Good afternoon. I call to order the January 27th, 2026 regular meeting of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. For the record, my name is Marie Bjornberg and I serve as chair of the commission. Just a reminder to silence your cell phones and other electronic devices and to speak clearly
into the microphone when speaking at the dis or giving testimony. Would the clerk please call the role so we may verify the presence of a quorum. >> Commissioner Alexander is absent. Booty >> present. Curado
>> present. Melbum is absent. Rodriguez >> present. >> Thomas >> present. >> Wallace >> present. Vice Chair Masten >> present. >> Chair Bjornberg >> present. >> There are seven members present. >> Let the record reflect that we do have quorum and that Commissioner Malbum
provided proper notice that they have a conflict this afternoon and their absence is excused. Our first order of business is to adopt the agenda for this meeting. We will work from the agendas that are available by the clerk and I will go through and sort out which items will be withdrawn, which items will be
continued, which items will be discussed and which items will be put on the consent agenda. Item number four is election of 2026 officers and this item will be discussed. Item number five is 2026 Heritage Preservation Commission calendar and this item will be
discussed. Item number six, Fox Auto Complex 1621 through 1635 Henipin Avenue, Ward 7. This application is for a National Register nomination and will be
discussed. Item number seven is 40 Power Street, Ward 3. This application is for a certificate of appropriateness and will be discussed. Item number eight is 3123 2nd Avenue South, Ward 8. This
application is for a certificate of appropriateness and will be discussed. Item number nine is 1700 50th Street West, Ward 13. This application is for a demolition of a historic resource and will be continued to the February 10th,
2026 meeting. So the proposed agenda is the following item will be continued to the February 10th uh Heritage Preservation Commission item number 9700 50th Street West Ward 13. Following
items will have staff presentation, public comment, and commission discussion and action. Item number six, Fox Auto Complex, 1621 through 1635 Henipin Avenue, Ward 7. Item number
seven, 40 Power Street, Ward 3. Item number eight, 3123 2nd Avenue South, Ward 8. And the following items will have staff presentation and commission discussion without a public hearing. Item number
four, election of 2026 officers. And item number five, 2026 Heritage Preservation Commission calendar. May I have a motion to approve the proposed agenda? >> Mast so moves. >> I would like to comment on item number.
>> Yep. That will have that will uh have a public hearing and a discussion. >> Nope. That will be on the public comment. Yep. Thank you, Masten. So moves. Thank you, Commissioner Masten. Is there a second? >> Wallace seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Any
discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. Any abstensions? The agenda is approved. Our next order of business will be to approve the minutes from our January 13,
2026 meeting. May I have a motion to approve those minutes? >> Thomas so moves. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Is there a second? >> Rodriguez seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Rodriguez. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. Any abstensions? The minutes are approved. Before I open the hearing to public comments, let me summarize the process for conducting the public hearing. First, we will take the discussion
items. Then, we will take each remaining agenda item in order. Planning staff will present its report and commissioners may ask questions of staff. Then I will open the public hearing and we will hear from the applicant and commissioners may ask questions of the applicant. After that, we will invite public comment. If you
wish to speak, we need you to do two things. Please be sure to sign up on the sheet over by the clerk. If you haven't done this already, you can do so afterwards. When you come up to the to testify, you must state your name and address for the record. And please keep your comments specific to the
application before us. Our first item is item number four, election of officers. And this item will be run by the clerk. Good evening. Before us is the election
of the body's officers as set forth in sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of the bylaws. In terms of procedures, I intend to administer the election for both president, vice president, and secretary. And we will follow the same procedure for those offices. That
procedure will be as follows. First, I will open the floor for nominations. After all nominations have been made, the nominating period will be closed. Once the nomination period is closed, no further nominations will be accepted. Second, after the nomination period is
closed, we will proceed to take the vote by roll call. There will be a separate vote for each nominee. We will consider and act on each nomination in the order it was received. Voting will be done by roll call and the clerk, myself, will call the role. Third, the nominee who
receives the majority vote will be declared the winner of the election. Once the officers have been announced, I will turn the proceeding over back over to the newly elected chair to preside over the remainder of the agenda. Are there any questions on the process that I have outlined?
All right, with that we will proceed to the election of the president, excuse me, of the chair of the HPC. Without objection, the floor is now open to nominations for the office of chair. Are there any nominations? Are there any nominations?
>> I nominate Marie Bjornberg. >> Masten nominates Bjornberg. Are there any other nominations? Are there any other nominations? Hearing no further nominations, the nominating period is now closed. Before
we proceed to a vote, I will open the floor for general discussion. Are there any comments on these nominations? Seeing no further requests for comment, I will proceed to the vote of the nomination to elect Bjornberg to the office of chair. Booty I
>> Bj Bjornberg >> I >> Curado >> I >> Masten >> I >> Rodriguez >> I >> Thomas >> I >> Wallace
>> I >> that nomination carries and Chair Bjornberg has been elected the chair. I will now open the floor for nominations of the vice chair. Are there any nominations? >> I would like to nominate uh Commissioner
Masten, vice chair, please. >> Wallace nominates Masten as vice chair. Are there any other nominations? Are there any other nominations? Hearing no further nominations, I will now open the floor for general discussion. Are there any comments from
any commissioners? Seeing none, I will now take the role on the election of Masten for vice chair. Booty >> I >> I Bjornberg >> I >> Curado
>> I >> Masten >> I >> Melbam Malbum is absent. Excuse me. Rodriguez >> I >> Thomas >> I >> Wallace >> I
>> that motion carries and Masten has been elected vice chair. I will now open the floor to nominations for the office of secretary. Are there any nominations? >> Can I ask a question? >> Absolutely. >> Are we allowed to nominate a uh commission member who is not here? Yes,
you are allowed to nominate that commissioner. Uh if they so choose not to take up that position, they can let that uh be known at the following meeting of which we will follow that up with a uh election for the secretary again. >> Okay, gotcha. Um in that case, I'd like
to nominate Commissioner Melbum as secretary. >> Wallace nominates Melbum. Are there any further nominations for the chair or for the secretary position? Are there any other nominations?
Seeing none, I will now ask if there's any comments people would like to make on this nomination. Seeing none, I will now move on to the election. Booty >> I. >> Bjornberg >> I.
>> Curado. >> I. >> Masten. >> I >> Rodriguez. >> I >> Thomas. >> I >> Wallace. I >> that motion carries and Melbourne has been elected secretary. Congratulations
to Chair Bjornberg, Vice Chair Masten and Secretary Melbam. Uh Madame Chair, I will now hand the reigns back to you. >> Thank you. Okay, our next item is item number five, 2026 Heritage Preservation
Commission Calendar. And that item will be presented by Aaron K. Good afternoon, Chair Buremberg and commissioners. My name is Aaron Kay and I am a senior city planner in the historic preservation subsection of the department of community planning and economic development or CPED. Um today
we have the full 2026 calendar for your adoption. So you have already adopted the meeting schedule for January and February and this will complete the year. Um so year at a glance here's the first half. Um, we are plann to to have
as usual two meetings per month except for in May where there'd be one HPC meeting due to a council break. Uh, and one retreat is planned in May as well on May 7th. You can see that in the bright green color versus the deeper green for the HPC meetings.
