Good afternoon. I call to order the July 7th, 2026 regular meeting of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. For the record, my name is Marie Bjornberg and I serve as chair of the commission. Before we begin the meeting, I want to offer a reminder that these meetings are broadcast live to
enable greater public participation. Broadcasts include real-time captioning as a method to increase accessibility of proceedings to the community. Therefore, all speakers need to be mindful of the rate and clarity of their speech so that captioners can fully capture and
transcribe all comments for the broadcast. Please speak clearly into the microphone when speaking at the dis or giving testimony. Would the clerk please call the role so that we may verify the presence of a quorum? Member Alexander
>> present. >> Booty >> present. >> Curado is absent. Melbourne >> present. >> Rodriguez >> present. >> Smith >> present. >> Thomas >> present.
>> Wallace >> present. >> Vice chair Masten >> present. >> Chair Bjornberg >> present. >> Member Curado >> present. There are 10 members present. >> Let the record reflect that we do have quorum. We'll now proceed to our agenda,
a copy of which was posted for public access to the city's legislative information management system and can be found by the clerk. First, we are going to organize the agenda for the meeting. I'm going to read through each agenda item first and state whether it will be on consent, continuence, or discussion.
Consent items are those that will be passed without further discussion by the commission. We'll adhere to staff recommendation listed on the agenda and any applicable conditions will be listed in the same section. Following items are on the agenda for today's meeting. Item
number 4, 2100 Milwaukee Avenue Ward 6 is for preservation application and will be on consent unless anyone would like to speak in opposition to staff recommendations for this item. Item number 5,4612
Fremont Avenue South, Ward 13, is for a preservation application and will be on consent unless anyone is here to speak in opposition to staff recommendations for this item. Item number 6227 First Street North, Ward 3 is for
preservation application and will be discussed. Item number 7, 411 Washington Avenue North, Ward 3, is for a preservation application and will be discussed. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to the
staff recommendations for any of the consent agenda items? Are there any commissioners who would like to speak in opposition to staff recommendation for consent agenda items? May I have a motion to approve the agenda?
Wallace moves >> Masten seconds. Thank you, Commissioner Wallace and Masten. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. >> Any abstensions.
The the agenda is approved. Our next order of business will be to approve the minutes from our June 16th, 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. >> Those opposed say nay. >> Any abstensions? >> Melbum abstains. >> Thank you. The minutes are approved.
Before I open the hearing to public comments, let me summarize the process for the public hearing. First, we'll act on the consent agenda we just set. Once items on the consent agenda are approved, the commission is done with those items and applicants may contact planning staff tomorrow about next
steps. After the consent agenda items are approved, planning staff will present its report and commissioners may ask questions of staff. Then I will open the public hearing and we will hear from the applicant and commissioners may ask questions of the applicant. After that,
we will invite public comment. If you wish to speak, 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 today. If you have
materials to hand out, please give them to our committee clerk so that they can be distributed and entered into the record. After the public comments are complete, I will close the hearing and commissioners will deliberate and act on the application before us. I'll now open the public hearing on the
consent agenda items which are item number four, 2100 Milwaukee Avenue, Ward 6, and item number five, 4612 Fremont Avenue South, Ward 13. Again, do commissioners oppose staff recommendations for these items?
And are there any members of the public who oppose staff recommendations for these items? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing on the consent agenda items. May I have a motion to approve staff findings and recommendations for these items?
>> Masten so moves. >> Thank you, Commissioner Masten. 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?
These items are approved as recommended by staff on the agenda and applicants may contact planning staff about next steps. First item is item number 6 227 First Street North Word 3. This is a
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 227 First Street North in the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District. On the left is an aerial view of the
property's location. This is a multi-tenant building that was completed in 2004 to 2005. It is a non-contributing resource in the historic district. The applicant is proposing alterations to establish a new tenant on the first floor in two of the
storefront bays for pop-up bagels, uh, which is shown in the photo on the right. Previously, the first floor of this building was used as an event center. In order to meet the intake and exhaust requirements for the bagel shop's floor plan and operation, significant mechanical duct work and equipment is
proposed as shown at left. The applicant has spoken with the second floor tenant and the landlord property owner who and was able to negotiate routing the necessary exhaust duct work from the proposed bathroom at the east corner of the shop through an information
technology or IT closet on the second floor. Um that would then continue to the roof. So that is pointed out by the blue arrow in the top left corner here. To provide the necessary fresh air intake, the applicant is proposing to remove six transom windows on the front
elevation, as you can see in the elevation on the right, and replace them with metal louvered vents to provide the fresh air for the new HVAC system for the bagel shop. Five of the louvers will deliver fresh air to the kitchen, which is located in the center of the floor plan. And one louver will deliver fresh
air to the air conditioning systems and diffusers in the ordering area at the front of the tenant space. Each section of glazing and subsequent replacement louver measures 15 in wide by 24 in tall. The window frames will remain intact.
Here is a view of the second floor plan with the IT closet uh called out with the red, blue, and green squares in there. Uh this IT closet already contains existing duct work and an existing data rack which limits the available space.
