>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I CALL TO ORDER THE MARCH 18, 2025, REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEAPOLIS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS MARAIS 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 WHEN SPEAKING AT THE DAIS OR GIVING TESTIMONY. WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL SO WE MAY VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. >> COUNCIL MEMBER ALEXANDER. >> PRESENT. >> BOOTE. >> PRESENT. >> HERR.
>> PRESENT. >> KARATO IS ABSENT. MELLBLOM. >> PRESENT. >> THOMAS. >> PRESENT. >> WALLACE. >> PRESENT. >> RODRIGUEZ IS ABSENT. VICE CHAIR MASTIN. >> PRESENT. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG.
>> PRESENT. >> THERE ARE EIGHT MEMBERS PRESENT. >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE DO HAVE QUORUM AND THAT COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ PROVIDED NOTICE THAT THEY HAD A CONFLICT THIS AFTERNOON AND THEIR ABSENCE IS EXCUSED. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINES IS TO ADOPT THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING.
WE WILL WORK FROM THE AGENDA PROVIDED BY THE CLERK AND GO THROUGH AND SORT OUT WHICH ITEMS LL BE DISCUSSED AND WHICH ITEMS WILL BE PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS 4724 EMERSON
AVENUE SOUTH WARD 13. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF COMMENDATION.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS 200 3rd AVENUE NORTH WARD THREE, THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND ITEM NUER FIVE WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS CHAPTER 599 ORDINANCE REVISIONS SECOND DRAFT ALL WARDS. ITEM NUMBER SIX WILL BE DISCUSSED. SO THE PROPOSED AGENDA IS THE
CONSENT AGENDA WILL INCLUDE ITEM NUMBER 4, 4724 EMERSON AVENUE SOUTH WARD 13, AND ITEM FIVE 200 3rd AVENUE NORTH WARD THREE.
IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC TH WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THESE ITEMS? HEARING NO OOSITION TO PLACING THESE ITEMS ON CONSENT, WE WILL APPROVE THESE CONSENT ITEMS IN ONE MOTION AT T START OF THE MEETING. THE FOLLOWING ITEM WILL HAVE STAFF PRESENTATION AND
COMMISSION DISCUSSION WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING, ITEM NUMBER SIX, CHAPTER 599 ORDINAN REVISION SECOND DRAFT ALL WARDS. COMMISSIONERS, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA? >> MASTIN SO MOVES.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MASTIN. IS THERE A SECOND? >> I SECOND. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WALLACE. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] >> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? ANY ABSTENTIONS?
THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. OUR NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS WILL BE TO APPROVE THE MINUTESROM OUR MARCH 4, 25, MEETING. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES. >> MELLBLOM MOVES TO APPROVE.
>> THANK YO IS THERE A SECOND? >> HERR SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HERR. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF ES] >> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? ANY ABSTENTIONS?
THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. BEFORE I OPEN THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, LET ME SUMMARIZE THE PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING. FIRST WE WILL ACT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA JUST SET. ONCE THE CONSENT AGENDA IS
APPROVED, THOSE ITEMS ARE APPROVED AND APPLICANTS CAN CONTACT STAFF TOMORROW FOR NEXT STEPS. AFTER, WE WILL TAKE THE REMAINING AGENDA ITEM, STAFF WILL PRESENT ITS REPORT AND COMMISSIONERS MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, ITEM NUMBER 4, 4724 EMERSON AVENUE SOUTH WARD 13,
AND ITEM FIVE, 200 3rd AVENUE NORTH WARD THREE. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO OPPOSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO OPPOSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THESE ITEMS? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLO THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS? >> SO MOVED. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? >> THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION?
SEEING NONE, THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CRUS OF AYES] >> ANY ABSTENTIONS? THESE ITEMS ARE APPROVED. APPLICANTS MAY CONCT PLANNING STAFF ABOUT NEXT STEPS. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER
SIX, CHAPTER 599 ORDINANCE REVISIONS SECOND DRAFT ALL WARDS. THE STAFF MEMO IS PRESENTED BY
ROB SKALECKI.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. TODAY I AM BRINGING FORWARD WHAT WE ARE CALLING THE SECOND DRAFT OF CHAPTER 599. THE FIRST ONE THAT WE MIGHT REFER TO WAS THE ONE THAT COMMISSIONERS HAD THE CHANCE TO
REVIEW BACK IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR. SINCE THAT POINT, STAFF HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A LOT OF CHANGES BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK AND FEEDBACK FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. WE'RE EXCITED TO BRING ANOTHER DRAFT FORWA FOR YOU TODAY AND
OF COURSE YOU'VE ALL HAD TIME TO REVIEW THAT WITH THE ATTACHMENT AND THE STAFF MEMO. I JUST WANT TO GIVE A BRIEF CKGROUND JUST TO KIND OF REITERATE HOW WE GOT TO THIS
POINT OF REWRITING THE ORDINANCE HERE. AS YOU ALL KNOW IN 1972 THE CITY ADOPTED THE LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE TO ENCOURAGE THE DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT TO THE CITY'S BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURAL
HERITAGE. SO OVER 50 YEARS, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DESIGNATE 20 HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND OVER 195 INDIVIDUAL LANDMARKS THROUGH A PROGRAM RELATED TO THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. SO SINCE THE EARLY 70s, WE'VE HAD SOME VERSION OF A LOCAL
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE IN LOCAL LAW. OUR PROGRAM IS A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SO IT'S A MUNICIPALITY THAT'S DEMONSTRATED A COMMITMENT TO PRESERVEISTORY AND WE HAVE CERTAIN THINGS WE
HAVE TO ADHERE TO WHEN LOOKING AT HOW WE WRITE OUR ORDINANCE AND WHAT STANDARDS WE ABI BY. AND AS YOU ARE ALL AWARE PROBABLY AFTER SAYING THIS MANY TIMES OVER THE PAST YEAR, IT'S TITLE 23, CHAPTER 59 THE LOCAL
HERITAGE PRESERVATION IT'S LOCAL PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND THAT'S WHAT ADMINISTERS OUR PRESERVATION PROGRAM. THAT'S WHAT ALLOWS FOR THE HPC TO OPERATE AS IT DOES AND CHAPTER 599 WAS NOT COMPREHENSIVELY UPDATED SINCE 2001. SO THERE HAVE BEEN MINOR CHANGES
SINCE THAT TIME, BUT NOT COMPLETELY LOOKED AT AND CHANGES LOOKED AT SINCE 2001. SO SINCE 2001, AS WE ARE ALL AWARE PRACTICES AND PROCESSES IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION HAVE
CHANGED. SO ALL OF CHAPTER 599 AS PART OF THIS PROJE IS PROPOSED TO BE REPEALED AND REPLACED IN ITS ENTIRETY. SO THERE'S SOME ARTICLES THAT YOU HAVE ALREADYEEN THAT REMAIN PRETTY SIMILAR IF NOT
EXACTLY THE SAME T WHAT WAS WRITTEN WITH SOME MINOR REVISIONS. AND SOME SECTIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY REORGANIZEND HAD REWRITTEN HERE. SO OUR STAFF MEMO THAT WAS SENT OUT FOR YOUR REVIEW DETAILS A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS WE ARE PROPING DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS
AND IT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS WHAT WAS ADDITIONALLY CONSIDERED FOR CHANGES WHEN WE WERE REWRITING THE TEXT. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, ON OCTOBER 22, 2024, STAFF BROUGHT
THIS FIRST DRAFT FOR YOUR COMMENTS. SO A LOT OF YOUR COMMENTS WERE USED IN FORMULATING CHANGES. WE DID INCLUDE IN THE MEMO AS YOU SAW BASICALLY THE SAME KIND OF DRAFT THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH IN OCTOBER, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME AREAS WITH STRIKE
THROUGHS AND THOSE AREAS ARE LOCATIONS THAT HAVE SINCE CHANGED. SO WHATEVER STAFF HAD BROUGHT TO YOU BEFORE, PARTS OF THAT HAVE CHANGED AND WE DO NOTE THAT IN OUR NOTES ON PAGES BELOW IN THE MEMO. SO WE'VE ALSO ADDRESSED THESE
OTHER CHANGES. BOTH AGAIN THROUGH STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS FROM HPC COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AS OTHER STAFF, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, A HANDFUL OF EXTERNAL PRESERVATION STAKEHOLDERS. SO THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO
THE DOCUMENT SINCE OCTOBER WERE OUTLINED IN THE STAFF MEMO AND ITEMS. SO THE FIRST ONE AND I THINK THE LARGEST SCALE CHANGE AT LEAST THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A LOT RECENTLY IS TT
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION APPLICATIONS ARE NO LONGER SUPPOSED TO BE DIVIDED INTO TWO APPLICATIONS SO THAT WAS A LARGER CHANGE THAT WE HAD BROUGHT FORWARD INITILY IN OCTOBER TO DIVIDE WHAT IS CURRENTLY ONE ADMINISTRATE PRESERVATION APPLICATION, A CERTIFICATE OF NO CHANGE INTO
TWO APPLICATIONS, ONE THAT WOULD FUNCTION VERY SIMILARLY TO A CERTIFICATE OF NO CHANGE, AND ONEHAT WOULD BE A BIT OF A HIGHER TIER AND REQUIRE A FEE, AND FOR LARGER SCALE PROJECTS THAT HAVE A CHANCE OF AECTING GREATER MATERIALS. THAT IS WHAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU IN OCTOBER.
