEEDED. BUT [11:18] MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE SPACE FOR PARK BOARD IS MUCH NEEDED. SO [11:24] I'LL LEAVE THE COMMENT THERE AND I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER JEREMIAH ELLISON. >> YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO [11:33] COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN'S POINTS, JUST GOING TO RESPOND A LITTLE BIT. I'VE BEEN A PART OF DENYING [11:38] SOME EXTENSIONS IN MY WARD. I'VE CERTAINLY ALLOWED SOME EXTENSIONS IN MY WARD ON [11:45] PROJECTS. I DON'T THINK IT'S ATYPICAL. I THINK IT'S CASE BY CASE. THAT'S THE WAY I'VE EXPERIENCED THESE. THE QUESTION [11:53] IS, IS IT BETTER TO HAVE AN INACTIVE PARCEL THAN AN ACTIVE PARCEL? AND THE SECOND QUESTION [12:00] IS, IF WE DO SUBMIT ANOTHER RFP, HOW MANY YEARS IS IT THEN? IS IT FIVE YEARS? IS IT 10 YEARS? AN [12:08] RFP CAN BE -- I KNOW WE TALK A LOT JUST AMONG OURSELVES AND THIS INSTITUTION ABOUT STAFF'S [12:14] CAPACITY AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT I THINK PUTTING TOGETHER A [12:20] BRAND NEW RFP I DON'T THINK IS SOMETHING STAFF WOULD SEE AS [12:26] LIGHT WORK. RESUBMIT AN RFP AND TAKE IN THOSE APPLICATIONS. [12:32] THAT'S EVEN IF THERE'S A QUEUE OF DEVELOPERS INTERESTED IN THIS LOT. IT'S A CASE BY CASE. THIS [12:39] IS COUNCIL MEMBER OSMAN'S WARD I BELIEVE. AND COUNCIL MEMBER OSMAN DID HAVE A BRIEFING WITH STAFF. I THINK SOME OF THIS IS [12:46] CLASSIC LOCAL GOVERNMENT SAUSAGE MAKING AND IT ULTIMATELY ISN'T STAFF WHO ARE TELLING US WHAT TO [12:51] DO. WE HAVE FULL DISCRETION ABOUT THESE DECISIONS AS WELL. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE GOOD [12:56] FOR US TO HAVE ON THE DAIS SO THE PUBLIC KIND OF UNDERSTANDS THE PROCESS. I DO THINK SOME OF [13:04] THESE CONVERSATIONS AS COUNCIL MEMBER OSMAN HAD JUST A FEW DAYS AGO, ARE BETTER IN AN INFORMAL [13:12] SPACE WHERE WE'VE GOT TIME AND EVERY MINUTE QUESTION CAN BE EXHAUSTED SO WE CAN MAKE A [13:18] DECISION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WHEN WE GET ON THE DAIS. I THINK IT'S REALLY A CASE BY CASE AND IT'S [13:24] THE SORT OF THE OVER UNDER ON WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS THE FASTEST WAY TO ACTIVATE A [13:30] PARCEL. I THINK NOW TODAY I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS EXTENSION AND FEEL LIKE IT'S THE FASTEST [13:36] WAY TO ACTIVATE THIS SITE. OBVIOUSLY IN TWO YEARS THAT QUESTION WILL BE BACK ON THE [13:42] TABLE. ONE THING I WAS GOING TO ASK WHICH I'M NOT SURE THE ANSWER TO, BUT I KNOW THAT WE'VE [13:48] SEEN A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, 2018 AND 2019, WE SAW A LOT OF LIKE [13:54] ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEW BUILD. [13:59] IT WAS NOT EASY, NOTHING IS EVER EASY. BUT WE SAW THERE WAS A [14:04] CAPACITY FOR THAT. WAS THIS SORT OF A VICTIM OF 2020, 2021, 2022? [14:11] WAS THAT PART OF THE REASON THIS WASN'T COMING TO FRUITION BECAUSE OF MARKET CONDITIONS OR THEY JUST NEEDED TO GET THE [14:17] RIGHT PACKAGE BEFORE THEY WERE READY TO BREAK GROUND? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I THINK THE ANSWER IS SOME OF [14:25] BOTH. I MEAN, DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS DID EXTEND OVER THE PANDEMIC PERIOD. SO CREDIT MARKETS AND [14:32] THINGS WERE MORE CHALLENGING THEN. BUT I ALSO, YEAH, GOING BACK TO THE FACT THAT THE [14:37] PROJECT ITSELF AS CONCEIVED, YOU KNOW, CHANGED AND WENT THROUGH A FEW DIFFERENT KIND OF [14:43] FORMULATIONS IN TERMS OF THE USES, THE USES CHANGED, AND ALSO JUST THE SIZE AND SCALE IN TERMS [14:49] OF THE HOUSING. SO THE FINANCING, AND ULTIMATELY, THE [14:54] FINANCING IS WHAT MAKES A PROJECT GO FORWARD. SO THAT WAS CHALLENGED BOTH BY THE MARKET [15:00] CONDITIONS BUT ALSO BY THE PROJECT ITSELF CHANGING AND KIND [15:07] OF SIZE, SHAPE AND FORM OVER THE YEARS. >> FOR SURE. I ASK FOR THAT CLARIFICATION JUST TO LET ME [15:13] COLLEAGUES KNOW THAT NOT EVERY FOUR, FIVE YEARS ARE CREATED EQUAL. YOU MIGHT HAVE A PROJECT THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TAKING [15:20] FOREVER. IT JUST MAY HAVE HIT TWO YEARS WHERE NOTHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PROJECT HAD GOING ON. [15:27] OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S THOSE CONDITIONS WHERE IT'S LIKE THIS IS DRAGGING ON AND WE NEED TO MOVE ON AND LET SOMEBODY ELSE [15:33] TAKE A SHOT AT IT. THAT'S THE FINAL POINT. THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. I WAS [15:40] GOING TO SPEAK TO A DIFFERENT ITEM. I WAS GOING TO SPEAK TO [15:45] ITEM NUMBER 7, WHICH IS AN [15:51] AMENDMENT, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I WANTED TO UPLIFT THIS BECAUSE THERE WAS [15:57] DISCUSSION IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT I WAS A PART OF AND IT WAS APPROVED. IT'S A [16:03] REQUEST TO TAKE THESE PARCELS [16:09] ALONGSIDE LAKE STREET FROM OR FROM THE DESIGNATION OF INTERIOR [16:14] 3 URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND BRING IT UP TO CORRIDOR 6. OH. ITEM [16:21] NUMBER 9? >> I THINK SO. >> SORRY. MY BAD. THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION. >> IT'S ALL GOOD. [16:29] >> BUT I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS BRINGING FORWARD [16:36] THIS REQUEST FOR A POTENTIAL PROJECT IN A SET OF LOTS. ONE I BELIEVE IS VACANT. AND JUST [16:44] BRING SOME MUC NEEDED ACTIVATION INTO THIS AREA, HOUSING INTO THIS AREA. AFTER WE [16:50] APPROVE THIS WILL ACTUALLY BE SOMETHING THAT OUR CPED DEPARTMENT SENDS OVER TO THE MET [16:55] COUNCIL FOR GREATER APPROVAL. I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS BECAUSE IN A MOMENT IN TIME WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW [17:02] WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS HOUSING CRISIS, WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT OUR COMPREHENSIVE [17:07] PLAN AND WORK WITH THIS APPLICANT, COME BEFORE ITERATIVE [17:13] BODY LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SAY YES, THIS TYPE OF REZONING MAKES SENSE. [17:18] ESPECIALLY IN A CORRIDOR THAT GOES ON TO THE BLUE LINE AND THE [17:24] GREEN LINE CONNECTIONS. AND SO JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT. DIDN'T WANT IT TO LET PASS [17:30] THROUGH CONSENT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A BIG DEAL. THERE'S