The property owner's opinion is that any additional routing of duct work through the second floor space beyond the IT closet is not practical or reasonable and would require extensive distribution to the second floor tenants operations. The property owner's preference is to vent the mechanical on the front
elevation. The design guidelines for this historic district do not permit mechanical louvers on street facing elevations. The intent is to uphold a compatible and appropriate solid to void ratio and minim minimize the visible impact of mechanical equipment to the surrounding
historic district. In staff's opinion, the project does not comply with the design guidelines, the secretary of the interior standards, or the spirit and intent of the preservation ordinance. The louvers would disrupt the rhythm and symmetry of the historic district, a feature which Infill is designed to
protect. It also serves as a visual intrusion and prioritizes mechanical function over pedestrian focus, which undermines the historic commercial feel of this character area of the historic district. As there are no alternatives to install vents on side or rear
elevations for this property, staff's preferred approach is to route mechanical systems through the roof. Based on the floor plans and staff's opinion, it appears there is available space on the second floor beyond the IT closet through which a chase could be routed for fresh air intake.
The applicant identified two nearby examples uh that they are considering as precedents as part of their application. As a reminder, each project is studied on a case-by case basis and no application sets a precedent for any other application. So the first example shown here is the Colonial Warehouse
building uh which is shown to have louvers in the transom windows. Based on Google Street View, it looks like these louvers were installed before 2009. Uh we do know this property has a history of unpermitted work and it is possible that these louvers were installed without a permit andor without
preservation review. The second example is of blacked out windows on the adjacent tenant space of the subject property for solid core. Based on street view, this occurred since 2022. Uh based on our records,
this feature did not seek or receive preservation approval to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, staff recommend that the HBC adopt staff findings and deny the commission preservation application to remove six transom windows and install mechanical louvers on the front elevation of the property
located at 227 First Street North in the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District. Staff received one letter of support for the project from the neighborhood group which you received in your packet. This concludes my presentation and I'm happy to stay for questions. The applicant is
also here and would like to speak. Thank you for that report. Commissioners, are there any questions for staff? Commissioner Wallace. >> Thank you. Uh, I just have two quick questions for confirmation. They were in your presentation, but I want to make sure I had it correctly. Uh, did you say
the building in question was constructed in 2005? >> 2004 to 2005. >> Cool. Thank you. And then for the um the frames and the transom, will the louver the proposed louver be the same size as the the glazed pane? that's currently
there. Is that the idea? >> Chair Bjunberg and Commissioner Wallace. Yes. The louver would be the same size as the existing glazing. Okay. Thank you. >> Do other commissioners have questions for staff? >> Thank you. I'll now open the public hearing for
this item. And it sounds like the applicant is here. And if they would like to speak, please come to the microphone and state your name for the record. >> [snorts] >> You say state her name. >> Yeah. >> Dan Dquisto. I'm
>> Amanda Pricer with Teal and Green. >> I'm uh the proposed owner uh of the Papa Bagels that will be coming in and I just wanted to professionally disagree with Aaron in the some of the findings of our alternative solutions here. uh we've uh
pun intended exhausted all options uh with the landlord and everyone in the community to explore uh those alternatives. We definitely did not want to be here uh with the the the changes that we need to make, but it is a need for us to be able to operate going forward. And uh I think we have gathered
significant evidence outside of what was gathered here today with others in the community. We have uh uh those proposed solutions uh outlined. Uh the community as mentioned uh by Aaron was uh approved by the North Loop. Uh they were excited.
The the community has responded socially about the excitement of uh the the business entering the community which I think uh further adds validation of of the opportunity we have. Uh we have others we can speak on behalf of the options that we have explored uh going
through and expanding space inside of the second floor tenant, but it would uh significantly disrupt their operations. Uh so we're trying to prevent that. Um and so we are doing as much as we can through uh through the roof, but um this is where we have landed and needing to go forward. But regardless if it's if
it's us or not, uh this is something that would need to be a solution for a new tenant to come in, whether it's a bagel shop or not going forward. Um, and I don't know if there's anything else we wanted to add there. Um, uh, I think that's it. Um, there's significant evidence, but open to any
questions and can talk more technically to, uh, the proposed solution if needed. >> Thank you. Do commissioners have questions for the applicant. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that
wish to speak about this application? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, let's discuss any comments on the application. Commissioner Smith, thank you. Um, I think my my overall feeling on this is
that it being that the building is not a historic building, um, being that the building could have potentially have been built with louvers in 2005, 2004, uh, I'm hesitant to agree with staff's
findings on this particular project. I think it is an undue um challenge and I think that the applicant is correct in saying that this won't be the first time somebody's going to need this solution
in this particular space and it does sound like the landlord is potentially unwilling to explore disrupting the the other tenants and the enduring the expense of a rooftop solution. Um,
so I I would just like to say that I think that's my uh feeling going into this is that it we don't need to um [clears throat] prevent them from removing those windows for louvers. >> Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Wallace.