SINCE THEN STAFF WITH A LOT OF INTERNAL CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND OTHER PLANNING STAFF HAVE REALIZED THAT THE BEST ROUTE TO GO FORWARD HERE IS GOING TO BE ONE ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION, BUT
ALLOWING STAFF THE ABILITY TO REVIEW CHANGES JUST WITHIN RMIT REVIEW. SO MANY CHANGES THAT ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWED THROUGH A CERTIFICATE OF NO CHANGE WILL NOW ONLY REQUIRE PERMIT REVIEW, SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A SEPARATE PRESERVATION APPLICATION NEEDED FOR KIND OF
THAT LOWEST TIER OF PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY REVIEW THROUGH A CERTIFICATE OF NO CHANGE. THIS FOLLOWS ALONG WITH HOW A LOT OF OTHER SECTIONS OF CPED DO REVIEW BUILDING PERMITS TO
COMPLY WITH ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODE DEPENDING ON THE STAFF. SO THIS NEW PROCESS HAS BEEN THOUGHT UP TO TRY TO REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING TIMES BOTH FOR ALICANTS AND FOR STAFF. AND HOPEFULLY TO ALLOW FOR THE PRODUCTS THAT WILL HAVE THOSE
GREATER IMPAS, POTENTIAL GREATER IMPACTS I SHOULD SAY ON HISTORIC PROPERTIE TO STILL HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. SO WE'RE KEEPINGONE ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION, WE'RE KEEPING THAT HAVING A FEE SO ESSENTIALLY THAIS GOING TO TAKE PLACE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
APPLICATION PRESERVATIONOO THAT YOU ALL SAW IN OCTOBER. BUT INSTEAD OF HAVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION APPLICATION ONE, IT WOULD JUST BE STAFF'S PERMIT REVIEW THERE. ANOTHER ITEM I KNOW COMMISSIONERS COMMENTED ON LAST
TIME WE BROUGHT THIS FORWARD IS JUST THAT AT THE TIME WE THOUGHT OF THE NAMES ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION APPLICATION ONE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION APPLICATION TWO TO NAME THO APPLICATIONS. I THINK THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS AT THAT TIME MAYBE UNSURE IF
THOSE WERE THE BEST NAMES. SO WE ARE REQUESTING AGAIN THAT IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THE NAMES AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN, ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION APPLICATION AND COMMISON PRESERVATION APPLICATION, WE'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.
THE SECOND CHANGE THAT WE NOTED IN THE MEMBER IS THAT THE HISTORIC VARIANCE TOOL IS ACTUALLY BEING RENAMED TO A HISTORIC EXCEPTION. THIS IS TO DIFFERENTIATE THIS TOOL, THE HISTORIC VARIANCE AS WE'VE KNOWN IT FOR DECADES NOW
FROM A ZONING VARIANCE. SO THE ZONING TERM VARIANCE H A VERY STRICT DEFINITION AND THERE ARE POSSIBLE LEGAL ISSUES THAT COME WITH THAT TERM BEING APPLIED TO HOW IT'S USED FOR A HISTORIC VARIANCE AS WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND IT. SO THE GUIDANCE THERE W THAT
WE CAN KEEP THE TOOL AS IT EXISTS SO ALLOW THE VARIANCE TO STILL BE USED AS WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND IT TO BE. BUT IT WOULD HAVE THIS DIFFERENT NAME WHICH IS THE HISTORIC
CEPTION. THE THIRD ITEM IS THE FINDINGS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSE PLAN HAVE BEEN ADDED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMISSION PRESERVATION APPLICA. WITH DISCUSSION INTERNALLY, WE REALIZED IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THOSE BACK IN. SO THOSE ARE PLACED BACK IN THE FINDINGS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMISSION APPLICATIONS.
AND THE FOURTH ONE HERE IS THAT SECTIONS OF CODE HAVE BEEN REMOVED WHERE LANGUAGE IS OBSOLETE OR ALTERED OR OUTDATED. SO THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO KIND OF THE CLEANING UP THAT WE DID IN THE PREVIOUS DRAFT. BUT THERE ARE FEW AREAS THAT WERE NOTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND MAYBE
OTHER STAFF THAT COULD BE CHANGED TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH CURRENT LANGUAGE AS WELL AS MORE IN LINE WITH ZONING LANGUAGE WHERE APPLICABLE JUST TO BE UP TO DATE ANDONSISTENT WHERE NEEDED. THE FIFTH ITEM SO STAFF
EXPANDED AND CLARIFIED FINDINGS FOR THE APPLICATION FOR DELITION OF DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. SO WE HAVE ADDED LANGUAGE AND CLARIFIED THAT A PROPERTY HOW A
PRERTY COULD BE DENIED AND STUDIED FOR INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK STATUS AS THIS COMES UP. THIS MAY OCCUR IF WE HAVE A PROPERTY PLANNED FOR DEMOLITION WITHIN AN ALREADY DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE EXAMPLE WE TUGHT OF IS ST. ANTHONY FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT
IS VERY LARGE WITH SOME NONCONTRIBUTING RESOURCES. SOME OF THOSE NONCONTRIBUTING RESOURCES COULD BE FOR EXAMPLE A MODERN O POST MODERN SIGNIFICANCE WHICH WOULDN'T BE CAPTURED UNDER THE PERIOD SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE DISTRICT.
WE'VE ADDED TO STUDY FOR INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK STATUS PROPERTIES LIKE THAT THAT ARE ALREADY RECOGNIZED BUT MAY BE RECOGNIZED FOR A DIFFERENT SIGNIFICANCE WHERE THECOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK STATUS. THE SIXTH ONE HERE IS WE ADDED TEXT TO CLARIFY THE DEMOLITION
OF DESIGNATED PROPERTY APPLICATION THAT THAT IS THE ONE THAT IS NEEDED TO AUTHORIZE THE DEMOLITION OF A PROPERTY THAT IS UNDER INTERIM PROTECTION. SO WHEN PROPERTIES ARE UNDER INTERIM PROTECTN AND BEING STUDIED, IF A PROPERTY WOULD WANT TO PROPOSE A DEMOLITION OF THAT, WE CLARIFIED THAT IT WOULD
BE THE DEMOLITION OF DESIGNATE PROPERTY APPLICATION THAT WOULD BE SUBMITTED AT THAT POINT. SO THAT WAS JUST KIND OF TYING UP AN AREA THAT WAS AN UNCERTAINTY OF WHICH APPLICATION WOULD BE SUBMITTED IN THAT SITUATION. AND THE LAST TWO ITEMS HERE I
BELIEVE, SO THE SEVENTH ITEM IS KEEPING DISTRICTS DESIGNATED BY STATE LAW AND IN THE DEFINITION OF HISTORIC DISTRICT, SO THAT FALLS BACK ON ONE OF THE ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD IN OCTOBER AS SOMETHING WE WERE ACTUALLY GOIN.
