[0:29] » Good afternoon, everyone.
[0:31] welcome to the regular meeting
[0:32] of the business, housing and
[0:34] zoning committee for july 7,
[0:36] 2026.
[0:37] my name is jamal osman, and
[0:38] I'm the chair of this
[0:39] committee.
[0:44] I will call to order this
[0:44] meeting.
[0:47] before we begin, I want to
[0:48] remind all folks, this meeting
[0:49] is broadcast live to enable
[0:51] greater public participation.
[0:54] they include realtime
[0:56] captioning to increase the
[0:58] accessibility of our
[0:59] proceedings to the community.
[1:02] therefore, all speakers need
[1:03] to be mindful of their speech
[1:04] so that our captioners can
[1:05] fully transcribe all comments
[1:06] for the broadcast.
[1:07] we ask all speakers to
[1:08] moderate their speed and
[1:09] clarity of their comments.
[1:10] we'll be using the speaker
[1:12] management, so please sign u
[1:14] at this time I'll ask the
[1:17] clerk to call the roll so we
[1:17] can verify a quorum.
[1:18] thank you.
[1:21] » Council member rainville.
[1:22] » Present.
[1:23] » Warren.
[1:23] » Present.
[1:24] » Shaffer.
[1:25] » Present.
[1:26] » Chavez.
[1:26] » Present.
[1:27] » Chug high is present --
[1:30] chughtai is absent.
[1:31] vice chair chowdhury.
[1:32] » Present.
[1:33] » And chair osman.
[1:34] » Present.
[1:34] » There are 6 members
[1:35] present.
[1:36] » Let the record reflect we
[1:37] have a quorum.
[1:38] our agenda is in front of us.
[1:40] we will begin with the consent
[1:41] agenda.
[1:41] if you want to speak during
[1:43] any of this public hearing
[1:46] today, please sign up with the
[1:47] clerk.
[1:48] all right.
[1:55] item 6, approve six liquor
[1:58] licenses.
[2:00] item 7 approves 24 liquor
[2:02] license renewals.
[2:03] item 8 approves 22 -- I'm
[2:07] sorry -- item 8 approves two
[2:09] gambling licenses.
[2:11] item 9 approves amended
[2:12] business licenses, operating
[2:13] condition.
[2:16] for breakfast bar of
[2:17] minnesota.
[2:18] item 10 accepts the low
[2:21] responsive bid for snow
[2:22] removal at minneapolis
[2:24] convention center.
[2:25] item 11 authorizes a loan
[2:29] restructure for jigji dwsm a
[2:32] business center.
[2:33] item 12 authorizes financial
[2:35] agreement for rehab
[2:37] properties, part of
[2:39] minneapolis housing finance.
[2:41] item 13 authorizes revision to
[2:43] the alternative financing
[2:44] program.
[2:46] item 14 is a resolution
[2:50] approving land disposition and
[2:51] financial assistance from
[2:52] hennepin county housing and
[2:55] redevelopment authority.
[2:56] item 15 authorizes a contract
[3:01] with metropolitan consortium
[3:03] of community developers for
[3:04] loan services.
[3:06] item 16 approves two street
[3:09] vacations located north of
[3:10] franklin west.
[3:11] item 17 refers to the staff an
[3:15] ordinance related to the
[3:17] autonomous vehicle regulation.
[3:18] and, lastly, item 18 sets a
[3:21] public hearing for july
[3:25] 22nd to consider the
[3:27] mayor's nomination of enrique
[3:31] valazquez to the director of
[3:33] regulatory services
[3:34] department.
[3:36] » Thank you, chair.
[3:37] I'd like to pull item 9 for a
[3:39] separate discussion and vote.
[3:41] » Item 9 we'll pull for
[3:42] separate vote.
[3:44] council member shaffer.
[3:45] » I just wanted to make a
[3:46] comment on 16 bore we move
[3:48] to the vote.
[3:48] and just to say thank you for
[3:50] this work on behalf of cped
[3:53] and others about this vacation
[3:54] on these two small triangular
[3:57] parcels.
[3:57] with the eventual transfer,
[4:00] hopefully, to mprb.
[4:00] and this is something that we
[4:02] were very interestedn for a
[4:03] long time, and I'm just very
[4:04] thankful to see that coming
[4:05] forward.
[4:05] this is an area of the city
[4:08] that does not have a lot of
[4:09] green space.
[4:09] it's one of the target areas
[4:12] for mprb.
[4:13] and I'm thankful to see this
[4:14] vacation coming forward.
[4:17] » Thank you.
[4:20] with that, I'll move items
[4:22] except item 9.
[4:27] and I refer item 17 to staff
[4:31] and set item 18 for public
[4:32] hearing.
[4:33] on that motion, all those in
[4:35] favor say aye.
[4:37] and those opposed say nay.
[4:38] the ayes have it and the
[4:40] motion carries.
[4:42] all right.
[4:44] for public hearing, for
[4:46] everyone in attendance and
[4:47] especially those who might --
[4:50] » Chair osman?
[4:51] » Yes.
[4:53] » Council member rainville
[4:54] pulled out an item for
[4:56] discussion, I believe.
[4:56] » I appreciate the reminder.
[4:58] council member rainville,
[4:59] please go ahead with item 9.
[5:01] » Thank you.
[5:02] so I see ms. Lingo here.
[5:03] I'm wondering if you could
[5:05] describe the operating
[5:06] conditions for the breakfast
[5:07] bar.
[5:16] » Through the chair, council
[5:19] member rainville, thank you.
[5:19] so the conditions that we have
[5:20] before us for the breakfast
[5:22] bar are related to the
[5:24] activity for the business, as
[5:25] well as for the outdoor
[5:27] structure.
[5:28] so we have negotiated a
[5:29] take-down of that outdoor
[5:32] structure to occur no later
[5:33] than september 15th of
[5:34] this year, and then in that
[5:36] part of those negotiations we
[5:38] have clearly laid out an
[5:41] agreed-upon behavior and
[5:43] expectations for sound and use
[5:44] of that tent.
[5:47] » And that's what you mean by
[5:51] "activity"?
[5:52] so you say the conditions are
[5:53] regarding activity.
[5:54] so the activity inside the
[5:55] tent or thectivity once the
[5:57] tent is gone?
[5:59] » The activity inside of the
[6:00] tent, how the patio space is
[6:02] to be used for this time
[6:03] frame.
[6:03] » From now till september?
[6:05] » Correct.
[6:06] » Great.
[6:06] thank you.
[6:07] good job.
[6:07] I appreciate the work.
[6:08] we all know that there's been
[6:10] some issues there.
[6:13] so thank you.
[6:16] » Council member shaffer.
[6:17] » Yeah, I'm just thankful for
[6:19] seeing this coming forward as
[6:20] well.
[6:20] this is something that we've
[6:21] heard a lot of complaints
[6:23] about, particularly from the
[6:25] atrium, public housing, there
[6:26] has been a written petition
[6:28] going around with many
[6:31] signatures and due to noise
[6:34] complaints, very late at
[6:35] night.
[6:36] and early in the morning.
[6:37] so thank you.
[6:38] » Thank you.
[6:39] and also, I do want to comment
[6:42] that this is a business owned
[6:46] by african american business,
[6:48] and I really appreciate the
[6:50] staff for finding a way to
[6:51] have the business t continue
[6:55] and especially the outdoor
[6:56] situation.
[6:58] and good luck to them and with
[7:03] that, I will have council
[7:05] member chav easy to speak on
[7:06] this.
[7:08] chavez to speak on this.
[7:09] » I'll let it go.
[7:10] » All right.
[7:10] thank you so much.
[7:11] I will approve for item 9,
[7:13] all those in favor say aye.
[7:14] [ members voting ]
[7:16] and those opposed say nay.
[7:18] [ no response heard ]
[7:18] the ayes have it and the
[7:19] motion carries.
[7:20] all right.
[7:21] public hearing for everyone in
[7:23] attendance and especially
[7:24] those who might participate in
[7:26] our hearing or comment period,
[7:27] let me offer this notice.
[7:30] this hearing is being recorded
[7:33] and broadcast, both
[7:35] recordingings and broadcast
[7:36] are classifd as public data
[7:39] under the minnesota data
[7:40] practices act.
[7:41] by attending or participating
[7:42] in this proceeding, your image
[7:43] and any testimony or
[7:44] information that you might
[7:47] provide will be also subject
[7:49] to disclosure under that law.
[7:51] that includes but is not
[7:53] limited to your attendance,
[7:54] your name, and other personal
[7:55] details you might provide, as
[7:59] well as any testimony or
[8:00] comments you provide which
[8:03] includes any written
[8:03] submission you make which are
[8:06] included in the record of this
[8:08] meeting.
[8:08] our first public hearing is a
[8:12] license application for
[8:13] on-sale liquor with limited
[8:15] entertainment for bill's bait
[8:17] shop located at ward 12.
[8:22] I would ask ahmed mohamed from
[8:26] the business license for a
[8:27] presentation on this.
[8:29] welcome.
[8:30] » I'm license inspector with
[8:32] licenses and consumer
[8:33] services.
[8:33] I'm presenting an application
[8:35] from bill's bait shop, lcc,
[8:37] dba, bill's baithop, located
[8:41] at 3101 42nd street east,
[8:43] minneapolis, minnesota, 55406.
[8:46] in ward 12.
[8:48] the applicant is requesting
[8:50] on-sale liquor, limited
[8:52] entertainment with sunday
[8:53] sales license.
[8:54] if approved, they iend to be
[8:56] a full-service restaurant with
[8:57] a menu focused on fish, along
[9:00] with burgers and hot dogs with
[9:03] outdoor seating.
[9:05] bill's bait shop will be a
[9:06] sit-down restaurant with 48
[9:09] interior seats and 18 private
[9:11] patio seats.
[9:13] the premises includes the
[9:14] ground-level space at 3101
[9:17] 42nd street east.
[9:18] they intend to provide limited
[9:21] entertainment, only ambient
[9:23] music playing in the
[9:25] background inside only.
[9:26] on occasion, they may offer
[9:28] karaoke and trivia, but no
[9:30] exterior eertainment.
[9:34] hours of operation, indoor,
[9:35] sunday for thursday, 11:00
[9:37] a.m. To 11:00 p.m.
[9:38] friday and saturday, 11:00
[9:40] a. To 12:00 a.m
[9:42] outdoor hours for the private
[9:43] patio, sunday through
[9:44] thursday, 11:00 a.m. To 10:00
[9:47] p.m., and friday and saturday,
[9:48] 11:00 a.m. To 11:00 p.m.
[9:50] on june 15th, 2026, 159
[9:54] public hearing notices were
[9:55] sent to residents, property
[9:58] owners, posted on all
[10:00] residential buildings with
[10:01] four or more units within 600
[10:03] feet of the premises.
[10:06] notices were also sent to the
[10:08] standish erickson neighborhood d
[10:11] council member chowdhury.
[10:12] we have received 18 comments
[10:14] from the community.
[10:15] 18 in support of this
[10:16] application.
[10:18] however, their concerns are
[10:19] closing hours for their
[10:20] private patio.
[10:22] these hours are based off the
[10:24] feedback that was received in
[10:25] response from neighbors and
[10:26] are reflected in the requested
[10:29] closing times for the interior
[10:31] and exterior of the business.
[10:33] we brought these concerns to
[10:34] the applicant.
[10:34] the applicant has a history of
[10:37] running successful
[10:38] neighborhood restaurts with
[10:39] little issue.
[10:39] they fully intend to operate
[10:41] as a good neighbor.
[10:42] this is a new business to a
[10:44] ne location.
[10:46] a review of any complaints,
[10:48] 311 calls, police calls, and
[10:51] any operating conditions found
[10:53] no signicant issues
[10:54] concerning the business and
[10:55] the issuanc of this license.
[10:57] the license and consumer
[10:59] services division recommends
[11:01] approval of on-sale liquor,
[11:04] limited entertainment, with
[11:05] sunday sales license.
[11:06] this concludes my
[11:07] presention.
[11:08] at this time, I will stand for
[11:09] comments or questions.
[11:10] thank you.
[11:10] » Thank you so much for that
[11:12] prestation.
[11:14] now I'll proceed to open the
[11:15] public hearing and recognize
[11:18] jamie olson.
[11:19] hi.
[11:19] welcome.
[11:22] » Thank you, act bar.
[11:25] hello, council members.
[11:26] thank you for having me.
[11:27] I am jamie olson, founder and
[11:29] ceo of central restaurant
[11:31] group, bill's bait shop is one
[11:32] of our newest projects and
[11:35] near and dear to me, after
[11:37] my -- it's in honor of my
[11:39] grandpa, bill, who grew up in
[11:41] northern minnesota and loved
[11:42] fishing.
[11:43] so really really excited about
[11:44] this.
[11:45] really excited about the
[11:46] neighborhood.
[11:47] we've heard nothing but
[11:48] positive things and
[11:49] excitement, and we are very
[11:52] much a community-focused
[11:55] restaurant brand company.
[11:57] so, yeah, we respect the
[11:59] community and I'm here to
[12:00] answer any questions.
[12:02] » Thank you so much.
[12:05] are there anyone who would
[12:06] like to speak on this item?
[12:07] seeing none, I'll close the
[12:08] public hearing and recognize
[12:10] vice chair chowdhury.
[12:10] » Thank you, chair osman.
[12:14] akbar, would you just mind
[12:15] saying what the hours are just
[12:16] one more time for us?
[12:21] » So, the indoor hours will
[12:23] be sunday through thursday,
[12:25] 11:00 a.m. To 11:00 p.m.
[12:27] friday and satday, 11:00
[12:28] a.m. To 100 a.m.
[12:30] the outor patio, private
[12:32] patio hours, sunday through
[12:33] thursday, 11:00 a.m. -- excuse
[12:35] me -- 11:00 a.m. To 10:00 p.m.
[12:38] friday and saturday, 11:00
[12:39] a.m. To 11:00 p.m.
[12:41] » Thank you, akbar.
[12:43] » Sure.
[12:43] I just first want to start off
[12:46] by saying thank you so much
[12:47] for coming to city hall, jamie
[12:50] and jerry.
[12:51] really appreciate you both.
[12:53] I'm really excited to move
[12:54] this forward for approval.
[12:58] bill's bait shop is going to
[12:58] be such a wonderful addition
[13:00] to this corner of the 12th
[13:02] ward and the neighborhood.
