Do you want to take over drain roll? Okay, we're in our one minute warning right now. Good afternoon. I call to order the April 14th, 2026 regular meeting of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation
Commission. For the record, my name is Kelly Masten and I serve as vice chair of the commission. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a reminder uh to silence your cell phones and other electronic devices. These meetings are broadcast live to enable greater public
participation. These broadcasts include real-time captioning as a method to increase the accessibility of our proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate of their speech so that our captioners can fully caption and transcribe all comments for the broadcast. We ask all speakers to
moderate the speed and clarity of their comments. Um, please speak clearly into the microphone when speaking at the dis or giving testimony. With the clerk, please call the role so that we may verify the presence of a quorum.
>> Commissioner Alexander, >> present. Booty >> present. >> Curado >> present. >> Melbourne >> present. >> Rodriguez >> present. >> Smith >> present. >> Thomas >> present. >> Wallace
>> present. >> Vice Chair Masten >> present. >> Chair Bjornberg >> present. >> There are 10 members present. I'm going to hand over to Chair Bjornberg. Thank you. Uh so let the record reflect that we do have quorum.
Next we are going to uh organize the agenda for this meeting. Agendas are available by the clerk. We'll discuss in public hearing agenda number four. Agenda item number four, 208 5th Avenue Southeast Ward 3. May I have a motion to
approve the agenda? >> Masten so moves. >> Thank you, Commissioner Masten. Commissioner Malbum, >> I have a correction, I believe, to the agenda. I believe that now that uh Commissioner
Smith is worn sworn in, it should have her name rather than Commissioner Har. I can uh speak on that. And one additional item, we are having some captioning issues uh and we should move to a recess while those issues are uh
fixed and then I'll actually come over and speak with you um on that uh item uh commissioner and then we can continue afterwards. >> Okay. So, I will call a recess. Okay, we'll resume in one minute. Okay. And I believe the clerk was going
to answer Commissioner Malbum's question. >> Commissioner, um the agenda that's before you right now is slightly out of date as uh limbs had not been fully updated yet on our new commissioner's appointment. And so, uh, for the record,
in the future, um, the minutes and the agenda for today will be posted with that information present. Um, I believe the agenda or I know the agenda currently already has been corrected and then the minutes afterwards will also have uh, Commissioner Smith on the role
as well as um, on our minutes and marked agendas. >> Great. Thank you. Then I will second the uh, adoption of the agenda. >> Thank you, Commissioner Melbourne. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. I.
>> Those opposed say nay. The agenda is approved. Our next order of business will be to approve the minutes from our March 24th, 2026 meeting. May I have a motion to approve those minutes? >> Thomas so moves. >> Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Is there
a second? >> Wallace seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. Any abstensions, including commissioners
who were absent. >> I'll abstain from this agenda item. >> Thank you, Commissioner Smith. The minutes are approved. Before I open the hearing to public comments, let me summarize the process for the public hearing. First, planning
staff will present their 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, 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 testify, please state your name for the record and keep your comments specific to the application before us. After the public comments are complete, I will close the hearing and
commissioners will deliberate and act upon the application before us. So, our first item is item number 4, 208 5th Avenue Southeast Ward 3. This application is a commission
preservation application and the staff report is presented by Aaron K. Good afternoon, Chair Bjornberg 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. I'm here today to present a commission preservation application for the property located at 2085th Avenue Southeast in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District. Here is an aerial view of the property's
location. The house was built in 1904 and is a contributing resource to the historic district. Here is view of the front of the house. The Heritage Preservation Commission last reviewed a certificate of appropriateness for this property in 2019. The HBC approved that project with
a few conditions. As detailed in the staff report before you today, some of the items were completed and some of the items were not completed within the approval period. The applicant has also added two new scope items. One to replace the rear deck and two to construct a new garage. The property
does not currently have a garage. I will break down the scope before you today by item and summarize relevant information from the previous HPC review that is also in the staff report in greater detail. The first item is to replace the siding. In 2019, the house had asbestous
