►
From YouTube: January 18, 2022 Heritage Preservation Commission
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic
for
the
record,
my
name
is
madeleine
sundberg
and
I
serve
as
chair
of
the
minneapolis
heritage.
Preservation.
Commission
I'll
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role.
So
we
verify
the
presence
of
a
quorum.
C
E
B
B
Our
first
order
of
business
is
to
adopt
the
agenda
for
this
meeting,
we'll
work
for
the
agendas
that
are
available
online.
I
will
go
through
the
agenda
and
sort
out
what
items
be
continued
to
a
future
meeting.
What
items
will
be
discussed
and
what
items
we
put
on
the
consent
agenda
to
be
approved
is
recommended
by
staff
and
without
further
discussion.
B
B
Item
number
five:
the
coliseum
building
and
hall
2708
east
lake
street
ward,
2
national
register
of
historic
places
nomination
will
be
on
consent
unless
someone
wants
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendations.
I'd
like
to
check
to
see
if
anyone
has
called
in
or
if
any
commissioners
would
like
to
discuss.
Item
number
five,
the
coliseum
building,
if
you
want
to
have
it
removed
from
consent
agenda,
if
you've
called
in
press
star
six
to,
let
me
know
you
are
there.
B
B
B
A
D
B
C
A
A
C
B
B
First,
we'll
act
on
the
consent
agenda
that
we
just
set
once
items
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved.
The
commission
is
done
with
those
items
and
applicants
may
contact
planning
staff
tomorrow
about
next
steps.
After
the
consent
agenda
items
are
approved,
we'll
take
each
remaining
agenda
item
in
order.
First,
the
planning
staff
will
present
its
report
and
commissioners
may
ask
questions
as
staff.
Then
we
will
hear
from
the
applicant
and
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
applicant.
After
that
I
will
open
the
public
comments.
B
B
Please
keep
your
comments
to
the
specific
application
that
is
before
us
today.
After
the
public
comments
are
complete,
I
will
close
the
hearing.
Commissioners
will
deliberate
and
act
on
the
application
before
us,
so
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda
items.
So
again
this
is
item
five,
the
coliseum,
building
and
hall
and
item
six
cavalry
lutheran
church
again.
Is
there
any
opposition
to
staff
recommendations
for
these
items?
B
B
B
A
C
B
You
item
five,
the
coliseum
building
and
hall
and
item
six.
Cavalry
lutheran
church
are
approved,
as
recommended
by
staff
on
the
agenda.
Applicants
for
those
items
may
contact
planning
staff
tomorrow
about
next
steps.
Our
next
item
is
number
four:
the
upper
harbor
terminal
demolitions,
the
demolition
of
historic
resources.
The
staff
report
will
be
presented
by
andrea.
G
I
am
presenting
tonight
a
modification
to
the
demolition
of
historic
resource
application
for
the
potential
upper
harbor
terminal,
historic
district
and
three
monolithic,
concrete
domes.
This
item
was
continued
by
the
hpc
at
the
december
14
2021
meeting,
and
requested
that
the
applicant
modify
the
request
to
account
for
specific
details
relative
to
the
buildings
and
structures
proposed
for
demolition
and
to
provide
additional
information
about
the
mitigation
plan
next
slide.
Please.
G
To
recap:
cpad
owns
the
upper
harbor
terminal
property
located
on
nine
parcels
along
the
mississippi
river
in
north
minneapolis,
comprising
53
acres
and
37
buildings
and
structures.
The
upper
harbor
terminal
was
developed
as
an
intermodal
barge
shipping
terminal
in
1968
near
the
head
of
commercial
navigation
on
the
river
and
remained
in
operation
until
late
2014.
Due
to
the
planned
closure
of
the
upper
st
anthony
falls.
G
G
G
Phase
one
of
the
larger
redevelopment
plan
proposed
for
the
53-acre
site
impacts,
19
resources.
Phase
1
includes
the
public
infrastructure,
utility
service,
extensions
transmission
lines,
the
construction
of
a
new
parkway
and
reconstructions
of
dowling
and
33rd
avenue.
North
riverfront
trails,
public
park
land
and
restored
shoreline,
as
well
as
development
into
mixed
use,
affordable
housing
performing
arts
center
and
jobs
focused
development
with
the
work
proposed
for
the
shoreline.
This
project
will
trigger
section
106
of
the
army,
quorum
of
engineers
permit
and
the
applicant
will
comply
with
the
regulations.
G
This
is
different
than
the
last
meeting
and
my
last
staff
report.
So
I
wanted
to
call
that
out
out
of
the
19
resources
proposed
for
demolition.
Seven
are
contributing
and
12
are
non-contributing
within
the
potential
district.
The
three
domes
are
not
contributing
to
the
district
but
eligible
individually.
G
I've
combined
the
the
slides
according
to
each
of
the
properties
that
are
being
proposed
for
demolition,
I'll
kind
of
go
through
each
one
briefly,
so
you
get
a
good,
visual
and
kind
of
get
an
idea
as
to
what
the
condition
is,
as
well
as
some
potential
alternatives
for
use.
Cost
of
renovations
reasons
for
demolition,
as
I
go
through
so
bear
with
me,
so
number
one
which
is
id
44
as
you'll
see
in
the
upper
left
hand
corner
is
the
office
building.
G
This
is
a
contributing
it
was
built
in
1968,
it's
in
structurally
fair
to
poor
condition.
This
was
based
on
the
night
2015
report
by
s-e-h
potential
alternative
reuses
that
were
looked
into.
This
was
a
another
small
office
or
retail
commercial
building
cost
for
renovations.
For
this
to
mothball
the
building
or
forty
five
thousand
dollars,
and
to
upgrade
it
would
be
an
additional
forty
thousand
dollars
reasons
for
demolition.
For
this
building.
It's
functionally
too
small
to
support
a
traditional
retail
or
office
use,
and
it's
located
on
a
proposed
redevelopment
site.
G
G
The
building,
though,
was
not
designed
or
built
for
continuous
human
occupation
to
mothball
the
scale
house,
it
would
be
approximately
twenty
thousand
dollars
and
to
upgrade
it
would
be
an
additional
fifteen
thousand
dollars
and
though
these
costs
seem
relatively
small
compared
to
an
overall
city
budget
spending.
This
amount
of
money
in
my
200
to
300
square
foot
building
is
not
reasonable
in
the
eyes
of
the
applicant.
G
The
reason
for
the
demolition
is
located
in
the
path
of
the
proposed
dowling
avenue
north
reconstruction
project
and
has
new
release
value
the
truck
scale,
which
is
also
in
this
photo,
which
is
id
number
46..
It's
in
good
condition.
It's
a
truck
scale.
It's
not
necessarily
designed
for
human
occupation
to
mothball
it
kind
of
preserve.
G
This
is
a
non-contributing
resource
according
to
the
period
significance,
it's
in
structurally
good
condition,
though
same
thing,
because
it's
very
small,
it
was
not
designed
for
continuous
human
occupation
to
mock,
while
the
building
would
be
15,
000
upgraded,
another
15
000-
and
this
is
also
on
the
same
parcel
for
to
include
affordable
housing
on
the
upper
right-
is
the
truck
scale.
This
was
also
built
in
1983.
You
can
kind
of
see
it
shortly
above
where
the
birds
truck
scale
are.
This
has
numerous
spalls
and
potholes.
G
This
is
not
contributing
in
this
driving
surface
lab.
This
was
not
you
know
it's
a
truck
scale.
It
was
not
built
for
human
occupation.
It
would
be
about
ten
thousand
dollars
to
upgrade
it
by
infilling.
The
pit
and
removing
the
scale
works,
but
it's
located
also
on
the
same
site.
That's
planned
to
include
affordable
housing
in
the
lower
right
hand.
Corner
is
the
warehouse
id
54.
G
This
is
built
in
1971
and
it
is
contributing.
This
is
probably
the
largest
building
on
the
upper
harbor
terminal
site.
It's
in
good
condition.
The
roof
is
in
fair
condition
and
the
building,
but
the
building
doesn't
need
building
code
for
sprinkler
and
fire
suppression,
reuse,
alternatives
that
were
looked
into
for
this
building.
It
could
be
another
conditioned
office,
building,
conditioned
storage,
building,
indoor
sports
or
recreation
use,
indoor
farming
or
gardening
training
center
community
resource
hub.
This
building
is
one
of
the
more
expensive
properties
to
renovate
to
mothball.
G
G
There
were
no
estimates
to
mothball
or
improve
this
building
separate
of
the
warehouse,
because
it's
connected
to
the
warehouse-
and
there
were
no
viable
reuse
means
as
this
structure
would
need
to
be
removed
when
the
warehouse,
if
the
house
is
removed,
id
57
are
the
conveyors
right
below
there.
These
were
built
between
1973
and
1988,
but
these
are
identified
as
contributing
by
the
designation
study
that
the
consultant
put
together.