[13:03] I have gotten so many emails,
[13:05] calls, texts, just excited for
[13:08] you to open and just really
[13:12] appreciate the other
[13:14] businesses you've ran in the
[13:15] twin cities area and the
[13:18] neighborhood here has really
[13:19] shared that they would love to
[13:21] have, like, a place where they
[13:22] can walk and have a drink,
[13:24] have some burgers.
[13:26] I think that northwoods smoke
[13:28] fish is going to be very
[13:29] popular.
[13:30] and I just want to also thank
[13:33] amy and akbar for your work.
[13:36] constituents have shared with
[13:37] me how accessible you've been
[13:39] and, really, I think
[13:41] everyone's going to appreciate
[13:42] this compromise on the hours.
[13:43] it's going to go a really long
[13:44] way and I'm just super excited
[13:46] to bring this into this
[13:47] corner.
[13:49] this corner's been vacant for
[13:50] a couple of years now.
[13:52] chicago taste authority used
[13:53] to be here.
[13:55] so having it be filled with a
[13:57] new neighbor is going to be
[13:58] wonderful and I really
[14:00] recommend, you probably
[14:01] already have connecting with
[14:02] the owner of every makeup,
[14:04] they always have a really cool
[14:06] crew of people coming through
[14:07] there that will just probably
[14:09] love bill's bait shop.
[14:11] » Great.
[14:12] wonderful.
[14:12] thank you.
[14:14] with that mion, all those in
[14:15] favor say aye.
[14:16] [ members voting ]
[14:16] and those opposed say nay.
[14:18] [ no response heard ]
[14:19] the ayes have it a the
[14:20] motion carries.
[14:21] our next public hearing is a
[14:23] license application for permit
[14:28] expansion of premises and
[14:30] street café, both are for
[14:33] bryant lake bowl.
[14:35] I'll have manager jamie lingo
[14:36] to talk about and give us
[14:38] presentation on this.
[14:39] » Thank you, chair osman,
[14:42] committee members, I'm amy
[14:43] lingo.
[14:43] I'm presenting an alication
[14:46] from splitsville,
[14:46] incorporated, lcc, doing
[14:48] business as bryant lake bowl,
[14:49] which is located at 810 lake
[14:51] street west, minneapolis,
[14:53] minnesota, 55408, which is in
[14:55] the 10th ward.
[14:56] the applicant is requesting a
[14:58] street café and a permanent
[14:59] expansion of license.
[15:01] if approved, they intend to
[15:02] expand their outdoor area to
[15:03] provide a street calf yea for
[15:05] the outside dining to
[15:07] accompany their current
[15:08] operations of restaurant,
[15:09] bowling, and live theater.
[15:11] the outdoor expansion will add
[15:12] approximately 180 square feet
[15:15] for 16 outdoor seats within a
[15:17] designated and enclosed café
[15:20] area operating during the
[15:21] spring through the fall sea
[15:25] season, street calf yeas
[15:27] operate in spark -- in parking
[15:29] spots.
[15:30] the hours of oration are
[15:31] monday through thursday, 8:00
[15:34] a.m. To 12:00 p.m., the
[15:36] outdoor hours on the proposed
[15:37] street calf yea are monday
[15:38] through sunday, 9:00 a.m. To
[15:40] 11:00 p.m.
[15:41] on june 15th, 2026, 134
[15:44] public hearing notices were
[15:45] sent to residents, property
[15:47] owners and posted on all
[15:49] residential buildings with
[15:50] four or more units within 600
[15:51] feet of the premises.
[15:53] notices were also sent to the
[15:55] lourey hill east neighborhood
[15:56] association, the lake street
[15:57] business association, and
[15:59] council member aisha chug
[16:00] high.
[16:01] we have received two comments
[16:02] from the committee, both of
[16:03] which were in support.
[16:04] we have received no comments
[16:06] in opposition.
[16:08] a review of any complaints,
[16:09] 311 calls, police calls, or
[16:11] anyther operating conditions
[16:13] ha found no significant
[16:16] issues concerning this
[16:16] buness or the issuance of
[16:17] this license.
[16:18] licenses and consumer services
[16:19] recommends approval of a
[16:20] street calf yea and permanent
[16:21] expansion of premises.
[16:22] this concludes my
[16:23] presentation.
[16:23] at this time I'll stand for
[16:24] any questions.
[16:25] » Thank you so much for that
[16:26] presentation.
[16:27] I will proceed to open the
[16:29] public hearing and see if
[16:30] there's anyone who would like
[16:31] to speak on this item.
[16:32] yes, sir, welcome.
[16:33] please state your name and --
[16:36] yes, come over here, yup.
[16:41] » Hello, everyone, my name is
[16:42] ryan o'neill.
[16:43] » Welcome.
[16:44] go ahead.
[16:45] » I'm a resident of the
[16:47] whittier neighborhood.
[16:47] I'm a longtime patron ofbryant e
[16:51] here today to talk about favor
[16:54] of the proposal.
[16:55] it's a place that's been very
[16:57] near and dear to me.
[16:58] when people come in from out
[17:00] of town, I always try and get
[17:01] them to stop by during the --
[17:04] stop by.
[17:05] during the pandemic, I did
[17:06] everything I could to keep the
[17:07] place open.
[17:08] I bought gift t-shirts for my
[17:10] entire family in north
[17:10] caroli.
[17:11] so there's bryant lake bowl
[17:13] advertising out of state.
[17:16] I volunteer a lot there, doing
[17:18] small things, I called the
[17:20] bingo, we're doing bingo
[17:22] tonight at 8:00 p.m.
[17:24] so, it's a place that I've
[17:26] been patronizing for quite
[17:27] some time, over 15 years, and
[17:30] I think this would be a great
[17:33] opportunity for the business
[17:34] in the neighborhood and I just
[17:35] wanted to encrage the
[17:38] council to approve this
[17:38] proposal.
[17:40] » All right.
[17:41] thank you so much for your
[17:42] testimony.
[17:43] is there anyone else?
[17:44] seeing none, I'll close the
[17:45] public hearing and recognize
[17:47] chair chowdhury.
[17:48] » Thank you, chair osman.
[17:49] I'll move this item for
[17:51] approval and then also just
[17:52] highlight to those who are
[17:54] watching, bryant lake bowl was
[17:55] very prominently featured on
[17:57] "love is blind minneapolis,"
[17:59] one of the most iconic breakup
[18:01] scenes of the season occurred
[18:03] at bryant lake bowl.
[18:04] so, excited to expand the
[18:06] premises.
[18:07] hopefully there will be more
[18:11] people getting together than
[18:11] breaking up.
[18:12] but that's not up to us here.
[18:15] » All right.
[18:16] wonderful.
[18:16] with that motion, all those in
[18:17] favor say aye.
[18:18] [ members voting ]
[18:19] and those opposed say nay.
[18:21] [ no response heard ]
[18:21] the ayes have it and the
[18:22] motion carries.
[18:26] our next public hearing is a
[18:28] license applicationor wine
[18:28] and strong beer with no live
[18:31] entertainment at antojitos,
[18:33] located at ward 4.
[18:35] I will have sarah grace from
[18:38] business license to give us
[18:39] details about this.
[18:40] welcome.
[18:41] » Thank you, chair osman and
[18:42] committee members.
[18:43] I'm license inspector sarah
[18:46] gray, that's s-a-r-a,
[18:49] g-r-a-y-s, for special
[18:50] purposes.
[18:50] with licenses and consumer
[18:52] services.
[18:52] I'm presenting an application
[18:55] from antojitos ryan.s, lcc,
[18:56] doing business as antojos
[18:59] ryan.
[19:00] the business is located at
[19:02] 1724 lourey avenue north, in
[19:04] ward 4.
[19:07] the applicant is requesting an
[19:09] on-sale wine with strong beer
[19:10] and no entertainment.
[19:12] if approved, they intend to
[19:13] add wine and strong beer to
[19:15] their full menu, sit-down
[19:18] restaurant, whichocuses on
[19:20] ecuadore and american
[19:21] cuisine.
[19:21] they've been open as a
[19:22] restaurant only for the past
[19:25] year.
[19:25] there will be no entertainment
[19:27] other than tvs or radio.
[19:28] the restaurant is in a
[19:30] standalone building and has
[19:31] capacity for 60 seats inside.
[19:33] ther is no outdo seating.
[19:36] the hours of operation for the
[19:38] restaurant are monday through
[19:39] sunday, 11:00 a.m. Through
[19:41] 9:00 p.m.
[19:43] on june 15th, public
[19:44] hearing notices were sent to
[19:46] residents, property 'owners,
[19:47] and posted on all residential
[19:49] buildings with four or more
[19:50] units within 600 feet of the
[19:52] premises.
[19:53] noticesere also sent to the
[19:57] followwell -- folwell
[20:01] neighborhood and council
[20:02] member.
[20:03] we have received no complaints
[20:05] from the community, 311 calls,
[20:07] police calls, and we found no
[20:10] significant issues concerning
[20:11] the business and issuance of
[20:12] this license and the business
[20:13] has completed a thorough
[20:15] security plan with the 4th
[20:17] precinct police department.
[20:17] the licenses and consumer
[20:19] services division recommends
[20:20] approval of an on-sale wine
[20:22] and strong beer with no
[20:24] entertainment license.
[20:24] this concludes my
[20:27] presentation.
[20:27] at this time I will stand for
[20:28] any questions or cments.
[20:29] thank you.
[20:30] » Thank you so much for that
[20:32] presentation.
[20:32] I will proceed to open the
[20:34] public hearing and see if
[20:35] there's anyone who would like
[20:36] to speak on this item.
[20:39] all right.
[20:40] seeing none,'ll close the
[20:42] public hearing.
[20:45] I recognize council member
[20:45] warren.
[20:47] » Thank you, chair osman.
[20:49] I've heard nothing but great
[20:51] things about this
[20:53] establishmen so I am excited
[20:56] to know that they are
[20:58] expanding their operations
[21:00] there on lowry in our cultural
[21:03] corridor, so this is exciting.
[21:05] and, yeah, that's all I got.
[21:07] » Thank you.
[21:08] with that motion from council
[21:13] member, all those in favor say
[21:14] aye.
[21:14] [ members voting ]
[21:14] and those opposed say nay.
[21:16] the ayes have it and the
[21:17] motion carries.
[21:18] our next item is a public
[21:21] hearing related to the
[21:23] financing for the grain
[21:26] exchange conversion project.
[21:27] I'll have amy carr from cped
[21:29] to speak more about this item.
[21:31] welcome.
[21:33] » Good afternoon, chair and
[21:34] committee members.
[21:35] I'm he emily carr, I'm a
[21:37] supervisor on the residential
[21:38] finance team in cped.
[21:39] and I'm before you today
[21:41] requesting funding approvals
[21:42] for the grain exchae
[21:44] conversion project.
[21:48] staff is recommending approval
[21:49] of up to $39 in tax-exempt
[21:52] housing revenue entitlement
[21:53] 'bonds and up to $1.775
[21:56] million in tax indecreement
[21:59] financing.
[22:00] I'll be joine by matthew
[22:02] hendricks and bradon rothe
[22:04] from development finance for
[22:05] the t.I.f. Portion of this
[22:07] presentation.
[22:09] therain exchange conversion
[22:11] project is the proposed
[22:12] conversion of the grain
[22:13] exchange building from an
[22:15] underutilized office space
[22:16] into a mixed-use, mixed-income
[22:19] development.
[22:20] sherman associates is
[22:21] proposing to redevelop this
[22:23] hioric complex located in
[22:24] the downtown west neighborhood
[22:25] of ward 7.
[22:29] into 232 units of mixed-income
[22:32] housing, including 210 units
[22:33] affordable at 60% ami, and 22
[22:36] units atarket rate.
[22:38] as well as 332,000 square --
[22:42] 32,000 square feet of
[22:43] commercial and office space.
[22:44] the grain exchange consists of
[22:45] two buildings.
[22:45] the north building, 301 fourth
[22:48] avenue, is ten stories.
[22:49] the first floor will be
[22:50] occupied by the current
[22:52] tenant, which is the u.s.
[22:53] postal office.
[22:55] resident amenities and lobby
[22:57] space and rental units.
[22:58] the remainder of this
[23:00] building, floors 2 through 10,
[23:01] will be occupied by rental
[23:02] units.
[23:06] the main building, 400 fourth
[23:08] street is 12 stories and will
[23:10] include commercial space on
[23:10] the first two floors.
[23:12] the third floor and the fifth
[23:15] through 11th floors of
[23:16] this building will be rental
[23:17] units.
[23:18] the fourth floor, currently
[23:19] used as a co-working space
[23:22] will be transferred into a
[23:25] 25,000-square-event event
[23:25] rental space to accommodate
[23:27] large gatherings, such as
[23:28] weddings and conferences.
[23:30] the 12th floor of this
[23:31] building is a rooftop deck.
[23:33] additional amenities include a
[23:35] club room, fitness center,
[23:36] lobby and management offices
[23:38] and an outdoor play area for
[23:40] children.
[23:41] the developer, sherman's
[23:43] associates, is a well known
[23:45] minneapolis-based develop iser
[23:46] and property management firm
[23:47] with a portfolio that includes
[23:49] commercial buildings, hotels,
[23:51] and artments.
[23:52] sherman has developed more
[23:53] than 8,000 rental units in
[23:55] minnesota, colorado, iowa, and
[23:57] florida.
[23:58] recent minneapolis projects
[24:00] include groove lots of, beam
[24:01] and ladder 260.
[24:03] the first set of actions
[24:04] before you today in this
[24:06] report involve the developer's
[24:08] application for tax-exempt
[24:10] housing revenue entitlement
[24:11] bonds, in an amount not to
[24:14] exceed $39 million.
[24:16] as a housing entitlement bond
[24:19] issuer, each year the city
[24:20] receives a bond allocation.
[24:21] in 2026, this allocation was
[24:23] approximately $72 million.
[24:25] housing revenue bonds can be
[24:26] used to finance the
[24:28] acquisition, rehabilitation,
[24:29] and construction of affordable
[24:31] rental housing.
[24:33] housing revenue bonds issued
[24:34] by the city are sold to
[24:36] investors to raise funds and
[24:39] these sales proceeds are used
[24:41] to finance affordableental
[24:42] housing projects.
[24:44] the debt or loan issued from a
[24:46] bond sale is an obligation of
[24:48] the borrower or the project
[24:50] and not of the city.
[24:53] tax-exempt housing revenue
[24:54] bonds are paired with 4%
[24:57] low-income housing tax credits
[24:59] to generate tax credit equity
[25:01] or syndication proceeds.
[25:02] in the grain exchange project,
[25:04] the tax credits will generate
[25:06] more than $36 million in
[25:09] syndication proceeds as a
[25:10] source to the project.