SO THE ONLY DISTRICT THIS APPLIES TO IS VICTORY MEMORIAL DRIVE. THAT IS A STATE DISTRICT THAT WE HAD BEEN REVIEWING ALTERATIONS TO AND MAKING EVALUATION TO DESIGN CHAES THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES. WE DO STILL HAVE THAT ABILITY AND THAT WAS KINDF A LONG
DISCUSSION ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WANTED TO KEEP THAT IN THERE.UL THAT WE WOULD KEEP THAT SECTION IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DEFINITION SO THAT DISTRICTS UNDER STATE LAW COULD STILL BE
REGULATED. THEN FOR THE EIGHTH POINT, WE ADDED TEXT FOR AMENDMENTS AND DESIGNATIONS. AND WITHINESIGNATION AMENDMENTS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OUR TEAM HAS BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT INTERNALLY. SO AS WRITTEN IN THE CURRENT
DRAFT OF 599, WE DO DETAIL CHANGES FOR CONTRIBUTING, NONCONTRIBING RESOURCES, WHAT ROUTES EACH OF THOSE HAVE TO GO ROUGH TO HAVE THOSE ITEMS FORMALLY CHANGED OR ADOPTED WITHIN A DESIGNATION.
SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS SEEKING FINAL FEEDBACK FROM THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ON THE FORMATTING CONTENT OF THIS SECOND DRAFT. WE DID ACTUALLY SEND THE SAME DRAFT THAT YOU RECEIVED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFE ON FRIDAY. WE GOT COMMENTS BACK YESTERDAY
NOTING THAT THEY WERE OKAY ESSENTIALL WITH EVERYTHING THAT THE CHANGES WERE MADE. SO WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY CONCERNS FROM THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THAT.
FOLLOWING YOUR COMMENTS TODAY, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO MAKE SURE THE CLERK'S OFFICE CAN HAVE FINAL READING AND MAKE SURE THAT MAKES SENSE AND RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK FROM THEM AS WELL. AND THEN THE FINAL DRAFT WOULD COME BACK TO YOU, HPC, WITH A SN
SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD VOTE ON AND EVENTUALLY FROM THAT POINT IT WOULD GO ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH THE COUNCIL PROCESS AND EVENTUALLY BE SIGNED BY THE MAYOR AND PUBLHED. AND THAT IS TBD, WE'RE NOT EXACTLY SURE WHEN WE CAN GET THAT ON A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE FOR HPC.
BUT WE'RE HOPING SOMETIME THIS SUMMER IF NOT LATE SPRING DEPENDING ON WHERE IT GOES. WITH THAT, A FEW THINGS TO MENTION, I KNOW WE HAD A SPECIFIC QUESTION BACK HERE FOR COMMISSIONERS IF YOU WANT TO
WEIGH IN ON THAT FIT. ALSO WE DID GET COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ WHO IS ABSENT CURRENTLY, JUST A FEW POINTS THAT COULD BE DISCUSSED AS WELL. SO WIT THAT, WE AS STAFF ARE OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS, BUT HAPPY AND I GUE EXCITED TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS AS WELL ON
THIS SECOND DRAFT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. I HAVE A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS SO SORRY IF EVERYBODY GETS STUCK NOW BEHIND ME.
THAT'S WHY I SAT QUIETLY. MR. SKALECKI, DO YOU HAVE THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS SENT TO US THAT WE PUT UP SO WE COULD KIND OF SEE WHAT I'M REFERRING TO.
IT WAS THE MEMORANDUM THAT YOU SENT DATED MARCH 18TH TO THE HPC ABOUT THE SECOND DRAFT FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, UNFORTUNATELY ION'T HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW TO BRING UP DIRECTLY ON THE SCREEN.
I DO HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME THOUGH TO REFERENCE AND I'M SURE MANY COMMISSIONERS DO AS WELL. >> OKAY. SO ON PAGE THREE, ITEM SIX, YOU REFERRED TO REMOVING SECTIONS OF CODE THAT ARE RARELY OR NO
LONGER UTILIZED IN PARTICULAR TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RATES IN CONSERVATION DISTRICTS WHICH SEEMS LIKE THAT MAKES SENSE IF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN USED WHY ARE THEY IN THERE? BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU'VE GOTTEN ANY FEEDBACK OR PUSHBACK
ON REMOVING THEM FROM ANYBODY? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBL, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. AND THAT IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED A LOT INTERNALLY FOR MORE SO THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ITEM.
SO I THINK WE UNDERSTANDHAT THAT WAS AN INITIATIVE THAT WAS DEVELOPED OVER TEN YEARS AGO NOW. AND AT THE TIME IT WAS A PRETTY LARGE UNDERTAKING TO KIND OF DEVISE THIS NEW TOOL. SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT REMOVING
IT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE TOOK LIGHTLY. IT WAS AOT OF DISCUSSIONS THAT WE BROUGHT IN. ULTIMATELY, AND I BELIEVE WE MAY HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST TOO ABOUT KIND OF STAFF'S REASONING FOR THIS, A CONSERVATION DISTRICT HAS NOT
BEEN ADOPTED IN THE DECADE THAT IT HAS BEEN A TOOL. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE TOOL IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO KIND OF GRASP AND UNDERSTAND AS WELL AS STAFF AS WELL.
SO TO DESIGNATE A CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THEN TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR THAT AND RULES FOR THAT CONSERVATION DISTRICT, IT IS A VERYHALLENGING TASK
AND IN THE END -- >> I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT. I AGREE WITH YOU, BOTH OF THESE AS AN ARCHITECT HAVING LOOKED AT EM, THEY'RE BOTH REALLY COMPLICATED. MY QUESTION WAS JUST HAVE YOU GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM ANYBODY THAT HAS SAID DON'T GET RID OF
THAT OR HAS BASICALLY THE WORLD BEEN MUTE ON THIS? >> SURE, INITIALLY I THINK WE HAD SOME PUSHBACK, BUT IN DISCUSSIONS THAT'S WHERE KIND OF OUR REASONING WAS DISCUSSED AND I THINK EVEUALLY THERE REALLY
WASN'T A WHOLE LOT OF FINAL PUSHBACK ON GETTING RID OF THESE TOOLS. BUT IF COMMISSIONERS THINK OTHERWISE OR HAVE KIND OF OTHER COMMENTS THAT THEY WANT T PROVIDE, WE'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR THOSE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. , IT MAKES SENSE TO ME TO GET RID OF SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE AREN'T USING THA IT FEELS
OVERLY COMPLICATED. ON PAGE FOUR, ITEM C, NUMBER TWO, IT SAYS THE REQUIREMENT TO BE A POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE DOES NOT APPLY T COUNCIL MEMBERS OR THE MAYOR MAY DIRECTLY SUBMIT A NOMINATION TO
CPED STAFF. WHY IS THAT? WHY DO THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT MECHANISM THAN JOE CITIZEN? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION THAT WE DISCUSSED AT
LENGTH INTERNALLY. I THINK I'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM OTHER STAFF ON THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THIS, BUT IF WE DO HAVE ELECTED OFFICIALS SEEKING NOMINATION, I THINK THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ELECTED
OFFICIALS KIND OF MAKES THE THE SPEAKER ON BEHALF OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS FOR THAT. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED KIND OF AT LENGTH. IS THIS THE CORRECT WAY TO GO AND ULTIMATELY WE THOUGHT IT
STILL PROVIDES FOR PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO RECEIVE THAT POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE DETERMINATION IF THEY'RE NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. SO WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE
SITUATIONS WHERE IT WILL BE AN EQUITABLE APPROACH BETWEEN WHO IS AE TO SUBMIT A NOMINATION HERE. >> I'LL JUST -- >> CAN I ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT SAME ITEM? >> GO AHEAD. >> CAN YOU JUST REMIND ME, SO IS
THERE A REASON THAT HPC MEMBERS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT?
>> I THINK -- AND YOU'LL HAVE TO FORGIVE ME AS WELL, WITH ALL OF THESE DRAFTS WE'RE GOING THROUGH, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER -- IF ANDREA BURKE WANTS TO FIELD THIS ONE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> THANK YO CHAIR BJORNBERG.
SORRY, I'M GOING TO USE THE KLEENEX, I THINK MY LITTLE RED FLAG IS MISSING BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IF I'M HEARING COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM CORRECTLY, REGARDING THE POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE DETERMINED PRIOR TO NOMINATION
AND WHY ARE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR EXCLUDED FM THAT VERSUS THE OTHER FOLKS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE LIST THAT HAVE TO RECEIVE THAT DETERMINATION FIRST BEFORE BEING ABLE TO SUBMIT A NOMINATION. IT WAS RECOMMENDED INTERNALLY BY
OTHER MEMBERS OF STAFF SIMILAR TO WHAT ROB HAD SAID, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ELECTED OFFICIAL TO GIVE THEM THE GREATEST EASE OF OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO I WOULD SAY FAST TRACK AN ITEM BASED ON CONSTITUENT INTEREST OR
POLITICAL INTEREST, AND TO REMOVE THAT PRE-STEP FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS BUT NOT FOR THE HPC OR FOR THPUBLIC. SO THAT WAS MORE OR LESS THE
REASONING BEHIND IT, BUT IT WAS INTENTIONAL BEING PUT IN THER THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> DO YOU MIND IF I JUST ADD AS ONE FOLLOW UP TO THAT, IN ORDER
TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE THRESHOLD FOR THE FAST TRACKING, IS THERE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY PROVE THAT IT'S A CONSTITUENT-LED REQUEST OR IS IT MORE UP TO THEIR DISCRETION AS ELECTED OFFICIALS?
