Between the proceedings of last cycle’s Zoning & Planning Committee meeting and full City Council meeting, I have been rather upset. Organizing my thoughts to form a coherent argument for the purpose of this post has been a real struggle.
For those who have not been following this specific development proposal closely, let me provide a little bit of context. Doran Companies had proposed a new mixed use development with ground floor retail and a hotel with 125-140 rooms for the properties of 1315-1319 4th Street SE. Although a land use application hadn’t been submitted yet, the demolition of three buildings required an application for demolition of a historic resource.
Historic resources is a very confusing subject. However, they are described in Title 23 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances regarding Heritage Preservation.
First, it is important to know the difference between a locally designated historic landmark and a historic resource. There are seven criteria that are considered when determining if a property is worthy of local designation, as described in §599.210. In addition, under provisions of §599.240 if a building is nominated for consideration of designation it is placed under interim protection to prevent major alteration during the designation process. Once local designation is awarded, any future change to the property will become much more difficult to perform as it will require a certificate of appropriateness. (See §599.350).
A historic resource, as described under the provisions of §599.450, is any building that appears to meet at least one of the criteria for local designation as defined in §599.210. Any applications for demolition of buildings that are historic resources shall not be issued without review from the Heritage Preservation Commission (§599.460). The HPC must determine if the building is a historic resource or not. If they determine it is not, a demolition permit will be issued. If they determine that it is indeed a historic resource, then demolition shall be denied and CPED directed to commence a designation study (§599.480).
CPED reviewed the three applications and recommended that demolition be allowed to proceed. Staff stated that the three properties are eligible for local designation as part of the potential Dinkytown Historic District. However, since the district was not nominated for designation at the time that the applications were submitted, they could only consider the historical significance of the buildings individually, and not as part of a district. Staff concluded that the buildings individually were not eligible for local designation, thus demolition should be allowed to proceed (See staff reports here, here & here).
Notwithstanding staff recommendations, the HPC voted to deny the application for demolition of a historic resource for all three buildings, placed them under interim protection, and directed staff to prepare designation studies (See HPC minutes here, here & here). Their rationale was not based off of the historical significance of the individual buildings, but their contribution to the overall potential historic district. Exactly what staff said should not be considered as a basis to deny demolition.
Now that brings us to the events that transpired the past two weeks at the Zoning & Planning Committee, as well as the full City Council. Doran appealed the decision of the HPC. The process for appeals of this nature is that Zoning & Planning hears the appeal and holds a public hearing. The Committee then makes a recommendation for action by the full City Council.
During the Z&P meeting, CPED once again recommended granting the demolition. Before opening the public hearing, Committee Chair Lisa Bender asked the city attorney to summarize the legal context of this appeal and what the Committee must base their decision on. The city attorney’s comments begins at approximately 55:52. In summary, he reiterated that because the applications for demolition came before the Dinkytown district was nominated for designation, interim protection did not apply and the decision had to be made on the merits of the individual buildings, not their contribution to a potential historic district.
Most of the comments during the public hearing were against the demolitions. However, no one really addressed the question at hand, which was the historical significance of the individual buildings. After the public hearing was closed, Bender moved to grant all three appeals and to adopt findings consistent with the staff report. Explaining her decision, Bender said the case that the individual buildings are historically significant was simply not made. Committee Vice Chair Andrew Johnson also echoed those comments.
However, Council President Barb Johnson made a substitute motion: to grant the appeals for the buildings at 1315 4th St SE and at 410 13th Ave SE, but to deny the appeal at 1319 4th St SE. She cited that 1319 was the strongest candidate to declare a historic resource and that 1-story buildings were a part of how the neighborhood developed. In response, Chair Bender stated that she represents a ward with many 1-story brick commercial buildings, many along corridors designated by the City for increased development. Specifically, she cited the City’s LPA of having a streetcar along Nicollet Ave for the purpose of economic development. Lisa Goodman indicated support for denying the appeal at 1319, saying that this was not a vote to declare the building historic, but simply a vote to conduct a study to determine if the building is historic. She also stated that it was clear from the testimony at the public hearing that the building deserves a study.
The motion passed 4-2. B. Johnson, Goodman, Reich and Warsame voted in favor, Bender and A. Johnson voted in opposition.
I will add that the decision left me rather confused. There was CPED staff, Chair Bender and Vice Chair Johnson stating that the buildings individually were not historically significant. There was the city attorney, Eric Nilsson, clearly stating that the Committee can only consider the merits of the individual buildings, not their contribution to a potential historic district, as a basis for their decision. Yet, the reasoning to deny the appeal at 1319 completely ignored that. President Johnson stated that 1-story brick buildings were part of how the neighborhood developed. That reason speaks to the buildings contribution to a potential historic district, which they were not allowed to consider. Lisa Goodman stated that it was clear from the testimony during the public hearing that this building deserves a study. Once again, no one at the public hearing made a case for why the building individually was historically significant. They all talked about the historical significance of the whole of Dinkytown.