[25:11] the total development cost of
[25:14] this project are estimated at
[25:14] just over $122 million.
[25:17] and the developer has also
[25:20] secured approximately $46
[25:21] million in federal and state
[25:23] historic tax credits and
[25:25] environmental passthrough
[25:26] grants.
[25:28] the second part of this
[25:29] request involves the
[25:30] developer's request for up to
[25:34] 1.775 million in increment tax
[25:44] financing.
[25:48] » Thanks, emily.
[25:49] chair osman, committee
[25:50] members, my name is matthew
[25:53] hendricks, I'm a manager in
[25:54] the city's development finance
[25:55] division.
[25:57] tax increment financing, or
[25:58] t.I.f., is a fincing tool
[26:00] available to all cities and
[26:02] counties in minnesota and
[26:03] governed b state statute.
[26:05] the city can only utilize this
[26:07] tool in accoance with the
[26:09] rules established by thetate
[26:10] t.I.f. Act, which means the
[26:13] t.I.f. Disict can only
[26:14] support the specific project
[26:16] defined in the t.I.f. Plan.
[26:17] in other words, under current
[26:19] law, t.I.f. Cannot generate
[26:21] unrestricted general use
[26:22] funds.
[26:24] the project must include
[26:26] specific eligible costs, wch
[26:27] are also defined by statute.
[26:30] and, most importantly, the
[26:32] project must meet a "but for"
[26:35] test, a legal requirement that
[26:37] local government must satisfy
[26:38] before creating a new t.I.f.
[26:39] district to ensure t.I.f. Is
[26:41] only used on projects that are
[26:42] not financially feasible but
[26:46] for public financial
[26:46] assistance.
[26:48] based on staff's review, this
[26:50] project meetshe statutory
[26:52] requirements for the
[26:53] establishment of a housing
[26:54] t.I.f. District.
[26:56] I will now invite our summer
[26:58] urban scholar, bradon rothe to
[27:00] join me and share a little
[27:01] more detail on the rest for
[27:04] the -- on the request for the
[27:05] grain exchange.
[27:07] » Good afternoon, chair and
[27:09] members of the committee.
[27:11] my name sioux bradon rothe,
[27:12] and I'm an urban scholar with
[27:16] the development finance team
[27:16] this summer.
[27:17] as noted, the grain exchange
[27:18] project is requesting $1.775
[27:21] million in tax increment
[27:23] financing.
[27:24] as with all t.I.f. Projects,
[27:25] the increased property value
[27:27] resulting from the completion
[27:28] of this project will not be
[27:30] included in the city's general
[27:31] tax base until the t.I.f.
[27:33] district is decertified, which
[27:35] is anticipated to occur 15
[27:37] years aer development
[27:38] completion.
[27:39] the city will also retain 10%
[27:41] of the tax increment generated
[27:44] each year to pay t.I.f.
[27:46] administrative costs.
[27:47] e t.I.f. Recapture
[27:47] provisions for this project
[27:49] include two components.
[27:49] first, there will be a
[27:52] post-construction review of
[27:52] the deferred developer fee as
[27:54] compared to the current
[27:55] project budget.
[27:56] if the developer is able to
[27:58] increase their up-front fee
[28:00] via construction savings,
[28:02] improved financing terms or
[28:03] any other factors than the
[28:06] amount of t.I.f -- then the
[28:08] amount of t.I.f. Assistance
[28:09] will be reduced
[28:10] proportionately.
[28:11] the second piece of the
[28:13] recapture language could
[28:14] result in a reduction or
[28:15] elimination of t.I.f. Support
[28:16] for the project if the project
[28:19] generates significant proceeds
[28:20] for the developer in the event
[28:21] of a sale or refinancing.
[28:22] this provision is consistent
[28:24] with our t.I.f. Agreements f
[28:25] other projects and I will now
[28:26] turn the preseation back
[28:27] over to emily
[28:33] » Thank you, bradon.
[28:36] this concludes our
[28:37] presentation today.
[28:39] staff recommends proceeding
[28:40] with these requests in today's
[28:42] approvals.
[28:44] if that happens, the project
[28:45] will be positioned to close
[28:46] and begin construction this
[28:48] fall.
[28:49] we can take any questions you
[28:50] have at this time.
[28:51] I also wanted to acknowledge
[28:52] that there's representatives
[28:53] from sherman associates here
[28:55] as well today.
[28:57] so, yes.
[28:58] happy to answer any questions.
[28:59] » Thank you so much, staff,
[29:01] for your presentation of the
[29:02] project and also information
[29:06] about t.I.f.
[29:09] on this we will -- it's a
[29:11] public hearing, so we will
[29:12] open the public hearing and
[29:14] see if there's anyone who
[29:15] would like to speak on this
[29:17] item.I'm seeing no one.
[29:21] I will close the public
[29:23] hearing.
[29:23] and I see a few council
[29:25] members who have a comment or
[29:28] question.
[29:29] I have council member chavez.
[29:31] » Thank you, chair osman.
[29:33] I wouldirst like to mention
[29:34] that building more housing is
[29:35] a good thing and that I would
[29:37] rather build more housing in
[29:39] downtown minneapolis while
[29:39] making it more family friendly
[29:42] than being out data centers in
[29:43] downtown.
[29:44] I think it's important that we
[29:46] should focus on our efforts on
[29:48] building housing for people in
[29:49] our city rather than building
[29:50] it for data centers.
[29:51] so I just wanted to mention
[29:52] that first.
[29:54] I guess for staff, I was
[29:55] wondering if you could please
[29:57] confirm that no data center is
[29:58] going to be a part of this
[29:59] housing project at all.
[30:00] I would jus like to know
[30:01] that.
[30:04] » Did chair osman, council
[30:07] member chavez, no data center
[30:08] will be part of this project.
[30:09] » Thank you.
[30:10] I wanted to make sure.
[30:11] just want to get it on record.
[30:12] and I'm going to have a
[30:13] variety of questions for city
[30:14] staff.
[30:16] can you please confirm the ami
[30:18] breakdown for the public to
[30:20] know?
[30:20] I have the number, but I just
[30:22] want to get it confirmed for
[30:23] the public and people watching
[30:26] at home.
[30:28] » Chair osman, council member
[30:31] chavez, the breakdown is 210
[30:32] units at 60% ami and 22 units
[30:38] at market rate.
[30:39] » And what does cped
[30:41] interpret that 60% ami income
[30:45] range to be?
[30:45] » I don't have the numbers in
[30:46] front of me.
[30:48] » I'll ask other questions if
[30:49] folks would be able to figure
[30:50] that out, at least before the
[30:52] meeting ends, that would be
[30:53] helpful.
[30:55] do you know under this
[30:56] development project how long,
[30:59] is it going to be forever that
[31:00] it'soing to be at 60% ami or
[31:03] is it a specific amount of
[31:04] years that it's going to be
[31:05] required toe at 60% ami?
[31:08] » So under the city tax
[31:10] credit requirements, it will
[31:11] be a minimum of 30 years.
[31:14] » Do you know what's going to
[31:16] happen, is there any
[31:17] conversations with the
[31:18] developer on what's going to
[31:19] happen after those 30 years
[31:21] pass?
[31:22] are they going to keep it at
[31:23] that level?
[31:26] » So typically tax credit
[31:29] runs a minimum of 40 years.
[31:31] I can confirm and follow up
[31:33] after the meeting on the tax
[31:35] edit scoring, there's an
[31:36] tion to get additiol
[31:37] points for extendedaffordabilit.
[31:39] I don't have the details of
[31:40] that scoring in front of me.
[31:42] » Yeah.
[31:42] and I guess I'm asking more
[31:44] of, like, has a developer at
[31:46] least communicated with staff
[31:47] what their pla would be
[31:48] after that?
[31:50] and not necessarily -- yes,
[31:52] they're going to get some tax
[31:53] breaks here, but I guess my
[31:54] question is, has the developer
[31:56] made a decision on what
[31:57] happens after 30 years or even
[31:58] 40 years?
[31:59] » W have the developer
[32:02] available.
[32:02] chris.
[32:04] come on up.
[32:06] » Chair osman, committee
[32:09] members, to answer that
[32:11] question, we're actually right
[32:13] now facing a similar decision
[32:15] with two properties in
[32:16] northeast minneapolis,
[32:17] bottineau commons, bottineau
[32:19] lots of, that we developed 25
[32:20] years ago.
[32:22] and the decision we're making,
[32:24] we're re-upping another 40
[32:25] years of affordability, that
[32:27] will extend out the
[32:28] affordability at least 55
[32:29] years.
[32:29] so similar with grain
[32:30] exchange, as we get 20 years
[32:32] out from now, which I'll
[32:33] probably be back up in front
[32:35] in 20 years making a request
[32:36] to reinvest more heavily back
[32:37] into the apartments.
[32:38] we'll comeack in, and we'll
[32:40] probably re-up an
[32:41] affordability long term.
[32:42] that's been our general
[32:43] practice to maintain
[32:44] affordability long term,
[32:45] high-quality housing,
[32:47] generational housing.
[32:48] we do not want to take
[32:50] affordable housing off the
[32:50] market.
[32:51] we want to keep it high
[32:53] quality, long term.
[32:54] so 20 to 25, 30 years from now
[32:56] I suspect we'll be back in
[32:57] front of the council re-upping
[32:59] long term for another 30 years
[33:02] on affordability with grain
[33:03] exchange.
[33:06] » Suspect you will?
[33:07] » We fully plan to.
[33:08] » Okay, just wanted toake
[33:09] sure.
[33:10] thank you, chair.
[33:11] I guess for staff, a question,
[33:13] just because I think t.I.f.
[33:15] districts or piece meelg
[33:16] t.I.f. Districts, I think it's
[33:17] important for the public to
[33:19] better understand how this
[33:20] works.
[33:21] piecemealing.
[33:22] what's happened, if let's just
[33:23] say, and I hope this doesn't
[33:25] happen, because I want these
[33:25] buildings to be full and I
[33:27] want more people that live in
[33:29] these units.
[33:30] what happens if the project
[33:32] underperforms or if people
[33:33] aren't renting it out and the
[33:34] bonds aren't repaid on
[33:36] schedule, does that impact the
[33:37] city?
[33:37] my understanding is that it
[33:38] doesn't.
[33:38] but I would like to understand
[33:39] what that means for the city.>>.
[33:42] chair osman, council member
[33:44] chavez, thank you for the
[33:44] question.
[33:45] you are correct that the city
[33:47] is not at risk of a debt
[33:51] payment issue if the project
[33:53] underpforms.
[33:54] the city in this case is issue
[33:57] a paygo t.I.f. Note so the
[33:58] risk for any variation from
[34:01] what we're currently
[34:01] projecting lies with the
[34:02] developer.
[34:03] » Okay, thank you.
[34:04] and then the last few
[34:05] questions that I have here is
[34:06] that given that this is really
[34:08] focused in downtown in
[34:10] higher-income areas in our
[34:11] city, I guess a question for
[34:12] cped that I have is, what is
[34:15] cped doing to bring more
[34:17] investments into our cultural
[34:18] corridors with this kind of
[34:19] t.I.f. District or
[34:21] piecemealing t.I.f. Districts
[34:22] into our city?
[34:23] where else is this used in
[34:25] minneapolis?
[34:25] I would love to get a
[34:27] breakdown on that as well.
[34:29] I think my thing is, you see
[34:32] $39 million in tax, whatever
[34:34] you want to call t and you
[34:36] think, my constituents see
[34:37] that, where ee is that being
[34:39] used in our city?
[34:41] are we talking about different
[34:43] zones in minneapolis, like on
[34:45] lake street, 38th street,
[34:47] franklin avenue, west
[34:48] broadway, you name it?
[34:49] so, yeah.
[34:51] » Chair osman, council member
[34:53] chavez, is your question
[34:55] specific to housing revenue
[34:56] bonds or tax increment
[34:58] financing ten?
[34:59] » T.I.f., I guess, either/or,
[35:01] both.
[35:01] I know there's t.I.f., there's
[35:03] like less money on tha but I
[35:07] guess both -- both.
[35:10] there's many votes that are
[35:11] happening right now so I would
[35:12] say both.
[35:12] » The housing revenue bonds
[35:14] are a tool that are paired
[35:15] with a housing tax credit.
[35:16] so we have a lot of projects.
[35:20] we close both new construction
[35:22] an rehab every year acro
[35:23] the city.typically those ared wh
[35:27] our -- paired with our
[35:28] affordable housing trust fund
[35:30] which does prioritize projects
[35:31] within cultural corridors.
[35:33] I also -- I did -- I do have
[35:34] the numbers here for your
[35:36] previous question around ami,
[35:38] and I can answer that now.
[35:42] so for 60% I household,
[35:45] that's up to a family of four,
[35:46] the allowable income would be
[35:48] up to $78,900.
[35:51] for a family of two, it would
[35:55] be $63,100.
[35:57] and I'll let matthew answer
[35:59] around the t.I.f.
[36:01] » Tough the chair, council
[36:03] member chavez, in terms of
[36:06] geography of use of t.I.f.,
[36:07] t.I.f. Is a citywide tool, and
[36:09] we look at use of t.I.f. On a
[36:12] case-by-case basis because
[36:13] each district needs to meet
[36:15] the state statutory
[36:16] requirements.
[36:17] but it's absolutely available
[36:19] citywide.
[36:19] and we could follow up with
[36:20] your office and send a map of
[36:22] current t.I.f. Districts, if
[36:23] you'd like.
[36:23] » Yeah, that would be
[36:25] helpful, of, like, where we
[36:27] usually use t.I.f. Districts,
[36:29] how it's applied, how often do
[36:32] we use it, areas in our city,
[36:33] maybe the past few years.
[36:35] so that would be super
[36:36] helpful.
[36:36] I'll be voting for this today.
[36:38] I just had a lot of questions
[36:40] that I think a lot of my
[36:41] constituents are just asking
[36:42] when they see this item
[36:43] brought before us.
[36:44] as I mentioned earlier, I am a
[36:46] big supporter of building more
[36:47] housing.I think building more hg
[36:49] is really important.
[36:50] I'd rather build more housing
[36:52] downtown than data centers.
[36:53] that's just something that I
[36:54] will kp on naming because
[36:56] am concerned that downtown is
[36:57] going to become a place of
[36:59] just data centers instead of
[37:01] housing and a family-friendly
[37:02] downtown.
[37:03] but I'll support this today
[37:05] and I just hope that in the
[37:07] future if we're going to be
[37:09] using this tool that we
[37:12] prioritize more deeply
[37:13] affordable housing.