>> CHAIR BJORNBERG AND COMMISSI THEIR DISCRETION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> YEAH, AND SO FOR BASED ON THE CONVERSATION WE'VE JUST HEARD, I WOULD SAY I AM COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO IT.
I THINK THAT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AEADY HAVE A VERY LARGE PODIUM TO BE ABLE TO INUENCE THINGS AND THIS JUST GIVES THEM A SLIGHTLY LARGER PODIUM AND FRANKLY IF IT'S ALL THAT IMPORTANT, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THEY CAN'T MARSHALL
THE RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO GET PEOPLE TO DO THIS. NOT WANTINGO GET OVERLY POLITICAL, BUT WATCHING WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL, IT MAKES ME QUESTION THE ABILITY TO BE ABUSE PROCESSES AND I COULD EASILY SEE
SOMEBODY SUBMITTING A WHOLE BUNCH OF THESE BECAUSE IT'S VERY EASY FOR THEM TO DO SOMETHING AND GUMMING U THE PROCESS. SO IT FEELS LIKE HAVING ONE SET OF RULES THAT APPLIES TO EVERYBODY IS ACTUALLY A BETTER PROCESS, I THINK, FOR US TO BE UNDER.
AND THEN IN THAT SAME SECTION C, ITEM FIVE, IT SAYS THE INTERIM PROTECTION TIMELINE WAS INCREASED TO 16 MONTHS, BUT THERE'SN OPTION TO EXTEND IT LONGER INTERIM PROTECTION FOR
LANDMARKS COVERS EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS BUT ONLY DEMOLITION IS REVIEWED. SO HOW DOES THIS INTERSECT WITH THE ALREADY STUDIED BUT NOT YET DESIGNATED PROPERTIES THAT SIT ON THE HPC LEDGER? THIS IS LIKE THE BRANCH I'M
GOING TO KEEP BEATING EVERYBODY WITH. NONE OF THOSE -- AND MAYBE I'M GETTING THE TERMINOLOGY INCORRECT HE. BUT ALL OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WERE LOOKED AT DECADES AGO AND
OR DISTRICTS THAT WERE LOOKED AT DECADES AGO STILL ARE IN WHAT I THINK OF AS THIS LIMBO. I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE ALL SUBJECT TO THESE INTERIM PROTECTIONS.
SO WOULD THIS BE RETRO ACTIVELY APPLIED TO ALL OF THOSE AS A WAY TO FLUSH THEM OUT OF THE SYSTEM?
>> MAYBE I MIGHT NEED CLARIFICATION ON YOUR ITEM OR YOUR REQUEST. FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, THE PROCES OF HAVING A MORE CLEAR AND CODIFIED WAY OF DETERMINING WHAT A POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE IS IS HELPING TO TAKE
AWAY ANY OF THAT UNCERTAINTY THAT THERE HAS BEEN IN THE PAST. SO AS FAR AS HOW THAT APPLIES TO THE INTERIM PROTECTION TIMELINE, THE INTERIM PROTECTION IS ONLY PLACED ON PROPERTIES IF THEY ARE
BROUGHT FORWARD FOR NOMINATION IF THAT NOMINATION IS APPROVED. SO I THINK TO GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS POINT, WHEN WE DO HAVE
GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUBMIT THAT IN ORDER TO NOMINATE A PROPERTY. THAT IS ALREADYNOTHER LAYER OF MORE CERTAINTY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS.
IT TAKES AWAY SOME OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE PROPERTY OWNERS MAY HAVE BEEN UNAWARE. THAT IS MY RESPONSE. IF THAS NOT WHERE YOUR QUESTION WAS HEADING, I'D BE HAPPY TO -- >> NO, IT DOES BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I WAS DOING WAS MIXING UP INTERIM AND POTENTIAL S THAT SEEMS TO BE THE DIFFERENCE THERE.
THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. ON PAGE FIVE, NUMBER SEVEN WHICH IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, IT SAYS KEEPING DISTRICTS
DESIGNATED BY STATE LAW IN THE DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC DISTRI -- I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. I KNOW YOU JUST SPOKE ABOUT IT, BUT I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. AND I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE GOING TO MOVE THIS.
I THOUGHT THAT PREVIOUSLY YOU ALL SAID YOU WERE GOING TO REMOVE THIS BECAUSE OUR REVIEW OF SOMETHING IS REALLY A DUPLICATION OF EFFORT BECAUSE
THE STATE ALRDY WILL CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS AND IN THEORY SHOULD I WOULD ASSUME DO A GOOD JOB. >> THANK YOU, CIR BJORNBERG AND COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM.
I THINK THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DEFER TO ANDREA BURKE ON BECAUSE SHE'S HAD MORE CONVERSATIONS AT THE STATE LEVEL WITH THAT O. >> THANKS, ROB. YES, CHAIR BJORNBERG AND COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION, YOU ARE CORRECT. WE DID PREVIOUSLY PROPOSE REMOVING THIS OUT OF THE
DESIGNATION SO THAT A LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT DID NOT INCLUDE A STATE HISTORIC DISTRICT. BUT THROUGH DISCUSSIONS AND SOME THE COMMENTS AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING AT HPC, THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE THAT THERE IS SOME BIT OF A LOOPHOLE FOR STATE HISTORIC DISTRICTS REGARDING A LEVEL OFREVIEW, SO WE LOOKED A
LITTLE FURTHER INTO THAT AND THAT IS CORRECT. STATE HISTORIC DISTRICTS AREN'T REALLY CAPTURED UNDER ANY PARTICULAR SPECIFICALLY MANDATED REVIEW. AND THAT VERY WELL COULD HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION FOR WHY IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE, I
DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. BUT AFTER IDENTIFYING THAT FELT THAT IT WAS REASONABLE TO INCLUDE IT AND KEEP IT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN HERE SINCE 2003. SO INSTEAD OF REMOVING IT AND ALLOWING SOMEBODY TO COME AND
BRING IT THROUGH THE LOCAL DESIGNATION PROCESS WOULD RATHER JUST KEEP IT AND CONTINUE DOING AS WE HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THERE IS UNFORTUNATELY N METHOD, IT'S NOT CAPTURED UNDER SECTION 106, IT'S NOT CAPTURED UNDER SPECIFICALLY I BELIEVE A CHAPTER
13 SO THIS DOES GIVE SOME MEASURE OF A OVERSIGHT TO THAT BY THE LOCALITY, IN THIS CASE THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. SO THANKS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. >> I'M JUST ALSO GOING TO ADD, I
APPRECIATEHE CHANGE THAT IT IS ADDED BACK IN BECAUSE IT ABSOLUTELY IS A LOOPHOLE THAT I BELIEVE JUST SETS UP THAT THERE CAN BE ENFORCEMENT OF SOMETHING ON THAT. SO I REALIZE IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A WEIRD THING, BUT APPRECIATE
THAT IT'S BACK IN. COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> AT THE BOTTOM EMERGENCY
EXCEPTION, IF YOU GO DOWN 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 LINES, THE SENTENCE STARTS WITH HOWEVER. SO IT SAYS HOWEVER ONLY SUCH WORK THAT IS NECESSARY TO CORRECT THE UNSAFE OR DANGEROUS COITION MAY BE PERFORMED.
THE EXTENT OF SUCH WORK SHALL B THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WHO MAY RECOEND TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT SILALVAGE AND PRESERVATION, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I'M WONDERING IF WE NEED TO BE
MORE EXPLICIT THERE AND INSERT, SO THE SECOND SENTENCE WOULD READ THE TENT OF SUCH WORK SHALL BE DETERMINED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PRIOR TO THE WORK BEING ENACTED OR COMMENCED OR STARTED,
WHATEVER WORD YOU WANT TO DO, YOU MAY RECOMMEND TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT SALVAGE OR PRESERVATION, IT DOESN'T REALLY EXPLICITLY SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO GET THIS PERMISSION FOR AND I'M JUST THINKING OF
ENFORCEMENT AND THE FACT THAT WE HAD TODAY BEFORE US APPROVED IN UNANOUS CONSENT, AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY DOING SOMETHING WITHOUT CONSULTING YRSELF AND THE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS BEFORE THEY MADE A CHANGE TO SOMETHING.