>> Thank you. Um my prim and I probably should have asked Aaron when she was up here. Um, but I my primary question is about the language within the guidelines and how we're how or whether or not we are hamstrung by those because I know we
all know that with some historic districts preservation guidelines differentiate between non-contributing and contributing buildings and what you might be able to do with that and um I don't know the exact language in the preservation guidelines for that
district. Um, so I'm I'm like I'm on the fence in the same way that Commissioner Smith is, [snorts] but I think there's that uh tactical piece that if that is not expressly differentiated, then we may not have the room to weigh in um
to deny the uh the staff findings or to um contradict the staff findings. Uh, Andrea Burke, >> Chair Bjornberg, and uh, Commissioner Wallace, I want to answer your question, Commissioner Wallace, about what the exact language is in the design
guidelines. Um, Aaron could as well, but since I'm right here and I have it, um, it is under fenistration building envelope. It's in the warehouse historic district design guidelines. It is guideline number 3.39 and it says louvers or other openings in the facades for mechanical equipment such as
fireplace heating, ventilation, air condition, HVAC and laundry vents are not appropriate and shall not be permitted on primary street facing facades. These guidelines don't differentiate between contributing and non-contributing. The way they are [music] identified is be between
existing buildings and I think it's infill or yeah uh design guidelines for new buildings on infill sites. So these were the guidelines that were specifically written for new or construction. Um and then that is in part three. Um and then
in part two is the existing buildings under the warehouse design guidelines. So that is the answer. Thank you. >> Oh just one followup and thank you for that. When were those guidelines published or updated? >> Chair Bjungberg and Commissioner Walls
2010. Okay. >> Any other thoughts from commissioners on this? Commissioner Curado. Uh given the language, it's maybe a moot point. But um I guess my concern is having the louvers right at the facade
if they were recessed and somehow otherwise screened. Um I understand that there's free area calculations for all the mechanical system that may prevent that. But I could see a scenario where there's
a more, how do I put it? uh innocuous sort of screen there that it may appear like a window screen that it's a little bit less mechanical in nature. Uh because it's an intake, I'm less
concerned about sound um as mechanical systems do, you know, when they wear out uh if that becomes an issue on the street. But um that's sort of my my thought there if it's a compromise of sorts.
>> Other thoughts from commissioners? >> Commissioner Wallace? [laughter] Um just just a question or potential just discussion item. If the updated guidelines were that have the language um that are very specific
were published in 2010, would a building an infill structure built before the publishing of those guidelines be beholden to those same guidelines if there were different guidelines when it was constructed? I know.
>> [laughter] >> It's just sort of the letter of the law piece I'm wondering about in terms of what is compliant and what our purview would actually be based on the language. I'm going to look to staff on that one and see if they have any uh Chair
Burember and Commissioner Wallace. Yes, they are. Thanks. >> Thank you, [snorts] Commissioner Malum. >> Yeah, thank you Chair Buremberg. Um, I just want to speak to that and I think that the
because the some change is being proposed, it would make sense that it complies with the updated guidelines, but yet I like Commissioner Curado's idea of somehow still making it look like windows, but recessing the louvers
back. Um, I guess I have less concern about this being an issue. Um, and I think it's our role as the board to interpret the regulations and sometimes
say, uh, we agree with the intent, but maybe it's not appropriate in this case. Um, I have I have been in the same position with projects within buildings where the
the tenant above just simply refuses to yield any of their space. And it's a very difficult thing to try and manage than actually running something up through the roof when you have to do it. And uh there's very few levers to do
that. Um, in my opinion, it would serve the greater good to be able to have this space activated and especially with something that apparently the neighborhood would want. So, I think I'm leaning toward um
approving the uh proposal as proposed and I'm curious what other commissioners are thinking. Commissioner Masten, [clears throat] >> I think I've had a lot of similar thoughts to you, Commissioner Melbum. Um, for us to overturn a denial, we have
to have findings, correct? And I guess I'm struggling to even think about what those findings would be. Is that looking to staff now, I think. Is that correct? We need findings. >> Chair Buremberg and Commissioner Masten. Yes. Um, to overturn the denial, you
would need to, notwithstanding staff recommendation, the commission approves based on the following legal findings. And just as a quick primer for findings, um, the findings of fact are to articul articulate the reason for the city's
decision. Um, and to make the finding, you would recite the relevant fact and make your conclusion by applying the fact to the legal criteria. Um and just as a reminder uh the findings we have legal criteria that staff have made according the findings. So then you
would come up with your facts um and apply those to the legal criteria to come up with your different findings to overturn the staff recommendation. It is entirely within your power to do that. Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Commissioner Alexander. Hi. >> Thank you. Um I'm I'm struggling in a similar way to um kind of wrap this one around my head. the um right now it feels like we're we're sort
of taking the word of the applicant um without sort of evidence I guess um that the community wants this that it is an um that there is no wiggle room that [clears throat] going through uh the closet or expanding up there um is is
just is simply a non-starter is not is not an option. Um and that feels like with the wording so clear in the um guidelines, it's a it feels a little hard to overcome that clarity um without
I guess more substantial like documented testimony, evidence, you know, pricing construction breakdowns of of why it would be so uh infeasible to expand that closet. So, I think that's
where I'm I'm struggling. >> Commissioner Cra, >> I guess on that point, I'm I'm amendable to accepting the landlord's letter stating that they've tried to work with the tenant. And while
I do agree with the city staff and that looking at the floor plan, there is space, it is going to be a challenge to do construction without, you know, substantial affecting of the I mean it's
you're going to put it where the open space is, which is probably busiest space on that um whatever that use is. Um, so to that point, I the other part of this that I'm a little concerned about
is that the wording of the guideline effectively becomes a zoning matter, too. Like you can't have a kitchen in certain buildings, which seems a little tough to swallow. I don't know.