Regarding the other part of Goodman’s argument, it was completely misleading. She said that this was not a vote to declare the building historic, but to commence a study to make that determination. Actually, if you look at the way the ordinance is written, by denying the appeal and thus denying demolition, you are declaring the building a historic resource. That is the first step in the process of giving it local designation as a historic landmark. Also, by denying the appeal, you are effectively adding 12-18 months to this process.
Despite what happened at Z&P, there was still a chance to grant the appeal and allow for demolition. That is because the Committee’s decision was only a recommendation, and is not official until acted upon by the full City Council. In the past, to overturn committee action, the committee chair would lobby other council members leading up to the full council meeting, and if they got 7 votes, they would pull the item off for discussion and a separate vote at full City Council.
When it came time to present the Z&P report, Bender did pull 1319 off for discussion. She started by moving to grant the appeal and to adopt findings consistent with the staff report. Council Member Reich then moved a substitute motion to deny the appeal per recommendation from Z&P.
Andrew Johnson was the first to speak on the motion. He started by saying that he was still surprised at the decision that was reached because neither CPED staff, the HPC, community members who testified at the public hearing, or the other Committee members spoke as to why the buildings individually were historically significant. He was surprised that although many, including the HPC, talked about the contribution to a potential historic district, this was a quasi-judicial hearing and could only consider the merits of the building individually.
I will just reiterate that CPED examined the 7 criteria for local designation, as described in §599.210, and applied them to these individual buildings. They described, in detail, why none of these buildings on their own individual merits met any of separate criteria.
After Johnson, Jacob Frey was the next to comment. It is important to note that Frey represents Dinkytown. I have transcribed his entire commentary because as I was listening to it, my mouth dropped open in astonishment:
First off I would like to start off by saying that every individual in this entire situation has biases that is associated with the conclusion that they ultimately come to. And I’m not talking about us, but I am talking about the individuals that testified. One of those individuals, of course, is the property owner. The property owner has a lot of money that he could potentially gain in this situation. I don’t fault him for the way he’s decided, but that obviously comes into the consideration. Second off, Dinkytown, and specifically the area between 13th and 14th Aves on 4th St, is one of the last remaining old-school kind of commercial corridors in our entire city. And when I say old school commercial corridors, I’m talking about small, tightly situated one and two-story buildings that do contribute to an overarching bohemian kind of character. But Council Member Johnson, you are correct. In this particular determination you do need to look at each individual building in its own capacity. The first building, which is located, I believe, on 13th Ave, is the older woman’s house. It’s a single-family home, residential, in the middle of a commercial business district. I’m blown away that it’s even there to begin with. I don’t see any historical contribution in that capacity, so yeah, we recommended the demolition. The second building, I don’t think anybody would argue, is just ugly. It’s a cinderblock building, doesn’t contribute a whole ton to the area. I think originally it was used, or at least designed, as a drive-thru bank. Also doesn’t contribute a ton historically. Now, the third building is 1319, which presently houses Mesa Pizza and Camdi. Obviously, there are a lot of people who have fond memories and nostalgia, but as you pointed out during the Committee meeting, fond memories and nostalgia doesn’t necessarily contribute to the historical capacity. But, it was a building that was built between 1900 and 1920. It does have the distinctive characteristics of sort of a streetcar style development during that time frame. Additionally, it was an organizational hub from the ’60s right up to around ’85 or so. In other words, initially it was a space where people would gather for anti-war, Vietnam protests. And then, eventually, it was a spot where people would gather to stop corporate America for coming in and taking over their individual towns. If I could get my aide, Heidi Ritchie, to come up real quick and just show a couple of the protests. This is just showing a bunch of hippies protesting outside of the building. So there you see some hippies yelling. And the next one, you see the building, I think that’s right next to, it says ‘Save the Red Barn.’ The Red Barn was one of those commercial, corporate franchises that wanted to come in. They ultimately stopped it. And one of the final pieces, the next picture that I’d like you to show, that’s actually a helicopter over top that’s dropping pepper spray down on 1319, and other buildings over there on 4th St, and this was in response to some protesters. And there was also some protests there after the, what was it? Kemp University? Kent University? Something like that? There were a bunch of shootings and they ultimately had these peace marches behind 1319, it was a peace garden. And on the side of it, if you could show that final building there Heidi, it’s a, if you can see on the side of it, you can’t really see it, but there’s a mural. It’s a peace mural. What it is, is it’s a showing of the communities coming together, as Council Member Cano would say, it’s people-power organization, changing people’s lives. So, there’s a lot of things that have happened here. And I want to make to make very clear, all this motion is doing, it is not, it is not voting to make this historical. What it is doing, is we are voting to just give this some additional thought. And while we do need to increase density in our city, I think, and we are, if you look at that picture right there, I think that there is two or three cranes just behind that building, already added over 2000 residential units to this neighborhood in just the last couple of years, and we’ve got 4 or 500 on the way right now. So we are adding density, but it is important to do this thoughtfully and I think the thoughtful measure at this time would be to undergo additional study.