sighting that covered the original wood sighting. At that time, the applicant got HPC approval to remove the asbestous sighting and planned to encapsulate the wood siding before installing LP siding over it. Once that project got underway
and the wood siding was uncovered, the applicant thought that the wood siding was actually in good enough condition to remain exposed. They worked to repair the most damaged sections, patch areas that were missing or rotted, scraped, did a comprehensive lead paint abatement, and painted the wood siding
in 2022. Since that time, they have found that the finish has failed, boards are cracked due to many nail holes, uh they're rotten, and they can't hold paint anymore. So, we have a few um select items or images here on the screen that were provided by the
applicant. They found that contractors will no longer warranty another paint job and repainting is not a long-term solution for their sighting. So, the applicant is asking to remove the wood siding and replace it with LP Smart Side smooth lap siding as they did last time
to match the existing profile of the sighting. This request was previously approved by the HPC. For today's application, in order to comply with the design guidelines as they were written in 2012, staff are recommending a condition of approval that the replacement sighting must be wood and
match the lap and profile of the original sighting. In tandem with the sighting, the applicant is anticipating some of the wood features around the house may also need to be replaced if deteriorated. This would include trim and brackets under the eaves. I'll note that the
staff report mentioned sophets and fascia also, but in discussion with the applicant last week, it sounds like the these features don't actually need to be replaced. Um, so the proposal is to replace deteriorated features with LP uh just like the siding to match the
profile dimensions and finish of the current features. Um, replacement of the sophets and fascia were previously approved by the HBC. Just so you are aware, based on currently available information, it is difficult to know whether these array of features are deteriorated beyond repair
and we understand that uh more information may come to light as the project gets underway. Uh repair should be the first line of defense and then if features are deteriorated beyond repair, they should be replaced in kind. In order to comply with the design guidelines, staff are recommending a
condition of approval that the replacement features shall be wood if the original features were wood and match the dimensions and profile of the existing features. The applicant shall also work with staff to confirm where the replacement is needed to address deterioration. The applicant is also proposing to
replace the front and back doors which are single leaf wood doors. The proposed replacement is a single leaf panled wood door with a halflight. This scope item was previously approved by the HPC, although the door design was slightly different. Although we do not know if the doors are historic, staff do not
believe that these are character-defining features and feel replacement is appropriate as proposed. Two window alterations are also proposed. Uh the applicant would like to reconstruct a window opening on the second story of the rear elevation that
was found to exist during the last project. it had been covered up by the siding. Uh their plan is to install a 2 over2 double hung wood window with true divided lights to match the existing windows that were replaced in the last project. This particular window opening
here in the middle of the back ele the rear elevation is slightly smaller than the other windows because it is in a bathroom and the applicant would retain that smaller sized opening when they reconstruct it. Um I'll note that the sizing was listed incorrectly in the staff report. So, as proposed, this is
appropriate to uh reconstruct this window opening. The applicant would also like to add one window on the first story at the rear end of the south or side elevation for a kitchen remodel. This would be a two over two double hung wood window with
true divided lights and of the same size to match the existing windows on this elevation. To avoid creating a false sense of history, staff are recommending a condition of approval to differentiate the historic window in openings from the new window opening by offsetting the the
horizontal placement so that the rhythm of the windows makes it clear that that this is a new window and also by differentiating the new window trim dimensions perhaps make it slightly narrower so it is not read as a historic window. Uh the current placement of this window
as proposed is appropriate because it's not the same as the existing window rhythm. And so essentially with this uh condition of approval, staff are suggesting that the window trim should be differentiated um either by or by making it slightly narrower and not having the same crown detail that the
rest of the historic windows have. The applicant is also proposing to add aluminum gutters to replace those that have fallen off. This scope item was previously approved by the HBC and remains appropriate. The applicant is also proposing to remove the non-historic rear wood deck
and build a new deck with the same dimensions using composite decking. The existing deck is sagging due to an inadequate foundation and rotting. Uh replacement is appropriate and in staff's opinion meets the guidelines and standards um with its material.