And then in the second half of the year, we'll continue with um two meetings per month except in December, which is typical. We do have one Monday meeting planned in November due to the conflict with election day.
That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to stay for questions. Thank you for that. Commissioners, are there any questions for staff? Okay, seeing none, I move to accept this calendar. All in favor say I.
>> I. I. Those oppose say nay. The calendar is accepted. Okay. Our next item will be item number 6, Fox Auto Complex 1621 through 1635
Henipin Avenue, Ward 7. This item is a National Register nomination and will be presented by Aaron K. Good afternoon again, Chair Bjornberg and commissioners. My name is Aaron Kay and I'm a senior city planner in the Historic Preservation subsection of the Department of Community Planning and
Economic Development or CPED. I am here today to present a National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Fox Auto Complex at 1621 to 35 Henipin Avenue. I'll note these addresses refer to the parcel addresses of the property
which are different from the the building numbers that the the tenants may use. I will provide a highle overview of the nomination which was prepared by AW architects and this nomination was initiated by the property owner as part of the historic tax credit
process. Here is an aerial view of the nominated property which includes five buildings across four parcels and an alleyway. The entire nominated property also falls within the locally designated Harmon Place Historic District. Four of the
buildings were built between 1911 and 1917 and are contributing resources to the local historic district. One building at 1621 Henipin Avenue, so that's at the north end of the complex, was built in 1941 and is a non-contributing resource to the local
historic district. This complex represents early 20th century automobile buildings that served as the headquarters for Fox Auto Company from 1911 to 1931. I will share a photo of each of the contributing buildings momentarily. They are generally two to
three stories tall and clad in brick and stone with classical revival andor bozarts details. They were designed by Tyer Chapman and Bell. Here is 1625 Henipin Avenue. So the first of the contributing resources.
I'll note that the non-contributing resource is seen at the left end of this photo. It's a one-story brick edition. Here is 1629 Henipin Avenue. So the next in the series.
Here is 1635 Henipin Avenue which is comprised of two distinct buildings. So this is the northernmost one. And this is a photo of the southernmost building which is the largest and wraps around the corner. All four buildings are interconnected on the interior and
have interior passageways um that allow navigation between the various historic functions of the building. On the back side of the buildings, there is also an alleyway which helped facilitate movement of vehicles and personnel associated with the complex.
The National Register nomination recommends that the property has statewide significance under National Register criterion A in the areas of commerce and industry for its contributions during the formative years of the state's automotive industry. This complex included the headquarters,
showroom, and service garage of the Fox Auto Company, which had one of the first automotive showrooms in Minneapolis and was an early major Midwest distributor for Oldsmobile and other early automobile brands. This company and the buildings had major impacts on the local
and statewide automotive industry. Staff agree with this recommendation. Staff also agree with the recommended period of significance from 1911 to 1931 to encompass the Fox Auto Company's ownership. Although there have been changes to the buildings over time,
staff also agree that the property retains sufficient integrity to convey its historical significance. The nomination recommends that uh three of the buildings and the alley, sorry, I think four of the buildings and the alley are contributing and one building is non-contributing.
Overall, the nomination includes a very detailed architectural description and strong supporting historical information. The detailed diagrams also greatly add to an understanding of the complex's layout and historical uses. As a certified local government, the commission is required by federal law to
participate in the national register nomination process. as follows. Afford the public a reasonable opportunity to comment on the nomination. Prepare a report as to whether or not the subject property is eligible for National Register listing and have the chief local elected official, the mayor,
submit this report and his or her recommendation to the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer within 60 days of notice from the shipo. After taking any public public comments today, staff will receive your comments and transmit them in a letter to the
state historic preservation office. The nomination will then be heard at the February 10th state review board meeting. Staff do have a handful of comments for your consideration. Any comments from the HBC will be taken into account by the state review board and it is staff's understanding that
revisions could be made before the nomination would be transmitted to the National Park Service. Uh first staff have have identified two minor typos uh in section 7 on page 20 in the second line of the description for 1635 Henipin Avenue. The text refers
to tenant address uh when they mean tenant addresses. Uh in section seven on page 21, there's also a small typo in the word fox. It's missing a W. And then additionally, staff noted that the parcel addresses are a little hard to follow in the nomination text. um
especially because 1635 Henipin Avenue actually includes two buildings as I mentioned that have the addresses of 1637 to 1649 Henipin Avenue. And so if possible, staff recommend using the historic building addresses in the description in section 7 as shown in
their map on in figure B instead of the parcel addresses just to help the reader orient themselves through the nomination. Also on figure B, staff noted that the build dates on this figure don't quite align with the dates in the description in section 7. For example, 1629 Henipin
Avenue is shown as being built in 1914, whereas the narrative indicates 1916, and the southernmost building is shown as 1916, whereas the narrative indicates 1917. Staff realized it's possible that construction started in one year and finished in a different year to explain that discrepancy.
Uh staff also suggests considering adding the address of 1621 for the non-contributing addition to this map. Again, I think it just will help bring the all the pieces together so people are really familiar and can kind of understand the history that's being presented.
Staff's final comments relate to the discussion of the local designation of the Harmon Place Historic District in section 8 on page 42. uh staff did find some discrepancies in information based on our records and have been able to discuss it with the
nomination authors. In short, there was some confusion about the local designation status for the property, which we have now cleared up. Since the complex is locally designated, staff suggest revising the first paragraph to make that more clear. And then in the second par paragraph, staff suggest
revising the statement that the buildings predate all of the contributing automobile structures in the local historic district to say they are among the earliest but not the earliest. Finally, staff suggests removing some information in the third paragraph related to a previous owner's
request to exclude the buildings from a survey and information about what the historic district is not national register eligible uh on its own. In staff's opinion, this just doesn't seem relevant to the nomination and and does not need to be included.
Staff recommend that the Heritage Preservation Commission recommend that the Fox Auto Complex meets at least one of the criteria for eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and direct staff to transmit a letter summarizing their opinion and comments to the state
historic preservation officer. staff have not received any comments from members of the public. This concludes my presentation and I'm happy to stay for questions. Uh the nomination authors are also present if you do have any questions but they will otherwise not be giving a presentation.
Thank you for that presentation. Uh commissioners, are there any questions for staff on that? Okay. Um, I'll now open the public hearing for this item. I understand that the applicant does not want to add a
anything to that. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak about this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Uh, commissioners, are there any um comments about this application that you'd like to add?