G
These
are
in
good
structural
condition.
There's
an
other
alternative
uses
include
an
aerial
walkway,
an
overhead
structure
to
suspend
recreation
amenities
such
as
a
swing
or
a
climbing
apparatus
to
renovate
this
structure
would
be
between
fifty
thousand
and
a
hundred
dollars,
and
the
potential
safety
hazards
of
these
overhead
structures
to
present
to
future
users
of
the
site
and
as
well
as
the
cost,
to
secure
these
structures
from
potential
access
is
the
reason
the
applicants
are
asking
that
be
they
be
removed.
G
The
rail
dump,
which
is
id
58,
was
built
in
1973.
It
is
also
a
contributing
resource.
This
is
in
structurally
poor
condition.
The
size
of
the
structure
really
only
lends
itself
to
be
utilized
as
a
small
storage
facility.
Since
it's
open
to
mothball
it
would
be
fifteen
thousand
dollars
to
upgrade
it
and
secure.
It
would
be
another
fifteen
thousand
dollars.
G
G
Costs
of
renovation
are
also
similar
around
fifteen
thousand
a
month
wallet
and
then
upgrade
it
for
another.
Fifteen
thousand.
This
location
of
this
structure
doesn't
allow
for
the
proposed
park,
access
and
programming
to
occur,
based
on
community
input
and
desires,
and
therefore
has
no
reuse
value
next
slide.
Please.
G
G
The
cost
of
renovation
would
be
to
mothball,
it
would
be
about
twenty
thousand
dollars
and
then
an
additional
twenty
thousand
dollars
above
that
to
upgrade
it
reasons
for
demolition.
If
it
was
to
remain,
it
would
have
to
be
secured,
so
it
doesn't
become
a
public
safety
hazard
and
according
to
the
applicant,
that
would
not
be
a
reasonable
use
of
those
funds
or
funds
savings
number.
Let's
see
the
four
dust
tanks
which
is
id62.
These
were
also
built
in
1978.
G
They
are
non-contributing.
These
are
in
good
condition,
but
because
these
structures
were
not
designed
for
human
occupation,
they
were
really
only
intended
to
perform
their
original
use.
There
was
no
realistic
reuse
identified
that
would
align
with
the
planned
programming
for
the
proposed
park.
There
were
no
costs
for
renovations
that
were
explored
for
the
dust
tanks.
G
G
So
now
we
will
get
into
the
domes
dome
64,
which
is
at
the
upper
right
corner.
This
dome
is
in
structurally
fair
condition,
but
the
canvas
roof
membrane
is
in
poor
condition.
If
you
can
see
in
this
photo
with
many
parts
of
the
roof
membrane,
missing,
alternative
uses,
explored
were
conditioned,
storage
phase,
conditioned
indoor
sports
or
recreation
use,
indoor
farming
or
gardening,
such
maybe
an
indoor
condition,
training
center
costs
to
renovate
or
actually
cost
a
month,
while
the
structure
would
be
around
450
000
and
to
upgrade
it
such
as
new
utilities.
G
G
This
is
also
in
structurally
fair
condition,
but
the
roof
membranes
in
poor
condition
with
many
parts
of
the
roof
membrane
missing.
As
you
can
see
in
the
comparison
between
the
two
photos,
same
potential,
alternative
reuses
were
explored,
such
as
storage,
space,
recreation
use,
sports
use,
farming
costs
to
mothballed.
This
particular
dome
were
estimated
at
about
320
000
into
upgrade
were
estimated
at
1.1
million
dollars.
G
G
This
is
the
third
and
last
stone
that
still
remains.
This
was
built
in
1984.
It
was
non-contributor,
it
is
non-contributing
but
eligible
individually,
same
condition,
structurally
fair
condition,
but
the
roof
is
in
poor
condition.
Same
alternative
uses
were
explored
to
mothball
this
particular
dome.
It
would
be
470
thousand
dollars
estimated
and
to
upgrade
it
would
be
around
1.5
million
dollars
and
same
thing.
This
would
account
for
approximately
20
percent
of
the
total
park
construction
budget
and
same
thing.
G
G
The
size
itself,
though,
only
really
lends
the
building
to
be
used
as
a
small
storage
facility
to
mothball
this
building
would
be
forty
thousand
dollars
and
to
upgrade
it
would
be
an
estimated
seventy
five
000.
On
top
of
that,
the
location
of
this
loadout
shelter
is
in
conflict
with
the
community
programming
or
year
is
for
the
the
site
and
securing
the
structure
would
not
be
a
reasonable
means
of
funds.
According
to
the
applicant,
the
loadout
shelter
in
the
upper
right
corner
is
id
68..
G
This
was
built
in
84..
This
is
also
non-contributing,
structurally
good
condition.
Same
thing.
It
really
only
can
be
utilized
as
a
small
storage
facility
to
renovate
this
particular
structure
would
be.
Fifty
thousand
excuse
me
to
mothball
this
particular
structure
would
be
fifty
thousand
and
to
upgrade
it.
On
top
of
that
would
be
another
95
000
reasons
for
demolition
follow
the
same
as
the
other
loadout
shelter.
It's
in
conflict
with
the
community
park
programming.
G
G
It
is
in
structurally
poor
condition
and
the
size
of
its
the
structure
only
really
lends
itself
to
be
utilized
as
a
small
storage
facility
to
mop
all
this
would
be
approximately
fifteen
thousand
dollars
and
then
to
upgrade
it
would
be
an
additional
fifteen.
On
top
of
that,
the
applicant
would
need
to
remove
the
conveyor
and
secure
it
from
public
access
for
safety
purposes,
and
this
particular
dump
is
in
the
direct
path
of
the
proposed
parkway,
which
would
provide
access
to
the
site
and
therefore
that's
why
the
applicant
is
requesting
demolition
next
slide.
Please.
G
In
the
upper
left
corner
is
the
boiler
shed.
This
is
the
last
building
being
proposed
for
demolition.
It
was
built
in
1975.
It
is
contributing
to
the
remainder
of
the
site,
the
potential
district.
This
is
in
structurally
poor
condition.
There
was
no
economic,
viable
use
or
reuse
for
this
vario
shed
identified
by
the
applicant
the
cost.
There
was
no
multiple
option
identified
and
looked
into
for
this
because
of
the
condition
of
the
structure
was
not
salvageable.
G
The
location
of
this
boiler
shed
is
located
on
a
proposed
redevelopment
site.
That's
planned
to
include
affordable
housing
and
community-oriented
commercial
uses,
and
the
rest
of
the
slide
shows
the
placement
of
the
different
structures.
According
to
the
id
numbers
that
I
just
went
through
in
staff's
opinion,
the
potential
upper
harbor
terminal,
historic
district
is
eligible
for
local
designation
under
criteria.
One
three,
four
and
potentially
seven
and
the
three
monolithic
concrete
domes
are
eligible
under
criteria.
Three
and
four,
both
the
district
and
the
domes
retain
their
integrity
to
convey
their
significance
next
slide.
Please.
G
According
to
chapter
599,
if
the
commission
determines
that
a
property
is
a
historic
resource,
they
shall
deny
the
demolition
permit
unless
the
applicant
needs
their
burden
of
proof
with
respect
to
an
unsafe
or
dangerous
condition,
or
whether
there
are
no
reasonable
alternatives
to
demolition.
Considering
the
significance,
the
integrity
or
the
economic
value
or
usefulness
of
the
existing
structure,
including
its
current
use,
cost
of
renovation
and
feasible
alternative
uses.
G
Now,
under
this
several
prong
finding
criteria
laid
out
by
the
ordinance
under
an
unsafe
for
dangerous
condition.
I
I
want
to
mention
that
you
know
we've,
at
least
in
staff's
opinion,
we've
determined
that
the
property
is
a
historic
resource.
It
has
significance,
it
has
integrity
to
convey
that
significance.
G
Analysis
for
demolition,
so
5
out
of
the
19
resources
proposed
for
demolition
are
listed
in
structurally
poor
condition.
Staff
acknowledges
that
there
may
be
inherent
dangerous
conditions
on
the
property
from
it
being
a
vacant
industrial
site,
but
the
evidence
provided
in
the
application
does
not
satisfy
this
finding
under
the
ordinance
now
under
reasonable
alternatives
to
demolition.
G
Under
current,
the
consideration
for
current
use,
the
site
is
currently
vacant
and
it
was
not
built
for
human
occupation.
The
resources
include
truck
scales,
boiler,
sheds,
conveyors
and
dust
tanks.
In
addition
to
the
concrete
domes
which
were
designed
to
hold
commodities
such
as
fertilizer,
the
district's
use
as
a
bart
shipping
terminal
is
no
longer
viable.
Since
the
federal
government
closed,
the
upper
st
anthony
falls
lock
in
2015.
G
under
cost
of
renovation,
excluding
the
concrete
domes
that
cost
them
off.