SO THAT WAS MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE PUT IN THAT WORDING IN THERE. IF YOU BELIEVE IT'S SUPERFLUOUS, THAT'S FINE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE. >>HAT'S FINE, WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE ANY LANGUAGE WE'RE USING THAT MIGHT MIRROR ZONING CODE IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT. SO WE'LL HAVE TO CHECK OTHER TEXTS. BUT UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE APPLICATION TODAY. >> ON PAG NINE OF THE PDF UNDER
SECTION 599.130 NUMBER TWO. I THINK THIS IS MORE JUST A QUESTION OF WHAT DO WE HA. BUT TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THE CITY COUNCIL ON GUIDELINES FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS, DO WE HAVE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LANDMARKS? >> WE DO, THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF LANDMARKS THAT HAVE DESIGN GUIDELINES. THEY'RE I WOULD SAY RELATIVELY
UNCOMMON CONSIDERING WE HAVE CLOSE TO 200 LANDMARKS AND I DON'T KNOW MAYBE 20 OF THEM HAV. I MAY BE WRONG ON THAT NUMBER, BUT THAT'S JUST TO ILLUSTRATE IT'S A RATHER SMALL AMOUNT.
>> THANK YOU, IT WAS MORE OF A CLARIFICATION AND PROBABLY EDUCATION ON MY PART. ON PAGE TEN ATHE TOP, THE COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP. SO THE SECOND SENTENCE IS MEMBERS SHALL BE PERSONS WITH DEMONSTRATED INTEREST, KNOWLEDGE, ABILITY,R EXPERTISE
IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION, NEIGHBORHOOD REVITE REVITALIZATION ANDARCHITECTURE. I'M WONDERING WHY WE DON'T HAVE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING AS EXAMPLES THERE. I'M JUST THINKING OF
COMMISSIONER KARATO WOULD LIKELY BE ABLE TO SPEAK ABOUT ANYTHING ABOUT A HISTORIC LANDSCAPE MUCH BETTER THAN PROBABLY MOST OF US. SO IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE A NICE THING TO ADD. AND THEN I WAS THINKING OF ALSO
PLANNING BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE HISTORIC PLANNERS AND THEY DO LOOK AT THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY THAN ARCHITECTS DO CERTAINLY, IN A GOOD WAY, THAT WASN'T TRYING
TO MAKE A SLIGHT. THEN I JUMPED AHEAD TO PAGE 17 WHICH IS PAGE 11 OF THE ORDINANCE. AND IT'S SECTION 9.320. SO THIS IS THE POTENTIAL
HISTORIC RESOURCE RECURRENCE. SO THIS IS KIND OF REVISITING WHAT I WAS I THINK A LITTLE CONFUSED EARLIER ABOUT INTERIM VERSUS POTENTIAL. SO IT SAYS ONLY PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED TO BE POTENTIAL HISTORIC
RESOURCES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FIVE, POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES MAY BE NOMINATED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION. NOMINATIONS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION SUBMITTED FOR PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED SHALL BE . SO THERE EXISTS ALL OF THESE
POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS,ND I BELIEVE THAT I'M USING THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY NOW. BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO DISPOSE OF THEM WHEN THERE'S NOT AN INCOMPLETE PROCESS BECAUSE
THERE'S NEITHER THE TIME NOR THE MONEY TO HE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE STUDY THESE THINGS. SO IS THERE ANY APPETITE TO ADD SOME SORT OF TIME LIMIT TO THE STATUS OF A POTENTIAL HISTORIC
RESOURCE THAT IF IT'S NOT ADVANCED, IF THERE'S NO DECISION MADE BY DEFAULT AFTER TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, FIVE YEARS, TEN YEARS, WHATEVER SEEMS LOGICAL, THAT THAT NO LONGER IS CONSIDERED A PENTIAL HISTORIC
RESOURCE. AND THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO MOVE OFF THE BOOKS ALL OF THESE POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES THAT ARE JUST SITTING OUT THERE. WAS THAT EVER CONSIDERE OR DO YOU THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA? KIND OF TWO QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOU COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. I'M JUST LOOKING THROUGH TEXT RIGHT NOW. SO IF YOU GIVE ME MAYBE A MINUTE TO LOOK AT THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF ANDREA BURKE HRD ANYTHING IN THAT QUESTION SHE MIGHT WANT TO
ANSWER RIGHT AWAY. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM AND CHAIR BJORNBERG, YES, I CAN ANSR THIS RIGHT AWAY. WE DID HEAVILY DISCUSS AND ACTUALLY HAD IN A VERY EARLY DRAFT OF THIS A TEN YEAR SUNSET DATE FOROTENTIAL HISTORIC
RESOURCES. AND THAT WAS WHAT MADE IT THROUGH SEVERAL ROUNDS OF REVIEW, I'LL JUST PUT IT THAT WAY. IT CAME TIME AT A CERTAIN PART OF DECISION MAKING INTERNALLY
AND IT WAS VOTED DOWN TO KEEP T. BUT THAT WAS AN INITIAL IDEA FROM THE START TO ADDRESS ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU HAD MENTIONED, BUT INTERNALLY THE
WAS CONSENSUS TO TAKE IT OFF AND HAVE IT EXIST, I WOULD SAY MORE OR LESS INDEFINITELY AND OF COURSE UNTIL THERE IS DEMOLITION. AND THAT DEMOLITION IS APPROVED. BUT THE BIG PART OF TS PARTICULAR ARTICLE WHICH I THINK
YOU'RE WELL AWARE OF IS THAT IT'S ELEVATING THE STATUS OF POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES TO BRING MORE AWARENESS AND TRANSPARENCY TO THIS KIND OF PRESTEP BEFORE NOMINATION OR DEMOLITION OF A POTENTIAL
HISTORIC RESOURCE. BUT IN THE END, THERE IS NO SUNSET AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THANKS. >> DO YOU KNOW WHY, WHAT THE RATIONALE FOR NOT INCLUDING THAT WAS? TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE A LOGICAL THING TO DO.
IF IT WAS ACTUALLY A HISTORIC RESOURCE, ONE WOULD THINK THAT SOMEBODY WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE ACTION ON IT. THE TWO YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, I BELIEVE WE'VE DESIGNATED TWO MAYBE THREE HISTIC RESOURCES IN THAT TIME.
SO IT'S NOT AS I THERE'S A LACK OF FOCUS TO DO THIS. I THINK SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN SITTING THERE FOR 20 OR 30 YEARS PROBABLY ISN'T REALLY ACTUALLY HISTORIC. IT FEELS LIKE IT'S AN ARTIFICIAL, TO ME PERSONALLY, IT
FEELS LIKE IT'S AN ARTIFICIAL DESIGNATION THAT IS UNSUPPORTABLE AND IF IT REALLY IS SUPPORTABLE, SOMEBODY SHOULD ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING WITH IT. BUT THAT'S A PERSONAL OPINION. >> YEAH. COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, THANKS FOR YOUR OPINIONN THAT.
FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, THE ARGUMENTAS THAT IF WE AFTER TEN YEARS THIS FELL OFF THAT LIST AND THEN SOMEBODY, LET'S SAY IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS OR TWO YEARS WANTED TO COME BACK AND START THE PROCESS OVER, WE WLD
LIKELY REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION UNLESS IT HAD BEEN DEMOLISHED OR SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED AND THE CHANCES OF THAT LIKELY HAPPENING ARE HIGH AND THE FACT THAT WE WOULD LIKEL REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT IT'S STILL ELIGIBLE BUT THAT THE
ALTERATIS DIDN'T TAKE IT TO A LEVEL WHERE IT WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE. THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE CASES, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR REMOVING IT INTERNALLY. >> OKAY. I'D JUST LE TO GO ON THE RECORD SAYING THAT I THINK THERE
SHOULD BE A SUNSET DATE AND TEN YEARS SEEMS LIKE IT'S MORE THAN ADEQUATE TIME TO ADJUDICATE SOMETHING, BUT THAT'S AGAIN PERSONAL OPINION. >> COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS. I DEFINITELY AM IN SUPPORT OF
NOT HAVING A SUNSET. PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY BUILDINGS THAT STAND VACANT FOR MANY YEARS THAT ARE NOT BEING TOUCHED BUT THEN AT SOME POINT SOME DEVELOPER MAY COME ALONG WHO WANTS TO REVITALIZE THAT BUILDING AND HAVING THOSE EXTRA INCENTIVES THAT THEY CAN
RESTORE THIS BUILDING, IT'S EASIER TO GET IT AS A LANDMARK OR DESIGNATED GES THEM MORE INCENTIVES TO THEN RESTORE THAT BUILDING VERSUS DEMOLISH IT. AND HAVING WORKED IN AN AREA WHERE A LOT OF DEVELOPERS TAKE MANY YEARS TO PUT DEALS
TOGETHER, I FEEL LIKE SUN SETTING IT WOULD PREVENT SOME BUILDINGS FROM GETTING THAT DESIGNATION THAT DESERVE IT. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER THOMAS. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT SPECIFIC ITEM?