>> Commissioner Wallace, >> I would guess I would guess most of us are familiar with the property and that's why we don't have questions. Yeah, that's why I don't have questions. I'm familiar. Thanks. >> Thank you for that. Yeah, I feel like when I was reading this, I was more surprised that it hadn't already been uh nominated than anything. So, um I will
just also add like it was very thorough. Um I appreciated that about it. I don't know if there are other comments that um we want to have transmitted along with that.
If not, does anyone want to make a motion? >> Commissioner Booty, >> I'll go ahead and make a motion. um that the Heritage Preservation Commission recommends that the Fox Auto Complex meets at least one of the criteria uh for eligibility for listing in the
National Register for Historic Places and direct staff to transmit a letter summarizing their opinion and comments to the state his uh historic preservation officer. >> Thank you, Commissioner Booty. Is there a second? >> Mast seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Masten. Any
further discussion? Would the clerk call the role? Booty >> I Curado >> I >> Rodriguez >> I >> Thomas >> I >> Wallace
>> I >> vice chair Masten >> I >> chair Bjornberg >> I >> there are seven eyes. >> Thank you. That motion passes. Our next item is item number 740 Power Street Ward 3. This application is for a
certificate of appropriateness and the staff report is presented by Rob Scleki. Thank you, Chair Bjornberg. And good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Rob Scleki, uh, senior city planner in the historic preservation team in CEPD. And today I'm presenting um a certificate of
appropriateness for the property located at 40 Power Street in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District. The subject building is currently known as the Nicollet Island Pavilion. The building was completed between September 6th and December 31st, 1893
for the Lintgus Connells and Company who manufactured boilers under the Nicollet Island Steam Boiler Company name. On September 6th, 1895, the company received a permit approval to construct a one-story brick and iron boiler shop
with a basement following the 1893 Nicollet Island fire, which significantly damaged their boiler shop along with many properties on the island. Um, you can see it actually under construction here in the photo from November of 1893 on the left.
Following this um William Bros was was a partner in the business and he would later take full name of the commercial outfit by 1897 and the property we would become best known as home of the William Bros Boiler Company.
The building does include a large Koopa that was historically used as a riveting tower and you can see an example of that on the right here for the interior. and more historic photos um from 1899 on the top and 1933 on the bottom uh just
showing the building and the prominence of this tower um in the building's history. So historically this multi-story hydraulic riveter and hoister system could generate 150 tons of force to drive rivets into held metal plates. Um,
and this system and level of force was well suited for certain marine boiler work and certain contracts um that the Nicollet Island Steam Boiler Company and the William Bros Company uh were able to fulfill and they were one of the few companies in the country that had the
equipment to take on these contracts. As part of the Nicollet Island redevelopment initiative in the 1980s, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board acquired the building and conducted a full rehabilitation of the property. According to the applicant, this included removing tar paper and wood cladding from the previous tenant
and owner, Derky Atwood, um that existed on this Koopa tower. New cedar lap siding and windows in previously infilled historic openings were installed as part of this rehabilitation. Um a Nicola Island Park sign was painted at that time and later
became Nicola Island Pavilion for the signage. Um, in 2022, CPAD did approve a certificate of no change to allow for the replacement of the existing wood with proposed Hardy Plank siding on the
Koopa Tower. That certificate of no change approval did expire in November of 2024. Um the project returned to staff in the fall of 2025 and at that time staff noticed that the application type um and the approval was completed
in a staff error and the full replacement of highly visible siding windows and signage on a historic Koopa tower as such uh was something that staff believed could not be reviewed administratively. So staff did notify the applicant that a certificate of appropriateness was the application that
must be submitted and that is what um the HPC is reviewing today. The applicant is proposing alterations to the Koopa to replace deteriorated wood siding and install new materials that they believe will be less prone to moisture infiltration. You can see a lot of the damage here and the applicant
submitted photos um over the years to the wood siding that's um been installed. The applicant has also shown that four windows that are are non-historic um have also been part of um suffered water damage along with the the wood siding.
So the applicant is proposing to replace the wood siding on all four elevations of the Koopa. Um and they're planning to replace this with Hardy plank board. Select deteriorated sheathing is also planned for removal and replacement as part of the project. Um, the Hardy board
is planned to be prepainted or I guess pre-colored a deep green to match the existing Koopa color. Um, and it would have a a false wood grain finish as as part of that product. The windows for replacement, there are two windows on
the east side and two on the west side. So, totaling four windows. Um, again, these are existing non-historic. Two of them are wood, two of them are vinyl, but they do show deterioration um in line with what we see the deterioration here for for the wood siding due to
moisture infiltration. Uh so currently all these windows are fixed and the proposed replacements are planned to be fixed uh with the exception of one window um that's planned for the property and and staff will get into that as a condition of
approval to clarify which window that will be. But the new models will match the existing models in light division. They will be aluminum clad wood. Um and in addition the the last and and third point of the scope of work is to repaint actually that uh Nicollet Island
pavilion sign on the new siding. So with that uh staff did evaluate the property I should say the project under the the five findings for a certificate of appropriateness. I will focus on the two findings evaluating it under the the
um guidelines as well as the secretary of the interior standards. So for the guidelines the St. Anthony Falls historic district guidelines were adopted in 2012. Um with that they do have specific
guidance for materials when replacing uh materials on historic or contributing buildings. So there's a section that notes that when replacing materials on primary surfaces um the material should be matched in composition, scale and
finish and also that imitation materials as replacements should not be used in primary locations. So staff noted in our comment that the applicant is proposing to replace the siding. It is believed to be non-historic um but it is wood and the applicant is proposing the Hardy
plank cement board with the false wood grain finish. Um the the guidelines do have a section that allow for um the commission to consider certain replacement materials um in secondary locations. But staff noted
that the guidelines don't really define what a secondary location is. And staff wouldn't consider um a Koopa of this size, this visibility surrounded by park space to have uh secondary locations when most of the the sides of this are going to be visible from a variety of
areas within the district. Um so with that staff um does not consider the Hardy plank to to meet the design guideline requirements that do require to uh replace incind and do discourage the use of alternative
materials in visible locations evaluating. One other thing I'll note is that staff pointed out that the the guidelines for this district don't have a specific area to evaluate non-historic window replacements on contributing properties. So, we deferred to the standards to evaluate those. Under
evaluating the project with the standards, staff focused on standard number two and standard number nine. Um noting that the project as conditioned by staff does meet standard 9 as the new windows will match the appearance of the non-historic
wood and vinyl windows and also be a compatible um metalclad wood material and the light division will will match what was previously there in replacing the non-historic wood siding with hardy plank. Um, and that
being a cement board product, staff does not believe that meets standard too. Um, so the the siding on the property was historically, as far as we know, um, ironclad. So that is per evidence from
um, Sandborn maps from 1912 and 1930 that show that the tower was historically metalclad. um you know with that when we're looking at replacement wood with a a new material um hardy plank siding wasn't
something that historically existed here. So, when we're looking at a replacement material, it's best to look to replace inkind, uh if we aren't certain exactly what um historically existed here, uh instead of going towards a newer material um with a a
false wood grain appearance that that may give that false sense of history for the property. So with that, the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development recommends that the Heritage Preservation Commission adopt staff findings for the certificate of appropriateness application by Maline
Sunberg of McDonald and Mack Architects on behalf of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board for the property located at 40 Power Street in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District and recommend that the Heritage Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness to replace siding and windows and repaint signage on the
property located at 40 Power Street in the St. and Anthony Falls historic district subject to the following conditions. The first is that siding shall be replaced in kind using woodlap to match the appearance and dimensions of the existing siding. Hardy plank fiber cement board siding is not
permitted. And the second condition of approval is that the plan for an operable window on the existing opening on the west which is also the southwest elevation shall be finalized and submitted for staff review and approval prior to permit submitt. and I'm
available for any questions about this, but I do understand the the applicant and property representative are here to speak as well. Thank you. >> Thank you for that presentation. Uh, commissioners, are there questions for staff?