All
the
resources
range
from
fifteen
thousand
dollars
for
the
rail
dump
to
approximately
1.5
million.
For
the
warehouse
upgrades
to
renovate
the
resources
would
range
from
another
fifteen
thousand
dollars
for
the
rail
dump
to
five
million
for
the
warehouse
to
give
an
idea
of
the
range.
G
The
monolithic,
concrete
domes
are
much
more
costly
to
mothball
and
renovate
ranging
from
around
three
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
dollars
to
mothball
the
domes
to
1.5
million.
For
the
upgrades,
the
cost
to
renovate
the
existing
buildings
and
structures
are
unreasonable
for
a
municipal
public
agency,
given
the
lack
of
feasible
alternative
uses,
as
described
in
a
moment
under
feasible
alternative
uses.
The
2015
report
and
the
community
engagement
looked
into
alternative
uses
for
the
site.
G
Its
use
as
a
barged
shipping
terminal
is
obsolete.
Since
the
saint
anthony
falls
lock
was
closed.
Other
uses
explored
for
the
domes
included
in
indoor
sports
or
recreation
use,
farming
or
training
center.
Other
uses
explored
for
the
truck
scales
and
duct
dust
tanks,
truck
dumps,
shipping
receiving
buildings,
scale,
house
and
control
building
had
no
alternative
uses
identified
as
they
could
only
perform.
The
original
intended
use
for
the
barge
shipping
communal,
the
office
building
and
warehouse
could
be
modified
into
another
office
space.
G
Perhaps
a
commercial
or
retail
establishment,
training,
center
or
community
resource
hub,
but
the
cost
to
renovate
these
industrial
resources
into
another
use
other
than
the
industrial
use
it
was
intended
for
are
prohibited
to
the
applicants,
who
are
municipal
public
agencies,
whether
it
is
fifteen
thousand
dollars
for
a
scale
house
or
five
million
for
the
warehouse.
It
is
staff's
opinion
that
the
costs
are
not
justified,
given
the
limited
options
of
reasonable
alternative
uses.
G
The
mitigation
plan,
as
developed
as
part
of
the
auar
for
historic
properties,
shall
be
carried
out
to
offset
the
address
impacts
resulting
from
the
demolition
of
historic
resources.
This
concludes
my
presentation,
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
The
applicant
has
also
prepared
another
presentation
to
clarify
the
request
and
thank
you
very
much.
E
Thank
you,
andrea.
That
was
really
really
helpful
in
the
the
information
we
got
in
our
packet
last
week
was
also
very
very
helpful.
So
I
appreciate
the
time
that
that
you
took
to
up
update
that
information
and
put
it
in
a
format
that
made
a
little
more
sense
to
us
two
questions.
One
is
typically
when
we
approve
demolitions,
don't
we
typically
have
a
couple
standing
conditions
that
get
attached
to
those
or
are
those
only
attached
to
cfas.
G
Oh
getting
back
into
technology,
that's
a
good
question,
as
I
was
just
saying
a
moment
on
mute.
I
think
we
typically
put
them
on
most
of
them,
but
when
we
approve
a
demolition
generally,
we
just
approve
the
demolition,
but
as
we
can
go
with
the
further
more
questions,
I'm
going
to
look
back
at
a
few
more
and
just
get
a
firm
answer
on
that.
Yeah.
E
G
The
recommendation
was
that
the
upper
harbor
terminal
historic
district
was
not
eligible
for
the
national
register
on
its
own.
However,
it
was
considered
a
contributing
resource
to
the
larger
upper
harbor,
historic
district,
which
is
a
much
larger,
potentially
eligible
historic
district
for
the
national
register,
and
that
was
concurred
by
the
state
historic
preservation
office.
So,
yes,
you
are
correct.
E
Okay
and
similarly,
the
the
domes,
if
I'm
reading
the
auar
correctly,
the
domes
the
parks
or
the
park,
the
state
historic
preservation
office
considers
them
significant
under
criterion
c,
but
that
they
are
not
likely
to
meet
the
the
standards
of
criteria.
Consideration
g,
which
is
that
extraordinary
significance
and
make
sure
that
we
understand
the
full
significance
of
the
the
property
and
what
these
demolitions
mean,
because
demolition
of
the
beginning
of
demolition
of
this
district
affects
not
just
this
district.
E
B
B
G
H
The
city
will
be
transferring
the
future
parkland
on
the
upper
harbor
terminal
site
to
the
park
board
within
the
next
one
to
two
years,
and
the
park
parcel
contains
the
majority
of
the
structures
we're
discussing
this
evening.
However,
as
andrea
had
noted,
not
the
extent
of
the
structures,
so
some
of
the
structures
are
within
the
city's
public
infrastructure
project
area
as
well
as
the
excuse
me,
a
development
parcel
slated
for
the
mixed-use,
affordable,
housing
development.
H
H
Of
course.
As
noted
in
our
application
phase,
one
of
the
redevelopment
identifies
the
17
structures
to
be
demolished
or
removed,
and
in
response
to
the
request
from
the
commission
at
the
december
14th
meeting,
we
have
identified
two
additional
structures
that
may
need
to
be
demolished
as
the
project
progresses
and
that
would
bring
the
total
to
19
demolitions
or
removals
out
of
the
37
existing
structures
on
site.
H
H
The
upper
harbor
terminal
site
is
approximately
50
acres
of
property
owned
by
the
city
of
minneapolis
along
one
mile
riverfront
on
the
river
in
north
minneapolis.
As
andrea
has
noted,
and
many
of
the
materials
have
noted.
The
federal
closure
of
the
lock
in
2015
required
the
city
to
cease
operations
of
the
barge
shipping
terminal.
The
structures
on
site
were
designed
and
constructed
to
function
collectively
as
the
terminal
and
the
site
has
operated
not
only
recently
but
for
years
at
a
deficit
annually.
H
And
wanted
to
note
that
currently,
and
as
some
of
the
materials
also
noted,
that
deficit
is
approximately
two
million
dollars
annually
the
site,
as
long
as
it
exists
in
its
current
state,
will
continue
to
incur
the
holding
and
maintenance
costs
that
grossly
outpace
the
minimal
revenue
from
outdoor
storage
uses
on
site,
which
are
also
ceasing
over
the
next
few
months.
Any
stabilization
of
the
structures
to
prevent
further
deterioration
also
requires
financial
investment
from
the
city,
which
is,
in
addition
to
any
cost,
to
excuse
me
rehab
or
reuse.
H
The
city
and
the
park
board
have
been
working
in
partnership
since
that
time.
So
since
2015
and
then
we're
joined
in
the
partnership
in
2017
by
a
development
team
led
by
united
properties,
the
city
of
minneapolis
approved
the
upper
harbor
terminal
coordinated
plan
for
redevelopment
on
october
14
2021,
which
is
the
result
of
this
planning
process.
H
As
you
have
seen,
there
are
structures
that
the
project
team
have
found
can
balance
the
needs
of
reasonable
alternative
uses,
condition
economic
feasibility
and
reuse
as
well
as
desired
programming
and
design
principles
and
where
there
are
structures
that
are
not
able
to
meet
those
criteria.
That
is
where
the
demolition
and
removals
are
sought
and
mitigation
and
interpretation
are
addressed.
Julie
and
john,
as
mentioned,
will
address
this
in
more
detail
soon.
H
There
are
additional
community
benefits
that
were
outlined
in
my
presentation
on
the
14th
and
a
new
slide
that
was
in
the
presentation
is
to
just
note
the
development
parcels
by
land
use
as
well
as
parcel
number.
That
can
certainly
be
helpful
as
we're
discussing
and
the
structures
that
are
being
focused
on
this
evening
are
focused
on
development,
parcel
6a
parcel
2,
which
is
the
park
parcel
and
parcel
3.
for
note.
The
warehouse
currently
straddles
the
future
park,
parcel
2
and
parcel
3..
H
H
That
would
involve
demolition
and
removals
grading
on
the
site.
Some
of
the
shoreline
work
as
well
and
then
to
follow
in
2023
and
2024
the
park
construction
project,
as
well
as
the
city's
public
infrastructure
project
and
then
private
development
activities
to
begin
occurring
on
site
at
the
earliest
in
2024..
H
The
public
infrastructure
plans
require
the
demolition
and
removal
of
the
warehouse
associated
shipping,
receiving
building
truck
and
rail
dump
office,
building
scale
house
and
truck
scales
at
dowling
washington,
as
noted,
the
boiler
shed
other
chuck
scale
and
scale
house
on
parcel
6a
at
the
corner
of
dowling
in
washington,
will
need
to
be
removed
in
order
to
advance
the
mixed
use.
Development
on
that
site.
H
H
There
are
certainly
competing
needs
that
we
take
very
seriously
and
work
every
day
to
manage
and
try
to
balance
the
city
and
the
park
board
have
considered
and
included
the
retention
and
reuse
of
some
structures
as
a
possibility.