COMMISSIONER WALLACE. >> JUST A QUESTION, IT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE FUTURE, BUT GIVEN THAT THERE ISN'T A SUNSET DATE, WILL THERE BE ANY ACTIVITY TO BASICALLY PUBLICIZE WHAT, SIMILAR TO HOW WE HAVE MAPS OF
THE LOCAL LANDMARKS AND THAT SORT OF THING, IS THERE ANY EFFORT OR INTENTION TO MAKE AN EFFORT AROUND MAPPING THOSE SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE WHERE THOSE POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES ARE? I'M JUST THIING IF THEY ARE UNDER THE SAME KIND OF PURVIEW
THE FORMALLY LANDMARKED PROPERTIES, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A HOUSE, IF YOU'RE BUYING X, Y, Z PROPERTY, HAVING THOSE KIND OF RESOURCES IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE COULD BE REALLY HELPFUL. JUST A THOUGHT. BUT WONDERED IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT COME DOWN
THE ROAD POTENTIALLY. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONE DISCUSSED THAT AS POSSIBLY A GOAL IN THE FUTURE. TO DO THAT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF STAFF TIME AND LIKELY FUNDING.
WE DO CURRENTLY HAVE AN INTERNAL MAP. IT IS NOT INCREDIBLY ACCURATE, BUT IT DOES MARK THE PAST SURVEY DATES GOING BACK TO THE 2000S A RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY OF THE CITY. I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED IT, BUT
HAVEN'T, UNLESS I'M INCORRECT ON THAT, WE HAVEN'T MADE A DETERMINATION OF THAT BEING AN INITIATIVE THAT WOULD FOR CERTAIN GO FORWARD IN THE FUTURE. >> GOTCHA, THANK YOU. >> ANDREA BURKE. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER WALLACE, SORRY, ROB.
JUST A SGHT CLARIFICATION TO ROB'S STATEMENT. IT IS AN INITIATIVE, PROBABLY ONE THAT'S NOT GOI TO BE REALIZED IN 2025. BUT WITH THE IDEA TO CREATE THIS, ELEVATE THE STATUS OF POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES. THE JUSTIFICATION WAS TO PROVIDE
MORE TRANSPARENCY FOR THE PUBLIC AND REALLY THE MOST REASONABLE WAY TO DO THAT IS THROUGH AN ONLINE MAP. BUT ROB IS RRECT, IT WILL TAKE A LOT OF STAFF TIME AND COORDINATION AND SO YES, IT'S NOT A 2025 WORK PLAN ITEM. BUT WE HAVE STARTED SOME INITIAL CONVERSATIONS TO SEE WHAT THIS
MAY LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THE WORK WILL BE INVOLVED. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, JUST NOT AT THE MOMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, THAT MAKES SEE. THANK YOU BOTH FOR RESPONDING. >> OER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
AROUND THAT? >> JUMPING THE GUN HERE. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO I THINK REINSTE WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THIS END THAT I THINK THERE'S REASONS TO NOT SUNSET AND
ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO BRING TRANSPARENCY TO THAT LT OF PROPERTIES. JUST TO MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE TO CITIZENS WHO WILL PURCHASE A PROPERTY THAT WILL LATER FIND OUT THIS IS ON THIS LIST OF POTENTIAL SOURCES WOULD BE HELPFUL. THAT'S MY COMMENT.
>> THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> I THINK I ONLY HAVE ONE MORE. >> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> ON PAGE 20 OF THEPDF WHICH
IS PAGE 14 OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 599.440 D THE REMOVING A LANDMARK FROM DESIGNATION. SO BASICALLY THERE IS, THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE I IS IF IT'S A
DANGER OR IT'S DESTROYED BY FIRE WHICH IS WHAT I READ. SHOULD THERE BE SOME METHOD, A VERY HIGH BAR, TO REMOVE A DESIGNATION? SO WHAT I'M THINKING OF IS IN
SOME COMMUNITIES, NOT OURS, THERE ARE CIVIL WAR HEROES WITH ALL OF THE STATUES BEING TAKEN
DOWN, HAVE ANY OF THOSE BEEN DESIGNATED, THOSE PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE TAKEN DOWN. I CAN'T THINK OF ANY PRACTICAL THING IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT THIS WOULD WARRANT. BUT I'M WONDERING HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED THERE BEING MORE OF A
MECHANISM TO DO THIS OR MORE WAYS BUT WITH A VERY, VERY HIGH BAR TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT. THAT IS ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK OUR TEAM DISCUSSED A
LITTLE BIT INTERNALLY. ULTIMATELY WE WANTED TO BE VERY EAR ABOUT IN WHICH SITUATIONS WE THOUGHT LANDMARK STATUS COULD BE REMOVABLE. CURRENTLY WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE IT IN OUR ORDINANCE OF HOW TO
REMOVE LANDMARK STATUS. WE HAVE LANDMARKS THAT HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED OR REMOVED WHERE TECHNICALLY THE PARCEL IS STILL DESIGNATED AND WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS THERE FOR PROCEEDING. SO WE REALLY LOOKED TO THE
CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANUAL TO DEVELOP LANGUAGE FOR THIS. AND THERE ARE REALLY CLEAR SPECIFICATIONS IN THE CLG MANUAL ABOUT DESIGNATIONS AND WHEN
SOMETHING CAN ESSENTIALLY BE DEDESIGNATED. I LIKE THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, IT'S INTERESNG SOMETHING WE DIDN'T REALLY THINK ABOUT WHEN TALKING ABOUT THIS. BUT IF A SITUATION LIKE THAT CAME FORWARD, I THINK WE WOULD
ADDRESS IT AS IT COMES FORWARD WITH THE INFORMATION AT HAND. >> THERE WOULD BE NO MECHANISM TO ADDRESS IT. BECAUSEHE ONLY TWO CAUSES WOULD BE, IT'S FIRE OR PERIL. AND I WOULD INTERPRET PERIL AS
BEING SOMETHING DANGEROUS. IT'S JUST A THOUGHT, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BELABOR IT. BUT I ADVISE THAT WE CONSIDER THAT THERE IS SOME MECHANISM TO DELIST SIMILAR TO DEASESSIONING
ART FROM ANRT MUSEUM WHEN IT NO LONGER FITS THE COLLECTION OR YOU FIND THAT THERE'S ISSUES WITH IT, LIKE IT WAS LOOTED ART OR SOMETHING. THAT IS THE END OF MYQUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THOSE
THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS. >> THA YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, CHAIR BJORNBERG. I WANTED TO ADD ONE MORE ITEM TO COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM'S REQUEST AND ADDING A LITTLE BIT MORE
ONTO WHAT ROB SPALECKI SAID. WE DID CONSIDER THISUITE A BIT, BUT AS ROB SAID THE CLG MANUAL IS VERY CLEAR ON WHAT IS ALLOWED WHEN REMOVING A PROPERTY
FROM DESIGNATION, AND BASICALLY IT'S NOT IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN YOUR CLG STATUS. GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE HAD THIS HAPPEN, AS ANY CITY HAS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PROPERTIES THAT CCH FIRE, THEY ARE
DEMOLISHED FOR MULTIPLE REASONS THAT WERE NOT INTENTIONAL, MAYBE INTENTIONAL, AND WANTED TO PROVIDE THIS CLARIFICATION IN THERE TO IDENTIFYO IT DOES GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY HEY, HERE IS THE PROCESS IF THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
BECAUSE WE HAVE ABOUT SIX PROPERTIES RIGHT NOW THAT ARE SITTING OUT THERE THAT ARE DESIGNATED BUT THEY ARE NO LONGER STANDING. AND TO HAVE A PROCESS TO SAY HEY IF WE ACTUALLY WANT TO TAKE THIS OFF, THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE.