>> Commissioner Curado, >> um, the photographs seem to indicate that there are two what appear to be lights on the side of the structure. Are those remaining? Are they going to be replaced? Chair Bjornberg, Commissioner Curado.
Um, that's a good question. That might be something that uh staff didn't initially catch um in the drawings. I think that's something we can um ask the the applicant. Uh but if there are lights that are being planned, it wasn't something that we reviewed as part of
this submission. So, that could be something that um staff talks to the applicant about at a later time. >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Wallace, thank you for the presentation. Um, just a quick question.
Did the applicant and staff discuss the possibility of using the metal sighting to match the original? Was that brought up as as a part of this discussion or considered? >> Chair Buremberg, Commissioner Wallace.
Um so staff in reviewing the application that the applicant submitted um after we had deemed it complete already noticed that um there might be um you know a slight inaccuracy about the previous material there. So, you know, in looking
at historic photos and looking at the sandborn maps and kind of understanding the history of what the tower was used for, you know, the the the iron cladding um what is what we believe was there historically. So to answer your question, I don't think the the
applicant um was aware of that or you know by the time we received the application um that wasn't part of the scope of work. So we weren't able to to discuss it with them. >> Gotcha. Thank you. >> Other questions for staff on this item?
Okay. Thank you. I will now open the public hearing for this item and it sounds like the applicant is here and would like to speak. If you can please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. I've got slides, so just give me a
moment. My name is Maline Sunberg. I'm the historic architect for McDonald and Mack Architects. Our address is 3244 34th Avenue South, Minneapolis. Um, I guess just to start by answering the question, the lighting is intended
to be reinstalled. If when they take them off, they aren't able to reinstall, they would be, um, replaced in kind. There's, we're not planning any drastic lighting alterations. Um, so, uh, Nicola Island Pavilion, it's a very prominent
historic structure. Um, and the owner is committed to the stewardship of it, and that's what's led us to this, uh, Koopa repairs project. Um the goal of the project is to continue the use of the building and to halt the ongoing deterioration. The owner accepts condition two and
we're happy to work with staff on the final solution for creating um the maintenance access inside the Koopa through the window opening. That's why one is intended to be operable. It's it'll be on uh the side with like the lower slope so that people for maintenance can walk up the roof and get
in. It'll be locked so that you know other people can't get in. But that's that's what that is for. So, we're happy with condition two. Um, condition one, we feel pretty strongly that wood siding is not the best solution for this building. Um, as Rob mentioned, um, the
2022 approval expired. It was due to delays coming out of the pandemic with construction and everything and and bidding. So, um, as noted in the staff report, um, you know, we know that wood sighting was not
the original sighting. Um yeah, we did not get a chance to discuss metal sighting. Um this is the photograph we have which is of the tar paper that was exposed on the building. Um there isn't, as far as I know, great documentation of what that metal sighting would have
been. Um it you can't replace with tar paper. Clearly that's not a legal sighting material nowadays. Um and so you know in 1986 the park board rehabilitated the building installed the cedar lap sighting. The sighting deteriorated really rapidly. It was
replaced again in 1998 deteriorated again replaced between 2008 and 2011. So roughly every 10 years. Um 2019 McDonald was brought on board to look for solutions. Um, at that point,
this is from 2019, the paint was already deteriorating significantly. It had only been 8 years and it's already starting to rot. And so, um, you know, we're requesting the use of the Hardy plank lap sighting because of this ongoing deterioration of the wood sighting. Replacement in kind is not a
cost-effective solution for continued stewardship if they have to replace it every decade. Um, I know fiberment sighting isn't a typical solution for historic buildings. um and because of the guidelines to not use fabricated materials that look like wood. But in
this case, the wood sighting is not a historic material and we know that it wasn't wood sighting. Um I guess the reason we selected this product is that we can maintain the existing appearance more or less while
providing a significantly longer lifespan. The Hardy Plank Lab sighting has a lifespan of 50 years. That's a lot longer than wood sighting in this environment. Um, the sighting will have the baked on finish, so it's kind of integral to the product. It'll be this deep green color, and so the color is
even warrantied for 15 years, which is longer than the sighting itself has been lasting. Um, so this solution will maintain the dark contrast, the dark sighting, the white lettering of the signage, and that's a really key feature of the building that we thought needed
to stay. Um, here you can see some close-ups of the level of deterioration that currently is there. It's so rotten and moist that we're getting lychen growing out of the siding up there. Um, if I can get it to play.
The owner has a number of videos of water just raining into the building through the Koopala um while they're setting up for weddings and other things in the venue. And so our real concern is that the ongoing deterioration that will
impact the rest of the building um from this sort of exposure. So the reasons we think that this location makes a lot of sense for something like this fiber cement sighting is that the exposure on the river gets very severe weathering more
than you would see. It's up high and it's right on the point there. Um, the Koopa is well above head height. You can see here it, you know, we don't believe this will impact the public's experience while they're viewing the historic building. The lowest point,
which is on the east elevation, is still 16 ft above grade. So, it's not like somebody can walk up and feel it and be like, "Oh, what's happening here?" Um, you know, it'll it'll look basically the same. We don't feel like it's creating a false sense of history because it wasn't
wood sighting. So, we're not trying to mimic something historical. We're just keeping the existing appearance. So, we're asking for an exception to be made to allow the fiber cement sighting because replacing the wood sighting approximately every 10 years is not a
sustainable solution. Um, access is very difficult because of the height of the Koopa. It's not a structure that park staff can easily and safely repair and repaint regularly. Um the labor, materials, and access for residing with wood costs approximately $50,000. And
that doesn't include repainting the signage. And so, you know, in the the 50 years that the Hardy plank should last, the wood sighting replacement would be about $250,000. And that's not something the park board really has the capacity for. Um the park
board would like to invest more in durable sighting, which costs about 13,000 more than wood sighting. upfront put in this investment into the site. Um that'll save the parkboard system money in the long run and allow this building to continue to operate. We don't feel
like this will impact the historic integrity of the property or the larger historic district. Instead, it maintains the integrity by allowing the building to be watertight for 50 years. Um we believe the intent of the guidelines um you know to not use imitation materials
to replace wood sighting was intended to address replacement of historic wood sighting. And you know that's that's not what this is. And so we think this is an appropriate time to allow an alternative material. Um and you know the replacement with wood sighting would really be a temporary
repair that we know would deteriorate in this location in about 10 years and once again allow water to infiltrate into the building potentially damaging the masonry below as well as the exposed historic structure elements and finishes inside the building. And I'm available for questions.