The last item is to build a new garage to the rear of the house that measures 22 feet x 22 feet with a height of 13 ft 10 in. The garage would have steel doors. So both the vehicular door and the pedestrian door would be steel and a two over two double hung wood window on
the front elevation. The garage would have a front gable roof to match the roof pitch of the house. and zoning requires that when the garage is over 12 feet in height, the house and the garage must match in sighting materials. The applicant is proposing to clad the
garage in LP smart side lap siding with LP or Hardy board trim. Um the applicant proposed LP siding and staff are recommending wood um in order to meet the siding on the house. Um and we anticipate this particular aspect will
be a topic of discussion in this public hearing. So staff are recommending uh a final condition of approval to ensure that the garage siding and trim shall match the material of the house sighting and trim whether or not the HPC chooses to adopt other conditions of approval as
recommended by staff. In summary, staff recommend that the HPC adopt staff findings and approve the commission preservation application subject to the following conditions. Number one, wood siding shall be replaced in kind with wood and match the lap and profile of the original
sighting. Number two, wood features such as trim around doors and windows, cornerboards, sophets, fascia, and brackets under the eaves shall be replaced in kind with wood features of the same dimension and profile when shown to be deteriorated beyond repair. The applicant shall work with staff to
confirm where replacement is needed. Number three, garage siding and trim shall match the material of the house siding and trim. Number four, the new window window opening shall be differentiated from historic window openings to avoid creating a false sense of history. This can be achieved by offsetting the horizontal placement of
the window compared to the historic window openings and differentiating the new window trim dimensions from the historic window trim. Staff have not received any public comments on this project. This concludes my presentation and I'm happy to stay for questions. The applicant who is also the property owner
is here today and would also like to make a presentation. Thank you for that report. Commissioners, are there questions for staff? Commissioner Wallace. >> Thank you. Uh, Miss K, I had one just clarifying question. Um, for the garage
sighting, did you say it was the historic um, district guidelines that stated that if the garage is taller than 11 ft, then it would have to have the same sighting. Was it the preservation guidelines or a different >> instead of chair? Commissioner Wallace, it's the zoning code requirement.
>> Great. Thank you, >> Commissioner Alexander. >> Thank you. Um, just it's a clarification, I guess. Are we not considering LP to be wood sighting? >> Chair Commissioner Alexander, in staff's
opinion, LP is an engineered wood and so we interpret that to be different from true wood. Thank you, >> Commissioner Malbum. >> Thank you, Chair Burember. Um, Miss Kay, I have a couple of questions and it is
all about the wood sighting. Um, are the homeowners going to have to remove all of the wood siding on the house? Is that the plan? Like, is it all rotted enough? >> Chair Bondberg, Commissioner Mel Bloom. Um you can certainly direct that
question to the property owners but my understanding in going through this project with them is that um they they have done their best to stabilize it and it their assessment of that it's just been failing throughout. >> Okay. And then I I was a little
confused. You said that previously the project had been approved for LP sighting but now it's not allowed to have LP sighting. Could you explain why it was okay previously and why it's not now just so I make sure I understand it clearly.
>> Chair Bernberg, Commissioner Melvin. Yes, absolutely. So, um the caveat being that I was not here at the time that the last application went went through, but in my reading of the record, um I believe that when staff prepared their staff report in 2019, they recommended
several conditions of approval, including that the wood sighting would need to be wood. And during the public hearing, the HBC chose to strike several conditions of approval that were recommended by staff, including that one. Um, and so the reason why staff
continue to recommend this condition of approval is because of the way the guidelines are written for this district. But isn't it also acceptable to use alternative materials if they are considered um
equivalent for lack of a better term? I can't get into my computer quickly enough. Um Commissioner Melbour, yes, there is a a line item in the design guidelines about alternative materials. My recollection off the top of my head is that it suggests it's more appropriate for secondary elevations or
second as a secondary material. Um but certainly that is open to your interpretation from from your perspective. >> Um if that's so would the two sides and the rear be considered secondary elevations? >> Obviously the front
>> Chair Burember Commissioner. Yes, the the sides and the rear elevation would be secondary elevations. Um, I will see if I can get my computer open correctly so that I can get the the true wording from the design guidelines. Okay, it's
open. Um, so this would be 8.13. Uh, do not use imitation materials as replacements in primary locations. And then there is a sub line item B. Alternative materials that convey a
character similar to the historic material will be considered in some secondary locations when replacement with the original is not feasible. They must have a similar finish and be proven durable in similar installations in Minneapolis. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Other questions for staff? >> Commissioner Curado. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh I have a couple questions as well. Uh one being In terms of replacement in kind with wood, does that include thermally modified woods like as long as the
original base material is wood? Chair Bernberg, Commissioner Curado, could you clarify this is question is about the features specifically what would be an inind replacement >> in terms of a material use is is wood
but not just say wood off a lumber wood but a heat a thermally modified wood which is my understanding is that it's a little bit more stable and therefore would withstand deterioration better knowing that the original material seems
to be suffering quite a Thank you for that clarification. Um, I am not familiar with the product that you are talking about. So, I'm going to look to Andrea Burke to see if she has an opinion to provide on this. >> Cheer Bernberg and Commissioner Curado,
Andrea Burke, supervisor for the historic preservation team in CPED. I'm going to also uh with Erin, I guess I'm not also familiar with that type. Um to that end I think that would be something we would have to look into to
see you know understand it a little bit better before I would feel comfortable probably making a recommendation on the das tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh second question, um the condition of the garage siding and
trim to match the housing house siding and trim if the new windows are recommended to be visibly different. Should the garage also follow the new trim dimensions or is it meant to fit the original trim dimensions?