BUT WE WERE VERY, VERY INTENTIONAL TO NOT GIVE GREATER ROADS FOR THIS BECAUSE OF OUR CLG STATUS AND BECAUSE OF THE POTENTL FOR IT TO MAYBE TAKE
ANOTHER LIFE OF ITS OWN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DO OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMES THAT THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SHARE? I DON'T KNOW IF WE TALKED ABO THIS PREVIOUSLY, BUT HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT
ADDING QUALIFICATIONS TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR POSITION WITHIN THE ORDINANCE? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. THAT IS SOMETHING I THINK WE BROUGHT U AND ULTIMATELY WE
DECIDED THAT IT HAS NEVER BEEN INCLUDED AND THAT TYPE OF REQUIREMENT OR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT OCCURS OUTSIDE OF THE ORDINANCE. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF ITEMS IN THE TEXT THAT ARE BEING MOVED TO
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES. SO IHINK THAT'S ONE OF THEM THAT AS A TEAM, AS A PLANNING TEAM WEIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED THERE, ESPECIALLY WHEN I DON'T BELIEVE THE CLG MANUAL REQUIRES THAT TO
BE QUALIFICATION FOR THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. BUT IT IS ANOTHER THING THAT WE DISCUSSED AND ULTIMATELY THAT'S KIND OTHE DIRECTION WE WENT WITH JUST TO LEAVE IT OUT AS EXISTS. >> I WILL SAY IT MAKES ME VERY NERVOUS BECAUSE ITEELS LIKE
THERE'S A LOT OF ONUS THAT IS NOW GOING TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO MAKE A LOT O DECISIONS AND THEN NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO REPORT TO OTHER STAFF OR JUST HAS TO REPORT BACK TO HPC. AND WHILE I WOULD LOVE TO
BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT IN ALWAYS HIRING PEOP WHO ARE QUALIFIED FOR IT, IT FEELS LIKE IT WOULD NOT BE A BAD THING TO HAVE INCLUDED IN HERE SOME TYPE OF QUALIFICATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEBOD WHO
IS IN CHARGE OF MAKING A LOT OF PRESERVATION DECISIONS HAS SOME EXPERIENCE OR UNDERSTANDING IN THAT. ANDREA BURKE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. I GUESS JUST TO ADD A LITTLE BIT
MORE ABOUT THE THOUGHT PROCESS AND THE REASONING FOR WHY THERE WAS A VERY EARLY DRAFT TOO THAT DID HAVE THIS IN THERE BUTT WAS TAKEN OUT VERY EARLY WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IIS NOT, WE
DIDN'T WANT TO LIMIT WHO CAN DO WHAT UNDER THE ORDINANCE. GIVEN LARGELY THERE ARE OTHER SECTIONS OF CODE THAT DON'T HAVE IT VERY SPECIFIC THAT MAYBE A MASTER'S DEGREE IN URBAN PLANNING TO MAKE SUCH DECISIONS.
AND YOU LIKELY KNOW THIS, BUT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN AND THE AUTHORITY IS GIVEN IN THE ORDINANCE, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IS ESSENTIALLY STAFF. AND I THINK YOU KNOW THAT, BUT IT WAS ADVISED TO NOT EXCLUDE
INDIVIDUALS BASED ON TRAINING, I THINK EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION. I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE THAT EXACTLY RIGHT IN ORDINCE TEXT TO BE ABLE TO OPEN IT UP AND HAVE FOLKS WITH DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS BEING ABLE TO DO IT. BUT ALSO THAT IS HOW THE OTHER
SECTIONS OF CODE ARE PUT TOGETHER. BUT HAVE NOTED YOUR CONCERNS WI. SO THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER THOMAS.>> THIS IS .
I JUST WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE DEMOLITION MITIGATION PLANS. JUST STE THAT THEY MAY INCLUDE DOCUMENTATION OF THE PROPERTY, HISTORIC RESEARCH, ECETERA. HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT INTO MAKING PART OF THAT MITIGATION
FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTY BE DECONSTRUCTION TO SAVE OR SALVAGE SOME OF THE MATERIALS THAT ARE IN THAT PROPERTY? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER THOMAS, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.
I KNOW KIND OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DECONSTRUCTION AND THE IDEA AND POSSIBLY FINDING A ROUTE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE REALLY GO BACK FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS OR SO WITHIN THE HPC SOT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE. STAFF GENERALLY HAVE A SIMILAR
RESPONSE WHEN IT COMES FORWARD IS THAT AS A MITIGATION OPTION, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO REGULATE. AND A LOT OF TIMES, WHILE WELL MEANING IN MITIGATION, IT REALLY DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH WHAT IT'S SET
OUT TO DO. SO IN SOME SITUATIONS, YOU MIGHT HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS SAVING MATERIALS AND THEN THAT BECOMING A BURDEN AND THEN THOSE MATERIALS BEING PLACEDN STORAGE AND ULTIMATELY DETERIORATING AT THAT POINT ANYWAY. SO IUESS TO ADDRESS YOUR
QUESTION, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THE PAST. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WERE CONSIDERING TO ADD TO THE ORDINANCE DRAFT AS EXISTS. BUT I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST THE HPC HAS TALKED ABOUT A SIMILAR
TOOL LIK THAT, BUT JUST TO REITERATE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO REGULATE THAT TYPE OF MITIGATION. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS? THOUGHTS ON THE PROPOSED APPLICATION NAMES? COMMISSIONER MASTIN. >> I LIKE THE NAMES, I THINK THEY'RE KIND OF SIMPLE AND
EXPLANATORYOR WHAT THEY ARE VERSUS JUST KIND OF REFERRING TO THEM AS -- IT'S A PRESERVATION APPLICATION SO I'M IN FAVOR. >> THANK YOU. OTHER THOUGHTS FROM
COMMISSIONERS ON THE NAME CHANGE? I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT IT'S BETTER THAN 1 AND 2.
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST ROUND. DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE ENOUGH FEEDBACK ON THIS?
>> CHAIR BJORNBERG, I THINK SO. IT'S WHATEVER YOU AS COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKEO RELAY TO STAFF. WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO TAKE ANY COMMENTS. I THINK JUST TO UNDERSTAND TOO, AS WE KNOW THE LAST OPPORTUNITY
YOU REALLY HAVE TO GIVE COMMENTS BEFORE IT WOD COME BACK TO YOU FOR ADOPTION. SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING MAY YOU'RE EVEN UNCERTAINTY ABOUT, I THINK NOW IS KIND OF THE FINAL TIME THAT YOU SHOULD PLAN TO RAISE THOSE CONCERNS OR ASK THOSE QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. ANDREA BURKE. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE, WE DID PRINT OUT COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ QUESTION AND COMMENT IF YOU WOULD BE SO KI AS TO READ THAT SO IT COULD BE SHARED ON THE RECORD.
THANK YOU. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THE WHOLE THING OR JUST THE -- >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, I THINK JUST THE QUESTION THAT SHE POSED OR COMMENT THAT SHE POSED. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ SAYS I HAVE ONE PROCEDURAL QUESTION
ABOUT THE UPDATED CERTIFICATE APPLICATIONS. IS THERE A REASON THE NEW REGULATIONS REMOVE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS SECTION 599.420 IN CURRENT REGULATIONS FOR WHAT WOULD NOW BE ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESERVATION APPLICATIONS? I'D IMAGINE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS AND PROCESS GUIDES THAT STAFF PRODUCED AS MENTIONED IN THE MEMORANDUM WILL BE VERY ILLUMINATING, BUT IT IS USEFUL TO HAVE FURTHER DETAIL WITN THE REGULATIONS AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR READING THAT, CHAIR BJORNBERG. AND I THINK STAFF, THIS KIND OF TIES BACK TO STAFF IN THE NEW DRAFT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FINDINGS WITHIN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION AND A COMMISSION PRESERVATION APPLICATION REEW. AND THAT WAS REALLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO DO INITIALLY. IT WAS KIND OF ONE OF OUR WISH LIST ITEMS FOR A HANDFUL OF REASONS. AND I THINK YOU AS COMMISSIONERS
MAY KIND OF SEE THIS TOO AS WELL IN THE STAFF REPORTS YOU RECEIVE AND THE APPLICATIONS WE RECEIVE FROM APPLICANTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIRST FINDING IN THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT THE ALTERATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT
INCLUDING CRITERIA SIGNIFICANCE. STAFF KIND OF HAVE A STOCK ANSWER FOR THAT RESPONSE ALMOST EVERY TIME BECAUSE WHAT'S REALLY BEING ASKED IS HOW IS THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY BEING AFFECTED, AND THAT IS FINDING NUMBER TWO. SO THERE'S CERTAIN ITEMS THAT I
THINK THERE ARE JUST KIND OF A THAT MIGHT BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR APPLICANTS TO REALLY ADDRESS IF THERE ARE FIVE FINDINGS INSTEAD THREE. IT IS SOMETHING TOO THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT APPLICANTS COME TO US SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS FROM A WIDE VARIETY OF PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUNDS.