Throughout
this
process,
both
the
city
and
the
park
board
have
done
our
due
diligence,
and
the
result
of
that
is
the
request
in
front
of
you
next
slide.
Please.
H
I
will
now
hand
off
the
presentation
to
julie,
aldridge
and
john
slack
from
the
mprv
project
team
to
discuss
in
further
detail
the
park
plan
design
the
proposed
removals,
of
course,
and
more
detail
on
the
mitigation.
I
want
to
thank
you
again
for
the
opportunity
to
address
the
commission
as
part
of
the
public
comment
and
the
continuance
of
this
item
and
will
be
available
for
questions
following.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you,
hillary
good
evening,
chairs,
lundberg
and
commissioners,
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
My
name
is
julie,
eldridge
and
I'm
a
project
manager
with
the
mprb
and
co-applicant
to
this
request
for
approval,
the
parkland
portion
of
the
upper
harbor
terminal
redevelopment
project
will
preserve
and
interpret
aspects
of
the
industrial
past,
while
the
overall
interpretive
message
will
emphasize
reclamation
of
this
space
by
people
and
nature.
The
project
will
include
arts,
language
stories,
restoration,
creative
infrastructure
and
a
focus
on
green
infrastructure,
education
and
jobs.
To
begin
this
process
of
change
next
slide.
I
Design
principles
for
the
park
project
were
based
on
key
outcomes
resulting
from
extensive
community
engagement.
During
community
engagement.
It
became
clear
that
there
are
many
ways
to
send
messages
about
who
a
space
is
for
and
who
is
welcomed
and
celebrated.
The
project
will
balance
industrial
history
and
relevance
with
indigenous
and
community
culture
and
history.
I
Community
members
have
expressed
the
desire
for
an
honest
examination
of
what
industry
on
the
river
has
meant
for
this
area
and
how
the
related
development,
infrastructure,
trade
and
pollution
have
impacted
people
and
the
land.
There
is
no
cultural
and
social
connection
between
the
residents
of
north
minneapolis
and
the
existing
structures
on
the
site.
In
many
cases
it
was
identified
that
there
is
a
negative
connotation
between
the
use
of
the
existing
structures
and
the
negative
impact.
Previous
land
use
and
heavy
industrial
activities
of
the
site
has
had
on
residents
in
north
minneapolis.
I
Community
engagement
assess
how
key
categories
of
park
users,
including
children,
teens,
seniors,
individual
users,
people
in
groups
and
organizations
might
interact
with
the
park.
The
resulting
list
of
10
key
experiences
includes
information
and
how
the
physical
park
features
can
be
tailored
to
support
north
side.
Community
needs
and
desires,
desired
activities
and
experiences
for
the
park
are
organized
into
categories
that
inform
the
physical
spaces.
These
activities
range
across
wide
spectrums
and
sometimes
compete
from
individual
to
group
activities
to
active
passive
recreation.
I
The
19.5
acre
park
spans
the
entire
length
of
the
uht
property
along
the
riverfront
to
the
east
and
development
parcels
to
the
west.
Much
of
the
park
is
linear
with
a
five
acre
central
park.
Space
linear
park
areas
feature
the
parkway
road
with
parking
which
will
also
serve
as
city
street,
with
separated
bike
and
pedestrian
trails,
vegetative
buffers
a
gently
sloped,
vegetated
shoreline
and
storm
water
treatment
areas.
The
main
entrance
to
the
parkway
and
park
facilities
will
be
via
dowling
avenue.
I
I
I
Core
park
elements
include
circulation
pathways,
flexible
plows
of
space,
flexible
lawn
and
picnic
area,
a
play
area,
ada,
water
access,
temporary
mobile
buildings
with
restrooms
and
shelter,
a
green
infrastructure,
training
center
and
gardens
and
natural
areas.
Next
slide,
the
existing
structures
on
the
uht
site
were
constructed
for
the
operations
of
the
site
as
a
bar
shipping
terminal.
I
These
structures
are
no
longer
in
use
and
without
current
or
viable
use
due
to
the
cease
and
the
operations
of
the
uht
as
a
terminal,
the
site
is
currently
being
used
for
interim
outdoor
storage
and
the
property
continues
to
operate
in
a
deficit
of
approximately
2
million
annually,
property
management
expenses
exceed
the
revenue
in
furtherance
of
the
city,
approved
coordinated
plan.
The
site
will
need
to
be
redeveloped
from
its
former
and
obsolete
youth
to
the
proposed
mix
of
uses
in
riverfront
park.
I
A
small
number
of
structures
are
located
on
a
development
parcel
plan
for
mixed-use
building
with
affordable
housing
and
commercial
space
focused
on
the
local
northside
community
structures
indicated
in
color
green,
represent
structures
to
be
removed
and
proposed.
Parcel
boundaries
are
shown
in
orange,
dashed
line
next
slide.
I
Reasons
for
the
removal
of
existing
structures
include
the
structures
have
no
long-term
economic
value.
It
is
cost
prohibitive
to
implement
safety
and
security
strategies
with
existing
structures
that
are
proposed
for
demo
and
removal.
Due
to
numerous
public
health
safety
and
welfare
concerns,
it
is
cost
prohibitive
to
restore
condition
and
design
these
structures
for
another
use,
no
desired
or
feasible
park.
Programming
aligns
with
the
preservation
and
restoration
of
these
structures
desired
park.
Programming
cannot
be
implemented
because
of
current
space
restrictions
with
the
location
and
size
of
existing
buildings.
Next
slide
cost
implications
include.
I
Currently
the
terminal
site
operates
at
a
1.5
to
2
million
dollar
deficit
based
on
conditions,
assessments
and
potential
reuse.
Estimated
costs
of
9
million
670
000
are
needed
to
bring
the
site
structures
up
to
code.
Estimated
costs
to
mothball
and
secure
structures
is
three
million
estimated
costs
to
remove
structures,
as
estimated
is
one
million
two
hundred
and
thirty
six
thousand
dollars
next
slide.
I
The
structures
were
extensively
assessed
for
reuse
options
and
cost
implications
for
mothballing,
securing
and
upgrading
structures
to
support
human
occupation.
This
chart
indicates
feasibility
and
potential
for
reuse
and
associated
costs.
Structures
44
to
62
are
represented
here.
For
example,
item
6
indicates
the
large
warehouse
on
site
would
require
1.5
million
to
mosfall
an
upgrade
to
accommodate
reuse
options
listed
is
estimated
to
cost
5
million
next
slide.
Please.
I
I
An
archaeological
treatment
plan
would
include
a
brief
project:
description,
narrative
of
processing
communications,
a
summary
of
known
areas
of
potential
and
known
archaeological
resources,
a
compilation
of
previous
studies,
roles
and
responsibilities
for
plan
implementation,
general
field
and
monitoring
methodology,
unanticipated
discoveries
plan
and
specific
treatment
plan
for
known
artifacts
next
slide.
Please.
I
Additional
documentation
of
existing
structures
would
include
an
updated
site
survey.
Digital
photography
of
structural
remains,
additional
narrative,
written
descriptions
of
structures
and
information
about
construction
methodology
available
from
the
dome
manufacturer
can
inform
relevant
portions
of
the
interpretive
plan.
The
design
team
will
be
preparing
construction
drawings
for
adaptive,
reuse
or
stabilization
of
specific
structures,
and
these
drawings
can
be
incorporated
into
the
documentation
next
slide.
I
An
interpretive
plan
will
be
prepared
and
will
serve
the
following
outcomes,
convey
the
significance
and
story
of
this
place,
facilitate
an
understanding
of
importance,
relevance
and
meaning,
develop
long-range
vision
for
interpretation
and
visitor
experience
and
define
opportunities
to
interpret
reuse
structures
and
structures
no
longer
present
on
sites.
Such
a
plan
would
allow
for
phased
implementation
and
include
adaptive,
reuse
of
industrial
elements,
while
blending
the
history
and
culture
associated
with
the
site.
Next
slide
interpretation
will
incorporate
the
five
north
side
storylines
defined
by
juxtaposition.
I
I
Interpretation
will
incorporate
indigenous
stories
and
connections
to
the
site.
The
project
will
represent
indigenous
language
and
culture
through
design,
incorporate
indigenous
art
and
language,
provide
educational
opportunities
of
site,
remediation
and
interpretation
of
indigenous
relationships
with
native
plants.
Next
slide
interpretation
will
incorporate
art,
language
stories,
restoration
and
green
industry
recognizing
the
past,
while
reclaiming
the
space.
I
By
and
for
people
and
nature,
the
project
will
identify
dome
66
outline,
retain
walls
or
interpret
locations,
reuse,
steel
and
concrete
structural
elements
for
site,
furnishings,
reuse,
grain,
elevators
for
outdoor
storage
and
a
water-reused
cistern
maintain
the
red
grain
elevator
as
a
vertical
presence
on
site
and
utilize.