Thank you for that presentation. Uh do Commissioner Commissioner Wallace, >> thank you for your presentation. I just have a quick question. Um for the proposed uh fiber cement board is is the like profile and size and width. Does it
match existing? Is it different? You don't mind just talking a little bit about? >> Yeah. Um so we selected the closest we could get using standard products. So it's a lap sighting. The exposure is is basically the same. The color is basically the same. It's as close as we
can get. It's it's not a perfect match, but it's pretty close. We're hoping that, you know, like the shadow, we wanted the shadow profiles and things like that to look basically the same so that this doesn't really stand out as a significant alteration.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Do commissioners have other questions? Commissioner Rodriguez. Thank you, Commissioner Borenberg. I have um a question about the maintenance schedule. You alluded to it a little bit. I was wondering if you might be able to provide more detail. Uh you
mentioned that the um that the tower is difficult to paint. Um in in previous decades, has there been kind of any intermediary painting um between replacements? Do are you aware? >> Um I can tell that there has been cuz
there's some not great matches of paint in various areas. So, they've tried, but you can see where they try. It's like near a corner where they can kind of reach or like it's um I don't think they've done any wholesal successful
repaintings. Um if I go back though to here, you can see where when they resided, they resided right over some of the old siding at one point. And so, um, you can see the layers that the green color is still the same. Um, that they
they've kind of layered on there. And so, um, they they definitely have tried to do repairs, um, and it hasn't been successful. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Curado. >> Thank you, Chair. I think I don't know
what my question is. Um I I guess I have two questions. One is is it the material that's the issue or is it the construction that's the issue? Cuz I guess part of my concern is that it's not the sighting itself. It's something
perhaps foundational before it. Either the waterproofing, the roof, all of it sort of gives me a little bit of >> concern. >> Yeah. So we this would be a pretty comprehensive I know that the sighting is what was pulled out as from staff but
we would be taking it down to the existing sheathing any run sheathing would be removed and replaced um with something of similar thickness and then we would be putting up the new weather barrier and then the new siding. So we are hoping to address all of that. Um,
and this got a little bit broken up, but the roof was actually just replaced. The staff allowed us to proceed with the re-roofing cuz we were matching it in place so that we could try to like stop some of the water infiltration issues
while we were waiting for this to move forward through review so that the roof actually just got finished like a month ago. >> Okay. Thank you. Um my second question is I guess the part of the reasoning of the Hardy
board is to try to mimic what's there. If the argument is that this wasn't the original, was there consideration for a different appearance so that it was less about trying to mimic what's there and a
deliberate recognition that this is a change? I think the concern with choosing something totally different is that we we don't have any great record of what we would be trying to return it to looking like. And so the concern with
creating a false history by choosing something else. And so it it was deliberate to try to match what's existing in appearance and kind of keep with what's there um while creating the durability.
>> Okay. Thank you >> commissioners. Are there other questions? Okay. Thank you for that presentation. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak? Okay, with that I'll close the public
hearing. Commissioners, what are your thoughts? Commissioner Wallace. Well, I know that we're hamstrung by or not I wouldn't say hamstrung, but our purview on this is limited to the guidelines for the historic district.
So, that limits our scope a little bit and what we can review. But I I and looking at the pictures and kind of thinking of this property and how it's associated with the surroundings and everything, um I could see an argument
for the Koopa actually being secondary in terms of secondary elevations. I understand that it's highly visible, but the but the distance and like the height, I could see an argument being made for that. And
I think that opens it up a little bit. I It's That's where I am, I guess, in thinking through this. Other comments, thoughts? Commissioner Thomas, >> thank you. Um I I would agree with um Commissioner Wallace. Also, um I just
want to let you all know how I'm thinking. I'm thinking that um based on the fact that it was it's not originally wood. Um, and I could see the maintenance challenges of trying to keep that painted. Um, cuz you'd probably have to paint that every year minimum just cuz of where it's exposed. And the
park board owns this. And, you know, they're not, you know, their money goes towards other things that I think are more important than regular maintenance like that. Um, but I think that the Hardy board is actually a a good solution for longevity while still
trying to keep that wood look. So, I I would support um the Hardy Plank. >> Commissioner Masten, >> I would agree that I would support um Hardy Plank used in this instance,
especially given that it was not historically wood. Um the diff the difficulty maintaining it and just did you say it was 16 ft above ground is the lowest point. I think I don't know that anyone would be able to tell the difference at that point if
it was wood or um or hardy plank. So I think given all of those factors in this particular case it would be justifiable other commissioners I'll say I'm I'm Oh Commissioner Booty. Oh, I was just going to echo what other
commissioners have said and um yeah, I've been thinking about, you know, the creating the false history um aspect of it all and um kind of maintaining what is there. Um given the maintenance u requirements for this property, I would be also be in support of a Hardy Plank solution.
other commissioner comments. I'll say like I I personally have a little bit of a struggle with the um Hardy Plank material. I really do empathize with the like maintenance challenges and I appreciate that there's
um sort of like a evidence of trying to keep that up. It isn't just like oh we're not doing anything. It's like nope we we've done this over and over again. Um, I'm glad that Commissioner Curado asked about other pieces leading to the decay because, you know, looking at the video, I'm like,
"Okay, well, it seems like there's a real roof problem and and maybe uh um not that gutters solve everything, but, you know, um just trying to think about like, okay, where where are these problems coming from?" And not just, okay, how do we replace this this one
piece? So, um I don't know that I have strong thoughts, but Commissioner Cra, >> yeah, I I struggle with the choice of hardy board. I mean, there are other
alternate wood natural wood products that are also um have longevity. My concern I think primarily in the question of all the things that need to happen is that if the hardy plank is then perceived to not require the
maintenance um is that perhaps the underlying issue actually has an opportunity to continue to become worse because the Hardy plank itself as a shell might be able to hide everything that's going on behind it. Um, but understanding, you know, the park
board's constraints, um, that it never really was the original material anyway, um, part of my question was, I guess I would have been more comfortable if it was a more drastic change if it was, you know, I don't know, Hardy Board used to make those 4x8 sheets, you know. Um, so
that that was sort of my initial gut. Um, so I I guess I'm not I'm I guess still on the fence. Um but I my primary primary concern is for the protection of the structure. Um that that not be
overlooked simply as hardy you know to not wait 50 years to go look at things I guess is my um comment. Other comments from commissioners? Anyone feeling ready to make a motion or
more items to discuss on this? I I guess I could try a motion. See see how it goes. Um so I make a motion that the HPC approve the certificate of appropriateness to replace siding and windows um and repaint signage at this
property um striking condition number one. Is that even Is that an accurate? Yeah. Can I start over? I'm like, I didn't say that right. Okay.