[37:15] I think that hearing the
[37:17] salary income range is still
[37:18] going to be hard for, you
[37:19] know, folks that are
[37:21] struggling to make it by to
[37:23] live in downwn.
[37:25] so, just want to make those
[37:25] comments.
[37:27] » All right.
[37:28] thank you, council member
[37:31] chavez.
[37:31] I will recognize next council
[37:33] member rainville.
[37:33] » Thank you, chair.
[37:34] I don't have any comments
[37:36] about data centers.
[37:36] I'm going to stick to the
[37:39] germe here and talk about --
[37:40] » Tnk you.
[37:41] » -- this project.
[37:42] but I wanted to thank our
[37:43] staff.
[37:43] this is really hard work to
[37:45] get all these numbers to match
[37:46] up and keep going back and
[37:48] forth with the developer.
[37:52] this project started two terms
[37:53] ago.
[37:54] I want to thank the developers
[37:55] for your -- you are the best
[37:57] at providing housing for those
[37:59] who least can afford it.
[38:01] you've shown that time and
[38:02] time again in this city.
[38:03] your heart is in the right
[38:04] place.
[38:05] and I really appreciate what
[38:06] you're doing to help those who
[38:07] are less fortunate in our
[38:09] city.
[38:09] so thank you very much.
[38:10] I will be voting for this
[38:11] today.
[38:12] » Thank you, council member
[38:15] rainville.
[38:16] I recognize council member
[38:17] shaffer, and hopefully she'll
[38:18] make the motion, too.
[38:19] » Sure.
[38:19] I'll just say thank you as
[38:20] well.
[38:23] in a time where there's many
[38:24] places to invest your money, I
[38:25] want to say personally thank
[38:26] you for investing in
[38:27] affordable housing in the city
[38:28] of minneapolis.
[38:30] that matters.
[38:30] your track record matters.
[38:32] and you matter to this city.
[38:34] and, so, thankful to cped for
[38:36] your willingness to cobble all
[38:39] these things together and for
[38:40] your perseverence in putting
[38:41] this deal together.
[38:43] because I think a lot of
[38:44] people are going to benefit,
[38:46] and I'm thrilled to see that
[38:49] reality start to happen even
[38:50] this fall.
[38:51] so thank you for the quick
[38:52] timetable.
[38:53] and with that, I will make the
[38:57] tion to move forward the
[38:59] grain exchang conversion
[39:00] project fancing.
[39:02] » Second.
[39:03] » Thank you so much.
[39:05] I will also make a comment
[39:07] here.
[39:09] I really appreciate the
[39:13] developers' thinking.
[39:13] this is something to
[39:15] celebrate.
[39:15] we talk about this conversion
[39:17] plan in our downtown,
[39:19] especially after the covid and
[39:21] things are changing around.
[39:22] so this will be really a good
[39:24] model for the city of
[39:25] minneapolis to follow, to
[39:29] bring people into downtown,
[39:31] they're close to work, a place
[39:33] for folks to afford, and I did
[39:37] talk to the developers to
[39:41] really even get more deeply
[39:44] affordable housing, and they
[39:45] say they will look into it.
[39:47] but also the exciting part
[39:49] about it is there will be
[39:51] commercial space in the area
[39:54] where across e street from
[39:55] here, you know, very short
[39:58] distance for the people that
[39:59] work in this blding to kind
[40:01] of go and really enjoy that
[40:04] place.
[40:06] so, super excited for this
[40:08] project and can't wait for the
[40:12] ribbon cutting when this will
[40:13] open.
[40:14] with that motion, all those in
[40:15] favor say aye.
[40:16] [ members voting ]
[40:17] and those opposed say nay.
[40:19] [ no response heard ]
[40:20] the ayes have it and the
[40:21] motion carries.
[40:21] thank you so much.
[40:23] all right.
[40:27] next item it's a
[40:31] quasi-judicial hearing.
[40:31] before we begin, if the
[40:34] apicant is here to testify,
[40:37] you'll be granted five minutes
[40:39] to address this committee.
[40:42] all other testifiers will be
[40:45] given two minutes to address.
[40:47] with that, this item is a
[40:51] variance appeal submitted by
[40:52] the property at 4710 humboldt
[40:55] avenue north.
[40:58] I will invite myles campo from
[41:01] cped to give us more
[41:01] information about this item.
[41:04] welcome, sir.
[41:04] » Thank you, chair osman,
[41:05] board members -- or committee
[41:07] members, excuse me.
[41:08] so this item, 4710 bum holdt
[41:10] avenue north, as mentioned, is
[41:11] an appeal of a decision by the
[41:14] zoning board of adjustment
[41:15] back in may when that meeting
[41:18] was held.
[41:19] so the variance in this case
[41:21] was regarding a trash
[41:22] enclosure to the rear of an
[41:23] existing eight-unit apartment
[41:25] building at 4710 humboldt
[41:27] avenue north.
[41:27] you can see on the screen here
[41:29] that existing lot, it's a bit
[41:31] of a funky shape, being
[41:33] located on humboldt avenue and
[41:35] shingle creek parkway.
[41:36] the parking and the trash
[41:38] enclosure, as it were, are
[41:39] both located to the rear of
[41:41] the building off of of the
[41:42] alley itself.
[41:43] so you can see here, these are
[41:45] existing conditions on the
[41:46] site from earlier this spring.
[41:49] trying to give a bit of a
[41:50] view of that entire parking
[41:51] area.
[41:52] so, again, currently there are
[41:53] eight spaces available for
[41:54] those eight residents in the
[41:55] building.
[41:56] there are a couple of other
[41:58] kind of impediments in
[42:01] providing screening for that
[42:02] dumpster.
[42:02] so, again, the dumpster is
[42:04] located on the far, kind of
[42:05] north end of the parking area.
[42:08] it is bracketed by some mature
[42:11] trees, as well as utility
[42:12] poles on both sides of that
[42:14] parking area, which
[42:15] potentially would need to be
[42:17] modified in conjunction with
[42:20] xcel energy, if the applicant
[42:21] needed more space to enclose
[42:22] that dumpster itself.
[42:25] again, they can certainly
[42:26] enclose it by moving into in
[42:28] one of those parking spaces
[42:29] and thereby lose that parking
[42:31] area.
[42:32] ideally, they would like to
[42:33] keep a one-to-one ratio for
[42:36] their parking and their
[42:37] residents.
[42:37] you can see that it already is
[42:38] beginning to kind of encroach
[42:40] into that eighth space.
[42:45] one of the things that staff
[42:46] really does want to highlight
[42:47] in terms of context, we'll
[42:48] talk a bit more about the
[42:49] findings that need to be met
[42:50] for a variance, one thing that
[42:51] we always look at is are there
[42:54] unique circumstances to the
[42:54] property that cause the need
[42:55] for a variance or cause the
[42:56] need for kind of a discretion
[43:00] from the code itself.
[43:01] so in this case, again,
[43:03] located at the corner of
[43:04] humboldt and shingle creek
[43:05] parkway.
[43:06] humboldt itself has parking
[43:09] restrictions all along it,
[43:10] north and south.
[43:11] and then there is a bus stop
[43:13] directly in front of this
[43:15] building.
[43:16] so anything there with a red
[43:17] line would be no street
[43:18] parking allowed.
[43:18] there is at least one space on
[43:21] kind of the same block as the
[43:23] apartment building itself, and
[43:25] then on the opposite side of
[43:26] the street there is parking
[43:28] available.
[43:28] one thing that happen the
[43:29] applicant noted in their
[43:30] materials to the board of
[43:31] adjustment is just to the
[43:32] southwest, you can see in this
[43:34] image, there's a number of
[43:36] industrial uses that have a
[43:36] lot of truck traffic that go
[43:39] and take this turn between the
[43:40] two streets.
[43:41] you can see from that aerial
[43:44] imagery from the county that
[43:46] those trucks do take a very
[43:47] wide turn.
[43:48] there have been a couple of
[43:49] accidents on that street
[43:50] related to trucks hitting
[43:51] parked vehicles in the past.
[43:53] so there was concern from the
[43:55] applicant's perspective of
[43:55] moving those residents on to
[43:57] street parking.
[43:59] usually not something we talk
[44:00] a lot about with variances.
[44:01] usually there is an
[44:03] alternative option, but here
[44:05] there definitely is a burden
[44:06] here on the property in terms
[44:08] of parking available.
[44:10] when this went to board of
[44:13] adjustment, the staff, again,
[44:14] felt that it did meet that
[44:16] unique circumstances finding
[44:17] for a variance.
[44:19] however, variances require all
[44:21] three findings of the
[44:22] practical difficulties exam to
[44:24] be met in order to be
[44:26] approved.
[44:26] at the time staff did not feel
[44:28] like that this meant the
[44:29] intent of the code.
[44:31] we require that dumpsters be
[44:33] screened for apartment
[44:36] buildings, to prevent the view
[44:37] from public streets or
[44:38] residential uses, but it
[44:40] serves a practical effect of
[44:42] being a barrier from a
[44:44] nonresident from dumping their
[44:44] trash in that area, which
[44:46] seemed to have been an issue
[44:47] in the past with this site.
[44:48] similarly, again, the kind of
[44:51] essential character, the
[44:52] injury to detriment of
[44:55] surrounding property owners,
[44:56] we noted at board of
[44:56] adjustment that this had five
[44:58] complaints since I believe
[45:00] 2002, specifically related to
[45:01] garbage overflowing in the
[45:02] alley.
[45:02] so clearly there was a burden
[45:03] being felt by adjacent
[45:05] property owners.
[45:06] one thing that we noted at the
[45:08] time, and this was something
[45:09] where staff and the board of
[45:10] adjustment were both under the
[45:12] impression that we could not
[45:13] set any sort of conditions
[45:15] related to hiring a staff
[45:16] person on site, we have
[45:18] confirmed since that meeting
[45:19] with the city attorney's
[45:21] office that one option
[45:21] available to you all would be
[45:24] to condition the variance
[45:27] approval on the hiring or the
[45:28] maintaining of that site
[45:29] through something like a
[45:30] live-in supervisor, a live
[45:32] 199-in building manager.
[45:34] it's not probably staff's
[45:35] first choice in terms of
[45:38] managing compliance long term,
[45:39] right, there's not a lot of
[45:40] ways for us to ensure that
[45:42] requirement is being met 10,
[45:43] 15 years in the future.
[45:44] this variance would run with
[45:46] the land.
[45:47] but it does seem to get at
[45:49] those secondary points, right,
[45:50] in terms of the intent of the
[45:52] ordinance being to manage that
[45:56] potential blight and nuisance
[45:57] from the trash and then the
[45:59] injury or detriment to other
[46:02] property owners.
[46:02] so with all that, I'm happy to
[46:04] stand for questions.
[46:05] we also do have wayne carlson,
[46:07] the property owner here, here,
[46:09] available to speak on this
[46:11] topic.
[46:12] » Okay.
[46:12] thank you so much, staff.
[46:16] I appreciate your
[46:16] presentation.
[46:21] we will proceed to open the
[46:22] public hearing and give the
[46:24] applicant a chance to speak
[46:25] for five mines.
[46:37] » Is this close enoh?
[46:38] » Yes, please go ahead.
[46:40] » I want to thank you for
[46:41] listening to me today.
[46:43] » Please state your name.
[46:44] » Pardon?
[46:45] » State your name.
[46:45] » I'm wayne carlson.
[46:47] and I'm t owner of the
[46:53] horner-carlson family
[46:54] partnership and the building.
[46:55] I want to thank you for
[46:56] listening to me, because to me
[46:57] it's very critical what I'm
[46:58] talking about.
[46:59] and I realize that all you
[47:00] people have a lot of things on
[47:03] your agenda that are a lot
[47:04] bigger than my issue.
[47:05] and ihank you for listening
[47:07] to me today.
[47:11] I'm filing for an exemption to
[47:13] the board ofdjustment for
[47:15] having a refuse container
[47:19] around my garbage container,
[47:20] and I'm doing this, the bottom
[47:23] line is having this surround
[47:26] around my garbage container
[47:29] has some unintended
[47:30] consequences.
[47:31] and the basis for that is that
[47:33] all -- aut two of my eight
[47:38] parking spots -- I can't see
[47:39] well.
[47:40] are going to be taken up with
[47:45] this enclosure.
[47:46] and then I have -- I have
[47:49] really three choices I can
[47:49] make.
[47:50] first of all, I can extend the
[47:51] parking lot and it's going to
[47:52] cost about $138,000 to do
[47:54] that.
[47:57] number two, I can force two
[47:59] tenants to park on the only
[48:00] two parking spots available on
[48:02] shingle creek parkway and
[48:03] making them vulnerable, a
[48:06] dangerous turning corners for
[48:07] thousands of 18-wheelers.
[48:10] or I can add -- third r
[48:12] alternative is the one that
[48:12] I'm proposing that I can add
[48:16] to the management team, a
[48:17] person that would live in the
[48:18] builng -- a tenant that's in
[48:20] the building and daily scan
[48:22] the parking lot to make sure
[48:23] that there's no stray trash.
[48:27] in addition to that, I've
[48:31] also -- at this point also
[48:33] enlarged my container.
[48:35] when I was before the board of
[48:39] adjustment, it seemed like
[48:40] that wasn't a place for me to
[48:41] really be.
[48:42] and one of the ladies there,
[48:44] is it more important to have a
[48:46] surround or to have control of
[48:47] the rubbish?
[48:50] the initial ownership, I
[48:51] bought this building, preive a
[48:55] tax exchange -- preserve a tax
[48:57] exchange 25 years ago with the
[48:58] understanding that the
[48:58] building was going to be taken
[48:59] as part of the greenway
[49:00] project.
[49:01] I understand that aer I
[49:02] bought t the intention was
[49:03] chand when the neighbors
[49:05] insisted that the property be
[49:06] left as a buffer to the
[49:08] intersection and the
[49:09] commercial area.
[49:13] my management, I manage the
[49:14] property as a tier one
[49:16] property for 25 yea.
[49:18] I visit the building at least
[49:19] once a week, cleaning the
[49:22] interiors, cutting the grass,
[49:25] blowing the trash out of the
[49:27] parking lot.
[49:29] I believe this way of managing
[49:31] gives me the ability to be on
[49:32] the premises and see what's
[49:34] going on.
[49:35] over the years, the refuse
[49:37] handling has been changed from
[49:38] individual containers to
[49:39] larger dumpsters to impro
[49:41] the system.