The
river
wall
and
mooring
cells
for
access
to
water
next
slide.
I
The
red
grain
elevator
and
tower
may
be
reimagined
and
revitalized
as
a
visually.
Prominent
and
interactive
feature.
Ideas
for
interpretation
and
reuse
could
include
an
observation
tower:
a
vertical
landscape,
climbing
structure,
zipline
and
picnic
structures
next
slide
in
the
short
term,
grain
elevators
will
be
reused
for
storage
in
the
long
term.
One
to
two
grain
elevators
may
be
reused
to
house
the
water
cistern
and
others
may
be
reimagined
and
revitalized
as
visually.
Prominent
and
interactive
features.
I
Ideas
for
interpretation
and
reuse
could
include
shelter,
climbing
offices
and
storage
observation
platform,
art
play
vertical
garden
and
storm
water
storage.
Next
slide,
the
conveyors
may
be
reimagined
and
revitalized
as
both
interactive
and
functional
amenities.
Ideas
for
interpretation
and
reuse
could
include
reusing
many
of
the
smaller
steel
structural
elements
and
concrete
pieces
on
site
for
bollards
bike,
racks,
public
art,
site,
furnishings
and
lighting
structural
members,
repurpose
for
climbing
swinging
landscaping
or
shade
next
slide.
I
B
B
E
You
knew
if
I
had
questions
for
staff.
I'd
probably
have
questions
for
the
applicant
team.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
all
for
for
working
with
staff
to
put
a
a
more
complete
application
in
front
of
us
and
for
the
presentation
today
that
that
really
kind
of
outlined
all
of
the
the
things
that
you've
been
thinking
about.
So
I
noticed
that
as
part
of
your
discussion
of
interpretation
on
the
site,
you
talked
about
reusing,
conveyor
belts
and
things
like
that
which
we
are
currently
looking
at
for
demolition.
E
So
I'm
I'm
wondering
if
we
should
be
is
there?
Is
there
a
concerted
plan
to
salvage
as
part
of
demolition
so
that
that
can
be
done
in
the
future?
That's
my
first
question
and
then
my
second
question
has
to
do
with
the
interpretive
plan
and,
if
you've
developed
a
team
yet
to
be
doing
the
review
and
comment
on
that
interpretive
plan,
and
if
not,
would
you
be
willing
to
have
an
hpc
member
on
it?.
I
Yes,
we
are
looking
at
opportunities
to
salvage
components
of
those,
and
so,
as
I
mentioned
as
part
of
the
presentation
that
we
would
be
looking
at
reusing,
potentially
the
vertical
structural
elements,
such
as
some
of
the
vertical
components
that
are
upright
on
the
site
and
then
the
slide
that
showed
some
of
the
mitigation
strategies
and
had
some
sketches
that
identified
those.
You
saw
some
sketches
that
showed
some
new
stands
that
span
those
vertical
elements
that
could
include
swings
and
climbing
and
shade
structures
and
so
forth.
I
There
are
also
anticipated
to
be
portions
of
those
structural
elements
overall
that
can
be
salvaged
and
reused
and
repurposed
for
something
new,
such
as
site,
furnishings
lighting,
bollards
bike,
racks
or
public
art,
and
so
those
types
of
components
would
be
items
that
would
be
salvaged
and
reutilized
or
reimagined
into
something
new
and
used
in
a
potentially
different
location
on
the
site
or
potentially
in
the
same
location
and
are
just
kind
of
repurposed.
So
there's
a
few
different
things
going
on,
but
the
ask
certainly
does
include
having
the
long
horizontal
spans
coming
out.
I
I
D
I
do
I
just
I
do
want
to
thank
the
applicant
for
coming
back
after
a
couple
cycles
and
and
providing
more
information
to
us
on
this.
It's
been
incredibly
helpful.
I
guess
my
question
is,
is
more
just
you
know,
it's
not
really
a
well.
It
is
a
question,
so
I
know
this
upper
terminal
is
going
to
comprise
of
of
multiple
phases.
I
think
I
saw
maybe
six
faces
all
together
and
what
we're
looking
at
right
now
is
the
demolition
associated
with
phase,
maybe
one
and
some
of
the
other
phases.
H
Chair
sunburg,
I
could
offer
an
answer
to
that
as
well.
Thank
you,
commissioner
johnson.
As
far
as
the
public
infrastructure
project
on
slide,
seven
of
the
most
recent
presentation,
which
was
also
noted
in
the
december
14th
presentation,
it's
the
public
infrastructure
plan.
It
notes
two
phases
for
the
public
infrastructure
project
and
the
second
phase
is
really
a
portion,
a
segment
of
the
parkway
along
the
riverfront,
which
would
not
require
any
additional
removals.
H
So
the
extent
of
the
removals
included
in
this
application
are
the
extent
for
the
public
infrastructure
project
in
total,
both
phase
one
and
phase
two
and
for
the
private
development
parcels.
That
is
also
the
extent
of
the
demolitions
and
removals,
because
parcel
6a
includes
a
number
of
those
parcels.
Those
are,
are
sorry,
a
number
of
those
structures.
H
Those
are
included
in
this
application.
This
request
as
well.
So
that
would
be
the
extent
for
both
the
public
infrastructure
project,
as
well
as
the
development
redevelopment
project
and
that
there
are
anticipated
to
be
two
phases
of
development,
for
if
you
focus
on
the
private
development,
and
so
the
parcel
is
noted
and
that
phasing
slide
for
the
first
phase
and
then
the
balance
of
the
parcels
to
follow
in
the
next
few
years
following
I
can
provide
more
information
on
that.
If
that's
helpful,
hopefully
that
answers
your
question.
B
H
J
G
Yeah,
I
can
jump
in.
Thank
you,
commissioner
strothers,
and
I
don't
take
your
comment
in
that
way
at
all.
I
did
look
into
this
and
I
did
that's
why
I
included
a
section
in
the
staff
report
that
addressed
your
comments
specifically,
given
your
concern
that
the
previous
meeting
in
december,
it's
not
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
especially
cped.
G
You
know
we're
a
landowner
within
the
city
of
the
city,
limits
of
minneapolis
and
it's
not
without
president
that
cped
will
bring
a
land
use
application
before
a
citizen
appointed
body
such
as
the
hpc
at
the
planning
commission.
It
happens
much
more
regularly
with
the
city
planning
commission,
and
you
know
we
have
staff
recommendation
and
that's
generally
what
it
is.
We
have
recommendations
and
that's
why
we
have
findings
that
are
out
there.
They
are
laid
out
by
the
ordinance,
and
you
know
it
is
our
burden
to
to
make
the
case
for
the
findings.
G
You
know
on
my
team,
we
as
a
matter
of
principle
and
integrity.
We
act.
You
know,
independently
of
the
decisions
that
were
brought
before
we
use
our
expertise.
We
use
our
background.
Our
knowledge,
our
education
and
experience,
in
my
experience,
I
have
about
20
years
of
experience
in
this
field,
and
I
apply
that
to
each
and
every
one
of
the
applications
that
come
before.
G
Everyone
comes
out
differently
and
I
evaluate
each
differently
and
this
one
based
on
my
analysis,
my
experience,
my
education
and
the
information
that
was
put
before
me.
It
is
my
opinion
that
that
did
not
drive
my
analysis
for
this
particular
application
and
my
conclusions
and
then
also
keep
in
mind
that
you
know.
That
is
my
statement
that
I
will
give
before
the
commission
on
record,
but
also
you
know
every
one
of
you
that
are
sitting
here.
G
Virtually
are
citizen
appointed
and
you
ultimately
make
the
decision
on
this
and
it's
not
staff,
and
that
sort
of
is
the
as
I
called
the
beauty
of
the
the
public
process
and
that
it's
sort
of
a
you
know
a
commission
of
peers
of
residents
of
the
city
who
make
decisions
on
these
applications
that
are
independent
of
staff
expertise.
So
that
is
what
I
can
say.
Thank
you.
B
J
G
In
this
respect,
there
is
an
appeals
for
this
particular
application,
a
demolition,
an
appeals
process
that
goes
through,
and
any
member
of
the
public
or
the
applicant
can
appeal
it
not
staff,
of
course,
but
then
that
sort
of
is
part
of
the
checks
and
balances,
and
if
should
there
be
an
appeal,
should
any
member
be
dissatisfied
with
the
outcome?
It
goes
up
to
the
city
council
that,
wouldn't,
I
necessarily
say,
a
protection
of
staff's
opinion,
but
it
sort
of
plays
into
the
larger
larger
process.
B
F
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
so
then.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
looked
up
people's.
I
looked
up
the
the
mission
statement
of
the
heritage
preservation,
commission
and
it
said
it
helps
to
preserve
the
community's
unique
identity,
culture
and
character
by
protecting
significant
historic
resources
from
the
city's
past.
I'd
also
like
to
hope
that
we
are
looking
at
this
also
about
how
historical
environmental
resources
of
the
past
pre-industrialization.