I mean, it's a neighborhood that has a lot of I think hospitality, restaurants, bars. So, to me, to be able to have flexibility is important. And I guess to the point, I don't know if there's a way to
frame a finding such that uh the opening is there, but it's not a louvered mechanical opening that's visible from the street. I sort of had a very similar thought on that of like even your suggestion of
like okay can we put something over it to screen it like does that then give us uh like again how sort of like trying to manufacture this of like okay can we condition it that it's covered that you it's not visible to then have that be
the finding. Commissioner Rodriguez >> thank you. Um, I have I think a related question and I'm not 100% sure if this kind of gets into territory where we're getting outside of our purview, but there's a product sheet at the back of
the staff report. Um, and there are a lot of options for louver types and louver colors. Um, and I apologize if I've just missed it, but I'm not sure, um, has the applicant decided on a type and a color? Um, and kind of how
sympathetic to the building and the neighborhood will that be is my question. Um, like I said, I don't know if that kind of strays beyond what we're looking at, but that is a concern of mine that they will be extremely obvious
potentially. Um whereas something designed to be a little muted or as Commissioner Crao says, you know, ideally screened in some way um might be more palatable. >> Other commissioners comments? Commissioner Booty.
>> Thank you, Chair Burember. I'm having um similar thoughts too and I think I would be a minimal to a condition that would um have some sort of language about the visibility from the street of the actual louver. Um if there's a way that we can
craft that um like conditioning it to say um that the finding would or not the not the finding but the um the visibility of the mechanical louver from the street would be um
I maybe an architect can help me out here but like have like a a screened or >> shielded >> shielded. [laughter] Yeah. But um just wanted to throw my thoughts about being amendable to the condition too.
>> Other comments from commissioners thoughts commissioner Smith. >> Yeah. I guess my question is are how let's see with these louvers are we
able to kind of add a condition or would we call it like a design review or um some other step? Is that the language that we would be using in this um ruling? I think I understand what you're asking
and I feel like the way that we have maybe done it in the past is to say like that staff gets reviewed by staff or something so it doesn't have to come back to us but like a design has to get adjusted and then reviewed by staff and I feel like they have heard what our
discussion and sort of like know the intent of of what we're behind and are usually great about that. >> Thank you Commissioner Alexander. Um, just for clarity, it looked to me and I I don't have the image up anymore,
but I think there was eight or so or six. So, if and then I think it was only five that were getting that would need louvers. Um, so I think there's going to be an asymmetry involved there as well that I
think is part of what the um guidelines are trying to protect against. Um, so I guess I I think that has to be taken into consideration with whatever sort of
proposal may be offered. Um, is that we Yeah, we're addressing that symmetry. >> Yeah, thank you for that point, too. I I noticed that and did have a thought about it, but then it was not high on my mind.
Other thoughts or questions or comments from commissioners? >> Commissioner Malbum. Yeah, hearing this conversation makes me wonder if like our responsibility is to accept staff's
report and uh encourage the encourage the applicant to um appeal this because the political process lies with the city council and and the CBIZ committee, not with us.
we're supposed to follow the rules and regulations. And the more we talk about it, the more I feel like we're trying to invent a uh a way to get around um what the regulation is. So, um I think now
I'm being con I'm being influenced to go the opposite direction of where I was earlier. Uh staff >> Chair Bjornberg and I want to respond to um Commissioner Melbourne's comment as the HPC you have just as a reminder you
have the ability to overturn staff recommendation. You don't have to go with our recommendation and our findings. Um and to do that again I had stated the language but the findings you know as a quasi this is a quasi judicial decision. So you make the decision. Now
the applicant if they for whatever reason are not happy uh with your decision or if any member of the public has the chance to appeal it um I wouldn't I I would advise against defaulting to that. Just if I may state
a a a recommendation there but you have the ability to overturn that is okay. Um and in terms of you know there are three findings that staff has made according to this application and I'll just re restate them is that the alteration is
consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The alteration is consistent with the applicable recommendations within the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation and the alteration is consistent with the spirit and intent of the preservation ordinance and the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. So those are kind of
the the written ordinance findings to this and staff has written um provided facts that show that that the the project doesn't meet that. Now you are able to um come up with your own I mean we you would refer you look for the
legal criteria and I kind of went over it right here. Um and then you are able to use facts. So something that's you know known or proved to be true and then it has to be a relevant fact. So it has to point directly to a finding or a
criteria for that specific application um to to prove or disprove that that standard. So you could say this is the finding because these these are the facts that I'm this
is the reason why I and believe this should be approved. So that's kind of a a quick explanation how to do the finding and it's you know I'm you know staff has made their recommendation but I I do sit up here not to to sway it's
just to uh give you your options and so that you have the tools but um you're very well verssed in this and are are can very much you know choose to overturn the recommendation um if you have the re relevant facts that you want
to display um and come up with to to identify the criteria. >> Commissioner, >> I'm going to try this. All right. >> Are you are can I make one comment real quick before you? Um, I do think that one of the other options that we have on
the table is to continue this item um to another meeting so that if there was any additional um comments that people wanted to bring forward, any other information or if there was a way to explore some of these screening things that would give the applicant an
opportunity to do that without us necessarily making a motion. So, I did just want to make that uh be before I hand it over to you, Commissioner. >> Okay. [laughter] Uh I understand that I think >> so the two parts of the findings that I
think we're discussing is in finding one 3.39 uh the of the requirements discussing the louver or other openings in the facads for mechanical equipment such as fireplace heating ventilation and air conditioning and laundry events are not appropriate and shall not be permitted
in the primary street facing facades. I think in order to address that um there is a possibility to perhaps recess the louver and um provide screening such that it is not so evidently an HVAC system. Um in doing so I think that
needs to be addressing the nine transom windows as opposed to the six that this is affected you know in order to preserve the symmetry. And then the second I think uh finding where there's part of the staff recommendations is not appropriate is
because it let me find it. Um it disrupts the rhythm and symmetry of the historic district. I think if we're looking at the transom windows as a set of nine on that particular facade that could alleviate that and also alleviate
the um visual intrusion and mechanical function u over pedestrian focus concern. So based on that, I would make a motion that the HPC approves the uh approves the
commission preservation application to remove the six transom windows and install mechanical louvers on the front elevation of the property located at 227 First Street North, the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District. uh subject
to the condition that um the applicant explores screening or other visual mitigation uh of the louvers from the street subject to staff review.