[49:41] the two pictures taken by
[49:46] stuart and I show here, by the
[49:48] city, shows a clean and
[49:49] orderly dumpste area.
[49:51] all the neighbors that see the
[49:53] dumpster have sigd a letter
[49:55] back when supporting me on
[49:58] leaving the dumpsters
[49:59] initially.
[50:00] my interaction with the
[50:03] council and inspection.
[50:04] the inspection deparent
[50:06] ordered that I provide a
[50:08] surround.
[50:09] I appealed to the council
[50:11] president and she told me she
[50:12] had asked the inspector leave
[50:15] me alonend I was a tier one
[50:16] landlord and she wanted to
[50:18] keep me in the neighborhood.
[50:20] I talked to council member
[50:22] after that and she stressed
[50:23] that in addition to my
[50:25] hands-on management, I hire
[50:27] somebody in the buildin to
[50:29] survise the rubbish
[50:30] container on a daily basis.
[50:31] I've done that, in addition
[50:33] I've added a larger container
[50:35] to take care of that.
[50:36] she recommended I try to
[50:40] appeal to veterans who might
[50:41] have a little more respect for
[50:42] my property.
[50:43] I think this should solve the
[50:45] problem of cleaning up the
[50:47] loose paper and plastic across
[50:49] the building.
[50:51] keeping the parking amenity
[50:53] for the eight tenants requires
[50:54] the parking lot to be extend
[50:55] and paved for twoew spaces.
[50:58] it would require the moving of
[50:59] one or possibly two utility
[51:01] poles to create a new space.
[51:05] it also require removal of
[51:07] large tree to the north, one
[51:08] to the south, and a hedge to
[51:09] the south.
[51:10] it requires the moving of
[51:12] phone, electrical, and come
[51:15] cast -- commissioner cast
[51:18] lines -- comcast at incredible
[51:21] cost.
[51:22] it's a cost of over $137,000.
[51:24] this is beyond m financial
[51:26] capabilities and most likely
[51:27] force me to sell the property.
[51:31] the minneapolis restricted
[51:32] parking.
[51:32] there's no legal parking on
[51:34] either side of the humboldt,
[51:35] which is the front of the
[51:37] building, and on the side of
[51:38] the building there's no
[51:40] parkin because of the bus
[51:42] stop.
[51:43] there's basically one and a
[51:46] half spots that people could
[51:48] park there and tn that would
[51:49] be subject to a snow
[51:53] emergency.
[51:53] there's no parking to the
[51:55] north.
[51:55] basically the's no parking
[51:57] to any area around my building
[51:59] on the north, south, east and
[52:01] west, except these two parking
[52:02] spots.
[52:03] » Sir, you've run out of
[52:03] time.
[52:04] if you can wrap it up, that
[52:05] would be great.
[52:10] » Well, I was going to go
[52:12] in the parking on the treat
[52:13] is unsafe of, because there's
[52:14] about 17,000 turns on that
[52:15] street, and there's been three
[52:17] accidents in the last year
[52:18] there th vehicles running
[52:19] into my buildin
[52:22] front's been blocked off to
[52:23] vehicles and right now there's
[52:26] a bus sp that's knocked
[52:27] over.
[52:27] so what I'm suggesting, and I
[52:29] hope that you'll concur with
[52:33] this is that you allow me to
[52:34] keep it the way it is and let
[52:37] me go ahead with gting
[52:38] someone in the building to
[52:41] help with the cleaning and
[52:42] take care of that aspect.
[52:43] I think this is probably the
[52:44] best interest of the city, the
[52:49] tenants and the neighbors.
[52:52] and I have -- all the things
[52:53] I've discussed here are in
[52:56] addendums, exhibits, so that
[52:57] you know that what I'm saying
[53:00] is as the basis.
[53:01] » Thank you.
[53:02] » Thank you for your time.
[53:03] » If you have any --
[53:04] » I have another question.
[53:05] I just got a bill here for
[53:07] this project for $13,303.65.
[53:12] I hav no idea what that'--
[53:13] » From the city?
[53:14] we'll have staff to talk to
[53:17] you after the meeting.
[53:17] » Okay.
[53:18] » If you have any documents
[53:20] you'd like to submit in
[53:21] writing, you can give it to
[53:22] the clerk.
[53:22] we can have that in the
[53:26] record.
[53:26] all right.
[53:27] are there anyone who would
[53:29] like to speak on this item?
[53:31] seeing none, I will close the
[53:36] public hearing and recognize
[53:37] vice chair crowdry.
[53:40] chowdhury.
[53:41] » Thank you so much, chair
[53:42] osman.
[53:42] thank you, mr. Carlson, for
[53:44] coming down to city hall and
[53:46] writing your appeal.
[53:49] so, colleagues, just taking a
[53:51] look at the staff report on
[53:53] this, I think this situation
[53:56] is, I would say, a little
[53:59] highly unusual.
[54:02] I think, for me, it's very
[54:05] hard to consider the granting
[54:07] of a variance when the code is
[54:09] straightforward.
[54:11] however, the unique
[54:13] circumstances of the
[54:16] situation, I think the
[54:17] applicant really clearly laid
[54:19] out.
[54:20] there's just -- it's just a
[54:22] very tenuous corner for
[54:24] on-street parking, even if you
[54:25] did on-street parking, it
[54:28] would go off in the vinter
[54:30] time and there have been
[54:31] several accidents and then
[54:33] also I think mr. Carlson, in
[54:35] your addendum you did a good
[54:36] job of laying out the
[54:37] financial hardship and that's
[54:38] something that staff concurred
[54:39] with.
[54:40] and I know that council member
[54:44] vita has been talking to you
[54:45] and trying to figure out a
[54:46] solution which commend you for
[54:48] reaching out to your council
[54:50] member and figuring out what
[54:52] works.
[54:52] my one ask, to consider along
[54:54] with hiring a supervisor is
[54:56] making a plan for if the
[54:59] dumpster overflows, right?
[55:00] where would it go even if you
[55:01] had an on-site person to come
[55:03] and pick it up?
[55:05] I think that's really getting
[55:07] to the heart of kind of the
[55:10] issue that residents have
[55:11] complained about.
[55:18] the motion that I'm going to
[55:19] make is based off of what the
[55:21] city attorney's office has
[55:22] said is allowable, which is
[55:23] moving forward with the
[55:23] variance with the condition
[55:25] that mr. Carlson hires an
[55:29] on-site supervisor to to clean
[55:34] on a regular basis.
[55:36] so I guess one question that
[55:39] maybe I could ask the
[55:40] applicant, if that's all right
[55:40] with you, sir, if you want to
[55:46] come up, mr. Carlson.
[55:55] » My question for you, sir,
[55:57] is in addition to the on-site
[55:58] supervisor being there, will
[55:59] you just commit to making a
[56:01] plan for maybe if there's
[56:04] extra space needed for
[56:06] overflowing trash?
[56:07] I know someone will come and
[56:08] clean it up.
[56:09] but just making sure that
[56:10] there's a way for communi
[56:14] members in your building to
[56:15] know that there's a way to
[56:16] address the situation as it
[56:18] occurs.
[56:23] » I guess what I c say is
[56:26] this generally happens when
[56:29] someone has moved out.
[56:30] like in the last one I had
[56:31] moved out, I had an eight-yard
[56:35] container come overnd we put
[56:37] all the garbage in that
[56:38] container and had it moved out
[56:39] that way.
[56:41] so I guess I think I've
[56:43] answered your question by my
[56:44] actions already.
[56:47] have I answered it?
[56:48] » In part.
[56:49] just making sure that -- I
[56:50] think the goal is getting at
[56:55] ensuring that there's no
[56:56] overflow of trash and trash on
[56:58] the ground
[56:58] it sounds like the prfers is
[56:59] going to help -- the
[57:02] supervisor is going to help
[57:03] with that, but making sure
[57:04] there's a way that folks can
[57:05] understand that, that's how
[57:06] they can address thesituation.
[57:09] just making it clear to your
[57:10] tenants that this is available
[57:11] to them.
[57:13] » What is available to them?
[57:14] » The on-site supervisor and
[57:17] additional cleaning, if we
[57:18] grant you the variance.
[57:19] » They know that somebody's
[57:20] doing that?
[57:21] » Yh, and how to get ahold
[57:22] of them.
[57:23] I know you're at the property
[57:25] once a week, you shared in
[57:25] your addendum.
[57:26] » Of course.
[57:28] and I think they already
[57:30] know --
[57:31] » Oh, good.
[57:32] » It's obvious --
[57:33] » I just ask because it's
[57:35] highly unusual for us to grant
[57:36] a variance for something like
[57:37] this.
[57:37] but we have a way to condition
[57:39] it, but the goal is to address
[57:41] the problem at hand and it
[57:43] sounds like there's a good
[57:44] plan for it.
[57:47] » Well, I concur with what
[57:48] you're trying to do.
[57:50] » Okay.
[57:51] well, thank you, sir.
[57:52] that's the motion that I'll be
[57:53] making.
[57:53] » Thank you.
[57:54] » Second.
[57:56] » All rig.
[57:57] seeing no one else, I will --
[58:00] » Apologies.
[58:00] can I just seek clarification
[58:02] here?
[58:03] if the intent is to move
[58:05] forward with an approval of
[58:07] the appeal, I would
[58:09] respectfully recommend in that
[58:10] case that you do move this
[58:12] forward without recommendation
[58:13] at this moment and direct
[58:15] staff to prepare findings of
[58:17] fact in accordance with that
[58:17] motion.
[58:19] » Oy.
[58:20] that sounds good, attorney.
[58:23] so ultimately the goal is to
[58:25] move for the appeal -- grant
[58:27] the appeal with the condition
[58:29] to hire an on-site supervisor
[58:32] and we will ask staff to work
[58:33] with us to create the findings
[58:34] and we'll move forward without
[58:36] recommendation.
[58:37] » Without recommendation.
[58:38] n>> all right.
[58:45] perfect.
[58:45] thank you, council member.
[58:48] so with that motion from vice
[58:50] chair crowdry, all --
[58:53] chowdhury, all those in favor
[58:54] say aye.
[58:55] [ members voting ]
[58:55] and those opposed say nay.
[58:56] [ no response heard ]
[58:57] the ayes have it and the
[58:58] motion carries.
[58:59] all right.
[59:00] thank you.
[59:01] » Thank you.
[59:02] » All right.
[59:04] next item is -- give me a
[59:11] second here.
[59:15] discussion.
[59:15] okay, there we go, thank you.
[59:17] next item is discussion.
[59:21] we have a discussion related
[59:23] to the historic designation of
[59:26] lakeshore arms located at 3026
[59:28] lake street.
[59:31] I welcome rob from cped to
[59:33] give a presentation.
[59:34] thk you.
[59:39] welcome.
[59:40] » Thank you, chair osman,
[59:41] good afternoon, council
[59:43] members.
[59:43] my name is rob skalecki,
[59:47] senior city planner in the
[59:50] historic team.
[59:51] today I'm presenting the
[59:52] designation of the lakeshore
[59:53] arms apartments which are
[59:54] located at 3026 lake street
[59:55] west.
[1:00:00] on august 12th, 2025, the
[1:00:03] heritage preservation
[1:00:04] commission voted to approve
[1:00:05] the nomination for the
[1:00:06] property at 3026 lake street
[1:00:09] west as a landmark.
[1:00:10] they established interim
[1:00:11] protection at that time and
[1:00:12] directed the planning director
[1:00:14] to prepare or cause to be
[1:00:15] prepared a designation study.
[1:00:17] that nomination application
[1:00:19] was submitted by minneapolis
[1:00:23] hpc commissioner amy thomas.
[1:00:24] following that cped staff
[1:00:28] compiled a designation study
[1:00:29] of the property that was
[1:00:30] completed in april of 2026.
[1:00:32] staff sent the study to the
[1:00:34] state historic preservation
[1:00:35] office for review and comment.
[1:00:37] the study concluded that the
[1:00:38] property is eligible for
[1:00:40] landmark designation under
[1:00:41] local criterion 4, for
[1:00:43] architecture.
[1:00:44] at their june 6th, 2026
[1:00:48] meeting, the hbc voted to
[1:00:49] recommend approval for the
[1:00:51] designation.
[1:00:55] the subject property is a
[1:00:57] two-story brick veneer
[1:00:58] apartment building with a
[1:01:00] basement half story.the apartmeh
[1:01:02] 17 units and a bement-level
[1:01:04] garage.
[1:01:06] the building is clad in light
[1:01:08] brown or tan brick and has a
[1:01:09] flat roof that include select
[1:01:13] locations with shaped roof
[1:01:14] sections to add other
[1:01:16] thanment.
[1:01:17] the property was designed by
[1:01:20] vanderbilt and it was built by
[1:01:22] d for owner morris track, a
[1:01:25] local builder and developer.
[1:01:28] the received building approval
[1:01:30] in october, 1930, and
[1:01:31] newspaper records began
[1:01:32] announcing the building
[1:01:33] opening by march 1931.
[1:01:36] the construction of lakeshore
[1:01:37] arms apartments is tied to
[1:01:40] multifamily housing options
[1:01:41] that appeared around uptown in
[1:01:43] the cedar isles dean area in
[1:01:45] the 1920s and 1930s.
[1:01:47] the urban setting in
[1:01:48] connection to the lakes
[1:01:49] attracted minneapol
[1:01:50] residents in the early
[1:01:51] 20th sent the promise of
[1:01:53] urban life mixed with water
[1:01:55] recreation amenities.
[1:01:57] mediterranean design
[1:01:57] influences were especially
[1:01:58] common in the area and spanish
[1:02:01] eclectic style buildings
[1:02:02] became popular.
[1:02:03] the property was designed
[1:02:05] using the spanish style and
[1:02:10] contains a significant degree
[1:02:11] of architectural features.
[1:02:12] those include but are not
[1:02:13] limited to a shaped main
[1:02:15] doorway that includes a heavy
[1:02:17] wood door, light color brick
[1:02:21] cladding, cast cement
[1:02:24] ornamentation, including
[1:02:25] floral materials, concrete
[1:02:27] relief, a cast cement balcony
[1:02:29] with prominent cast cement,
[1:02:33] shaped openings, spiraled
[1:02:35] columns, varied roof shapes,
[1:02:39] clay roof tiles, multilight
[1:02:41] wood, double-hung sash windows
[1:02:44] and french doors at various
[1:02:45] openings and patios and
[1:02:47] balconies throughout the
[1:02:48] building.