AND WE WANT TO TRY TO MAKE IT AS CLEAR AND EASY FOR THEM TO DRESS THOSE FINDINGS BECAUSE THOSE ARE REQRED FOR PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATIONS ESPECIALLY FOR AN APPLICA TO REALLY CLEARLY ADDRESS THOSE FINDINGS
IN ORDER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO EVEN DEEM THEIR APPLICATION COMPLETE. SO I THINK IF'M INTERPRETING COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ'S QUESTION CORRECTLY, IT IS MORE SO TRYING TO BE MORE CLEAR AND
TRYING TO ALLOW APPLICANTS THE ABILITY TO MAYBE BETTER UNDERSTAND AND ALSO BETTER ADDRESS WHAT'S REALLY BEING LOOKED AT AND THE INTENT OF THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE IN ITSELF WITHIN THOSE THREE FINDINGS. >> THANK YOU.
I HAVE ONE OTHER LAST QUESTION. CAN YOU WALK THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN AND SO THE NEXT STEP, WE'LL SEE THIS AGAIN ONCE IT'S LIKE READY FOR APPROVAL. AND AT THAT POINT, IT GETS PUBLIC COMMENTS?
>> CHAIR BJORNBERG, THAT'S COECT BASED ON OUR CURRENT SCHEDULE. IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE SOMETHING COULD COME UPND WE WOULD WANT TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU FOR COMMENTS AGAIN. I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY PRETTY UNLIKELY, BUT AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE SCHEDULE FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT SET YET. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE NEXT STEP AFTER THIS IS THAT OUR TEAM WILL GET TOGETHER AND INTERNALLY KIN OF REVIEW ALL OF THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED, SEE WHERE WE' PLANNING TO MAKE CHANGES BASED OFF OF THAT.
AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT, WE WILL SEND IT TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THEY WILL BE THE ONES MAKING SUREHE FORMATTING LOOKS CORRECT, SENDING BACK ANY CONCERNS OR COMMENTS THAT THEY HAVE. AND ONCE WE GET IT BACK FROM THE
CLERKS AND WE KIND OF HAVE THE OKAY THERE, THEN IT WOULD GET NOTICED FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. AND THAT'S WHERE THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR THE HPC TO BE THE ONES VOTING ON THE ADOPTION WHEREAS I
THINK ZONING CODE REQUIRES COUNSEL TO DO IT EVEN THOUGH COUNSEL IS GOING TO BE, COUNCIL HOLDS THE PUBLIC HEARING I SHOULD SAY IN ZONING ORNANCE. HPC HOLDS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CHANGES TTHE PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE. SO IT WILL COME BACK TO HPC FOR THAT HEARING, YES WE WILL HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THAT POINT A MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC COULD SHOW UP AND SPEAK. BUT HPC'S VE DOES THEN GO THROUGH THE COUNCIL PROCESS.
SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULDN'T HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT LATER TIME SO HPC WOU PROBABLY BE THE FINAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITS ADOPTION.>> THA. AND ONE OTHER QUESTION, SORRY. I SEE YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM.
HAS THERE BEEN A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OR HAS THIS BEEN OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PREVIOUSLY? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, SO IT HAS BEEN OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IN A WAY THAT THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PUBLIC SINCE WE PUBLISHED THE
FIRST DRAFT IN OCTOBER. SO WE HAVE RECEIVED JUST A HANDFUL OF COMMENTS FROM MORE SO STAKEHOLDERS IN THE FIELD OF HISTORIC PRESERVAON. AT ONE POINT WE DID SEND THE DRAFT OUT TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE FIELD AND WE GOT A HANDFUL OF COMMENTS BACK FROM THAT. BUT AS FAR AS LIKE A FORMAL KIND OF OUTREACH PERIOD, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE INCORPORATED INTO THIS CHANGE.
>> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. JUST KIDDING, NEVER MIND. ANY OTHER FINAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUD OUR DISCUSSION
ITEM. DO STAFF HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? ANDREA BURKE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. YES, I HAVE A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS. THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO CAME
TO THE PRESERVATION AWARDS LAST THURSDAY. IT AGAIN WAS A LOVELYVENT AND MANY THANKS TO ROB FOR BEING OUR TEAM REPRESENTATIVE THAT GOES INTO PLANNING THAT EVENT AND THEN ALSO YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG,
WHO IS ALSO OUR COMMISSION REP THAT GOES INTO PLANNING THAT EVENT. VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR TIME GOING INTO HELPING PUT THAT TOGETHER. OUR NEXT MEETING OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN HERITAGE WORK GROUP IS
THIS COMING, A WEEK FROM TODAY, TUESDAY, MARCH 25TH. THAT WILL BE I THINK MEETINGS ARE HELD MONTHLY NOW UNTIL THE WORK GROUP ENDS WHICH WOULD BE ROUGHLY AROUND JUNE.
BUT JUST LIKE TO GIVE NOTICE TO THAT, THAT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IF YOU ARE SIGNED UP FOR THE GOV DELIVERY, YOU WILL GET NOTICES ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE BEGUN PLAING FOR THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PRESERVAON COMMISSIONS FOREIGN CONFERENCE WHICH WILL BE HELD
HERE IN JULY OF 2026. WE JUST HAD OUR FIRST KICK OFF MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND WILL VERY MUCH BE LOOKING FOR MORE VOLUNTEER HELP AS THIS RAMPSUP. IT WILL BE A VY LARGE EVENT.
BUT NO DIRECTIONS ON WHERE THAT IS NEEDED NOW. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE AN UPDATE THAT IT HAS STARTED. SO VERY EXCITED THOUGH. AND THEN ALSO AN EARLY HEADS UP THAT THE NEXT HPC RETREAT IS HAPPENING MAY 15TH.
AND SO I WILL BE SENDING OUT MY, I GUESS IT'S STILL MARCH, THAT'S TWO MONTHS AWAY. BUT AS IT GETS INTO EARLY APRIL, I WILL SEND OUT MY USUAL REQUEST FOR TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED AT THAT MEETING AND I CAN WORK THEM IN. BUT THAT CONCLUDES MY
ANNOUNCEMENTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. >> I DON'T HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT, I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THERETREAT IS. >> YES, OF COURSE, CHAIR BJORNBERG D COMMISSIONER
ALEXANDER. THE RETREAT IS WE HAVE TWO OF THEM ON THEALENDAR PER YEAR. AND IT IS A PUBLIC MEETING, BUT IT IS NOT ONE WHERE WE HEAR BUSINESS. IT IS MORE OF AN INFORMAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN STAFF AND THE
COMMISSION THAT WE DISCUSS TOPICS RELATIVE TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION, TO STAFF INITIATIVES, TO INITIATIVES AT THE CITY. I OFTEN HAVE BEEN SENDING OUT A REQUEST FOR TOPICS ABOUT 4- WEEKS IN ADVANCE FROM COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE A
PARTICULAR TOPIC THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS. WE'LL OFTEN GIVE UPDATES ON SOME OF THEIG PROJECTS WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON, WHAT SOME OF STAFFING OR OTHER NEW INITIATIVES THAT ARE HAPPENING
KIND OF ON THE STAFF SIDE, BUT IT IS A CHANCE FOR US TO TALK WHILE PUBLIC IN A MORE INFORMAL SETTING AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WHERE WE ARE NOT USING ROBERT'S RULES AND BRING EACH OTHER UP TO SPEED ON ITEMS.
SO THANK YOU. >> THANKS. >> OKAY. WITH THAT, WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING. THERE BEING NOTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE IT AND WITHOUT
OBJECTION, I'LL DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE HPC IS APRIL 8, 2025.
THANKS.