It's that makes sense. I'm just looking at the clerk to see if I got that. [laughter] also looking at staff uh Chair Bjungberg and Commissioner Curado. Um that will not work. Um that part of it can however you uh still need
some magic language that is notwithstanding staff recommendation. The HPC approves blah the commission preservation application. You can add conditions on your approval that is also within your jurisdiction. However, the
key part of this you must make findings and it Thank you, >> Commissioner Malum. >> Yeah, I think this is more of an example of we all feel like this is not a bad thing, but the language of the regulation
speaks to this as not being allowed. I I appreciate you, Chair Bjornberg, for mentioning the idea of a continuation because I think that might be the best route out of this is if we continue this and allow the applicant to return with
every everything they've heard, I think that they would be able to do exactly what Commissioner Curado is asking without us having to fabricate um it from from the bench. because I don't
think we're going to have create findings to be able to to justify what we what many of us feel that should be okay. >> Thank you, Commissioner Malbum. I'm looking at the clerk because I feel like we have a motion that has been proposed.
>> We currently do have a motion proposed by member Carto. >> So, I have to call for a second. Is there a second to that motion? Do I vote? >> If there's no second, the motion doesn't
stand and you can move on. >> Okay. So, there's not a second to that motion. Commissioner Malb, >> I'd like to make a motion that we have a we do a continuation or whatever the
technical term is of this item so that the applicant can come back at the next meeting or at a subsequent or future meeting and um resubmit this. >> Oh, on uh July 21st, 2026.
What's that? >> I'm looking at the staff. >> Thank you, Cher Bman. Commissioner Robum. Yes. Uh just the advice you need to continue it to a certain meeting. Um I would advise your the meeting you have selected is appropriate. Um but give the
applicant specific direction for what you want to see from them to provide at the meeting so that you you know you're you're not continuing for more deliberation. you have a specific request and I would uh state that on the
record. >> Commissioner Melo. Yeah, I could state that on the record that the applicant come back and take into account the conversation so that the louvers are not
the primary visible element and that the continuity of all nine of the uh all nine of the transom windows are consistent across the nine windows. >> Thank you, Commissioner Mlin.
Is there a second? >> Curado seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Curado. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, would the clerk call the role? >> Member Alexander.
>> I Booty. >> I Curado. >> I >> Melb. Rodriguez >> I >> Smith >> I >> Thomas >> I >> Wallace >> I >> Vice Chair Masten
>> I >> chair Bjornberg >> I >> There are 10 eyes. >> Thank you. That motion passes. Our next item is item number 7411 Washington Avenue North Ward 3. This item is a preservation application and
the staff report will be presented by Rob Scleki. Okay. Thank you, Chair Pumbberg. And good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Rob Skleki, senior city planner in the historic preservation section of um CPAD Planning. Today I'm presenting an
application for the property at 411 Washington Avenue North. This is a commission preservation application. The property is a four-story warehouse with a basement level halftory that was built into a sloped grade. As you can see here, it has a flat roof with
parapits and character defining metal cornice with brackets at um the parapit on the property um on that primary which is the northeast elevation that you can see in the photo. The building is clad in glazed golden
brown brick with prominent brick pattern ornamentation and these include six bays dividing the um the property as masonry plasters that extend the full height of the building. The property was designed by Bertrren and Chamberlain who are master architects in the neocclassical revival
style with a commercial style influence and it was built for owners WF and HS Andrews. Um the permit for the property was issued in December 1913 and it was planned for completion by May 1914. The building is a contributing resource in
the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District. The building does exist on the same parcel as the non-contributing Steelman Exchange building, which you can see um directly behind it and is actually connected with um a type of skyway
there. Um that building's address is 24 uh I'm sorry, 2415th Avenue North. Um again, that's non-contributing, but that's not the subject of the changes that are happening. Uh per this application,
the applicant is proposing to install an LED dynamic sign using sign film to cover 12 transom windows above the building's primary uh again northeast elevation that is shown in this photo.