>> Chair Bureick, Commissioner Kato. Um, so this this condition is written because of the need to comply with the zoning code and not the design guidelines. So if we were in a scenario that you would decide today that the siding on the
house needs to be wood, then we need the garage siding to also be wood and as they proposed it is LP, right? So if you were to adopt condition number one, but their proposal is for the garage of LP sighting, condition number three ensures
that that sighting matches. Um if you were to strike condition number one, um then as proposed, they're proposing LP for the house, LP for the garage. As proposed, it would be fine. And also keeping condition number three would be
fine because it's allowing what they proposed. So, it's it's different from the the window situation because we have another factor at play which is the zoning code requirements to allow that additional height on the garage.
I think I understand. So, if how do I phrase this? If we decide that wood is appropriate for the house but felt that perhaps some different material is appropriate for the garage that is not our purview but it is the purview of a different authority. Is
that correct, >> Chair Bombber? Commissioner Cra, if you were to do that, you're going to create a conflict with the zoning code, which would then require the property owner to either lower the height of the garage so that it could be a different sighting or
it could create other issues that are uh beyond mine and your purview. >> Thank you. >> Other questions for staff? Commissioner Alexander, >> uh, has the applicant verified or
confirmed that LP produces a sighting material that would match the historic profile. >> Chair Ber, Commissioner Alexander, thank you for asking that. Um, I believe that question will be best directed towards our applicant and property owner and I
believe they do have an answer for that. >> Thank you. Other questions for staff? >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, and I understand that the applicant is here. Um, please come to the microphone and state your name for
the record. >> There's two of us. >> There's uh Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Will Powell. My partner Sam Omen and I are the owners of 208 Fifth Avenue Southeast. We've lived in the Marcy Homes neighborhood since 2007 and are
committed to preserving the character of our home and this district. We support staff's report with two exceptions. We are asking the commission to strike conditions one and two and approve LP Smart Side for our siding, window trim, and trim corner boards on the house and
garage all at matching dimensions and profiles. We plan to retain the wood freezeboard and the wood brackets under the eaves. In 2019, this commission approved composite siding for our house and struck staff's wood only recommendation.
Rather than move forward with LP at the time, we decided to try to save the original wood siding and removing the asbestous tiles. We patched rotted and missing sections, completed a full lead paint abatement, and have now painted our house twice
since then due to paint failure and rot. Despite that investment, the finish continues to fail, peeling and chipping across the house due to nail holes from past asbestous siding and alterations, widespread cracking, and ongoing rot. Multiple contractors have assessed the
siding has deteriorated beyond repair and painting contractors will no longer warranty work on it. We went above and beyond to preserve the original material and it has not held. There is precedent on this commission. This body approved composite siding for our house in 2019
and has approved alternate materials on other homes in historic districts. The National Park Services updated preservation brief 16 also now allows substitute materials when the original is deteriorated beyond repair, provided they match the historic appearance.
Requiring wood would mean a significant increase in cost and ongoing maintenance burden for a product that will look the same as what this commission has already approved. We are looking at over 70,000 to replace the siding with wood plus ongoing maintenance. We've already spent roughly $30,000 trying to preserve the
exterior of our home. We've demonstrated through the years of effort that the original wood cannot be sustainably maintained on this house. LP Smart Side provides the same visual character with the durability this home needs. Thank you. We're happy to answer any
questions. >> Thank you for that presentation. Um, commissioners, are there questions for the applicant? Commissioner Malbum. >> Thank you, Chair Buremberg. Um, sir, are you
you have to the wood is rotted sufficiently that you have to replace all the wood on the house. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And to pick up on Commissioner Alexander's question, um the LP sighting
would match the existing um size and the basically the lap pattern for that's what's there is existing. >> You're referencing the reveal or the profile. Yeah, they don't make our reveal is around 5 and 1/4 in, 5 1/2 in
somewhere in there. They don't make that size. So, we've already talked to the contractor about milling every single board to match the existing reveal. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are there other questions for the applicant?