[1:02:52] properties built in the
[1:02:54] spanish eclectic architectural
[1:02:56] style use traditional spanish
[1:02:58] design trends incorporating
[1:03:01] balconies and plazas and
[1:03:02] courtyards and patios to
[1:03:03] create an apparent association
[1:03:05] between the building and the
[1:03:06] natural environment.
[1:03:07] and this is evident in the
[1:03:09] lakeshore arms apartments.
[1:03:11] chapter 599 of the minneapolis
[1:03:13] code of ordinances requires
[1:03:15] that the designation be
[1:03:16] submitted to the minnesota
[1:03:17] state historic preservation
[1:03:18] office for review and comment.
[1:03:20] this was done and the
[1:03:21] minnesota state historic
[1:03:26] historic office concurred with
[1:03:27] the findings and recommended
[1:03:29] in a later dated may 19, 2026
[1:03:31] that the property appeared to
[1:03:32] be an excellent candidate for
[1:03:34] local designation under that
[1:03:36] criterion 4 for architecture.
[1:03:38] in order for the hbc and
[1:03:41] council to approve a lanark
[1:03:43] designation, the following two
[1:03:44] findings must be made.
[1:03:45] one that the collection or
[1:03:47] collection of properties meets
[1:03:48] at least one local criterion
[1:03:50] to be designated as a landmark
[1:03:51] or historic district.
[1:03:52] and two that the property or
[1:03:54] collection of properties
[1:03:55] retains sufficient historic
[1:03:57] integrity to be designated a
[1:03:58] a landmark or historic
[1:04:00] strict.
[1:04:00] staff and the hbc occur ensure
[1:04:04] that it meets criterion 4 as a
[1:04:05] property that embodies
[1:04:07] distinctive characteristics of
[1:04:08] the spanish eclectic
[1:04:10] architectural style and meets
[1:04:12] finding one and that lakeshore
[1:04:14] arms apartments retains all
[1:04:15] seven aspects of historic
[1:04:17] integrity, including location,
[1:04:19] setting, design, materials,
[1:04:21] workmanship, feeling and
[1:04:21] association to meet finding 2.
[1:04:24] staff has been in contact with
[1:04:26] the property owner about the
[1:04:28] designation study and
[1:04:30] designation process.
[1:04:30] the owner has stated
[1:04:32] opposition to the designation
[1:04:34] for many reasons.
[1:04:35] and those written comments are
[1:04:37] included for council members
[1:04:39] to consider.
[1:04:41] I believe the owner is here
[1:04:43] today and may want to speak if
[1:04:46] possible.
[1:04:47] staff will also note that the
[1:04:50] owner has, as I mentioned,
[1:04:52] been clear about the
[1:04:53] opposition to the designation
[1:04:55] but staff has received over 15
[1:04:57] public comments that support
[1:04:58] the historic designation of
[1:05:00] the property.
[1:05:01] with that, I'm available as
[1:05:03] staff to answer any questions.
[1:05:05] thank you.
[1:05:07] » Thank you so much, staff.
[1:05:10] I appreciate your
[1:05:11] presentation.
[1:05:12] is is a discussion.
[1:05:13] 'at the same time it's a
[1:05:14] decision we have to make.
[1:05:16] so, it's not a public hearing.
[1:05:17] I'm open to giving an
[1:05:20] opportunity for the owner to
[1:05:21] speak.
[1:05:25] but before that, I will
[1:05:27] recognize council member
[1:05:27] shaffer.
[1:05:28] » Can I speak after the owner
[1:05:29] speaks?
[1:05:30] » If he wants to speak.
[1:05:30] I don't know if the owner is
[1:05:31] here.
[1:05:33] welcome.
[1:05:34] would you like to speak?
[1:05:35] » Yes, I would.
[1:05:36] » Yup.
[1:05:36] we'll give you two minutes to
[1:05:39] speak, that's okay.
[1:05:40] come on.
[1:05:52] » It's not a quasi judicial,
[1:05:55] anything like that, but I
[1:05:57] would say usually we give the
[1:05:58] applicant seven minutes or so,
[1:05:59] but it's not set up that way
[1:06:00] today.
[1:06:01] so I would just give you a
[1:06:03] short time to kind of give us
[1:06:05] a little bit of -- yeah.
[1:06:08] » Okay.
[1:06:09] chairman osman and vice chair
[1:06:15] chowdhury and committee
[1:06:17] members, my name is steve
[1:06:20] horniyg and together with my
[1:06:22] brother, gary, we purchased
[1:06:26] lakeshore arms about a year
[1:06:26] ago now.
[1:06:27] and my family has owned,
[1:06:29] restored and managed apartment
[1:06:31] buildings in minneapolis for
[1:06:33] four generations, over 100
[1:06:34] years.
[1:06:35] we believe in historic
[1:06:38] preservation, that it is an
[1:06:40] important public policy and
[1:06:42] nothing I say today should be
[1:06:44] interpreted otherwise.
[1:06:46] I want to begin and make it
[1:06:50] very clear that I accept the
[1:06:55] hbc's conclusion that
[1:06:56] lakeshore arms possesses
[1:06:58] sufficient architectural
[1:06:59] significance to qualify for
[1:07:01] designation.
[1:07:02] the issue is that over 17
[1:07:06] buildings that were also
[1:07:11] designed by c.j. Bard are also
[1:07:15] beautiful buildings in south
[1:07:16] minneapolis that are equal to
[1:07:18] my building.
[1:07:21] the designation study never
[1:07:24] cited that for one reason or
[1:07:25] another my building was more
[1:07:27] special than any of the other
[1:07:28] buildings.
[1:07:30] you'll see pictures of them in
[1:07:35] the slides that I prepared.
[1:07:37] maybe if we could roll up just
[1:07:42] a couple more on this.
[1:07:43] no?
[1:07:44] can't do that?
[1:07:44] can I do that?
[1:07:54] here is a collection of all of
[1:07:56] the bard buildings in south
[1:07:58] minneapolis.
[1:07:59] they're absolutely gorgeous.
[1:08:01] of there'sothing that my
[1:08:03] building has over any of these
[1:08:04] others and, so, the crucial
[1:08:07] question I why was m
[1:08:09] building chosen?
[1:08:16] [ alarm ]
[1:08:17] » Sorry.
[1:08:17] please continue.
[1:08:18] I want to hear.
[1:08:23] » Your responsibility here is
[1:08:24] much broader than looking at
[1:08:25] the architectural features of
[1:08:27] this.
[1:08:31] you, under the statute, the
[1:08:33] ordinance, chapter 599, you're
[1:08:38] required to look more broadly,
[1:08:39] not only at historic
[1:08:41] preservation, but also the
[1:08:44] economic growth and general
[1:08:45] welfare of the city and the
[1:08:47] implementaon of the
[1:08:50] minneapolis comprehensive
[1:08:50] plan.
[1:08:52] that requires balancing on
[1:08:54] your part several -- balancing
[1:08:56] several important public
[1:08:59] policies, not just
[1:09:01] preservation.
[1:09:02] I respectfully submit that
[1:09:04] when all of these policies are
[1:09:05] considered together,
[1:09:06] designationf this particular
[1:09:09] property is not in the city's
[1:09:10] best interest.
[1:09:11] » Sir, if you could wrap it
[1:09:12] up, pase.
[1:09:16] » So we've had 17 other
[1:09:19] properties.
[1:09:19] mine is n chosen.
[1:09:22] two other quick points.
[1:09:23] under the demolitiontatute,
[1:09:26] if you don't designate this
[1:09:28] today, the demolition statute
[1:09:33] in minneapolis is very
[1:09:34] protective of buildings thatareh
[1:09:36] my building is, that if
[1:09:37] there's ever a demolition
[1:09:39] permit put forth, there would
[1:09:41] be another opportunity to look
[1:09:42] at this.
[1:09:42] » Thank you.
[1:09:43] » And I think to foreclose
[1:09:46] the city, to give up the
[1:09:51] possibility of greater
[1:09:52] development to not only for
[1:09:54] housing, more housing, that
[1:09:57] includes affordable,
[1:09:58] inclusionary housing, without
[1:10:01] seeing apecific proposal
[1:10:03] even being presented is reay
[1:10:04] premature.
[1:10:05] » I appreciate your time.
[1:10:06] I'm sorry.
[1:10:07] we've run out of time.
[1:10:08] » It's okay.
[1:10:13] I see council member shaffer.
[1:10:13] » Tnk you, mr. Hornig,
[1:10:17] for those thoughts.
[1:10:17] and thank you for your long
[1:10:19] history of providing
[1:10:20] affordable housing in
[1:10:20] minneapolis.
[1:10:21] in many of our communities
[1:10:24] across many wards.
[1:10:25] and I know that there are ups
[1:10:29] and downs to the housing
[1:10:30] industry, but I want to say
[1:10:33] thank you for that provision
[1:10:34] and that commitment to
[1:10:35] affordable housing in our
[1:10:35] space.
[1:10:36] today I will be making a
[1:10:38] motion to deny the historic
[1:10:43] designation, primarily, as you
[1:10:45] can remember from the first
[1:10:47] picture that this is really a
[1:10:49] building that is on and
[1:10:53] surrounded by more
[1:10:56] high-density apartment
[1:10:57] buildings.
[1:10:57] and I know that we have heard
[1:10:59] today that he has no plans to
[1:11:01] demolish this building, and we
[1:11:04] have the demolition statute to
[1:11:06] fall back on.
[1:11:07] putting this historic
[1:11:08] designation in place now would
[1:11:11] complely foreclose the
[1:11:13] addition of higher density
[1:11:15] housing at thispot at any
[1:11:17] point in th future.
[1:11:18] ich is really inconsistent
[1:11:20] with many of the 2040 plan
[1:11:22] goals for this area.
[1:11:25] so, I will be supporting this
[1:11:31] denial of the historic
[1:11:34] landmark designation.
[1:11:38] » Thank you, council member
[1:11:39] shaffer.
[1:11:41] I will recognize council
[1:11:42] member chavez.
[1:11:43] » Thank you, chair osman, and
[1:11:45] maybe ask my colleague,
[1:11:47] council member shaffer, if she
[1:11:48] would move the motion to deny
[1:11:50] without recommendation.
[1:11:51] I just would rather have more
[1:11:52] conversations with staff about
[1:11:53] what this means.
[1:11:55] so at least -- I don't want to
[1:11:56] commit to my position today.
[1:11:57] I want to have more
[1:11:59] conversations about how this
[1:12:01] came to be and I do have
[1:12:02] questions.
[1:12:03] so I'd rather --
[1:12:04] » That's absolutely fine with
[1:12:05] me, council member chavez.
[1:12:06] » Thank you.
[1:12:08] » Vice chair chowdhury.
[1:12:10] » Thank you.
[1:12:10] I have a question for staff.
[1:12:19] I just wanted to know, I think
[1:12:21] the property owner brought up
[1:12:24] a good point of the many other
[1:12:26] properties that are designed
[1:12:27] by the same architects.
[1:12:30] how was that -- how were these
[1:12:33] properties selected and is
[1:12:34] there a plan in the future to
[1:12:36] look at the other properties?
[1:12:39] » Yeah, thank you, chair
[1:12:42] osman, council member
[1:12:43] chowdhury.
[1:12:43] so within the designation
[1:12:44] study that staff wrote, a lot
[1:12:46] of the buildings that were
[1:12:48] identified and actually shown
[1:12:49] by the property owner were
[1:12:50] identified through that study.
[1:12:52] so, initially we we looking
[1:12:54] to see if the property met our
[1:12:56] local criterion 6, which would
[1:12:58] be tied to a master industry
[1:13:01] professional like an
[1:13:02] architect.
[1:13:02] so that's part of the reason
[1:13:03] why we looked at these other
[1:13:04] buildings designed by this
[1:13:05] architect.
[1:13:06] we ultimately didn't recommend
[1:13:09] designation under that
[1:13:10] criteria specifically because
[1:13:13] the firm of bard and
[1:13:16] vanderbilt was distinct and
[1:13:18] that is the firm that designed
[1:13:20] this building, whereas, karl
[1:13:22] bard,hen he practiced
[1:13:23] independently earlier, was
[1:13:25] making designs similar to
[1:13:26] those that were shown.
[1:13:29] so, to the other point, when
[1:13:31] staff is looking at properties
[1:13:34] that embody distinctive
[1:13:35] characteristics of an
[1:13:36] architectural style under
[1:13:38] criterion 4 to be considered
[1:13:39] for landmark status, we do
[1:13:42] look at other properties and
[1:13:44] consider if they retain
[1:13:47] historic integri.
[1:13:47] so do they still communicate
[1:13:49] their historic significance.
[1:13:50] and when looking at lakeshore
[1:13:51] arms, we were able to deduce
[1:13:53] that there's a lot that is
[1:13:55] still there to be able to
[1:13:56] communicate that it is an
[1:13:58] example of this architectural
[1:14:01] style.
[1:14:01] that's not to say that if a
[1:14:02] building comes in the future
[1:14:03] that is also this style, you
[1:14:06] know, if that can't be
[1:14:08] considered if this one is
[1:14:10] designated.
[1:14:12] so with that, staff were able
[1:14:14] to look through in the study
[1:14:15] and determine that this
[1:14:18] property did meet that
[1:14:19] criterion 4 to be considered
[1:14:21] for landmark status.
[1:14:22] » Thank you.
[1:14:22] that's helpful.
[1:14:24] and then one final question
[1:14:26] for me just to clarify,
[1:14:28] because I know we're moving
[1:14:29] this forward without
[1:14:31] recommendation, I think I
[1:14:32] definitely need some more time
[1:14:34] to have conversations ahead of
[1:14:36] full council.
[1:14:39] should this go ahead.
[1:14:42] and this islso just for my
[1:14:44] understanding for future local
[1:14:46] historic designations if it
[1:14:48] comes to us, should a
[1:14:51] resolution pass through this
[1:14:51] body, what are the next steps
[1:14:53] that follow?
[1:14:54] I know you said it in your
[1:14:55] presentation, but I'm kindly
[1:14:57] asking you to repeat it.
[1:14:59] » Sure, chair osman, council
[1:15:02] member chowdhury.
[1:15:02] to clarify, are you asking if
[1:15:04] this is approved or denied?
[1:15:07] » After approval, if there is
[1:15:08] approval, what happens next?
[1:15:09] » Sure.
[1:15:10] if this is approved --
[1:15:13] recommended approval today, it
[1:15:13] will go up, of course, to city
[1:15:17] council for your vote on the
[1:15:20] resolution, and then that goes
[1:15:21] up to the mayor's desk and
[1:15:22] once it's signed and
[1:15:23] published, then that would be
[1:15:26] when it would formally become
[1:15:29] a city of minneapolis
[1:15:30] landmark.