The 12 panels create a sign that measures approximately 11 ft by 12 1/2 ft um in in area. The work has already been completed without preservation, zoning, or signed
permit approval. Um, and CPAD was made aware of this in February of 2025. Zoning enforcement issued orders to correct shortly after that for the unapproved work. The applicant is requesting the approval
for this sign with this application submission is kind of a retroactive review by the Minneapolis HPC. um and regulations specific to zoning code uh will be addressed following this. So the sign is not permitted as installed per
Minneapolis zoning code and based on the applicant submitted materials um planning staff has have identified that at least two zoning variances would be needed and one of those is for maximum height and one is for maximum sign for a dynamic sign. The applicant does note in their
materials that um they believe that the building is non-contributing and staff note in the staff report that this is non-cor this is this is not correct. The building is a contributing resource in the district. Staff have received nine total public comments from community community
members who are in opposition to the project. Staff also did receive a letter of support for the sign from the uh North Loop Neighborhood Association and all of those are included for the HPC to consider as public comment.
The Department of Community Planning and Economic Development have analyzed the application to install a a video film sign on storefront glazing above the primary entrance of the property in the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District based on the following commission preservation application findings. And
of course, there are those three. Um the first I'll focus on is the design guidelines. So there are actually two design guidelines that are applicable here. The ones are the Minneapolis HBC design guidelines for on-remise signs and awnings and also the Minneapolis warehouse historic district design
guidelines. The sign and awning guidelines do state that dynamic signs and dynamic changeables copy signs are not permitted. Um and also those guidelines note that sign should not obscure or damage character defining features including windows, doors, plasters,
columns and historic signs. Staff comment that the proposed sign is a dynamic sign and that dynamic signs are not permitted. Dynamic signage negatively impacts the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District by introducing a new sign appearance and display visuals that are not visually
compatible for a district with uh an industrial and commercial character that's rooted in its 1866 to 1930 period of significance. The proposed sign film um and operation do obscure the storefront window above the primary
entrance and this is not consistent with the design guidelines for this location [gasps] for the Minneapolis warehouse historic districts and the the Minneapolis warehouse historic district design guidelines. Note that windows and doors shall not be blocked with OPEC materials in storefronts and display
areas and staff. Note in the staff report that um when the dynamic sign film in the window is turned on, it does create an image that is visually opaque and blocks those 12 transom windows for the storefront glazing. So, the proposed
project, as staff note, is not consistent with the storefront and display area requirements per the Minneapolis warehouse historic district design guidelines. Um, also staff note that the project is not uh does not meet the Secretary of the Interior standards.
The proposed LED sign is not consistent with the standards and has a significant visual impact on the subject property and the historic district. Um, staff do summarize that the historic character of the building and historic district will be altered by
the introduction of dynamic signage in this location and that the type and intensity of LED dynamic signs um was not present during the district's period of significance. Uh as such the property does not meet standard two of the secretary interior standards for rehabilitation. The project also does
not meet standard nine as staff pointed out since the building is a contributing resource in the historic district and it communicates its significance as an example of a commercial um building that is designed by master architects. The building's history is tied to the
commercial and industrial history uh from 1965 to 1930 that's reflected in the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District. The type, material, scale, illumination, placement, and operation of the LED sign is not compatible for a property, a property that embodies a
direct association to the historic significance um of the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District. Uh staff also note that the um the proposal does not meet the third finding for consistency with um comprehensive plan in the city's preservation policies. And
with these three, staff recommend that the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development um recommends the Heritage Preservation Commission adopt staff findings for the Commission Preservation Application by 411 North Loop LLC um doing business as the Rabbit Hole and Dennis Johnson on behalf of um
NLP Minneapolis Propco LLC for the property located at 411 uh Washington Avenue Washington Avenue North in the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District. And we recommend that the Heritage Preservation Commission denies the Commission Preservation Application to install a video film dynamic sign on
storefront glazing above the primary entrance in the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District. And with that, I'm available for any questions as staff, but I do know the applicant team is here as well and can speak and answer any questions on their behalf. Thank you. >> Thank you for that report.
Commissioners, are there questions for staff? Commissioner Malbum. >> Thank you, Chair Burember. Um, so the conversation previous about pulling something back from the window, is there a regulation about how far
something is pulled back and it's no longer a sign? I'm thinking like you look into a lot of buildings and you could see illuminated stuff like on a back wall or somewhere like particularly bars like you'll see, you know, beer signs that are illuminated. Some of them
move, sometimes they don't. And that's not an exterior sign. So is there a distance that this thing would have to be in if they wanted to keep it or is that like undefined? >> Chair Bjornberg, Commissioner Melbam. Um staff was actually discussing this with
with the applicants earlier. Um so when it comes to dynamic signage, we really do defer to zoning codes definitions for what um types of signage are installed and and how they're classified. >> [snorts] >> Um so in this situation because we are reviewing a project that was already
installed and to my knowledge it it is a film that's meant to be applied to a window um because that is what was done without a permit and that's what is brought forward for the application review. That's what we're reviewing at this time. Um whether or not other types of signs would be allowed, you know,
that's something that we would talk about if if that's the case that the property owner wants to cons uh pursue. Um, we would, you know, work with our our zoning team to see what would be allowed in this situation and of course work with the applicant and property owner to make sure that what they're
proposing would meet preservation guidelines. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Skulliki. >> Do other commissioners have questions for staff? >> Okay. Thank you. I will now open the public hearing for this item. And if the
cap applicant is here and would like to speak, please come to the microphone and state your name for the record. >> Good afternoon. My name is Eric Hansen along with uh Denny Johnson on behalf of the applicants here 411 North Loop LLC.