I make a motion that the HBC approve the certificate of appropriateness um at this property as conditioned by staff um except striking condition number one. >> Thank you, Commissioner
Massa. Okay. Is there a second? >> Wallace seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Any other discussion? Would the clerk call the role? >> Booty >> I. >> Curado
>> I. >> Rodriguez >> I >> Thomas >> I >> Wallace >> I >> Vice Chair Masten >> I. >> Chair Bjornberg >> I. >> There are seven eyes.
>> Thank you. That motion passes. Um our next item is item number 83123 2nd Avenue South Ward 8. The applica this is an application for a certificate of appropriateness and the staff report
is presented by Rob Scleki. Thank you again, commissioners. Rob Sklegi, senior city planner in the stroke preservation team in CPED. Um, I'm presenting here a certificate of appropriateness uh for the property located at 31232nd Avenue South in the
Healey Block Historic District. The subject property is recognized as the Rufus H. Lanehouse, a contributing resource in the Healey Block Historic District. The dwelling was completed in 1892 as a 2 and a half story queen and home clad in wood clapboard with a
limestone foundation. It was later covered in plaster veneer or stucco in 1942. Rufus Lane was a pharmacist who was recorded as the first resident in the home of the home in the um 1893
Minneapolis city directories. The designation study notes that the home is a mainstream Healey design of the early 1890s important principally as a connective link between more intact and or innovative Healey designs.
The designation study calls out um design elements of the home that are emblematic of Healey's design pallet. So the designation study does state common Healy designs show an elaborate an elaboration of details. Tptics are often
embellished with brightly colored art glass transoms um such as the located the properties um 21163rd Avenue South or um 3111 2nd Avenue South or semic-ircular openings under Gables. Um, and then it notes the
subject property 31232nd Avenue South as an example of that second part. In fall of 2025, the city discovered unpermitted work completed at the home. The zoning inspector issued orders to correct the historic semic-ircular
window configuration in the main front gable had been removed, the opening altered, and a vinyl sliding window installed in place with um vinyl arched windows. So staff identified that a certificate of appropriateness application was needed to evaluate this
project retroactively. No building permit was submitted for the project. Um and the applicant hasn't yet stated what has happened to the historic windows after removal. Um so you can see with the the photos I'd shown previously um the the arched
window in and the front gable at at different decades. Um, and this is the most recent uh photos we have of the property, both interior and exterior, to show uh what it looked like prior to the unprevented work. Since the work is complete, staff will
discuss the applicant's proposal um in that manner. The applicant did remove that semi-ircular decorative wood window at the front gable. Uh did cut a larger opening and installed the three vinyl windows. So we have the the middle one that is a sliding window or appears to
be a sliding window. Um and then the the two that are flanking it in the arched um sections of the opening. The installed window configuration replaces the two center arch windows and includes a section of the gable uh with the wall cutout as I mentioned to allow
for this new window system. So the original arch shape does remain in place uh kind of on the sides there um framing this this new uh window in in the larger opening.
Historically the window did include four lights. All of them appear to have been fixed with two larger windows that included kind of a crosshatch style um diamond mton configuration and it was flanked by side windows with oval um overlays.
In addition to the the work that was completed as part of this application submission, the applicant is proposing um kind of a further third option that they included in their application for evaluation. Um so that further scope of alteration um is shown here is what
what's being proposed. Um this would include cutting out an additional space in the wall opening and modifying again that historic arched window opening to to install three single hung vinyl
windows in this opening. So staff evaluated um I'll back up a bit actually. So staff did receive two public comments in opposition to the project and those were included for commissioners to consider in your public
uh comment packet. So staff did evaluate this under the five findings for a certificate of appropriateness. Um staff did not find that the proposed project met any of the five findings. Uh but I will focus specifically on again evaluating this
under the design guidelines for the Healey Block Historic District and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. So under the finding for the alteration being consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the commission, the Healey Block historic district guidelines were adopted in 1990
and they apply to this project. Um, so the work that has been completed in addition to the work that's proposed to further enlarge the opening do not meet the historic district's design guidelines. So the guidelines require that the original decorative windows uh
such as round top windows be retained and the applicant has already removed the decorative arch windows without a permit review. Uh the vinyl windows currently installed as unpermitted replacements in the openings are not consistent with design guideline requirements for materials.
Um all replacement windows uh both the ones that have been in installed and the ones that are proposed lack the original decorative mton or light design. Uh the design guidelines note that a replacement window must match the original design and proportions. Um and
the window that was installed without permit approval um does not match this. It's in staff's opinion that the original window configuration with the wood arched window system framing division uh diamond mountains um and all
aspects of what existed previously >> must be put back as it had existed before. In evaluating the project under the standards, um staff noted that the the work that's been completed as as well as the proposed work to have the
the three single hung windows um don't meet the Secretary of the Interior standards. So, a replacement vinyl sliding and fixed window system on the front or west elevation that has been installed has destroyed a character-defining feature of the building in the historic district. Um
the proposal to further replace the windows with three one over one vinyl windows does not meet standards 2 5 and 9 uh as outlined in the staff um report. Uh in staff's opinion the original window configuration with with the wood
arched opening system framing division and diamond mins um should be put back as it has existed before. So staff noted the alterations are not consistent with any of the findings required to approve a certificate of
appropriateness and work has already been completed without building permit approval. So with that, the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development, recommends that the Heritage Preservation Commission adopts staff findings for the certificate of appropriateness. Um, and recommend the
Heritage Preservation Commission denies the certificate of appropriateness to replace windows on the front west elevation of the property located at 3123 Second Avenue South in the Healey Block Historic District. And I'm available to
answer any questions as staff, but I do know the the applicant is here as well. and may be able to answer other questions. Thank you. >> Thank you for that presentation. Uh do commissioners have questions for staff. >> Commissioner Curado.
>> Uh quick question. Do we know what the dimension of the original window panel was? The taller one. >> Chair Bumbberg. Commissioner Curado. Um we don't have exact measurements of what it had been. Uh the applicant may have
more information on that. Um but um what we received is what you you know we asked for as much information that we could get from the the previous conditions and we understand whenever we're looking at unpermitted work sometimes it's difficult to get you know exact dimensions of what existed prior
to to alteration. >> Oh thank you. Yeah, I was just trying to determine if it met egress requirements, but that was it's hard to know. >> Other questions for staff on this item.