F
So
before
I
begin,
I
just
wanted
to
again
say
I
do
live
in
ward
4..
I
did
serve
also
like
you
all,
as
a
volunteer
on
the
citizens,
environmental
advisory
commission
for
four
years
in
2014
or
2013.,
and
I
am
a
a
community
organizer,
an
environmental
justice
organizer
as
well.
So
today
I
come
to
you
working
with
a
coalition
of
people
called
cmej.
F
F
F
We
do
believe
this
is
a
historic
area
site,
rich
with
culture.
People
especially,
are
a
part
of
the
resources,
the
environment
as
well,
and
the
indigenous
history
that
is
often
ignored
and
the
generational
harm
that
has
happened
in
an
industrial
area
in
an
environmental
justice
community,
and
we
believe
mitigation
strategy
should
be
very
clear
and
the
auar
needs
to
be
held
to
a
higher
standard,
if
not
at
least
just
to
the
law.
F
B
I
B
K
K
A
B
K
G
To
tell
you,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Yes
hi.
This
is
andrea
burke.
I
can
respond
to
that.
So
as
part
of
this
project,
there
has
been
several
archaeological
surveys
that
generally
deal
with
that
time
period,
which
is
prior
to
what
is
built
there.
Now
there
was
the
archaeology
kind
of
goes
in
a
phased
approach.
Generally,
you
start
with
literature,
search
where
you
identify
based
on
literature.
G
What
what
you
may
find
there
are
there
indigenous
artifacts
that
could
be
there,
what
remnants
of
maybe
any
industrial
buildings
that
were
torn
down
before
the
upper
harbor
terminal
was
constructed
in
the
late
1960s
that
happens
first
from
there,
then
an
archaeologist
would
go
out
into
the
field
and
they
conduct
something
which
is
called
shovel
test
pits
it's
another
faced
approach
to
identify
what
resources
are
out
there,
the
entire
53
acres
was
considered
for
archaeology
and
you
sort
of
it
got
narrowed
down
to
several
parcels
from
there
in
the
staff
report.
That's
online.
G
G
So
to
answer
your
question:
yes,
it
that
period
of
history
was
considered
is
considered
in
the
archaeological
survey
for
this
site
and
then
generally
anything
that
is
identified
or
determined,
as
part
of
that
would
would
go
forward
either
part
of
the
mitigation
plan
or
to
be
determined.
Not
the
answers.
K
G
B
K
Absolutely
the
reason
I'm
asking
that
is,
there
is
a
picture
if
any
of
you
are
familiar.
One
of
these
pictures
that
the
park
board
does
install
underneath
the
hennepin
avenue
bridge
of
a
village
at
dakota
village
at
the
time
period
that
I
mentioned,
that
would
be
in
the
1800s
close
to
the
1855
treaty.
K
K
The
third
thing
I
want
to
mention
is
that
that's
why
I'm
asking
about
actual
archaeological
samples
that
have
been
taken
of
parcel
6b?
I
believe
it's
not
under
the
building.
It's
actually
downstream
of
the
building.
The
other
thing
I
want
to
mention
is:
is
anybody
on
the
historical
commission
familiar
with
a
village
or
a
community
in
the
1940s
called
mississippi
courts.
K
K
I
believe
the
mississippi
courts
was
torn
down
and
they
were
dispersed
into
the
city,
so
it
functioned
as
part
of
the
story
of
the
defamation
of
culture
in
many
different
people
on
dakota
land.
So
I
just
want
to
bring
that
to
your
attention,
especially
when
the
park
board
was
talking
about
land
acquisition
further
downstream
or
upstream
of
the
river
to
continue
the
plan
that
they
have
for
that
area.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
B
Okay
doesn't
seem
like
there's
anyone
else.
Thank
you
for
everybody
who
did
call
in.
We
really
appreciate
having
members
of
the
public
come
virtually
to
talk
to
us
about
their
concerns.
It's
important
part
of
the
process,
seeing
no
other
callers.
I
will
close
the
public
comment
and
start
the
commissioner
discussion.
B
E
Thank
you
considering
the
comments
that
we
just
got,
I'm
just
curious.
I
wanted
to
ask
staff
about
the
lawsuit
and,
if
there's
any
ramifications
related
to
us,
making
a
decision
on
this
demolition
tonight
and
then
I
do
have
some
comments.
I'd
like
to
talk
about
just
briefly
related
to
the
application
before
us,
but
if
we
could
get
that
clarification
about
the
lawsuit
first
I'd
appreciate
it.
G
G
E
Okay,
thank
you
that
helps.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I'm!
I
am
really
excited
about
the
the
reimagination
of
the
site
and
reclaiming
a
lot
of
that
painful
history
that
we've
been
hearing
about,
that
many
many
politicians
associate
with
this
this
industry
and
this
location.
It
does
have
a
remarkable
history.
We
can
see
that
in
the
buildings
that
were
there,
we
can
hear
that
in
the
the
things
that
we're
hearing
from
the
public
tonight
that
there's
a
an
even
larger
history
that
isn't
really
embodied
within
this.
E
E
I'm
especially
concerned
about
about
the
demolition
of
the
domes,
because
I
do
believe
that
they
do
have
exceptional
significance
under
architecture
and
engineering,
though
I
also
appreciate
the
the
amount
of
work
that
would
be
needed
to
make
that
case.
Currently,
I
do
appreciate
knowing
there's
a
section
106
hook
on
this,
but
I
just
want
to
let
everyone
know
that
when
it
comes
to
the
army
corps
of
engineers,
that
hook
can
be
pretty
small,
whatever
the
permit
area
is,
and
that
may
not
pull
in
the
entire
district.
E
So
I'm
not
sure
how
much
of
a
106
hook
for
consultation
that
might
be.
It
might
actually
pull
in
some
of
these
concerns
that
that
the
the
commenters
the
public
commenters
today
mentioned,
though
so
that's
one
thing
to
think
about.
So
I've
been
thinking
along
these
lines.
I
have
some
thoughts
about
some
possible
additional
conditions
that
we
could
put
on
the
demolition
if
we
were
to
approve
it
tonight.
But
I'd
love
to
hear
what
other
commissioners
have
to
say.
L
I
I
just
want
to
acknowledge
the
history
of
the
mississippi
courts
important.
I
was
in
special
collections
when
the
person
that
wrote
a
book
about
it
researched
it,
but
it
is
located
or
where
they
were
located,
where
the
north
mississippi
regional
park
are.
So
that's,
I
think,
a
bit
north
of
the
space
we're
talking
about.
D
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
echo
what
commissioner
howard
said,
that
I
really
appreciate
the
applicant
team
coming
back
with
a
lot
more
information.
I
know
I
already
said
this
earlier
when
I
asked
them
a
question,
but
it
definitely
paints
a
much
easier
picture
for
hpc
to
to
look
at
and
understand
kind
of
the
plan
going
forward.
I
was
also
really
interested
to
hear
that
the
site
has
a
lot
more
history
than
just
that
predates
the
industrialization
of
the
site,
so
that
was
interesting
to
learn
too.
D
I
guess
you
know
I
think,
generally
I
I
don't
have
much
heartburn
about
most
of
removing
most
of
the
structures
on
the
site
like
scale
houses
and
truck
scales.
I
think
my
my
big
hesitation
at
this
point
is
the
the
domes
I
I
have
a.
I
do
really
think
that
they
are
a
good
representation
and
and
are
just
aesthetically.
I
know
they
they're
kind
of
ugly
to
look
at,
but
I
think
aesthetically
they're
really
interesting
and
they
could
be.
You
know,
cleaned
up
and
and
used
in
a
different
way.
B
D
I
do
agree
that
I
think
that
this
both
staff
and
the
applicant
did
you
know,
give
us
more
information
about
the
domes
and
the
cost
and
and
repairing
them,
but
I
still
see
the
domes
and
all
the
renderings
of
the
upper
hardware
terminal
thing
every
rendering
I
see
has
the
dome,
so
I
just
find
it
very
interesting.
Thank
you.
M
I
don't
know
I
don't
want
to
say
early
in
the
process
but,
like
things
are
still
being
developed,
and
that
makes
me
a
little
bit
uncomfortable
because
I
don't
know
what
that's
actually
going
to
result
in.
So
I
wish
that
there
were
more
clear,
actionable
steps
or
a
way
for
the
hpc
or
schiphol
or
somebody
to
be
involved.
M
To
sort
of
like
have
a
check
on
that,
and
then
I
would
also
say
I
I
still
am
just
like
not
really
seeing
a
lot
of
archaeology
discussed
here,
and
I
think
that
I
saw
that
there's.
You
know
this
outline
for
a
treatment
plan,
but
that
is
a
is
like
the
basic
structure
of
a
report.