ALSO [17:35] BEEN QUITE A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT THAT COMMITTEE MEMBERS MIGHT HAVE SEEN. [17:41] >> ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS, I WILL APPROVE ALL [17:46] CONSENT AGENDA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AND THOSE OPPOSE SAY NAY. THE [17:51] AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES. NOW WE WILL BE PROCEEDING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF OUR AGENDA. ITEM 1 IS [18:01] A PUBLIC HEARING FOR LAND SCALE FOR TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT [18:07] CENTENNIAL PLACE AT 9th AND 10th STREET SOUTH. I WILL WELCOME [18:12] EMILY STERN FROM CPED TO GIVE THAT PRESENTATION. WELCOME. >> THANK YOU. EMILY STERN WITH [18:19] CPED BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. [18:25] BEFORE YOU TODAY TO AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF TWO PARCELS AT A [18:30] SALE PRASE OF $15,500. HENNEPIN [18:37] COUNTY -- OVERALL EXPANSION PLAN FOR THE HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE [18:47] CAMPUS EXPANSION DOWNTOWN. COUNCIL APPROVED THE LOCATION BETWEEN 9th AND 10th STREET [18:53] SOUTH, SUBJECT TO MAINTAINING EASEMENTS FOR WATER, SEWER, TRAFFIC PURPOSES. THIS LAND SALE [18:59] WILL BE SUBJECT TO THOSE SAME EASEMENTS WITH AUTHORIZATION FOR [19:06] PUBLIC WORKS TO -- SALE PRICES FOR BOTH PARCELS WERE ESTABLISHED THROUGH A FAIR [19:11] MARKET VALUATION PROCESS. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. AND I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION [19:18] THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY STAFF ARE IN THE ROOM TODAY AND CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE [19:26] SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE'S EXPANSION PLANS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT PRESENTATION. RIGHT NOW I'M [19:32] GOING TO PROCEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF THERE IS ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. SEEING NONE, [19:39] I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. THIS IS [19:46] LOCATED IN MY DISTRICT, AND I HAVE THE TIME TO GO VISIT AND [19:51] REALLY SEE THE EXPANSION AND THE PLAN FOR HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE. IT'S AMAZING WHAT IT WILL LOOK [19:58] LIKE. THEY HAVE BEEN DOING GREAT ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY. SO THIS IS A WONDERFUL PROJECT [20:04] THAT'S COMING FORWARD. SO WITH THAT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY [20:10] AYE. >> AYE. >> AND THOSE OPPOSE SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE WILL [20:18] MOVE TO OUR QUASI JUDICIAL ITEM. FIRST IS A LICENSE REVOCATION [20:25] FOR BURRITO LOCO FOR UNPAID TAXES OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. [20:30] I WILL ASK CITY ATTORNEY IF HE HAS ANY UPDATES ON THAT. >> YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. [20:36] THIS ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA DUE TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA'S DUE [20:45] TO OUTSTANDING TAXES. THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA INDICATING [20:51] THAT THOSE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID. >> WONDERFUL. SINCE WE RECEIVED THAT CLEARANCE LETTER, I WILL [20:57] MOVE TO DELETE THIS ITEM FROM THE AGENDA. ALL THOSE ON THE [21:04] MOTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE [21:10] AYES HAVE IT AND THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. ADDITIONALLY, I WILL MOVE TO DELETE THIS FROM [21:16] THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON MAY 15TH. WE HAVE FINAL ITEM FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT. [21:24] ITEM 4 -- I'M SORRY, ITEM 14 IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. THE LAST ITEM [21:31] WE WILL TAKE. WE WILL BE [21:36] CONSIDERING RESOLUTION APPROVING GLENDALE TOWN HOMES AS A LOCAL [21:43] HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION. WELCOME, SIR. [21:51] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN, AND GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ROB. I'M A SENIOR [21:57] CITY PLANNER IN THE HISTORIC PLANNING DIVISION IN CPED. [22:02] TODAY, I'M PRESENTING A DISCUSSION ITEM TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION APPROVING HISTORIC [22:08] DISTRICT DESIGNATION FOR THE GLENDALE TOWN HOUSES HISTORIC [22:14] DISTRICT. GLENDALE TOWN HOUSES AS COMMONLY KNOWN TODAY IS A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX [22:21] CONSISTING OF 28 BUILDINGS ON 13 ACRES OF LAND IN THE PROSPECT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD. THE [22:27] MINNEAPOLIS HOUSING AND REDEVE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHICH [22:32] LATER BECAME THE MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY HIRED THE LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL FIRM TO [22:40] DESIGN THE COMPLEX. CONSTRUCTED AT THE END OF THE PROSPECT PARK [22:48] NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PROJECT KNOWN AS GLENDALE TOWN HOUSES WAS DESIGNED TO FOLLOW THE CHARACTER [22:53] OF PROSPECT PARK WITH CURVE [23:00] LINEAR STREETS, LARGE LAWNS, GREEN SPACES, AND PLAYGROUNDS BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS. [23:09] RECTANGULAR IN PLAN WITH A FRONT [23:21] PO PORTICO, COMPOSITE SIDING HAS REPLACED THE CEMENT ASBESTOS SIDING. REPLACED WITH HIP ROOFS [23:28] AND GABLE ROOFS OVER THE PORTIC, [23:35] ON . DUE TO THESE ALTERATIONS, STAFF ULTIMATELY RECOMMENDED [23:41] DENIAL OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT NOMINATION AND DESIGNATION CONSIDERING THE LOSS OF WHAT IS [23:47] CONSIDERED HISTORIC INTEGRITY OR THE ABILITY FOR THE PROPERTIES TO PORTRAY THEIR SIGNIFICANCE. [23:56] IN 2024, COUNCIL MEMBER ROBIN WONSLEY NOMINATED THE POTENTIAL GLENDALE TOWN HOUSES HISTORIC [24:03] DISTRICT FOR CONSIDERATION AS LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE NOMINATION WAS HEARD AT THE [24:12] JUNE 4, 2024, HBC MEETING. -- [24:17] DESIGNATION STUDY THAT WAS COMPILED IN 2019 WHICH CONCLUDED THE PROPERTIES DID NOT APPEAR ELIGIBLE DUE TO A LOSS OF [24:25] HISTORIC INTEGRITY. NOTWITHSTANDING, THE HPC [24:32] APPROVED AND DIRECTED THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO PREPARE THE