>> Commissioner Thomas. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I guess I have a similar question on the the trim, the wood features. Um, would they be able to replicate those exactly as well? Uh for the crown molding, you mean around the windows? >> Yes. >> Yep.
>> Thank you. >> I had a similar question um on number two. It sounded like that was one of the conditions that you were hoping would be um removed, but then you had also mentioned that some of these things would would still be replaced uh in kind with wood
>> if needed. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The we're calling them brackets, but they kind of look like corbals underneath the eaves, so we want to keep them if we can. Um, and then on the crown molding, uh, maintain as much as we can, but if it needs to be replaced, some of them are already known to be rotted. We just haven't assessed every
single window with the contractor. And I'm guessing some of that will be disturbed when they're redoing the siding. >> And that's the same thing where you do not necessarily want to replace it um with wood in kind. You're looking at a substitute material, but would have the same appearance.
>> Yes. >> Other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um there's no other members of the public here. So seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Uh commissioners, let's discuss. Any comments on the
application? Commissioner Malam. >> Thank you, Chair Burember. Um, I guess my sentiment would be that we should allow them to use the LP sighting at least for the back and the two sides
because that seems to be fully acceptable by the code. And I think if we're going to go that far, we should just let them do it on all four of the sides because I think it is actually a superior product to um
untreated wood. And I appreciated Commissioner Curado's comment asking about um uh thermally modified um wood sighting because that would also be uh a better product than just raw wood, yet
it is more expensive. So that's probably why that's not being considered. I'd be curious to have other commissioners weigh in on the idea of us allowing three sides or all four sides.
>> Thank you. I I will say I feel like um also knowing that this was already approved to be foursides in LP and that the applicant sort of went through that process but then was like, "Oh, we're going to see what we can save of this wood also makes me I think a little bit
more um willing to to say like all four sides. Other comments? Commissioner Wallace, >> I agree with both of you with the four sides for the reasons you described. Just reiterating that point.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Commissioner Smith, >> I also agree uh and further more of the commitment to the homeowners of customizing the dimensions to fit um the overall aesthetic of what is currently there just is um something we can't
ignore and and I think it will help maintain the spirit of the home. >> Thank you for that. Yeah, that was a good point to make. Other comments andor Commissioner Alexander. Yeah, just to piggyback on that because that was my
initial thought because I've done a lot of projects with LP and they it is a very different scale of sighting which I think would impact kind of that character. Um and had they not been willing to kind of make that I mean and that's a pretty big
undertaking to to um mill down all of those boards. Um, again, I think just demonstrating their commitment to the sort of preservation of this the identity um of this historic district. Um, and so I think that also for me is
kind of the the the selling point that that allows me to kind of agree and approve all four sides. So, thank you. >> Thank you for that. Uh, Commissioner Curado, >> just to play devil's advocate, I guess.
Sorry. I guess my concern with all these composite newer materials is that it's almost a little too perfect. And my concern, I guess, with historic properties is that does it always feel like it's just brand new? Um, I mean,
they do age, I guess, but feels a little bit like a dollhouse. I wish they had a little bit of scuffing on it. Maybe it gets pretty scuffed. I don't know. But um but I I I do um thank
the homeowners for doing their best and all that effort both time and financial to take care of their home. And um yeah, very much empathize with all of the pain that must have been going through to go through this knowing that it was approved and having to come back again
and ask permission again. Um, also a little bit swayed by the fact that I feel like the garage shouldn't be held so tightly because of a zoning law, but you know, laws exist for a reason and it is what it is. So, hey, to have
that sway, but um, there's that, too. So, thank you. >> Thank you for that. Does anybody have thoughts on the condition number two? I feel like we've talked about condition one. Commissioner Melb. Yeah, I was sitting here thinking to myself how we
should treat that. And I would suggest that we say wood features such as trim around doors and windows, quarterboard, sophets, facing brackets underneath, shy placed um with LP
uh striking in kind with LP sighting features with LP of the same dimension and profile when shown to beyond repair. leaving in the following sentence, but then adding a sentence that says something to the effect of if LP is not
available for specific items, they were replaced with they were replaced with wood products. So that addresses the ability to try and keep in the same family of products except where maybe with some of the more
fancier pieces they may not be available. And again, we we've done that in my work, so that seems logical. >> Thank you for that. Would that be the same as striking the condition?