Okay, thank you. Um, would the applicant like to speak? Please come to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Hi, my name is Id Salgado and um my home
address 5193 Abbercrombie Drive, Edina, Minnesota. And I'm here uh on behalf of my dad. He's the one that actually owns the property, but he's no longer physically or mentally able to uh maintain it, so I'm taking over it. And
um yeah, so I was the one that got the letter saying that this didn't comply. And as I started following up on what was going on with that window, um that's when we found out that the house was historic. And again, this is something that he probably should have known, but
he didn't. And then um I asked him about that window that was there previously. I tried to track it down, but they just don't know like where it is. It's probably just I don't know in the trash somewhere, I'm sorry to say. And um this
is what I'm working with. I um as I explained, I'm happy to address the issue. I'm happy to resolve it, but I am working with limited information and uh just kind of learning the ropes of what having a historic house even means. Uh when I submitted the application, I
looked at other houses in the Healey um district and I saw that most of them, I would say at least 90% of them have uh vertical windows that are double pane and open. And that's mostly for egressorous reasons because those
atticss are livable space and so people need to be able to get out of there safely or um that is my assumption that that's why all pretty much all of the other houses in the neighborhood have those windows. So I try to stay consistent with submitting something that was similar to what all the other
houses with the same style had. And that's why the option that I proposed was three single hung um windows. As I was going over the comments that I received in the report, I realized that the vinyl material would not work. And
so, um, I would ask that if this is, um, approved, it can be conditioned to maybe doing, uh, wood double hung frames, windows instead of vinyl because then it would be compliant with the material. And in my application, I always said
that we would add the trim that was there that's consistent with what the rest of the house has. Um, yeah, like I said, mostly my idea was let's try to make it consistent with what all the other houses in the neighborhood have. And at the end of the
day, I understand that these houses are historic, but they're also living places for people. And so making them livable requires having these types of window. I do know that the previous one could not be opened. It was like just a decoration. I would say it like the car
um and uh the ones that we are proposing, we just want them to be able to be open and closed. Um as far as everything else, I'm willing to take um on just suggestions or indications from you guys as far as how to make it work.
I want to resolve it. But again, I just don't know like what other solution I can provide to address this issue. Thank you for that. Do commissioners have any questions for the applicant?
>> Commissioner Booty. >> Hi. Um was the um the unit that is livable space in the attic, was that um a unit prior to the replacement of the window? >> Yes. So that house has uh five uh it's a
fiveplex legally. It has um and so the attic is one of the units. I my assumption is that the previous owner did not comply with having an eress window in that room, but um I don't know. It's just an ass. It's just an
assumption because when my dad bought it, the house did not have a window that could open and it was a bedroom when he bought it. So, yeah. >> Thank you. >> Other questions from commissioners? >> Commissioner Wallace,
>> thank you for being here and for describing the situation. Um, question about the egress piece. Um, is there It's kind of hard to answer, I'm sure. So, just broaching an idea, but are there potential opportunities to put an
egress in the rear like in a secondary elevation of that unit um that might solve that issue while returning the front to its historic appearance. Just wondering if that has, you know, been part of the conversation. Well, the h
that the house has um two >> Yeah, if you can give me the term. Yeah. Uh but the the roof is uh you know, it's like like two ways. So there is no other area like adding any new window would actually probably imply more
>> Yeah. >> modification to the house >> than that window >> that's already there. It's already a hole, if you will. Yeah. Yeah. I got you. Thank you. Other questions? Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you.
Okay, and I understand there is a member of the public who wishes to speak uh on this application. Maline Douglas, if you could please step forward, state your name and address for the record. >> Okay. See if I can get this
set up first and then let's see this. Haven't done this part before. All right, let's see here. And then
All right. I was thinking making this a slideshow, but maybe I'll just do it this way. Unless it could be made a slideshow. I'm not sure. All right, so I'll leave it with that.
Good evening. I am Matteline Douglas and of course I've been here before, but I am the owner of 3145 2nd Avenue South in the historic Healey district. Um,
I'd like to recommend at least one of the other comments that were sent in yesterday by David Peele. David has been a 30-year resident of the historic Healey district and he was one of the authors of the the guidelines. He
strongly recommends replication of what was the original window. Uh we do have the resources to recommend uh craftsmen who can do that. So, I am in support of the planners
recommendations on this report to deny the certificate of appropriateness and request that the original window be replicated. I'm also I don't know if as a member of public I can request this, but I'm also
asking that you amend your ruling given the applicant's avoidance of uh filing building permits. Uh I request you amend your ruling to prohibit the removal of any original historic windows or doors
anywhere on the house on any facade, not only the front facade, but the entire house. There does appear to be a non-historic replacement door on the back of the house. Uh there's been a number of uh discussions of egress windows. There are
some requirements not being an architect for egress windows in sleeping rooms. There could possibly be a conflict between historic requirements and the requirements of the building code. So I would say uh direct staff to work with
building code officials and uh the applicant to make sure the historic window requirements are compatible with what's required for egress windows in the building code. Uh my other comment is in regard to the
section entitled uh certificate of of appropriateness um which was submitted by the applicant. Uh there are eight sections uh responses
I'm assuming to findings of fact. Uh all eight responses are inaccurate and untrue. There are four pictures included uh of houses in the district that
supposedly show the type of window the applicant was proposing to use. The first one is 3107. Second, I think some ornament may have been removed from that window, those three windows over time. That may have been
done before there was a historic district and historic district guidelines. They are woodclad. The second house is a house that is a non-contributing structure to the Healey district. It's not a Healey. It was moved on a vacant lot on the site of
where a Healey house burned. The third house is David Peele's house. Uh obviously original historic windows with a restored historic detailed woodclad not compatible with what the applicant is proposing.
And the final uh picture is my house 3145 2nd Avenue. The windows are original. They were missing historic details. These windows were meticulously restored by Anders Christensen and there the
missing wood details like corbals and other ornaments were restored. So again, I'm requesting that you go further than even though this application is focused on one window. Um
it's very clear that this applicant could with its history of unpermitted work replace all the rest of the windows and the doors. And I hope you will add that added protection for this house. Thank you.