[1:15:36] standards.
[1:15:36] national park service to make
[1:15:37] sure that any changes to the
[1:15:39] exterior are being sensitive
[1:15:41] to the property's
[1:15:42] significance.
[1:15:44] and if a future property
[1:15:45] owner would want to demolish,
[1:15:47] they'd have the ability to
[1:15:49] submit an application, called
[1:15:50] the demolition of designated
[1:15:52] property, to make that
[1:15:53] decision at a future date if
[1:15:54] it comes to that.
[1:15:55] » And that would go to the
[1:15:57] hpc, right, future demolition?
[1:15:59] » Correct.
[1:15:59] » Okay.
[1:16:01] and is landmark desnation
[1:16:03] any different than historic
[1:16:05] preservation or are they the
[1:16:05] same?
[1:16:06] » So, it would be the same.
[1:16:10] landmark designation at the
[1:16:11] local level is different from
[1:16:12] national register listing.
[1:16:14] so I don't know if that -- I
[1:16:18] think there's some confusion
[1:16:19] between those two.
[1:16:20] but this is local landmark
[1:16:22] designation that we're
[1:16:22] considering today.
[1:16:23] » And if denied, what
[1:16:24] happens?
[1:16:24] » So if the designation is
[1:16:28] denied, and the property owner
[1:16:29] brought up a point, it could
[1:16:30] be brought forward in the
[1:16:34] future.
[1:16:34] if that's the case, there
[1:16:36] would have to be a three-year
[1:16:37] waiting period for someone to
[1:16:40] consider nominating it again
[1:16:41] in the future.
[1:16:42] but there is a possibility to
[1:16:44] reconsider a history of a site
[1:16:47] with a future timeline.
[1:16:48] » Okay.
[1:16:49] great.
[1:16:49] that's all my questions.
[1:16:51] really appreate it.
[1:16:52] » All right.
[1:16:54] council member rainville.
[1:16:55] » Thank you.
[1:16:55] I do have a question for
[1:16:57] staff.
[1:16:58] why was this property chosen
[1:17:00] to study?
[1:17:03] » Chair osman, council member
[1:17:06] rainville, this was submitted
[1:17:06] as a nomination by minneapolis
[1:17:10] heritage preservation
[1:17:11] commissioner, and they do have
[1:17:12] the authority to do that.
[1:17:13] and I think it was just a
[1:17:15] personal interest in the site
[1:17:16] that led to that.
[1:17:20] » Thank you.
[1:17:21] » All right.
[1:17:23] seeingo -- oh, council
[1:17:25] member chavez.
[1:17:26] » One last thing, I guess.
[1:17:28] I'm still trying to learn more
[1:17:30] about this.
[1:17:32] I probably will be reaching
[1:17:33] out.
[1:17:33] my question is, let's just
[1:17:34] say, and I don't know what way
[1:17:36] the council is going to decide
[1:17:37] on this issue, but lest just
[1:17:38] say they decide to -- but
[1:17:40] let's just say they decide to
[1:17:42] approve it, does staff have
[1:17:43] any concerns it would set a
[1:17:45] precedent for the rest of the
[1:17:46] buildings that were
[1:17:49] identified and what that would
[1:17:50] mean for housing in our city?
[1:17:51] I don't know, I'm just
[1:17:52] wondering.
[1:17:53] » Chair osman, council member
[1:17:57] chavez, I think I understand
[1:17:57] your question.
[1:17:58] there's never going to be a
[1:18:01] precedent-setting desion for
[1:18:02] any property  the city
[1:18:04] that's being considered for
[1:18:06] landmark status.
[1:18:07] but, you know, at any point in
[1:18:08] the future if one of the
[1:18:11] nominators who's able to
[1:18:11] nominate a property if the
[1:18:14] city wants to bring forward
[1:18:15] one of the other examples for
[1:18:16] consideration, that is a
[1:18:17] possibility.
[1:18:17] » Okay.
[1:18:18] thank you.
[1:18:19] » All right.
[1:18:20] thank you so much.
[1:18:22] with that motion to forward
[1:18:24] this item without
[1:18:26] recommendation, all those in
[1:18:26] favor say aye.
[1:18:27] [ members voting ]
[1:18:30] and tho opposed say nay.
[1:18:32] [ no response heard ]
[1:18:32] the ayes have it and the
[1:18:34] motion carries.
[1:18:34] all right, our last item is
[1:18:38] presentation related to
[1:18:41] impervious surfaces.
[1:18:47] » Thank you chair osman,
[1:18:49] committee members.
[1:18:49] I'll be presenting today but
[1:18:50] we alsoo have further staff
[1:18:52] from our public works
[1:18:54] department, surface waters and
[1:18:55] sewers, available for any
[1:18:57] questions you all may have at
[1:18:57] the end.
[1:18:58] again, this is a receive and
[1:19:00] file for a legislative
[1:19:02] directive that came out of
[1:19:05] council member's wonsley's
[1:19:07] office later.
[1:19:09] looking at synthetic turf
[1:19:10] systems and how those could be y
[1:19:12] managed in code, how they
[1:19:13] could be managed in coat, kind
[1:19:15] of those long-term impacts for
[1:19:18] those systems.
[1:19:18] one of the principal questions
[1:19:20] that we started out with just
[1:19:21] what is artificial turf?
[1:19:24] kind of working definition
[1:19:25] that we had, this actually is
[1:19:26] of not in the code today, it
[1:19:27] was proposed by our
[1:19:30] co-development team
[1:19:31] independent from this
[1:19:32] legislative directive as they
[1:19:33] were looking at kind of our
[1:19:35] single-family housing code,
[1:19:36] looking at updating the
[1:19:38] definitions chapter to address
[1:19:41] artificial or hybrid turf, a
[1:19:42] system which has the
[1:19:44] appearance of natural turf
[1:19:45] grass or reinforces natural
[1:19:47] turf grass, there's not 100%
[1:19:49] natural turf grass.
[1:19:50] basically what I would say,
[1:19:51] again, this was a pretty broad
[1:19:53] definition.
[1:19:53] I think it is a good starting
[1:19:54] point to think about it.
[1:19:56] there are a really broad range
[1:19:57] of these types of systems out
[1:19:58] there.
[1:19:59] they can take many different
[1:20:01] forms.
[1:20:02] one of the things -- one other
[1:20:03] thing that I would note,
[1:20:05] though, in terms of our
[1:20:06] literature review, the
[1:20:08] minnesota storm water manual
[1:20:09] is preparing and has been kind
[1:20:11] of preparing to provide some
[1:20:13] guidance on synthetic turf
[1:20:14] systems.
[1:20:15] it was a requirement from the
[1:20:18] legislature, I believe, last
[1:20:19] year through a study,
[1:20:21] essentially, that might also
[1:20:22] really inform what we end up,
[1:20:24] if we adopt the definition of
[1:20:26] artificial or synthetic turf,
[1:20:28] looking to the state level
[1:20:29] what they're proposing.
[1:20:33] in terms of how artificial
[1:20:34] turf is regulated today, I
[1:20:35] think the main thing that I do
[1:20:36] want to leave with you all
[1:20:38] here is that it is not a
[1:20:39] prohibited thing in the city.
[1:20:41] folks can have artificial
[1:20:42] turf.
[1:20:44] the main two standards in
[1:20:45] zoning that they are subject
[1:20:46] to would be impervious surf
[1:20:48] requirements.
[1:20:49] so we have a maximum on
[1:20:51] impervious surface that you
[1:20:51] can have on a particular lot,
[1:20:53] depending on the zoning
[1:20:54] district.
[1:20:54] and we currently treat
[1:20:56] artificial turf as an I am
[1:20:58] preservous surface, similar to
[1:20:59] other things like permeable
[1:21:03] pavers that purport and
[1:21:04] represent that they are
[1:21:05] permeable, but which either
[1:21:06] have maintenance requirements
[1:21:07] or which may have other draw
[1:21:10] baks.
[1:21:11] drawbacks.
[1:21:13] secondly, it is not considered
[1:21:14] an alternative to required
[1:21:15] landscaping.
[1:21:15] so when we talk about required
[1:21:17] yards for a property, you
[1:21:18] cannot have artificial turf in
[1:21:21] lieu of a natural grass or
[1:21:23] natural landscaping.
[1:21:24] if you cannot meet those two
[1:21:25] standards in terms of
[1:21:27] providing artificial turf,
[1:21:28] typically and historically the
[1:21:30] avenue for you has been to
[1:21:31] seek a land use variance from
[1:21:33] those requirements.
[1:21:34] and then from the public works
[1:21:36] perspective, they noted that
[1:21:37] any project that does disturb
[1:21:39] over half an acre or more of
[1:21:41] soils does need to demonstrate
[1:21:43] compliance with city storm
[1:21:44] water requirements, so that
[1:21:45] includes run-off rate control,
[1:21:47] water quality, and volume
[1:21:49] control.
[1:21:50] typically how that works and,
[1:21:52] again, I would defer really
[1:21:56] any in-depth scientific
[1:21:57] questions to our surface water
[1:21:58] and sewer staff, but design
[1:21:59] documents are provided as part
[1:22:01] of that application that are
[1:22:02] then used to model or simulate
[1:22:05] the performance of that ground
[1:22:08] cover material in a rain event
[1:22:09] or storm event.
[1:22:10] one thing to note here, there
[1:22:11] really is not a application or
[1:22:13] a permit or other regulatory
[1:22:17] document that would trigger
[1:22:18] for a very small-scale
[1:22:21] application.
[1:22:22] so if someone wanted to
[1:22:23] replace their front yard with
[1:22:25] artificial turf, there right
[1:22:26] now is just not a review
[1:22:29] mechanism or anything that
[1:22:30] triggers a city review and
[1:22:31] that would be something that
[1:22:32] would need to be created and
[1:22:33] obviously has kind of knock-on
[1:22:36] effects in terms of
[1:22:37] enforcement.
[1:22:39] part of this legislative
[1:22:41] directive was looking at the
[1:22:42] climate and water quality
[1:22:43] impacts, you know, how can we
[1:22:47] justify artificial turf as an
[1:22:48] allowed material in lieu of
[1:22:49] some of our goals around
[1:22:51] climate sustainability in the
[1:22:53] 2040 plan.
[1:22:54] in terms of those that work in
[1:22:58] favor of artificial turf,
[1:22:59] there's definitely an argument
[1:23:00] for decreased water usage.
[1:23:01] it's part of the reason why
[1:23:03] they have they've seen a much
[1:23:05] larger uptick in the
[1:23:06] southwestern united states in
[1:23:07] dry areas.
[1:23:08] it typically incorporates
[1:23:10] recycled materials.
[1:23:10] so we're going to talk a
[1:23:11] little bit about rubber crumb
[1:23:14] or crumb rubber infill.
[1:23:15] those are typically made out
[1:23:17] of recycled tires, and that is
[1:23:18] one of the few ways that the
[1:23:19] industry has found to reuse
[1:23:20] that type of material.
[1:23:22] and then the other note is
[1:23:24] from a sustainability, you
[1:23:26] know, the climate 'cost to the
[1:23:28] functional or the use cost,
[1:23:30] typically those artificial
[1:23:31] systems, especially here in
[1:23:32] the north where we have kind
[1:23:35] of wacky weather over winter
[1:23:36] and spring, they have a longer
[1:23:38] usable period.
[1:23:39] so artificial turf is ready
[1:23:41] sooner and is playable longer
[1:23:42] into the fall and into early
[1:23:45] winter than a natural turf.
[1:23:47] in terms of kind of points
[1:23:49] against artificial turf, one
[1:23:51] of the main things is that
[1:23:52] this would be a contributor to
[1:23:54] urban heat island effect in
[1:23:55] terms of that plastic does
[1:23:56] retain and hold on to heat a
[1:23:58] lot more than a natural grass
[1:23:59] would.
[1:23:59] obviously if you're replacing
[1:24:01] natural landscaping, you're
[1:24:02] losing some biodiversity and
[1:24:04] natural habitat.
[1:24:04] and then there is just a
[1:24:06] higher carbon footprint in
[1:24:08] installing an artificial turf
[1:24:10] field.
[1:24:10] there can be some savings in
[1:24:11] terms of, again, having
[1:24:13] decreased water usage, but a
[1:24:14] thing to keep in mind is that
[1:24:16] these typically have about a
[1:24:17] ten-year life span.
[1:24:18] so even if they're using
[1:24:19] recycled materials, even if
[1:24:20] they're allowing if a longer
[1:24:22] in-year usability, they're
[1:24:24] still going to be kind of a
[1:24:25] deadline on that field where
[1:24:26] it needs to then be disposed
[1:24:27] of, typically to just a
[1:24:29] landfill.
[1:24:30] again, I mentioned that rubber
[1:24:33] crumb infill material, this
[1:24:34] was one where we did reach out
[1:24:35] to our environmental health
[1:24:37] staff and they really
[1:24:38] highlighted a lot of concerns
[1:24:40] about the potential storm
[1:24:42] water impacts of that rubber
[1:24:43] crumb material washing out
[1:24:45] into water bodies around us,
[1:24:47] specifically there has been
[1:24:49] some studies monitoring levels
[1:24:51] of heavy metals, pfas, pahss
[1:24:55] and in general microplastics,
[1:24:57] they're a major source.
[1:24:58] again, more so from the kind
[1:25:00] of habitat or economic
[1:25:02] health -- or ecological
[1:25:03] health, accuse me, rather than a
[1:25:07] person playing on the field is
[1:25:08] not necessarily going to be
[1:25:08] subject to some of those
[1:25:10] chemicals but it would run off
[1:25:11] into the water.looking at kind o
[1:25:15] the ordinance, specifically
[1:25:16] looking at the zoning code,becas
[1:25:19] been the larger barrier for
[1:25:20] some of the projects that
[1:25:21] we've seen in the past, like,
[1:25:23] five, ten years that have come
[1:25:25] in looking to do artificial
[1:25:26] turf either for like an
[1:25:28] athletic field context or for
[1:25:29] again a more residential or
[1:25:32] quasi residential use.
[1:25:33] one is that rht now,
[1:25:35] obviously, we treat artificial
[1:25:36] turf as an impervious surface.
[1:25:39] one option would be to exclude
[1:25:40] those types of materials from
[1:25:42] maxim preservous surface
[1:25:44] calculations.
[1:25:44] there's a couple concerns from
[1:25:45] staff on this.