>> Um, no. I think I would just I would in my mind it's rewarding it slightly because I think we want to leave in the direction that if something isn't available in the specific item that that could that
should be wood. It shouldn't be because I don't want it to be like fine or something. Other thoughts from other commissioners?
Commissioner Rodriguez. Um, I just want to voice my thinking which is conflicted. I feel a little stymied by the guidelines, but I fully appreciate uh the effort that has gone on here. So,
I'm a little torn and I just wanted to express that. I think maybe um yeah because I feel like the the guidelines are clear but this is a is a case where
a real effort has been made. Um and I do appreciate that. That's all. >> Thank you for the comments. >> Any other thoughts, comments? Commissioner Curado, >> I guess going back to Commissioner Melbone's comment. If the if the
application stated that the intent of the all the trim sophets facing brackets is to be using LP, can we strike the condition? Yeah, I think that that was sort of my question, but I think that the point
that Commissioner Melbourne was trying to hoping to make um and maybe this is something that we could ask staff for advice on of if the applicant has in their application packet to be replacing it with LP and then it wasn't available,
would they have to be coming back for advice for a a sustain or not a sustainable uh like a substitute material. >> Uh comm uh chair Bjornberg. Um yes. So when they come through the permitting
stage, we've we've had this happen many times. So sometimes when they get to the permitting stage, and that could be in two weeks, it could be in a year and a half. Um and there may be an issue with material. Sometimes they may know at the permitting stage and we'll bring that to
our attention and then we work with them on something to meet the conditions or the project or our guidelines or our code and determine if it meets if it falls within the purview of that application. We can usually work with
them on an alternative and approve it through the permit without having to bring it back to the HPC. Sometimes this also happens post permit and then it's basically the same process. We we work with them and sometimes we have to issue a new permit or sometimes we make a
note. It it it varies cuz sometimes, you know, we'll have situations where it is not this case, but we I know you have seen many times where there's an intent to rehab the sighting, but once you pull off maybe a covering sighting and the
sighting ends up being absolutely rotted through and then we figure out what alternatives are that still meet the conditions in the application without having to bring it back to HPC as the first line of defense and then we
kind of go from there. So, thank you. >> Yeah, thank you for that clarification. Does Does that help Commissioner Mum? >> It does. And um given that, I would like to make a motion.
um that the uh the Heritage Preservation Commission approves the recom the commission preservation application to make exterior alterations including replacement sighting, adding two windows on the house and building a new garage on the property located at 208 5th
Avenue Southeast in the St. Anthony Falls Heritage Historic District subject to the following conditions. One wood siding and I would insert the words and features shall be replaced with taking
out inkind with wood siding or excuse me LP siding products striking the word wood and match the lap and profile of the original sighting. I would strike um number two and I would leave in number
three and four as um written. Thank you, Commissioner Melbam. Is there a second? Uh I think I know a question you're gonna ask uh staff. Yeah. Thank you, Cher Bernberg. I can I'm I'm still a little
confused. Um so is it and I'll turn to Aaron too to maybe help. I just want to make sure I understand. So you want to leave the first condition but say that it would be replaced with LP
um instead of striking both conditions. >> Correct. >> I think the question is if Sorry. Go ahead. >> Oh, I was going to say yes because staff have recommended that it be would. So, if we're going to disagree with staff, I
think we need need to clearly articulate what we're disagreeing with. I mean, do you believe that we would get to the same result if we just strike one and two? >> Chair Bjurn and Commissioner. Yeah, I I would and I'll I would ask Aaron K to
confirm because the applicants have asked for LP and the conditions are to condition that the project can go through, but we're asking would instead of LP. So if you strike the conditions, the applicant would get their project as proposed with just the added two, three,
and four. if you leave those conditions, you know, stating that the siding and the trim shall match um the material of the house, which I think is still something that's being proposed. I'm going to turn to Aaron for confirmation and then just some of the additional conditions about the window opening. So,
let me pause for a moment and I guess with the chair's permission turn it to Aaron K. >> Yeah, Chair Bjornberg, Commissioner Melbum. Yes, I agree with Andrea's summary. So the applicant proposed LP for the siding and the wood features,
replacement of the wood features. So uh in my opinion adding or revising condition one to say it can be replaced with LP is somewhat redundant because that is already what they are asking for. >> Okay. Then I would restate my motion
to strike both um conditions one and two and to retain commission conditions three and four. >> Thank you, Commissioner Malum. Is there a second? Masten seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Masten. Any
further discussion? Seeing none, would the clerk call the role? >> Commissioner Alexander. I >> Booty. >> I >> Curado. >> I >> Melbourne. >> I >> Rodriguez.