Let me respond to Frey’s comments:
- First off I would like to start off by saying that every individual in this entire situation has biases that is associated with the conclusion that they ultimately come to. And I’m not talking about us, but I am talking about the individuals that testified. One of those individuals, of course, is the property owner. The property owner has a lot of money that he could potentially gain in this situation. I don’t fault him for the way he’s decided, but that obviously comes into the consideration.
Really? The community members who testified are biased, but you, as a City Council member, are completely objective? Your own bias is glaringly evident.
- Second off, Dinkytown, and specifically the area between 13th and 14th Aves on 4th St, is one of the last remaining old-school kind of commercial corridors in our entire city. And when I say old school commercial corridors, I’m talking about small, tightly situated one and two-story buildings that do contribute to an overarching bohemian kind of character.
Once again, you are referring to the overall character of Dinkytown, and not the individual buildings.
- But, it was a building that was built between 1900 and 1920. It does have the distinctive characteristics of sort of a streetcar style development during that time frame.
How many of those do we have in Minneapolis? Should we be declaring every single one of those a historic resource?
- Additionally, it was an organizational hub from the ’60s right up to around ’85 or so. In other words, initially it was a space where people would gather for anti-war, Vietnam protests. And then, eventually, it was a spot where people would gather to stop corporate America for coming in and taking over their individual towns. If I could get my aide, Heidi Ritchie, to come up real quick and just show a couple of the protests. This is just showing a bunch of hippies protesting outside of the building. So there you see some hippies yelling. And the next one, you see the building, I think that’s right next to, it says ‘Save the Red Barn.’ The Red Barn was one of those commercial, corporate franchises that wanted to come in. They ultimately stopped it. And one of the final pieces, the next picture that I’d like you to show, that’s actually a helicopter over top that’s dropping pepper spray down on 1319, and other buildings over there on 4th St, and this was in response to some protesters. And there was also some protests there after the, what was it? Kemp University? Kent University? Something like that? There were a bunch of shootings and they ultimately had these peace marches behind 1319, it was a peace garden. And on the side of it, if you could show that final building there Heidi, it’s a, if you can see on the side of it, you can’t really see it, but there’s a mural. It’s a peace mural. What it is, is it’s a showing of the communities coming together, as Council Member Cano would say, it’s people-power organization, changing people’s lives.
So you showed several pictures of protests occurring that just happen to include 1319 in the background, and that makes 1319 individually historic? Also, the helicopter is not dropping pepper spray on top of 1319 (and other buildings). It’s dropping it on protesters. According to your reasoning, the bar to declaring a building a historic resource is extremely low.
- And I want to make to make very clear, all this motion is doing, it is not, it is not voting to make this historical. What it is doing, is we are voting to just give this some additional thought.
Wrong. Goodman used the same argument during Z&P. (See my comments above)
- And while we do need to increase density in our city, I think, and we are, if you look at that picture right there, I think that there is two or three cranes just behind that building, already added over 2000 residential units to this neighborhood in just the last couple of years, and we’ve got 4 or 500 on the way right now.
Nothing to do with the question at hand.
- So we are adding density, but it is important to do this thoughtfully and I think the thoughtful measure at this time would be to undergo additional study.
So your idea of thoughtful is to add an additional 12-18 months to this process?
I also think that it’s important to look at his commentary within the context of a quasi-judicial hearing. Quasi-judicial hearings are something that Frey takes very seriously in other settings. Frey is the Vice Chair of the Community Development & Regulatory Services Committee, which also hears a lot of quasi-judicial appeals. Goodman, the Chair, lets Frey take over and preside over the quasi-judicial hearings. Frey puts on his lawyer hat, and very explicitly explains the scope of evidence and testimony that they are allowed to consider. Watch below, starting at 10:00:
So, does Frey’s commentary regarding 1319 sound like it is coming from a person who takes his quasi-judicial role seriously and objectively evaluates evidence and arguments as presented as a basis for making his decision?