Thank you for those comments. Okay. Um, I will now close the public hearing. Um, commissioners comments on this item. Commissioner Thomas, this is more of a question for someone who may know more about building
code than I do. Can um, casement windows be egress? Okay. Okay. I would I would think that that would be a good solution um to recreate the windows as they were, but making at least one of them an operable casement, if not both of those larger
ones. >> Commissioner Rodriguez, >> I just want to say that's exactly what my kind of thinking was. So, thank you. >> Same here. Um that was my thinking, too. I'm like I don't know if it would be
helpful to reiterate what that thinking is ideaw-wise just because I feel like the >> Sure. >> applicant was asking for ideas so it might be helpful to >> Sure. Sure. Sure. >> Thank you. >> Well, and you I don't >> Oh, I don't know. Um that uh one option
that would be in balance with both the guidelines and if the building code requires that egress is that that arched window would be restored but that instead of fixed windows like that are kind of like that that you'd have a casement window that could open inward
and people could get out that way. So it would look the same. It would be materials or that would be the recommendation eventually. But that egress could be achieved in that way and it wouldn't the idea would be that that wouldn't disturb or that wouldn't be anothetical to the guidelines at least
in the way we're thinking about it. Thank you for summarizing. Other comments on this item, Commissioner Kado. Yeah, I guess somewhat echoing that. Um, and my question originally about the dimension
of the window was to ensure that one panel was enough to be an eress. Um, it may potentially be that they both need to open like a French door, which is probably possible window maker, but um,
so it it I'm not going to say that it's an easy solution, but it is a possibility. I think the the second question that I think came up earlier as well is potentially having an egress way and a secondary facade. It's probably a
skylight that's operable as an egress. Not great, but it is an alternative be able to keep that bedroom and meet the building code requirements if the front facade then can then be restored to its original. So, I think those are the two
obvious solutions I guess architecturally. Um I think in when you are a um steward of a historic building, it's it is important to understand the uniqueness
of each individual structure um and how it sits within the neighborhood and all of the things that make a particular style or particular home um unique and significant. and to be able to to kind of protect that. So you will see, you
know, one sees uh non-contributing structures that may have features that you would like, but it's not always something possible on the historic contributing structures. So just empathizing uh with the
difficulty of navigating that and um I guess also expressing an appreciation for a willingness to work toward it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yeah, I I do want to um second that that I appreciate that it sounds like the applicant is really trying to understand and navigate um
historic building ownership, which is not always the easiest. So, I do appreciate that. Other comments or anybody thinking about a motion? Commissioner Booty. >> Hi. Um thank you, Chair Bjornberg. Um, I
just also wanted to clarify, um, you know, if we're voting and motioning on the proposed, uh, staff recommendation that the applicant, um, would be able to, uh, submit a different certificate of of appropriateness for, um, some of the items that we had been discussing. Now,
>> that's my understanding, but I will look to staff to confirm that. >> Thank you, Chair Bjornberg, Commissioner Booty. I am Aaron K, um, sitting in for Andrea Burke. Um, so thanks for raising that question. And I think it's good to kind of lay out the options here. So,
um, if the HPC would vote to deny the certificate of appropriateness today, that is essentially um kind of supporting staff suggestion to restore the windows as um as they originally
were. Um, and that is something that um to to kind of reconstruct it as it originally was could very well be taken care of through the permit review process and may not necessarily mean it would have to come before the HPC. Um, in the situation that um you may be
suggesting that the applicant is exploring a different type of operation. And I think that's something to be discussed with staff to kind of work out um what's the appropriate path forward um for for that type of application. Um I can't say right now in this moment
whether or not that would would come before you again um but that seems like a a worthy alternative to explore. Um, if the HBC was looking to
approve the application today, you would have to overturn staff findings. Um, and that would be to approve it uh as presented or proposed by the applicant. Um, maybe with slight modifications
through through conditions of approval. >> Just to confirm that I understand. Uh so if we were to follow the recommendations uh as written and deny this that would not prevent the applicant from being able to submit a
new application for replacing the windows. >> Thank you chair. Correct. Uh the the applicant could submit a new application that proposes um a different a different approach. uh you know typically if someone were to come back and submit the
same application with the same approach you would anticipate having the same outcome um but a new application with a new approach could be submitted >> commissioner oh >> okay >> I'm all done thank you chair >> commissioner Wallace
>> uh question as a followup to that in uh developing an application um the applicant can discuss options options with staff at the city. Is that correct? Like discuss options before submitting the application?
>> Chair Bjornberg, Commissioner Wallace. Yes. Uh the applicant can work with staff to talk through the different options, what they're considering, um if they would want to look into a skylight possibility, what that could mean through this process or uh looking at
how to reconstruct those windows, possibly change the operation. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Thomas. Well, I am going to propose a motion um that the Heritage Preservation Commission denies the certificate of appropriateness to
replace windows on the front west elevation of the property located at 3123 2nd Avenue South in the Healey Block Historic District. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Is there a second? >> Rodriguez seconds. Thank you,
Commissioner Rodriguez. Any other discussion? >> Would the clerk call the role? >> Booty >> I. >> Corado >> I. >> Rodriguez >> I. >> Thomas >> I.
>> Wallace >> I. >> Vice Chair Masten >> I. >> Chair Bjornberg >> I. >> There are seven eyes's. >> Okay. That motion passes. Uh, okay. The next item that we have is
item number 9,700 50th Street West, Ward 13. And we are looking to um continue that to the February 10th meeting. If I can have a motion for
that. Masten so moves. >> Is there a second? >> Seconds. >> Thank you. Um, are there any members of the public that wish to speak for or against this item? Okay. Uh, seeing none, all in favor say
I. >> I. >> I. >> Those oppos say nay. Any abstensions? Okay. Item number nine is continued to the February 10th, 2026 meeting of the
Heritage Preservation Commission. That concludes our public hearing items. Do staff have announcements? Yes, Turbon. This is Aaron K, senior city planner. I have uh three updates for you. Um the first is an update that
the city council has decided to operate on a modified schedule for upcoming public meetings to better allocate their time and resources to deal with the more urgent needs of the city at this moment. Um this does mean that the business housing and zoning committee did not
meet today and those items will be um shuffled to future meetings. Um, one of those items includes the appeal on the HBC's decision on 2011 Franklin Avenue East, um, which is planned to be heard on February 17th. So, we will provide an
update, uh, once we have that. Um, the second update, um, I believe we did receive our volunteers for to serve on the Minneapolis Preservation Awards Committee. Uh, and I failed to check with Rob before this meeting. Um but
hearing hearing no comments, thank you for those who volunteered to serve on that committee. Um and then my last update is related to the ordinance changes. We've gotten our website updated um with accurate process
information, definitions, and all of the new applications. Um so that is available for folks to use and we are already having um applicants reach out to us to use those new forms. So um as
you have some time feel free to check it out and you'll be seeing applications using those forms in the near future. That is all for my updates. Thank you. That's very very exciting. Do
commissioners have any announcements? Okay, with that we've completed all the items on the agenda for this meeting. There being no other business to come before us and without objection, I'll declare the meeting adjourned. The next regular meeting of the HPC is February
10th, 2026. Thank you. >> Hello everyone. We're no longer hopefully on air. Um, I just want to uh say a brief uh just little reminder um on uh recusal
re recusing yourself. If uh any if anything that you're doing in your private work or personal life is attached to something that's before the board here, it is best practiced to just state that as the item.