STUDY FOR THE GLENDALE TOWN [24:37] HOUSES HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT [24:43] EXPIRES ON JUNE 4, 2025. THE DESIGNATION WAS HEARD AT THE [24:49] APRIL 8, 2025, HPC MEETING. DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS BECAUSE OF [24:56] CAUCUS NIGHT, THE HPC HAD TO VOTE TO CONTINUE BECAUSE A LOT [25:01] OF MEMBERS OF PUBLIC DID SHOW UP TO COMMENT AT THAT APRIL 8TH MEETING. NOTWITHSTANDING STAFF [25:10] RECOMMENDATION, THE HERITAGE COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE [25:16] GLENDALE TOWN HOUSES AS HISTORIC DISTRICT BECAUSE THE DISTRICT [25:21] COMPLIED WITH CRITERIA NUMBER 1 FOR SOCIAL HISTORY AND NUMBER 9 [25:27] FOR LANDSCAPE DESIGN. INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, ONE, IT [25:33] IS THE FIRST AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN MINNEAPOLIS AND THUS [25:38] ITS SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING IS QUALIFIED AS LANDMARKABLE. TWO, IT RETAINS [25:45] THE LANDSCAPE AND VOLUMETRIC [25:52] INTEGRITY WHEN THE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT. THREE, THE BUILDINGS STILL CONTAIN THEIR HISTORIC [25:57] INTEGRITY. ALTHOUGH THE HPC RECOGNIZES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN [26:02] CHANGED OVER TIME. SIGNIFICANCE FROM 1952, WHICH WAS THE DATE OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION, TO 1972, THE [26:09] DATE OF THE FIRST MAJOR ALTERATIONS TO THE BUILDING. SO THERE'S A CLEAR DEMARCATION FROM THE FIRST TIME THE BUILDINGS [26:16] WERE MODIFIED. ALSO WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS COULD BE EXTENDED AT A LATER DATE. AT THE [26:22] PUBLIC HEARING, THE MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY WHO ARE THE PROPERTY OWNER STRONGLY [26:28] OPPOSED THE DESIGNATION OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. COUNCIL MEMBER ROBIN WONSLEY AND THE [26:35] PROSPECT PARK ASSOCIATION HAVE VOICED THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION. THE COMMUNITY GROUP KNOWN AS DEFEND GLENDALE IS IN [26:42] SUPPORT OF THE DISTRICT'S DESIGNATION. STAFF RECEIVED AROUND 100 WRITTEN COMMENTS IN [26:50] SUPPORT, BUT SOME OF THOSE AGAINST THE DESIGNATION. AND THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE [26:55] INCLUDED. WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE AS STAFF FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT [27:02] PRESENTATION. I JUST WANT TO REMIND MEMBERS THAT THIS IS QUASI -- I KNOW IT SAYS [27:09] DISCUSSION BUT IT'S ALSO QUASI JUDICIAL. IS THAT CORRECT? LOOKING AT THE FACTS. [27:15] >> CHAIR OSMAN, THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING, HOWEVER, THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS ALREADY BEEN [27:20] HELD AT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SO YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO HOLD ANOTHER [27:26] PUBLIC HEARING. YOU MAY PROCEED TO YOUR REVIEW AND CELEBRATION OF THE FACTS FOR THIS ITEM. [27:31] >> SURE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WAS JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FACTS IN FRONT OF [27:36] US AS A QUASI JUDICIAL. MY FIRST QUESTION IS, CAN YOU PUT IT UP [27:41] OR DO YOU HAVE THE FINDING OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION, IS IT [27:48] ON YOUR SLIDES? >> CHAIR OSMAN, UNFORTUNATELY, I DID NOT PUT THOSE ON THE SLIDES. [27:54] THE SLIDES ARE ACTUALLY THE SAME SLIDES THAT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION SAW AT [27:59] THEIR PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO READ THOSE AGAIN IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. [28:06] >> PLEASE. >> SO THE FIRST FINDING IS THAT IT IS THE FIRST AFFORDABLE [28:12] HOUSING PROJECT IN MINNEAPOLIS AND THUS IT'S SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING QUALIFIED AS [28:18] LANDMARKABLE. THE SECOND IS THAT IT RETAINS THE LANDSCAPE AND [28:23] VOLUMETRIC INTEGRITY THAT WAS INITIALLY CREATED WHEN THE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT AND CITED. [28:28] AND THIRD, THE BUILDINGS STILL CONVEY THEIR HISTORIC INTEGRITY. ALTHOUGH THE HPC RECOGNIZES THAT [28:35] THEY HAVE BEEN CHANGED OVER TIME. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I REMEMBER ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO, [28:41] FIVE YEARS AGO, THIS ITEM CAME FORWARD. THE HERITAGE [28:50] PRESERVATION ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THIS DOES QUALIFY FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION SITE. AND [28:56] NOW IT'S IN FRONT OF US. SO I WANT TO OPEN TO MY COLLEAGUES IF [29:03] THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM. COUNCIL [29:08] MEMBER JEREMIAH ELLISON. >> YEAH, I'LL GIVE JUST MY HISTORY IN DEALING WITH THIS. [29:13] I'LL STAY PRETTY HIGH LEVEL UNLESS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. FROM MY [29:19] VANTAGE POINT I'VE SEEN TWO DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIVES OVER A SPAN OF TIME BOTH ADVOCATE FOR [29:24] THIS. I'VE SEEN COMMUNITY MEMBERS SINCE BEFORE MY TIME IN OFFICE AND SINCE I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR [29:30] THIS. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT I WAS BACK WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP [29:35] BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, I THINK IT WAS OPEN TO THE ARGUMENT THAT [29:40] THIS WAS GOING TO BE -- THIS LAND WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED IN SOME WAY. IT'S BEEN, YOU [29:46] KNOW, IT'S BEEN A WHILE AND IT JUST HASN'T OCCURRED. DEVELOPMENT HASN'T OCCURRED. I [29:54] DON'T KNOW FULLY WHAT THE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY THINKS THEIR TIMELINE IS. BUT I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THIS. WE HAVE TWO SETS [30:01] OF FACTS. WE HAVE FACTS THAT BOTH COULD SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THIS, AND WE HAVE FACTS THAT [30:08] COULD SUPPORT DENIAL. AND SO FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE KIND OF COVERED IN [30:13] TERMS OF LEGAL BASIS. THAT'S MY ANALYSIS. BUT GIVEN, AND SO [30:19] GIVEN THAT I THINK THAT I'M PROBABLY GOING TO BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THIS HISTORIC [30:27] DESIGNATION. AND SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT WHY OR, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT OUR [30:32] EXPERTS IN FRONT OF US TO TALK ABOUT THAT. AND YEAH. SO JUST [30:37] WANT TO LET FOLKS KNOW. OTHERWISE, IS THERE A MOTION BEFORE US? I'M HAPPY TO MAKE THE MOTION TO GRANT THE HISTORIC [30:43] DESIGNATION. >> COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS. [30:50] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. AND I TOO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THIS [30:59] CONVERSATION SINCE ABOUT 2018. AND YOU KNOW, INITIALLY, I WAS [31:08] HEARING FROM DEFEND GLENDALE THAT THEY WERE DEEPLY CONCERNED [31:16] THAT MPHA WAS TRYING TO DRIVE THEM OUT OF THEIR HOMES. THAT [31:22] THE PLANS THAT WERE BEING PUT [31:28] FORTH CREATE SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIPS FOR THE RESIDENTS, THAT WOULD DISPLACE RESIDENTS, [31:34] ET CETERA, ET CETERA. AND YOU [31:40] KNOW, AND THIS ITEM THAT WAS BROUGHT FORTH BY FORMER COUNCIL [31:45] MEMBER CAM GORDON SAT ON THIS [31:51] AGENDA, THIS BHZ COMMITTEE'S AGENDA FOR OVER A YEAR AND WAS CONTINUOUSLY PASSED ON UNTIL [32:00] SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS FINALLY REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA PERMANENTLY. YOU KNOW, I JUST [32:08] FEEL LIKE I DON'T SEE HOW THIS [32:13] HISTORIC DESIGNATION WILL HELP THOSE RESIDENTS. IT WILL CREATE [32:21] SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIPS TO RESTORE THE PROPERTIES, TO REHAB THE [32:26] PROPERTIES, TO DO ANY ADDITIONS TO THE PROPERTIES. IT LITERALLY, [32:33] I'M CONFUSED. IT BOGGLES MY MIND THAT DEFEND GLENDALE WOULD BE [32:41] ADVOCATING FOR THIS ACTION WHEN THEIR ENTIRE REASON FOR CREATING [32:51] DEFEND, THE GROUP DEFEND GLENDALE WAS TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THERE. THAT [32:56] IS THEIR MISSION OF THAT ORGANIZATION. AND THIS WOULD [33:01] SUBSEQUENTLY GO COMPLETELY [33:06] AGAINST THAT MISSION STATEMENT. SO I'M HAVING A REALLY HARD TIME [33:15] CONSIDERING SUPPORTING HISTORIC DESIGNATION FOR THE GLENDALE TOWN HOMES. THANK YOU. [33:21] >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS. I WILL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE. [33:26] >> THANK YOU. I AM GOING TO VOTE TO DENY THIS DESIGNATION. I STAND WITH OUR STAFF [33:33] RECOMMENDATION. AND TO THE EXPERTS AT THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, THEY HAVE CONVINCED ME THAT THIS IS GOING TO DRIVE [33:40] UP THE PRICE OF ANY REHABILITATION. AND CLEARLY, THE WAY THE ROOFS HAVE BEEN ALTERED [33:46] AND SIDING IS NOT CLOSE TO THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT WERE BUILT THERE. I DO NOT WANT TO HURT THE RESIDENTS WITH THESE [33:52] HIGHER COSTS. IT WILL ONLY JUST [33:57] EXAGGERATE THE CURRENT PROBLEMS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE. I PUT MYSELF IN [34:03] QUEUE. I JUST WANT TO FREELY KINDA DRIVE AND SAY THAT I WAS PART OF THIS PROCESS FOR FOUR [34:09] AND A HALF YEARS AGO WHEN FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER CAM GORDON [34:14] BROUGHT IT UP. I DID NOT SUPPORT THIS ITEM AT THAT TIME. NOW THAT [34:20] I WAS ABLE TO WATCH THE PUBLIC [34:28] HEARING, RESIDENT LOW INCOME IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY CAME FORWARD TO SPEAK. I VISITED THE [34:36] LOCATION. IT HAS THAT UNIQUE, NOT ANY OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND THAT AREA IS LIKE THAT. IT'S A [34:47] BIGGER SPACE FOR THE COMMUNITY. WHEN I WAS WALKING THERE, I SAW [34:54] MANY CHILDREN PLAYING AROUND. EACH FAMILY I BELIEVE HAD SOME KIND OF BACKYARD, MORE SPACIOUS [35:04] WAY OF COMMUNITY TO PLAY AND, YOU KNOW, BURN ENERGY. THEY HAVE [35:10] AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THERE. THEY HAVE PARK THERE. THERE'S A LOT [35:16] OF GREAT THINGS AROUND THOSE NEIGHBORS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ENJOYING FOR A LONG TIME. AND AS [35:22] MENTIONED, THIS WAS BUILT IN 1952, I BELIEVE. AND IT WAS [35:30] ALTERED AROUND '79-'80s. BUT THE CORE OF IT, IT STILL LOOKS THAT [35:38] OLD SPACE AROUND THAT PROSPECT PARK AREA. AS WE SEE UNIVERSITY [35:43] AVENUE, THERE'S MORE HIGH RISE BUILDING. THERE'S MORE DENSITY. I KNOW AS A CITY WE'RE PUSHING [35:51] DENSITY. REPRESENT THE BIGGEST DENSITY WARD IN OUR CITY. AS YOU [35:57] CAN IMAGINE CEDAR-RIVERSIDE IS CLOSE TO 10,000 PEOPLE. PUBLIC [36:06] HEARING, IT'S ALSO THE SECOND TIME THAT HERITAGE PRESERVATION HAD RECOMMENDED THAT THIS DOES [36:17] QUALIFY, AND FIND THOSE FINDINGS -- I WILL AGREE AND [36:24] ALSO SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON'S MOTION TO APPROVE FOR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ON THIS [36:29] ITEM. I SAW THE RESIDENTS THAT [36:36] CONTINUE TO FIGHT AND REALLY SAY THIS IS OUR LAND. THIS IS PLACE [36:41] WE GREW UP. I MET SOME STUDENTS THAT WERE BORN THERE. NOW THEY'RE IN COLLEGE. 19, 20 YEARS [36:48] OLD. THAT I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THEM. THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE GOT USED TO IT. I [36:55] UNDERSTAND THE MPHA PLAN TO REALLY CREATE MORE HOUSING. THEY [37:00] HAVE A LARGE WAITING LIST OF FOLKS THAT ARE WAITING TO GET IN [37:05] THERE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME, I KNOW THIS IS NOT PART OF THE FACT. [37:11] BUT WHAT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME WAS WHERE IS THE FUNDING COMING FROM? IT'S GOING TO BE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THE [37:17] COST OF THIS. WHERE IS THAT COMING FROM? I ATTENDED A PRESENTATION MPHA HAS HELD WITH [37:23] THE RESIDENTS. I SAW THE DRAWING AND DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT. BUT I QUESTION A [37:29] LOT WHEN DEFINITELY MPHA IS STRUGGLING TO KEEP UP THE [37:35] HOUSING THEY HAVE AND MAKING SURE THE FIRE SPRINKLER AND OTHER THINGS THAT AND UPKEEPING [37:44] THE OLDER PROPERTIES THEY HAVE. AND ONE THING I HAVE HEARD, AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT A PLACE THAT [37:50] WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS, MAYBE I'LL ASK YOU A QUESTION, IS THAT MANY OF THE RESIDENTS I TALKED TO SAY [37:57] THAT MPHA TOLD THEM THAT IF THIS WAS BUILT -- I'M SORRY, IF THIS IS DESIGNATED AS HISTORICAL [38:05] DESIGNATION, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET BASIC MAINTENANCE. [38:10] MEANING FIXING DOORS, INTERIOR FIXING. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE [38:16] THAT WE GET CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE HEARING AND WHAT IS THE IDEAL -- WHAT [38:23] WILL THAT LOOK LIKE IF WE DESIGNATE THIS AS HISTORICAL [38:28] DESIGNATION, DOES THAT MEAN THE DOORKNOBS WILL NOT BE FIXED? >> CHAIR OSMAN, THANK YOU FOR [38:34] THE QUESTION. THE CITY HAS 20 LOCALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC [38:39] DISTRICTS. SOME OF THEM GOING BACK 50 YEARS. THERE'S -- WE [38:44] REVIEW PROJECTS AS THEY COME IN FOR PERMITS. BUT THE IDEA THAT MAINTENANCE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO [38:51] BE CARRIED OUT IS NOT ACCURATE. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE REVIEW [38:58] PROJECTS THAT COME IN THROUGH PERMITS. WE REVIEW THEM THROUGH [39:03] FEDERAL PRESERVATION STANDARDS, LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES THAT ARE ADOPTED FOR [39:09] OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS WHICH WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP IF THIS WERE TO GO FORWARD FOR [39:15] DESIGNATION. SO WE REVIEW PROJECTS BUT THEY'RE NOT THINGS THAT YOU KNOW DESIGNATION PUTS A [39:22] HOLD ON FOR MAINTENANCE. >> DOES DESIGNATION INCLUDE [39:29] INTERIOR WORK LIKE CABINETS, KITCHEN APPLIANCE, AND FIXING BASIC THINGS? WOULD THAT BE [39:35] AFFECTED? >> CHAIR OSMAN, NOT WITH THIS [39:41] DESIGNATION. THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN INTERIOR DESIGNATION, WHICH IS VERY RARE AT THE CITY. SO [39:46] THIS IS JUST EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS THAT ARE BEING REVIEWED IF THIS WERE TO GO FORWARD. [39:51] >> OKAY. I THINK IT'S VERY GOOD TO BE CLEAR THAT RESIDENTS WILL [39:56] NOT BE AFFECTED. THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GET MAINTENANCE FIXED. THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GET THE [40:04] BASIC THINGS DONE WHILE THEY REMAIN AT PLACES THEY HAVE [40:09] CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE AND SPOKE ABOUT THAT THEY WANT TO REMAIN THIS PLACE AND THEY DON'T WANT [40:15] HIGH RISE PLACE. AND ALSO, THE IDEA OF RELOCATION ALSO CAME UP [40:21] A LOT, TOO. OKAY. I'LL GIVE MY COLLEAGUES AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS. [40:28] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO ASK, IS [40:36] THIS THE FIRST TOWN HOME PROJECT [40:42] IN MINNEAPOLIS? >> CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS, THIS IS THE ORIGINAL, [40:48] WHAT BECAME MPHA, THE ORIGINAL PROJECT THAT WAS COMPLETED AS TOWN HOMES IN 1952. [40:56] >> NOT SURE IF I'M -- SO IT WAS THE FIRST THEN IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> YES. [41:03] >> BECAUSE I SEEM TO RECALL THE [41:10] TOWN HOMES ALONG OLSON HIGHWAY, I MEAN, WE COMPLETELY TORE THOSE [41:15] DOWN. I THOUGHT THOSE WERE THE FIRST ONES IN THE CITY. BUT IF [41:25] YOU'RE SAYING THESE ARE THE FIRST, I GUESS I TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. I'M SURE THAT [41:32] IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE INTERIOR. BUT WOULD THEY BE MORE COSTLY BECAUSE OF THIS HISTORIC DESIGNATION? [41:40] >> CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT [41:45] EXACTLY. IT'S MORE SO -- >> WHEN YOU REVIEW OTHER [41:50] PROJECTS THAT COME FORWARD FOR RENOVATION, IMPROVEMENTS, ET [41:56] CETERA, DOES THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION INCREASE THE COST OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS? [42:01] >> COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. WHEN WE REVIEW PROJECTS, I MENTIONED EARLIER, [42:08] WE DO IT THROUGH THE FEDERAL SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR [42:16] STANDARDS. THEY'RE 10 VERY OPEN POINTS THAT PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY ADHERE TO WHEN [42:21] EVALUATING ALTERATIONS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES. WHAT THEY [42:27] ESSENTIALLY ADVOCATE FOR ARE SEEING IF SOMETHING CAN BE RETAINED AS IS. IF IT CAN'T BE [42:34] RETAINED AS IS, CAN IT BE REPAIRED? IF IT CAN'T BE REPAIRED, CAN IT BE REPLACED IN [42:42] KIND? IT DEPENDS ON THE LEVEL HAVE DETERIORATION THAT WE'RE SEEING FOR DIFFERENT ITEMS. THAT'S PART OF THE REVIEW [42:48] PROCESS THAT WOULD COME FORWARD FOR ANY PROPERTY THAT'S DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC DISTRICT. [42:54] THAT'S WHAT STAFF WOULD BE EVALUATING. THAT'S WHAT THE [42:59] HISTORIC PRESERVATION WOULD BE EVALUATING. >> I DO HAVE A HISTORIC DISTRICT [43:05] IN WARD 8, AND THOSE PROPERTIES EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN, [43:12] TO REPAIR, TO REHAB, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. YOU KNOW, I GUESS I [43:18] JUST WANT TO EXPRESS I AM SO DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE [43:23] FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND HUD. I MEAN, THEY ALREADY UNDER FUND [43:29] THESE PROPERTIES, THESE COMMUNITIES, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT ITS 50-YEAR PLUS [43:35] HISTORY. AND WITH THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, I MEAN, THE TALK [43:41] IS TO REALLY ALMOST ELIMINATE HUD AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. AND I [43:48] THINK THAT WOULD JUST PUT THESE PROPERTIES IN MORE JEOPARDY. AND [43:55] PUT SOME OF THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY [44:02] IN JEOPARDY OF MAINTAINING THAT AFFORDABILITY. SO I, YOU KNOW, [44:08] THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS AND MY OPINIONS AND I HOPE WE CONSIDER THAT AS WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS. THANK YOU. [44:16] >> I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. I WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, REVIEWING THE [44:23] REPORTS ON THIS AND I DO SEE THAT. THAT THE STAFF FINDINGS HAVE SAID THE DISTRICT HAS LOST [44:30] HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF DESIGN, MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, ASSOCIATION. NO NEW INFORMATION [44:35] OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED THAT WOULD ALLOW CPED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF HISTORIC [44:40] DISTRICT IN OPPOSITION TO THE STUDY FINDINGS. SO MY READ OF [44:46] THE