Lisa Goodman also spoke in favor of denying the appeal. Although I’ve come to expect these types of comments from Goodman, I thought that they were revealing as to the real motivation behind denying the appeal:
Many of you who were here during the last session of the Council will remember the discussion that we had in regards to the Opus development. And although I was not on the prevailing side and a number of buildings were torn down as a result of that development, many of us at that time warned that once that happened, we should expect a number of other buildings to be next. And this is exactly what is happening in this situation. Thankfully, the neighborhood association and the business association have asked for a study of the entire area as a historic district, but because development is coming so quickly on the heels of the Opus project, we have not had the time we need to step back and figure out whether or not this is a district worth saving and if this is a contributing structure, which we already know it’s a contributing structure to this district, whether or not it has individual merit. I would argue that we should simply put more money into our preservation office within the planning department to address the backlog of preservation related problems. The previous Council did put more money into planning and this Council certainly could do the same. This isn’t like other issues, how we treat our historic resources is how we feel about our community in the broadest of senses and I don’t think it’s an either/or situation. We could simply ask the developer to include this building in the development. If this developer doesn’t want to do that, another one might come along. This is an area that is clearly being studied for a historic district now. This is an area that has seen an unbelievable amount of development and growth. And unless we’re willing to throw our hands up right now and say every one of those 13 structures should go, we should put a stop to it at some point. I think doing it through this study instead of a moratorium is a much less intense way of allowing for development while moving forward.
So Goodman’s entire argument is that this is an area that is undergoing a study for historical designation and that the City needs to stop development at some point to protect that process. Let me point out that, once again, because these demolition applications were submitted before the district was nominated for historic designation, interim protection does not apply, so the impact on the potential district should not have been considered as a basis for this decision. Also, because the district has now been nominated, it receives interim protection and any future development would be captured by that. Effectively, going forward development has already been stopped. Also, had Goodman been in attendance at Council the day in question, the Dinkytown moratorium most likely would have passed. It failed 6-6 (B. Johnson, Hofstede, Tuthill, Reich, Colvin Roy, Gordon in favor, Schiff, Glidden, Hodges, Quincy, Lilligren, Samuels against).
So after all of the discussion, the substitute motion by Reich to deny the appeal passed 8-4. President Johnson, Goodman, Frey, Reich, Warsame, Cano, Quincy and Palmisano voted in favor. Bender, A. Johnson, Yang and Vice President Glidden voted against. Council Member Gordon was not in attendance.
Full disclosure, I am now entering pure speculation mode.
So why did the vote happen this way? What really happened? I suspect that the largest factor into the deny of this appeal was Jacob Frey. We all know that there is a tradition in City Hall that, regarding development, you always defer to the wish of the Council Member whose Ward the specific development is in. In addition, Frey is a brand new Council Member who is probably feeling a lot of pressure from the neighborhood activists in Dinkytown. I suspect that Frey thought denying the demolition on one of the buildings was a fair compromise with the activists. I also suspect that because Frey is not on Z&P, he went to Barb Johnson and Lisa Goodman behind closed doors and communicated his desires. And since Kevin Reich and Abdi Warsame simply vote the same way Lisa Goodman does, with her help the outcome was all but guaranteed.
Now what am I basing my speculations on? First off, Barb Johnson and Goodman’s arguments during Z&P seemed to be coordinated and to come out of nowhere. Now that’s not much to go on. However, I think the most compelling evidence was Frey’s commentary during full City Council. Here you have the Council Member who represents Dinkytown vigorously trying to defend the decision made by a Committee that he does not even serve on. His comments were clearly that of someone who had a vested interest in the outcome of the decision.
If this is the case, what does it mean? It means the abuse of historic preservation and that Frey and others abused their quasi-judicial authority to justify their own desired outcome.
End of speculation.
So let me end with some final thoughts:
First, some would say that Lisa Bender should not have pulled the item for discussion if she didn’t have the votes. I say nonsense, and I thank her for doing it. Even though the outcome didn’t change, the discussion brought more transparency to the decision-making process and resulted in some very revealing commentary.
Second, I want to thank both Bender and Andrew Johnson for speaking out on this issue. It must not have been easy, especially being brand new Council Members going up against the likes of Lisa Goodman and company.
Third, I also want to thank Elizabeth Glidden and Blong Yang for also voting against denying the appeal.
Finally, the significance of this decision isn’t about the Doran project, which seems dead for now. I’m concerned about the precedent it sets for future development. How many 1-2 story commercial buildings do we have in Minneapolis built during the Streetcar era? How many of those lie along corridors designated for increased development? I believe that historic preservation was abused in this case and that quasi-judicial authority was abused to justify a desired outcome. If this was an abuse of historic preservation, then I think our Heritage Preservation ordinance needs to be changed. I don’t know what answer is to fixing it, but I am happy to start the conversation.
Moving forward, those of us who care about development need to organize, be active, and make our voices heard. We need to start attending community meetings, testifying at public hearings, and writing to our City Council members. Not just our own individual Council Member, but all 13 Council Members. Hopefully, by staying involved, we will not let this happen again.