Um, a couple points that I think we wanted to make sure commission understood. Um, the first of all, [snorts] talk about whether or not this is a, uh, contributing building or not. Um, and
ultimately, um, the property address, and I think you can see it in some of the Google Street Views is this is 411 uh, Washington Avenue North. And based on that, we thought it was a non-contributing building. Turns out that if you pull the National Register,
there is a 419 Washington Avenue, uh, that's the one that's listed in the National Register and they talk about the Golden Brick and so we're talking about the same building. I do not know why we have two different property addresses. Uh, but for the purposes of
this discussion, I'll say concede the point that it's a is a contributing building. Um, I don't really want to spend a lot of time getting bogged down on that because I don't think that's really the gerine question for you. Um, a question is looking at the secretary
of interior standards, is this disrupting the historic district? And I would submit absolutely not. Uh, ultimately what we are talking about is something that is making no permanent changes to this building. We're talking
about a film that's on the interior of the building inside of the window and a dynamic sign. And the question then becomes, you know, is this disrupting the the historic character of the district? And that's, you know, all of
what the HPC lays out is talking about. Um, I should correct myself, not the HPC, the Secretary of Interior standards on this is all designed to preserve our historic resources. That's the focus. And I think it's really important that
this commission understand that what we're proposing is no changes. Unlike the last applicant where we're talking about a non-contributing building and the visual exterior of it, we're not making any changes to it. It's a a transparent film that's basically turned
on during a period of time. Um, and I think that that ultimately uh that distinction is an important one and I'd like to point the uh HPC to the letter uh conditional approval letter from the
neighborhood association. Uh we understand that there are means in with a a dynamic sign that could be disruptive. We've already worked with the neighboring group. We've agreed to certain conditions that would restrict how that's used and we would
propose that the HPC adopt those same restrictions upon this dynamic sign. Uh because ultimately we're looking to be good neighbors here. Um, and I think that that's an important kind of segue. It you there has been
some opposition. If you read the opposition, um, essentially that boils down to two things. One, they didn't like how bright it was when it was tested. Understood. We already agreed that we were going to do it at a maximum of 20% of its
capacity. And frankly, the second set of um complaints are essentially that that this establishment is a bar. Um this is the reality of of the the warehouse district and how we are using this property today. Um I don't think that
that should serve as a barrier to the HPC. Um, ultimately I think one of the things that that this body should consider and I and we're in disagreement with staff on this is uh a reference was made to
the 2040 plan and I think it's useful to quote from the 2040 plan that the goal is to allow historic properties to evolve while protecting them from identity changing alterations.
It's right in the 2040 plan. That's what we're trying to do. That this sign does that. We are using a historic space, doing so in a way that does not damage it in the least. And those of us who have worked in preservation know that
long-term the best things that we can do to preserve our historic buildings is to have them used. The worst possible thing you can do is have them not be used by businesses, not upkeep. That's where we get to demolition scenarios as the HBC
will knows. And so I would respectfully submit that the that the analysis here really turns on this question of how far out of the historic character uh is it and is it disruptive? And I would submit it is not. And this really
goes ultimately to some of the findings that we have in the staff report that talk about well it's inconsistent with the um secretary in interior standards with the with the use of this district. Respectfully I disagree. Uh I think that
today the warehouse district is not storing materials. This is an entertainment district and this is consistent with that and it's doing so in a way that does not disrupt or do permanent damage to it in any way. And
if we're not going to allow the commercial use to evolve, you you run the risk of freezing these things in amber and then the question becomes how are you going to preserve it long term? And so I think that it's important that we have
these conversations, that the HPC weigh these things, but I think it should be weighed versus the need to continue to have active businesses. That's how we have a thriving historic district. And if we
start making it impossible, what's to prevent rabbit hole similar situated businesses going to the suburbs? And if that happens, I have to tell you, we got parts of Minneapolis where we're really struggling to get business investment.