FACTS IS THAT IN DENIAL OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION. HOWEVER, I [44:51] DO WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT I'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT HERE WHICH IS THE POTENTIAL [44:58] DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS IN THE PROCESS OF RENOVATIONS. BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY VERY [45:04] CONCERNING TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY LIVING THERE. AND COUNCIL MEMBERS REPRESENTING THE [45:09] AREA AS WELL. I'M WONDERING IF STAFF COULD SPEAK TO WHAT'S ANTICIPATED EITHER WITH THE [45:16] HISTORIC DESIGNATION OR WITHOUT IT IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN LIVING THERE. [45:22] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN, COUNCIL MEMBER CASHMAN, AS FAR AS THE COMMUNITY CLAIMS AND [45:30] ABOUT DISPLACEMENT, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ABLE TO EVALUATE THROUGH A DESIGNATION. WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT EXISTING [45:37] CONDITIONS OF THE BUILDINGS, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY AS IS. SO YOU KNOW, ANY FUTURE [45:43] PLANS AT THIS SITE, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THROUGH VALUATING A [45:49] DESIGNATION OF A DISTRICT. >> OKAY. THAT'S FAIR. I THINK MY READ OF THE FACTS STANDS. BUT I [45:55] JUST WANT TO COMMUNICATE TO THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR THAT [46:00] THAT'S A CONCERN FOR ME AS THIS PROJECT CONTINUES TO MOVE FORWARD. I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE [46:06] TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE OF THIS QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER REGARDING THE COMMUNITY WHO [46:11] LIVES THERE NOW. [46:23] >> DO YOU WANT TO ADD? >> CHAIR OSMAN, JUST A CLARIFICATION HERE. REGARDING [46:30] COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS' POINT EARLIER. SENATOR TOWN HOMES WAS [46:36] THE FIRST TOWN HOMES BUILT. STAFF'S RESPONSE WAS THESE ARE THE ONES WE'RE EVALUATING HERE. [46:42] THESE ARE THE REMAINING TOWN HOMES THAT ARE THE EARLIEST HERE. SO THERE'S CLARIFICATION [46:48] THERE TO THAT POINT THAT WAS ADDRESSED EARLIER. >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON. [46:54] >> THANK YOU. JUST WANT TO SAY WE'VE GOT TWO SETS OF FACTS. BOTH FROM FOLKS WHO I WOULD DEEM [47:01] EXPERTS. OUR STAFF I THINK ARE EXPERTS AND KNOW HOW TO EVALUATE THESE KINDS OF SITUATIONS. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE HPC ALSO [47:09] ARE EXPERTS AND KNOW HOW TO EVALUATE THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS. SO WE HAVE FACTS [47:15] THAT ARE IN DISPUTE. AND SO I THINK WE'VE GOT A STRONG CASE TO [47:21] MAKE EITHER DECISION. YOU KNOW, TO MY MIND, IT'S WHILE IT'S A [47:26] LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE TO TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FUTURE PLANS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. THOSE THINGS HAVE COME UP. SO I [47:33] THINK IT'S KIND OF FAIR TO SAY THAT WHEN THE HOUSING MARKET WAS [47:38] IN A HEALTHY PLACE AND WE SAW A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING, THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR [47:44] THIS TO BE A PART OF THAT. AND IT WASN'T A PART OF THAT. THE DEVELOPMENT DIDN'T HAPPEN. THE [47:51] TRANSITION DIDN'T HAPPEN. WE SAW OTHER MPHA HOUSING RENOVATIONS [47:57] OCCUR, AND SO WE KNOW MPHA IS TOTALLY CAPABLE OF IT. AND SO TO [48:05] MY MIND, WE'RE KIND OF IN THIS -- BECAUSE WE HAVE SETS OF FACTS THAT WILL SUPPORT EITHER [48:14] DECISION, AND BECAUSE I'M SORT OF LOOKING AT ALL THE CONTEXT AROUND THIS AND ASKING MYSELF AT [48:20] WHAT POINT ARE WE PROJECTING A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH INTO THE FUTURE QUESTIONS WE DON'T KNOW [48:26] THE ANSWER TO. THE COST. FUTURE COST. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT DEFERRED MAINTENANCE. WHY THAT DEFERRED [48:34] MAINTENANCE EXISTS. CERTAINLY COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE THEIR NARRATIVE. RIGHT. AND SO DOES [48:39] MPHA. TO ME, IT'S A QUESTION OF ARE WE GOING TO BE PATERNALISTIC [48:45] ABOUT WHAT WE TELL THE NEIGHBORS IS GOOD FOR THEM OR ARE WE GOING [48:52] TO LOOK AT TWO SETS OF FACTS THAT COME TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS. ALSO LISTEN TO WHAT [48:57] WE'RE HEARING FROM RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN THE TOWN HOMES. I'M A LITTLE LESS CONCERNED WITH [49:03] RESIDENTS WHO DON'T LIVE IN THE TOWN HOMES. BUT ARE WE GOING TO LISTEN TO THEM? THIS ADVOCACY [49:08] HERE GOES BACK PROBABLY LONGER THAN 2015. BUT I KNOW THAT I WASN'T IN OFFICE IN 2015 AND [49:13] EVEN I WAS A PART OF SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS AROUND [49:18] DEFEND GLENDALE AND THE GLENDALE TOWN HOMES. I THINK AFTER A WHILE YOU'VE GOT TO ASK YOURSELF IF THERE WAS NO MERIT TO THIS [49:25] HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THEN WHY HASN'T RENOVATION OCCURRED ALREADY? IF THERE WAS NO MERIT [49:31] TO HISTORIC RENOVATION, WHY HAVE THE NEIGHBORS REMAINED ADAMANT IN THEIR ADVOCACY FOR OVER A [49:37] DECADE? AND IF THERE'S NO MERIT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THEN WHY HAVE TWO SEPARATE COUNCIL [49:43] MEMBERS WHO AT ONE POINT RAN AGAINST EACH OTHER. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY WERE IN LOCK STEP IN AGREEMENT ON EVERYTHING. WHY DID [49:53] TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS BOTH ASSERT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THEY THINK SHOULD EXIST IN THEIR WARDS. AND I THINK LOOKING AT [49:59] ALL THE CONTEXT, THE DECISION THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO ME IS TO GRANT THIS HISTORIC [50:05] DESIGNATION AND ALLOW THIS TO MOVE FORWARD. SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT CONTEXT. I DON'T WANT IT TO SEEM LIKE, YOU KNOW, [50:12] THERE'S NO FINDINGS OF FACT TO GRANT THIS. THERE ARE FINDINGS OF FACT TO DENY IT. BUT THERE [50:18] ARE ALSO FINDINGS OF FACT TO GRANT THIS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL [50:26] MEMBER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN. I DID [50:32] HAVE A QUESTION JUST IN UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS WHERE THERE'S CERTAIN DESIGNATIONS FOR [50:38] HISTORIC PRESERVATION. I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT REPAIRS THAT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE WANTED TO DO THAT HAVE LIKE [50:47] DIFFERED FROM WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED UNDER HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AND THEY WENT BEFORE I BELIEVE THE HPC TO ASK [50:56] FOR JUST A GRANTING OF THAT MOVING FORWARD IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. AND THEN THAT HAS [51:02] BEEN EITHER APPROVED OR DENIED. AND IF DENIED, IT COMES BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. IF THE PROPERTY [51:08] OWNER, MPHA, WERE TO DECIDE TO [51:13] REDEVELOP AND COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT PLAN FOR THIS AREA, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS FOR [51:21] THEM SHOULD THERE ARE HISTORIC DESIGNATION IN THIS AREA? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR OSMAN, [51:27] COUNCIL MEMBER CHOWDHURY, THE PROCESS I THINK AS YOU DETAILED IS, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A [51:33] PROCESS. SO IT WOULD GO IN FRONT OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION [51:38] COMMISSION IF ALTERATIONS ARE BEING PROPOSED. AND THEN THE COMMISSION WOULD MAKE A DECISION [51:44] ON WHATEVER APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. FROM THAT POINT, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER DISAGREES WITH THAT, YOU'RE CORRECT, THEY [51:50] HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL AND THAT WOULD COME HERE IN FRONT OF BHZ. AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, GOING [51:59] FORWARD AND WHATEVER THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD WANT TO DO IN THE FUTURE, THAT WOULD JUST HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE PROCESS. [52:06] SO AS I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PLANNING FOR FUTURE CHANGES, BUT IT'S NOT [52:13] SOMETHING WHERE, YOU KNOW, STAFF JUST SAYS NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THERE'S A PROCESS THAT'S BUILT [52:19] INTO IT. AND IT GOES IN FRONT OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION [52:24] COMMISSION FOR THEIR DECISION. IF NOT AGREED UPON BY THE APPLICANT, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY [52:30] TO APPEAL THAT. >> AND JUST TO FURTHER MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT PROCESS, WHAT IF THE PROPERTY OWNER [52:37] WANTED TO REZONE AREA? WOULD THAT STILL GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS OR AN INTERSECTION [52:43] BETWEEN HPC AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? >> SO REZONING, YOU KNOW, ISN'T [52:49] SOMETHING THAT WOULD GO IN FRONT OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. THE HPC MAY ADOPT [52:56] DESIGN GUIDELINES IN THAT SITUATION. YOU KNOW, WHATEVER PLANS THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO THOSE [53:04] DESIGN GUIDELINES, WHATEVER THE ZONING MAY BE. BUT AGAIN, THERE IS THE PROCESS BUILT IN FOR THE [53:11] HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION, AND IF NEED BE, THROUGH APPEAL, BHZ AND COUNCIL [53:18] TO MAKE DECISIONS TO APPLICATIONS. >> RIGHT. OKAY. SO IT WOULD GO THROUGH HPC OR OTHER BODIES [53:26] DEPENDING ON WHAT THE APPLICANT, THE APPROPRIATE OWNER IS REQUESTING. AND THEN IF THE [53:31] PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT IN AGREEMENT, THEY WOULD COME BACK [53:39] TO BUSINESS, HOUSING AND ZONING AND THEN FULL COUNCIL AND THEN LAND HERE. I THINK I'M MAKING [53:45] THIS POINT BECAUSE THESE ARE A SET OF FACTS WE CAN LOOK TO THE FUTURE. THESE ARE PROCESSES WE HAVE IN PLACE. CONSIDERING [53:51] WHAT'S BEFORE US, WHICH IS DOES THIS QUALIFY FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION, I'M REALLY ATTACHED [53:59] TO CRITERION ONE WHICH I FEEL WAS LAID OUT WELL BY THE HPC. RIGHT. THIS PROPERTY IS [54:06] ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT EVENTS OR WITH PERIODS THAT [54:12] EXEMPLIFY BROAD PATTERNS OF [54:18] POLITICAL, HISTORY. THAT IS CURRENTLY OCCURRING. WE'VE HEARD FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAVE [54:23] BEEN HERE MUCH LONGER THAN ME ABOUT THIS HISTORY FROM THE PAST DECADE AND EVEN BEFORE. IT MAKES ME THINK ABOUT THE DESIGNATION [54:31] OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE. A TRUE WORKING CLASS HISTORY OF HOUSING THAT WAS BUILT FOR IMMIGRANTS [54:36] THAT CAME HERE THAT WERE ARTISANS THAT MADE SHOES, THAT WORKED ON THE RAIL YARDS, AND IF [54:42] NEIGHBORS DID NOT COME TOGETHER AND FIGHT FOR THAT PRESERVATION OF THAT HOUSING AFTER IT WAS [54:52] DILAPIDATED FOR SOME TIME, WE WOULD NOT HAVE IT. YOU CAN GO OVER AND READ THAT PLAQUE AND [54:59] LEARN ABOUT IT. NOW IT'S HELD UP AS THIS PLACE YOU HAVE TO CHECK OUT WHEN YOU'RE IN MINNEAPOLIS. [55:05] THERE ARE VERY FEW PLACES THAT THIS IS WORKING CLASS HISTORY. I COULD PROBABLY THINK OF TWO JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. IT'S [55:14] MILWAUKEE, AND IT'S IN THE NORTH LOOP, THE BRICKS. WE THINK ABOUT [55:19] THE TEAMSTER STRIKES AND THE HARD FELT BATTLE THAT THE WORKERS HAD. THE BLOOD THAT WAS [55:26] SPILT THERE. SO WHEN I HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY AND I READ THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND I LISTEN TO [55:32] THE TESTIMONY FROM THE HPC, IT'S NOT ABOUT OKAY, THIS IS GOING TO GUARANTEE ALL OF THIS [55:38] MAINTENANCE AND CHANGES BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN ASKING FOR THAT FOR A WHILE AND THAT HASN'T HAPPENED [55:44] WITH OR WITHOUT MAINTENAE. AND I HOPE IT HAPPENS. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A PATH. IT'S ABOUT [55:52] WORKING CLASS PEOPLE ACROSS ETHNICITIES, NATIONALITIES, AND STORIES. RIGHT. AND THAT I THINK [56:02] IS WORTH WHILE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE WAS A 7-1 VOTE AT [56:09] HPC. IT WASN'T EVEN CLOSE. AND SHOULD MPHA WANT TO REDEVELOP [56:14] THIS AREA, WANT TO MAKE IT BIGGER AND BETTER, AND REALLY DO THE WORK OF WHAT THEY WANT TO [56:22] SHARE WHICH IS HELP GLENDALE RESIDENTS DEFINE THEIR FUTURE, THERE'S A PROCESS IN PLACE FOR [56:27] THAT. YEAH, IT'S A COUPLE OF STEPS. BUT MAYBE IT WOULD BE MORE ITERATIVE AND INCLUSIVE OF [56:34] THE COMMUNITY. AND SHOULD THEY NOT LIKE WHAT COMES FROM THE [56:42] HPC, WE'LL BE RIGHT HERE. TALK ABOUT INCREASING HOUSING [56:47] OPPORTUNITIES, SAFETY, HEALTH, LIVEABILITY, ESPECIALLY FOR WORKING CLASS PEOPLES, WHERE I [56:52] THINK THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY GOOD SHOT OF THINGS MOVING FORWARD. WE JUST HAD AN ITEM [56:59] ABOUT REZONING THAT WENT THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, NOW [57:09] BUSINESS, HOUSING AND ZONING. NOW WE HAVE TO TAKE IT TO THE MET COUNCIL. THERE ARE STEPS AND [57:14] IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE AND IT'S ITERATIVE, AND COMMUNITY IS PUTTING THEIR HANDS ON IT. IN [57:19] THIS MOMENT, I THINK WE'RE SETTING UP FOR A PROCESS SHOULD THERE BE REDEVELOPMENT, SHOULD [57:24] THERE BE IMPROVEMENTS. IT WOULD JUST REQUIRE MORE OF COMMUNITY WEIGHING IN, WHICH I THINK IS [57:31] THE EXACT MISSION THAT MPHA IS COMMUNICATING, COMMUNITY MEMBERS [57:36] IN GLENDALE AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS UP HERE. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WILL BE SUPPORTING [57:41] THE APPROVAL OF DESIGNATION. >> COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE. [57:46] >> THANK YOU. SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS RAISED HERE. I SEE THAT WE HAVE EXECUTIVE [57:54] DIRECTOR. PERHAPS YOU CAN SPEAK TO CLARIFY. >> I THINK THAT'S OUT OF ORDER. [58:01] UNLESS WE WANT TO VOTE TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND ALLOW FOR COMMUNITY TO SPEAK AS WELL. I THINK THAT WOULD BE OUT OF [58:07] ORDER. >> I JUST WANT TO MENTION THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE. WITH [58:13] THAT, IS THERE ANYMORE YOU WANT TO ADD, COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE. >> THANK YOU FOR TELLING ME WHAT [58:19] THE TRUTH IS. >> THANK YOU. >> THE RULES. >> NO. TRUTH. JUST MY LAST [58:27] COMMENT HERE BEFORE I GIVE IT TO COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON IS THAT I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON PUT [58:33] IT VERY WELL THAT WE HAVE TWO ARGUMENTS HERE. WE HAVE BOTH FINDING FROM THE STAFF, WHICH IS [58:39] LEGITIMATE. AND ALSO WE HAVE FINDING FROM THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION NOT JUST ONE BUT [58:45] TWO TIMES WHICH IS ALSO A FACT. AND ALSO LEGITIMATE. AND [58:51] CONSIDERING THAT I'M ACTUALLY MORE CONCERNED AND PEOPLE THAT IT WILL AFFECT. WE HAVE [59:01] RESIDENTS HERE WHO NOT JUST COME HERE BUT CAME BACK TO BACK TO [59:07] THE CITY HALL. THE DEMOGRAPHICS THAT LIVE THERE, MAJORITY ARE [59:16] IMMIGRANT. EAST AFRICAN IMMIGRANT. AS I CONTINUE TO HAVE CONVERSATION WITH THEM, THEY ARE [59:21] AFRAID OF THOSE CHANGE. THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TOO KEEP WHAT THEY HAVE AND INTO THE UNKNOWN [59:27] OF THE MPHA, THEIR PLAN ON THAT. AND I THINK FOR ME, I'M LOOKING [59:35] AT THAT FACT, ALSO, AND WHILE [59:41] RESIDENTS ARE HERE AND HAVE COME AND SPOKE. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO [59:49] HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING AND THAT CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT HOW THEY WANT THIS PRESERVATION. LET ME [59:56] JUST SAY THIS, SOMEONE WHO GREW UP IN PROJECT BASED HOUSING, [1:00:01] IT'S SIMILAR TO WHERE I GREW UP IN EAST SAINT PAUL WHERE YOU [1:00:06] HAVE EARLY '90s TYPE HOUSING WHERE THERE'S MORE SPACIOUS. KIDS PLAYING, FAMILY OUTSIDE. [1:00:13] YOUR KIDS -- ALLOWING YOUR KIDS TO GO ACROSS, YOU KNOW, A BLOCK [1:00:20] FROM THAT AREA. IT'S THAT UNIQUENESS IT BRINGS. AS I LOOK AT THE OTHER PUBLIC [1:00:25] HOUSING IN OUR CITY, MOST OF IT IS HIGH RISE BUILDINGS. MOST PEOPLE COULD BE ISOLATED AND [1:00:33] THERE'S SOME CHALLENGES OF BEING [1:00:40] IN VERY DENSE HIGH RISE 24, 30-STORY BUILDINGS. THERE'S THAT [1:00:48] CHALLENGE. BUT ALSO WE HAVE THIS UNIQUENESS. I THINK IT KIND OF MAKES SENSE FOR US TO KEEP SMALL [1:00:54] PORTION OF MPHA PUBLIC HOUSING FOR THIS KIND OF SETTING. AND I [1:01:01] WOULD ASK COUNCIL MEMBER ELLISON IF HE'S MAYBE CONSIDER ABLE TO CHANGE HIS MOTION AND FORWARD [1:01:06] THIS WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION SO WE'RE ABLE TO GET MORE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN HAVE THEIR [1:01:12] INPUT ON THIS. >> ABSOLUTELY. IT LOOKS LIKE MY ORIGINAL MOTION WOULDN'T PREVAIL ON A COUNCIL TODAY. I WOULD LIKE [1:01:20] TO DISPENSE WITH THIS ITEM. I WOULD SAY COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO HOP [1:01:26] BACK IN QUEUE. I WASN'T SAYING YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE MPHA COME [1:01:32] AND SPEAK, I WAS SAYING THAT -- [1:01:38] THE COMMITTEE MIGHT THINK DIFFERENTLY. SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE -- [1:01:44] YOU DO HAVE RECOURSE HERE. THE OTHER THING IS THAT I WILL [1:01:49] WITHDRAW MY MOTION TO APPROVE, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T SUPPORT THE DESIGNATION BUT I DON'T THINK [1:01:56] THAT MOTION WOULD PREVAIL. I WOULD LIKE TO DISPENSE WITH THIS ITEM AND TAKE IT TO FULL [1:02:03] COUNCIL. I'M GOING TO TAKE MY MOTION DOWN AND MAKE THE MOTION TO MOVE WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION. [1:02:09] >> ALL RIGHT. CITY ATTORNEY, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? [1:02:15] >> NO, CHAIR OSMAN. I WAS JUST GOING TO OFFER SOME SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO WORD THAT MOTION. BUT [1:02:21] SINCE IT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN, THAT CAN WAIT FOR COUNCIL. >> BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. [1:02:29] SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION. I WILL ASK CLERK [1:02:34] TO CALL THE ROLL ON THAT. [1:02:40] >> COUNCIL MEMBER RAINVILLE. >> AYE. >> CASHMAN. >> AYE. [1:02:47] >> JENKINS. >> NAY. >> CHOWDHURY. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR ELLISON. [1:02:53] >> AYE. >> CHAIR OSMAN. >> AYE. >> THERE ARE FIVE AYES AND ONE [1:02:58] NAY. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION CARRIES. WITH THAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR RESIDENTS OF GLENDALE [1:03:04] FOR COMING THROUGH FOR MPHA, FOR STAFF, FOR ALL THE MEMBERS. [1:03:09] SEEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE US, WITH NO OBJECTION, I'LL DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.