[1:25:46] one is partly just allowing
[1:25:47] for mor of these types of
[1:25:49] surfaces is not necessarily in
[1:25:50] line with a lot of our
[1:25:51] long-term susinability
[1:25:52] goals.
[1:25:53] obviouy we mentioned urban
[1:25:55] heat island.
[1:25:56] if you just kind of roll these
[1:25:58] out in a lot of different
[1:25:59] areas, we're going to see an
[1:26:01] uptick in that kind of heat
[1:26:02] retention at the ground level.
[1:26:03] the other side is just,
[1:26:05] though, from an enforcement
[1:26:06] perspective and kind of the
[1:26:09] infrastructure surroundingthese.
[1:26:11] again, we would need to create
[1:26:13] some sort of a permito
[1:26:14] facilitate these types of
[1:26:16] applications, along with that
[1:26:16] there would be inspections and
[1:26:19] then long-term compliance,
[1:26:20] which is really not something
[1:26:22] that our inspectors do today.
[1:26:25] secondarily would be to allow
[1:26:27] artificial turf as a
[1:26:28] replacement for nural
[1:26:29] landscaping.
[1:26:30] again, there is som argument
[1:26:32] for where that could be
[1:26:33] allowed as a permitted
[1:26:35] obstruction or where it could
[1:26:36] be required in those --
[1:26:39] permitted in those required
[1:26:40] yard areas.
[1:26:40] staff has a concern about
[1:26:41] wholesale treating this as a
[1:26:43] landaping material.
[1:26:43] we have had a couple of cases
[1:26:45] in the past, I think since
[1:26:48] 2020, where we now things like
[1:26:51] landscape ro to be used in
[1:26:52] certain areas, but typically
[1:26:53] ere are restrictions there
[1:26:54] inerms of requiring
[1:26:56] plantings to be so spacend
[1:26:57] that, it can't just be
[1:26:59] landscape rock or you c't
[1:27:00] have it in areas thatould
[1:27:01] wash out to youreighbor's
[1:27:02] property.
[1:27:04] so there's certainly,
[1:27:05] essentially, looking at art
[1:27:06] tissue turf would probably
[1:27:08] also require looking at some
[1:27:09] of those other nonnatural,
[1:27:11] nonlandscaping materials.
[1:27:13] looking at artificial turf.
[1:27:16] again I talked about there is
[1:27:17] not a regulatory arm for this.
[1:27:21] one of the major impacts would
[1:27:22] be increased staff needs, in
[1:27:23] terms of again our inspectors
[1:27:25] are not currently currently
[1:27:26] trained to -- we would need to
[1:27:29] create a performance standard
[1:27:30] for any of these systems that
[1:27:31] are going to be deemed as
[1:27:33] preservous versus impreservous
[1:27:35] surface.
[1:27:36] and then how do you maintain
[1:27:39] that compliance long term.
[1:27:40] so one of the issues we have
[1:27:42] right now with permeable
[1:27:43] pavers, we don't count those
[1:27:46] as preservous surface, even
[1:27:47] though if you maintain them
[1:27:49] correctly they can function
[1:27:50] well.
[1:27:50] the bigger issue is
[1:27:51] maintenance, right.
[1:27:52] how do we know that five
[1:27:53] years, ten years down the line
[1:27:55] that property owner is still
[1:27:55] having that function at the
[1:27:56] highest level.
[1:27:59] in terms of how other cities
[1:28:01] are looking at this, and as I
[1:28:03] mentioned, you probably have
[1:28:03] heard a lot more about
[1:28:06] artificial turf from like
[1:28:08] arizona or a california or a
[1:28:10] drier climate area, and that
[1:28:11] is because there is that kind
[1:28:13] of decreased water need.
[1:28:14] when we looked at some of our
[1:28:16] peer cities in terms of size,
[1:28:17] but also in terms of being
[1:28:18] kind of more northern in the
[1:28:20] united states, there wasn't as
[1:28:21] much robust language in those
[1:28:23] cities in terms of zoning or
[1:28:25] policy.
[1:28:25] most tended to treat it
[1:28:27] similarly to how we kind of do
[1:28:28] today in terms of being I am
[1:28:31] preservous surface.
[1:28:33] a very recent example that
[1:28:34] staff would highlight is the
[1:28:35] city of denver, in following
[1:28:37] the state of colorado's recent
[1:28:39] legislative language is
[1:28:41] adopting definitions for
[1:28:42] functional landscape area
[1:28:44] versus nonfunctional landscape
[1:28:45] area.
[1:28:45] that is looking at both
[1:28:48] artificial r turf and natural
[1:28:49] turf from a perspective of
[1:28:51] limiting just kind of grass or
[1:28:53] green space as a ground cover.
[1:28:55] and instead kind of putting
[1:28:56] the focus on, we are going to
[1:28:59] allow artificial turf where
[1:29:00] it's being used for an
[1:29:01] athletic field or a functional
[1:29:03] purpose.
[1:29:03] that could be something that
[1:29:03] the city looks at if, again,
[1:29:05] there is an appetite to take
[1:29:06] up the question of artificial
[1:29:08] turf.
[1:29:09] but, again, I would say, from
[1:29:10] staff's perspective, in
[1:29:12] looking at the zoning code,
[1:29:13] there probably is some ability
[1:29:14] to, ain, add a definition,
[1:29:17] daylight a little bit of the
[1:29:19] existing provisions, but there
[1:29:21] are larger concerns with kind
[1:29:23] of opening pandora's box and
[1:29:25] allows these across the -- and
[1:29:27] allowing these across the
[1:29:28] city.
[1:29:28] again, I'm happy to stand for
[1:29:30] any questions you all may
[1:29:31] have.
[1:29:31] this is our project team, as
[1:29:32] well as I mentioned we did
[1:29:33] work with the health
[1:29:34] department a little bit and
[1:29:35] major shout-out to them for
[1:29:36] providing some guidance on the
[1:29:39] materials.
[1:29:40] and, yeah, we're happy to
[1:29:41] answer any questions.
[1:29:42] » Colleagues, is there any
[1:29:43] questions on this
[1:29:44] presentation?
[1:29:50] council member warren.
[1:29:51] » I don't like plastic grass.
[1:29:58] » Thank you.
[1:30:00] I mean, I was just going to
[1:30:01] quick make a comment myself.
[1:30:03] I think there's definitely
[1:30:04] something worth looking into
[1:30:06] in terms of the types of
[1:30:11] artificial turf even allowed
[1:30:12] as a functional use that we
[1:30:13] should look at as a city in
[1:30:17] 2024, the e.u. Put a ban on
[1:30:20] crumb rubber infill turf due
[1:30:26] to concerns around
[1:30:28] microplastics, pfas, heavy
[1:30:30] metals as laid out by staff,
[1:30:31] and there's other alternatives
[1:30:32] that are available that are
[1:30:36] organic, like cork, sand, or
[1:30:40] parts of the outer husk of a
[1:30:44] coconut.
[1:30:45] in the planning commission
[1:30:46] there has been a few different
[1:30:48] types of artificial turf
[1:30:49] that's come before us.
[1:30:50] but I think this is definitely
[1:30:54] an interesting starting point
[1:30:54] for this conversation that I
[1:30:56] do feel like will come back to
[1:30:58] us eventually because
[1:30:59] artificial turf has had that
[1:31:02] type of way of coming back to
[1:31:05] bhz, or the planning
[1:31:07] commission.
[1:31:07] members, is there any other
[1:31:09] questions on this
[1:31:10] presentation?
[1:31:13] » Yeah, just, I remember
[1:31:15] debating this while university
[1:31:19] of minnesota housing area.
[1:31:21] do we have a city policy or
[1:31:23] ordinance that really clears
[1:31:26] out what's appropriate, what's
[1:31:27] not?
[1:31:32] yeah, just wanted to know do
[1:31:34] we have a city ordinance,
[1:31:35] policy that really says, you
[1:31:40] know, where to apply and who
[1:31:44] can have artificial turf?
[1:31:49] » Chair osman, I think
[1:31:51] generally we do, right.
[1:31:55] so artificial turf is
[1:31:58] permitted as a -- similarly to
[1:32:00] how we would do other types of
[1:32:02] hardscaping.
[1:32:03] so it's allowed within the
[1:32:04] confines of that.
[1:32:04] so as long as it's outside of
[1:32:06] the required yard and it
[1:32:07] doesn't exceed the
[1:32:09] impreservous coverage, but you
[1:32:11] can't cover your entire
[1:32:12] property with t. Impervious.
[1:32:15] so I think from staff's
[1:32:16] perspective, our research
[1:32:17] really supported the current
[1:32:19] policy with maybe the
[1:32:20] exception around where it
[1:32:22] could be applied in more
[1:32:23] practical settings, like
[1:32:25] athletic fields or
[1:32:27] playgrounds, in those kinds of
[1:32:28] environments it might make
[1:32:29] sense to be a little bit more
[1:32:31] permissive.
[1:32:32] but I think staff's
[1:32:33] recommendation at this point
[1:32:35] is that we would hold with our
[1:32:36] current regulations.
[1:32:37] » Okay.
[1:32:38] thank you so much.
[1:32:40] that's it.
[1:32:41] just wanted to make that
[1:32:44] point.
[1:32:45] I think the last item that
[1:32:46] came through was whole
[1:32:48] discussion about this and the
[1:32:51] uniqueness of technology and
[1:32:52] how things are changing now
[1:32:57] and, you know, places that
[1:32:59] they can apply could be a
[1:33:02] conversation.
[1:33:03] so it's kind of nice to be
[1:33:07] clear of what's allowed and
[1:33:08] what's not allowed and also at
[1:33:11] the same time think about it
[1:33:15] if there might be
[1:33:16] opportunities to update our
[1:33:18] policies based on technologies
[1:33:19] that are coming forward each
[1:33:20] day.
[1:33:21] that's it.
[1:33:23] » Yeah.
[1:33:24] council member warn.
[1:33:26] thank you.
[1:33:27] » I'm glad to hear you say
[1:33:29] that you can't cover your
[1:33:31] entire yard with this
[1:33:34] impervious grass, because
[1:33:36] you're not even seeing worms
[1:33:38] come out the ground anymore
[1:33:39] when it rains.
[1:33:40] we've had a lot of rain, and I
[1:33:42] bet you haven't even seen
[1:33:46] worms crawling over the
[1:33:47] sidewalk.
[1:33:47] you used to have to sweep the
[1:33:51] sidewalks to get rid of all
[1:33:52] the worms.
[1:33:52] what happened to all the
[1:33:53] worms?
[1:33:54] and I think these impervious
[1:34:00] turfs is the reason we don't
[1:34:01] have good quality worms
[1:34:02] anymore.
[1:34:02] this is really sad.
[1:34:03] so I'm glad to hear that
[1:34:04] people can't cover their
[1:34:07] entire whatevers with this,
[1:34:08] but we should be very careful
[1:34:10] about the things that we're
[1:34:11] doing to our environment.
[1:34:12] and just grow regular grass.
[1:34:15] and do, like, old crotch
[1:34:19] et ceteray cantankerous people
[1:34:21] used to do when we were kids
[1:34:22] back in the early '80s, tell
[1:34:24] people to stay offour yard.
[1:34:25] the end.
[1:34:26] » Thank you, council member.
[1:34:29] council member shaffer.
[1:34:30] » Yeah, I'll just make a
[1:34:32] couple comments.
[1:34:32] one, I know crumb rubber is
[1:34:35] not used at all in the par
[1:34:36] system anymore.
[1:34:37] there may be some latent
[1:34:39] outliers, but that's not where
[1:34:40] they move forward and many of
[1:34:42] the soccer fields are
[1:34:44] sand-filled, elliot.
[1:34:45] and then I would say, I'm not
[1:34:47] sure we as a city have
[1:34:49] jurisdiction over fields and
[1:34:51] playgrounds that would be on
[1:34:52] parkland.
[1:34:53] so that might be a question
[1:34:55] just for further
[1:34:57] investigation.
[1:34:58] that was my one comment.
[1:34:58] thank you.
[1:35:02] » We can ask that question
[1:35:03] now because now I'm curious if
[1:35:05] we have any jurisction.
[1:35:07] » Kay.
[1:35:08] cped, I don't think we do but
[1:35:09] maybe we do.
[1:35:10] » Through the chair, council
[1:35:12] member shaffer, so the city
[1:35:13] does have zing authority
[1:35:15] over the parks, which would
[1:35:17] include the impervious
[1:35:19] coverage and the materials.
[1:35:20] » Okay, thank you.
[1:35:21] » Okay.
[1:35:22] that's very useful.
[1:35:26] is there anyone else that
[1:35:27] wants to be in queue?
[1:35:30] council member chavez.
[1:35:30] » I'll be quick.
[1:35:31] thank you all so much.
[1:35:33] whatever we need to do to make
[1:35:35] sure that we're not using
[1:35:38] these materials as often as
[1:35:39] some folks do, that's what I
[1:35:41] would like to do because it
[1:35:43] really does have a detrimental
[1:35:45] impact on people's health.
[1:35:47] so I at least -- and the
[1:35:49] worms.
[1:35:51] that council member warren
[1:35:52] mentioned.
[1:35:53] but, yeah, in general, thank
[1:35:54] you so much to staff for the
[1:35:55] presentation today.
[1:35:57] I'd like to know in the
[1:36:00] future, based than on this
[1:36:01] presentation, which has been
[1:36:03] outlined, what we need to do
[1:36:04] to make sure that we're not
[1:36:05] using these artificial things
[1:36:07] that are really impacting
[1:36:08] people's health.
[1:36:09] so, yeah, just wanted to
[1:36:10] mention that.
[1:36:10] » Thanks.
[1:36:11] ah, I'll just close off by
[1:36:13] saying, unless anyone else
[1:36:13] gets in queue, I think if we
[1:36:17] have preservous pavers that
[1:36:20] are considered impervious, I
[1:36:21] think that should be
[1:36:23] considered the same thing
[1:36:24] about artificial tuive grass,
[1:36:26] because it's about
[1:36:27] maintenances and our
[1:36:28] enforcement is very limited
[1:36:29] and doing enforcement on turf
[1:36:31] grass that is not well
[1:36:33] maintained I don't think is a
[1:36:34] valuable use of city
[1:36:35] resources.
[1:36:36] but definitely much to think
[1:36:37] abou
[1:36:38] seeing no one else in queue,
[1:36:40] and no further discussion,
[1:36:41] I'll direct the clerk to file
[1:36:43] that staff report and
[1:36:44] presentation.
[1:36:45] and no further businessefore
[1:36:47] us and with no objection, I
[1:36:48] will declare this meeting
[1:36:49] adjourned.