It
isn't
necessarily
saying
what
what's
going
to
be
looked
at,
how
they're
going
to
be
like
looking
for
these
things,
especially
understanding
that
they
have
done
archaeology
and
found
potentially
significant
resources
there.
M
So
just
I
guess
looking
for
additional
clarity
there
and
then
I
I
do
sort
of
think
that
one
of
the
callers
brought
up
a
really
interesting
idea
that
we
haven't
talked
about
a
lot
here
and-
and
maybe
it
doesn't
have
a
purpose
here.
But
cultural
significance
and
traditional
cultural
properties-
that's
not
something
that
we
have
really
talked
about
here,
but
along
the
river
that
that
can
be
a
thing.
E
Well,
just
to
follow
up
on
commissioner
burenberg's
mention
about
wanting
to
know
a
little
bit
more
about
what
I'm
thinking
for
for
conventions.
One
would
be
that
the
hpc
request
to
be
a
consulting
party
to
the
section
106
undertaking
that
would
keep
us
abreast
of
of
what's
happening
with
that,
and
we
can
provide
comments
on
that
that
could
pull
in
some
of
this.
E
E
Another
thing
that
I
was
thinking
about
is
related
to
the
domes,
and
I
think
it
would
be
appropriate
for
there
to
be
a
paper
submitted
to
publication
on
the
domes
themselves.
They
could
also
be
documented,
but
I
think,
there's
probably
already
extensive
documentation,
but
we
could
request
that
a
minister
of
historic
property
record
be
done
of
them
and
a
paper
submitted.
E
G
Thank
you
I
wanted
to
make,
as
I
was
taking
notes
as
you're
talking.
Commissioner
howard,
I
want
to
make
a
couple
points
known
under
the
section
106
process,
the
city
of
minneapolis
and,
specifically
the
heritage
preservation.
Commission
is
always
invited
as
part
of
every
106..
They
are
mandatory
consulting
party
more
specifically
under
the
regulations,
the
local
government
is
the
mandatory
consulting
party,
but
it
has
become
into
practice
that
the
hpc
is
invited
as
also
these
as
well.
G
It
has
been
our
approach
and
that
generally
staff
comments
on
these
for
some
of
the
larger
projects.
Based
on
some
previous
input
from
the
commission,
I
will
bring
those
before
the
commission
as
a
as
a
discussion
item.
I
think
my
opinion
on
your
suggested
potential
condition
is
that
you
know
we
staff
will
always
be
a
part
of
the
consulting
party
and,
if
there's
a
commissioner
generally,
it's
the
chair
that
can
participate
as
well.
G
I
do
want
to
make
it
known
that
I
am
very
opposed
to
mixing
the
regulations
for
local
and
federal
and
especially
making
a
condition
on
a
local
application
to
be
a
part
of
106.
I
I
have
seen
this
happen
in
my
experience
as
a
compliance
officer
in
another
state,
and
it
can
get
very
complicated
and
legally
messy,
and
that
is
why
I,
I
really
strongly
prefer
not
to
do
that.
However,
as
I
said,
you
know,
and
it's
not
to
say
that
hey
trust
us,
but
generally
we
always
well
not.
G
G
The
ordinance
lays
out,
you
know
what
can
be
included
as
mitigation
and
I've
included
that,
on
the
last
slide
of
my
presentation-
and
I
can
always
read
it
again-
and
I
think
that
kind
of
falls
in
line
with
some
of
the
the
possibilities
for
another
condition
to
include
for
mitigation
as
part
of
part
of
a
demolition.
Should
you
choose
to
approve
it?
I
will
leave
at.
E
Have
you
had
that
opportunity
with
the
core
before
because
I
know
not,
all
federal
agencies
are
as
open
to
inviting
hbc's
so
and
that's
that's
why
I
was
talking
about
it
that
way,
but
if
you
feel
comfortable
that
the
corps
would
invite
you
to
be
part
of
that
consultation,
then
I
would,
I
would
feel
inclined
to
follow
your
lead.
I
too
don't
like
to
mix
the
two
as
much.
I
just
know
that
not
all
federal
agencies
invite
hpcs.
G
B
Thank
commissioner
howard,
thank
you,
andrea,
christopher
howard.
I
had
similar
concerns
about
documentation
of
the
existing
buildings
and
whether
additional
documentation
could
be
part
of
the
requested
mitigation
but
andrea.
It
seems
like
I'm
trying
to
find
where,
in
your
report,
you
had
the
what
we
were
allowed
to
ask
for
for
mitigation.
I
guess
I'm
wondering
about
something
like:
could
laser
scanning
of
the
site
be
requested,
something
like
that
that
would
keep
the
domes
and
everything
in
a
virtual
format
that
we
could
reference
later.
G
G
Such
plan
may
include
documentation
of
the
property
by
measure,
drawings,
photographic,
recording
historic
research
or
other
means
appropriate
to
the
significance
of
the
property
and
at
the
very
bottom.
Here
such
plan
may
also
include
the
salvation
preservation
specified,
building
materials,
contextual
details,
ornaments
fixtures
and
other
similar
items
for
reuse,
overuse
and
restorations.
B
E
Yeah
I
was
looking
at
documentation,
but
then,
more
importantly,
submitting
something
to
a
public
publication
so
that
it's
it's
not
just
documentation
and
putting
it
into
a
shelf,
but
getting
it
out
there
getting
the
word
out
there
about
the
significance
of
those
domes,
so
the
documentation
would
be.
You
know
whatever
is
needed
to
document
them
before
they're
demolished,
but
then
telling
people
about
it
yeah.
Why
are
they
significant?
A
B
B
B
E
N
M
Yeah
I
mean
I
don't
really
have
a
whole
lot
to
add.
I
think
that
understanding
that
we,
the
hpc,
would
have
the
ability
to
participate
in
the
106
process
and
hopefully
be
able
to
voice
some
of
these
concerns
and
sort
of
have
continue
to
play.
A
role
in
the
project
as
it
develops
makes
me
feel
a
little
bit
better
about
that,
and
I
think
that
the
ideas
that
we
have
heard
from
other
commissioners
about
sort
of
documentation
of
the
domes
and
publication
of
that
documentation.
M
B
That
means
that,
while
this,
this
work
is
going
on
on
the
site,
while
there's
any
excavation
and
things
like
that,
if
a
item
of
archaeological
interest
is
found,
an
archaeologist
is
brought
in
to
do
more
careful
looking.
So
if
indigenous
artifacts
were
found,
it
would
be
recorded.
Re-Strategized
the
you
know,
things
would
pause
and
and
take
a
look
at
it.
It's
not
just
like
full
steam
ahead
normally
on
these
projects,
and
so
I
guess,
knowing
that
they
have
an
unanticipated
discoveries
plan
and
archaeological
treatment
plan
in
general.
B
The
park
board
wants
to
focus
on,
at
least
to
me
did
seem
like
the
indigenous
heritage
was
being
considered
in
in
that
interpretation,
although,
as
we've
said,
we'd
like
to
be
involved
in
that
interpretation
plan,
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
it
is
more
than
yeah,
that
is
all
included.
I
would
say
that,
as
a
commission,
our
goal
is
to
look
at
the
whole
history
of
a
site,
even
if
what
the
public
is
seeing
us
mostly
talk
about,
is
domes,
we're
thinking
about
more
than
that.
O
O
So,
just
coming
from
my
own
experience
on
a
project
not
too
far
from
this
particular
site,
the
we'll
we
will
have
an
archaeologist-
and
I
imagine
this
is-
and
it's
a
result
of
section
106-
that
this
is
happening
in
my
project.
So
I
wouldn't
be
shocked
if
something
similar
were
to
occur
on
the
multiple
different
projects
that
are
going
to
take
place
as
a
part
of
upper
harbor
terminals.
O
Redevelopment
we're
gonna
have
an
archaeologist
on
site
during
during
the
duration
of
excavation
who
will
be
reviewing
soil
as
it's
removed
for
any
cultural
resources,
documenting
them.
Making
note
of
them
and
trying
to
decide
whether
or
not
they're
viable
for
preservation?
So
I
imagine
that's
what
section
106
is
really
for
is
really
to
create
a
programmatic
agreement
that
puts
together
that
that
plan
for
the
retention
of
cultural
resources,
section
106,
is
meant
to
step
in
any
time.
O
Governmental
dollars
are
being
used
for
capital
improvement
projects,
and
so
you
know
to
the
callers
who
who
called
in
with
those
concerns.
I
think
that
that's
a
completely
legitimate
concern
and
like
chairs
and
mark
said
it's
a
it's,
definitely
not
outside
of
our
purview
or
concern
on
the
hpc
and,
and
I
think
we
can
all
feel
heartened
by
the
fact
that
there
are
multiple
eyeballs
on
these
different
levels
of
review
on
the
hpc
just
being
one
of
them.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
vanderick.