>> I >> Smith. >> I >> Thomas. >> I >> Wallace. >> I >> Vice Chair Masten >> I. >> Chair Buenberg. >> I. >> There are 10 eyes. >> Thank you. That motion passes. And that
concludes our public hearing items. Do staff have announcements? Yes, Chair Bjornberg. Um, I know I already introduced, but Andrea Burke, supervisor for the historic preservation team in CEPAD. First want to start off announcements by welcoming Paris Smith um, our newest commissioner to finally
round out our commission this year. Very happy to have you. Thank you so much for joining us uh this evening. Um, so uh just wanted to call that out. Um, also wanted to mention that a project that you heard back in September
uh came back to the biz committee today. Uh, and it is the demolition of the cook house uh which is a designated landmark and um that just as a quick recap um that had gotten appealed. That appeal back in the fall had gotten continued.
At that point, uh, the applicant extended their 15 state statute 1599 um, decision-making period uh, for 6 months um, until May 20th. And so we had come to the part in the regulatory
process where that needed to come before this the council and the the committee to get a a vote based on um, that timeline. But I would just say today at the biz committee um the item was continued to the April 28th biz
committee meeting. So there is not a decision at this time. Um but that will be taken up again by the biz committee on discussion. Well I'm going to presume on discussion. I don't actually know. Um on April 28th which is a Tuesday.
Commissioner I chair Buenberg and Commissioner Maloo. May I ask which project does the cook house remind us because I don't >> uh chair Bjorn and Commissioner Melbourne. This is 948th Avenue Northeast. It is a landmark property um
that was uh one of our last certificates of approp well not really this was in September but a certificate of appropriateness under our old code uh that had come through back in the fall um was appealed. um the HPC had denied the demolition and then the property owner
appealed it to the city council. So um as under 1599 we have so many days to make a decision on it unless the applicant uh gives the city an extension on that and in this case they did. Um so that we are still under that
decisionmaking period which would expire in May. Um and so this uh demolition comes up again on the 28th. Yeah. Um another item, our HPC special meeting,
also called a retreat, is coming up in a little less than a month on May 7th. That is a Thursday afternoon. That is from 3:00 p.m. to roughly 6:00 p.m. Um I did not receive any requests for topics. Um but that's okay. staff always has a
list of them and so um you will be seeing materials for these like normal um as well as some communication from me. As of right now the location we have moved it from the public service building since there are areas of the public service building that are no longer accessible to the public. So, we
have made um a location change to this floor on this building and right now we're proposing it to be down the hall in the overflow room if we can make that space work out. So, just as a heads up, you'll hear some more from me, but right
now that is the plan for the HPC retreat on Thursday, May 7th at 3 p.m. And as just I know I maybe mentioned it this before, but there are two of these a year. Commissioner Smith and they're usually we hold them around May and November.
And then the last item I can't get answers on tonight and I know um I had spoken with you Commissioner Rodriguez about this earlier but um wanted to say so NAPC um forum registration is open and what I want to do I know I had sent
out a message earlier before registration but now it's open earlier bird registration ends on May 8th. Um, I'm I'm wrangling a lot of the registrations and tickets and getting a sense of who is
interested, who um I guess one I'm interested and I will send this in a message because I think it's it's not something I can probably expect you on the fly at this moment to give me an answer on, but um I would be interested in getting a headcount of everyone that's interested in going as well. Um
just as a as a notice to everybody, we are organization, we have a membership because we are the host city. Um and so we are as an organization a member of NAPC and that includes um staff and HBC commissioners. Um and then also um if
there is anybody who is planning to attend through their organization if that is something that is available to them and if it is not something that is available to you through your organization of employment or otherwise um who is not and also interested in
going because I believe we will have options to help you attend. Um and I am I'm organizing all of that right now. Um, so look for a message from me very soon either tonight or probably tomorrow to get some some information from that
from you. Now that concludes my updates, I guess. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Do commissioners have any announcements? Okay, with that we have completed all items on the agenda for this meeting.
There being no other business and without objection, I'll declare the meeting adjourned and the next regular meeting of the HPC is April 28th, 2026. Thanks.