That
has
also
been
my
experience
on
projects
on
the
waterfront,
as
you
pretty
much
have
an
archaeologist
there
all
day
long
while
excavation
is
going
on,
and
I
think
you
also
raised
an
important
point
about
the
contamination,
I'm
assuming
this
whole
side
of
the
brownfield
just
based
off
of
the
industrial
uses,
and
so
I
guess
that's
my
other
concern
with
attempting
to
reuse
any
of
the
structures
is
the
level
of
contamination
and
cleaning
of
the
existing
buildings.
B
E
The
domes
proposed
for
demolition
will
be
documented
through
measured
drawings,
photography
and
historical
research
and
presented
in
a
paper
submitted
for
publication
in
appropriate
peer-reviewed
journals,
such
as
the
journal
of
the
society
for
industrial
archaeology,
and
I
have
that
written.
So
I
can
put
it
in
the
text
box
or
in
the
chat
box.
B
G
B
You
thank
you,
commissioners.
I
want
to
check
to
see
if
those
conditions
seem
like
they
satisfy
everybody's
concerns.
I
think
they
satisfy
my
concerns
and,
while
you
think
about
that,
if
I
could
get
a
second
on
the
motion,
that
would
also
be
great
80
seconds.
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Stadi
I'll
continue
the
discussion
here.
Commissioner
nystrom
did
you
have
some
thoughts
on
that.
N
Well,
not
really.
I
was
going
to
say
that
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
this
and
I've
been
quiet
because
I
don't
have
as
much
experience
with
the
archaeological
side
of
you
know,
riverfronts
and
all
of
that,
as
some
of
you
have,
but
I
really
appreciated
this
new
report,
as
you
all
kind
of
reiterated-
and
I
was
going
to
second
it
so,
but
commissioner
save
you
get
me
to
it,
so
I
will
back
away.
B
G
G
A
J
B
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
do
have
several
announcements.
I
will
start
off
with
recently
the
city
council
took
an
action
to
extend
the
local
public
health
emergency
with
no
termination
date.
So
at
this
point
it
is
indefinite
and
the
phased.
How
do
I
say
this?
When
you
do
return
to
in-person?
It
will
be
a
phased
return
to
person
in-person
meetings
with
the
city
council
going
first,
so
this
allows
us
to
meet
virtually
for
the
foreseeable
future
and
and
stay
tuned
for
any
other
further
updates.
That
would
signal
a
return
to
in
person.
G
G
G
G
I
don't
think
it
was
on
there,
but
on
previous
calendars,
we
have
a
joint
hbc
cpc
meeting
every
other
month,
that's
on
the
calendar,
but
I
think
the
last
time
that
this
commission
sat
in
on
one
of
those
meetings
was
probably
over
a
year
ago,
generally,
we've
used
those
meetings
which
are
open
to
the
public
to
listen
to
generally,
though
not
comment,
we'd
use
those
for
design
reviews
to
have
a
discussion
between
the
city,
planning,
commission
and
the
heritage
preservation.
Commission.
G
However,
I
noticed
that
with
they
are
not
generally
aren't
frequent
in
terms
of
us
having
something
go
to
them
and
generally,
when
we
do
have
a
design
review,
such
as
a
new
building
and
by
design
review,
I
mean
sort
of
a
a
pre-design,
not
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
They
generally
come
before
you
in
one
of
these
meetings
on
tuesday
night
as
a
discussion
item,
so
I
wanted
to
take
the
temperature
of
commissioners
as
to
whether
you
would
still
be
interested
in
keeping
this.
G
E
Did
you
want
to
respond
to
that?
Well,
since
I'm
the
one
who
pointed
out
that
they
weren't
on
our
calendar,
I
thought
I
should
start
and
and
the
reason
why
I
I've
had
mixed
feelings
about
them
since,
since
I've
been
on
the
commission,
I
think
the
conversations
have
been
good
when
we've
had
them
when
they
were
face
to
face,
and
we
were
in
a
single
room.
E
I'm
very
concerned
about
some
of
the
comments
that
were
in
last
meetings
packet
that
came
from
the
commission
or
came
from
the
planning
commissioners
who
seem
to
think
that
preservation
is
just
an
impediment
to
development,
and
so
I,
as
much
as
some
of
these
meetings
can
be
challenging.
I
think
it's
important
to
keep
the
dialogue
open
between
us
and
the
planning
commission,
so
they
realize
that
it's
not
just
an
impediment
to
development
and
that
preservation
actually
can
be
development
and
redevelopment.
E
B
Commissioner
howard,
I
guess
I
am
in
general
in
favor
of
them,
I
think
it's
been
a
little
weird
since
we've
gone
virtual
to
do
them,
because
it's
just
then
like
more
cooks
in
the
kitchen
on
the
virtual
meeting
trying
to
get
it
to
work.
But
I
know
in
person
at
least
I
think
it's
kind
of
put
like
a
face
to
the
name
situation,
where
the
planning
commissioners
can
actually
talk
to
us
and
understand
our
perspectives.
B
B
It
seems
like
it's
been
helpful
for
the
applicants
and
I
guess
I
can
actually
say
that
it
is
helpful
for
applicants
having
been
on
the
applicant
side
to
hear
from
both
commissions
at
once,
because
sometimes
we
do
contradict
in
some
things,
and
I
think
that
that's
less
when
we
have
a
meeting
where
we
all
talk
together
and
can
hear
each
other's
points
and
then
keep
that
in
mind
for
when
it
comes
before
us,
like.
Oh
yeah,
we
kind
of
have
to
compromise
on
this
because
it
meets
their
goal.
B
In
this
way,
maybe
even
if
it
doesn't
meet
our
goal
in
that
way,
so
I
guess
I'm
in
favor
of
them,
but
I
do
realize
it
adds
another
night
of
having
to
do
something.
They
haven't
been
very
frequent.
Recently,
though-
and
so
I
don't
know,
if
are
they
becoming
less
popular
with
applicants
andrea
or
why
haven't
we
seen?
I
think
we've
only
done
one
or
two
since
the
pandemic
started.
B
G
B
G
G
You
know
we
have
the
thursday
meeting
that
works
better
for
staff
and
for
the
applicant's
schedule
to
use
that
one
or
you
know
we
use
the
tuesday
night,
keep
in
mind.
The
quorum
is
much
smaller,
that's
needed
for
the
thursday
night
meeting.
It's
only
a
quorum
of
three
hbc
commissioners
to
attend,
but
I
know
I
not
that
I
get
a
vote,
but
my
personal
feeling
is
like
the
the
comments
that
the
applicant
is
seeking
from
the
larger
commission.
G
B
G
You
can
maintain
the
status
quo.
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
get
your
idea
for
it.
It's
not
an
action
item
that
you
need
to
formally
vote.
I
just
wanted
to
bring
it
up
based
on
commissioner
howard's
question
and
the
oversight
on
behalf
of
us
that
we
missed
that
out
going
in
the
calendar,
so
I
I
think
it's
fine.
We
can
leave
it
as
status
quo
and
as
they
come
up,
and
we
can
always
keep
that
door
open
to
have
those
conversations
with
the
planning
commission
and
move
forward
from
there.
A
B
G
So
as
tradition,
we
read
a
resolution
that
we
have
put
together
and
the
chair
myself
and
then
the
development
services
director
has
signed.
I
will
have
rachel
blanford,
our
clerk
read
it,
but
I
just
wanted
to
give
a
quick
preamble
to
say
thank
you
to
commissioner
stadi
for
all
your
years
of
service.
For
all
of
your
comments
on
all
the
designation
studies,
design,
guidelines,
community
engagement
groups,
you've
volunteered
to
be
a
participant
in.
We
appreciate
that.
G
C
C
Now,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
by
the
minneapolis
heritage,
preservation,
commission
and
the
staff
to
the
minneapolis
heritage
preservation,
commission
of
the
city
of
minneapolis,
that
we
thank
ian
sadie
for
his
faithful
and
constructive
service
and
extending
the
progress
of
the
city
and
in
promoting
the
welfare
of
its
people
that
we
extend
him.
Our
best
wishes
for
good
health
and
happiness
and
all
of
life's
endeavors.
C
C
B
You
thank
you
rachel
and
thank
you
ian.
I
know
we'll
all
miss
having
you
here
on
the
commission.
Sorry
we
can't
take
you
out
for
drinks,
like
I
know,
was
the
pre-pandemic
tradition
for
the
hpc
when
commissioners
left
their
post,
maybe
some
day
after
after
the
pandemic
will
all
get
together
for
drinks.
B
L
Hi,
yes,
I
just
wanted
to
give
just
a
thank
you
for
the
send-off
and
it's
I
just
think,
like
all
those
properties
that
were
you
just
named
off,
it's
just
amazing
how
many
parts
of
the
city
we
get
to
touch
when
in
our
work-
and
I
I'm
very
appreciative
of
working
with
you
all.
I
have
a
lot
of
gratitude
for
this
work
and,
if
you're
ever
in
eden
prairie,
I
manage
the
library
out
there
now.