And um you know, is this one case going to tip the tip over the warehouse district? No, it's not. But uh these are the considerations that I think this HBC has to consider. And when you weigh that against the fact that there aren't
permanent changes, you can take that film down and you can reduce the lighting on the film. You can regulate the hours that it is on or off. It really doesn't on
balance weigh in favor of denial of this application. the prior application was talked about like specific findings. Um, and I think that it's relevant that we talk about what that would be here. And I would
submit that the alteration that's being proposed is consistent with the applicable design guidelines in so much as it does not block visual access into the space, doesn't disrupt the historic
character of the warehouse. It's consistent with the applicable uh recommendations, the secretary of interior standards for prohibition and it's consistent with the spirit and intent of the preservation ordinances and the applicable portions of the
comprehensive plan. Uh ultimately, we're not asking for a permanent change to this building. We're asking that this commission approve temporary use of a sign that's not going to permanently impact either the building or the
district as a whole. And we think that ultimately if you take a look at the the conditional approval we have from the North Loop neighborhood group, that's reflected. Uh we're interested in being good neighbors. And what we disagree with staff on is that
[snorts] because tech dynamic sign technology didn't exist in the 1890s does not mean that it is wholly inappropriate today. It should be allowed and it should be properly regulated. And that's
what we're here proposing that you'd allow and that consistent with the restrictions that we've already agreed with on the neighborhood group, we'd ask that you would approve this application. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. I know that some of
this can be a little technical. >> Thank you for that. Do commissioners have question? Commissioner Alexander, >> hi. Thank you. [clears throat] You said in the sort of adjusted agreement uh it would the maximum power
setting would be kept at 20%. >> Yes. >> Uh during the testing phase, what was the power setting set to? >> Oh, it was 100%. >> So, this is an 80% reduction compared to
what the neighbors were exposed to prior, >> right? I they they saw it turned on in all of its full glory and uh I understand why that could be disruptive. [snorts] >> Thank you. >> Do other commissioners have uh questions
for the applicant? Commissioner Smith. >> Uh thank you. Um so you very passionately gave uh some explanation around activating businesses, bringing businesses to the warehouse district,
but I just want to clarify this is a currently operating business. Is that correct? >> Yes, it is. >> And when you mentioned that it is a temporary sign, it respectfully I have to say that we're it's not holiday lights. It's not
temporary. The intent is that it would be used on a daily basis. Is that also correct? >> When I say temporary, uh what I mean by that is we're not making any permanent alterations to the buildings. The it is a transparent film applied to the
backside on the interior of the building so that we're not screwing into the m masonry joints. There's not external electric on the outside of the building. um all the sorts of things that the Secretary of Interior talks about
mitigating and concealing, none of that is present here. >> And would you agree or disagree that this experience at the street level and beyond impacts the integrity of the street experience for the district that the sign is placed in regardless of the
alteration to the exterior of the building or not? >> Uh I believe it does not. I think that it is consistent with how the warehouse district is presently operating and the kind of signage that you see walking in and around that. Right before this
meeting, uh we next to Billy Succi, uh 121st Avenue North, there's a dynamic sign today, it was showing an astronaut floating in clouds. Um, this stuff exists right now today and we can all
walk down to it, walk around the warehouse district and see it. I don't think there is anything about this sign that is somehow out of character with how the warehouse district is being used today as an entertainment district. >> And if there is no impact to the street
experience for the district and its neighbors, then what is the purpose of the sign? It's advertising. I I when you say impact, I I would define that as like a negative
impact. I don't think there's anything more about this sign that somehow takes away from the character of the historic district as a whole. And and that's I think all of what I read the Secretary of Interior standards to designed to do
is to make it feel historic. And I don't think that people are suddenly going to mistake this section of Washington Avenue for something else by virtue of this sign. It is a originally a commercial and
industrial space that has turned into more of an entertainment commercial space and this use is wholly consistent with that and the sign is wholly consistent with that. Um, and and I think that it's important that we have these discussions because I think you
could have a sign that would be disruptive. I you could have spotlights pointing out and targeting people on the street and I'd say, yeah, that's not consistent with what we want as this business district. As it is today, what we're proposing with the limited use, I
think it's wholly consistent with the use. >> Thank you. Do any other commissioners have questions? >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak about this
application? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, let's discuss any comments on the proposed application. Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bjornberg. Um, I do have an additional comment. I I
recognize that the intent to be a good neighbor um has been stated by the applicant and their representatives. I am reluctant um to accept that given the fact that this is coming as a retroactive application.
Um, and so I just wanted to go on the record as as stating, while you may intend to be good neighbors, it does not appear as though you were necessarily good neighbors upfront. Um, and that may explain the uh number of emails that the
commission and the uh staff received um not in support of this sign and so it would be hard to ignore that uh given the testimony presented before us today. Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Amalum.
>> Yeah. I have a question for Mr. Scleki if we can have him come back up. Is that >> Yeah. So, as the applicant or the representative of the applicant was talking, I was going Google Street View along [clears throat] Washington Avenue
and I'm noticing that bunkers and cousins both have illuminated signs in side in, you know, inside their windows. And assuming that they're both static,
would it be is the is the problem that this is a dynamic sign versus static sign? So if we put the condition that this has to be a static sign, would that alleviate some
of the concerns of staff for that that issue? Chair Bjumbberg, Commissioner Melbloom. Um, this this is not a a sign that is static or stationary, right? So, that's
why we're reviewing it as a dynamic sign. Um, it has the ability to change. And again, we might be getting into zoning code definitions here. kind of going back to what staff mentioned before, you know, we are reviewing what
has been installed and that is a dynamic sign. Um, and that's not allowed per the design guidelines. So, >> yeah, let me let me and thank you for that. Let me restate my question. So if the applicant was committed to have one
image and only one image and that's what would be up there, then this would be considered a would that be acceptable as a static sign? >> That would be left to the zoning administrator to make that determination um to to answer to kind of go back and
maybe answer the question that I I think you are um trying to ask. Would a window sign be allowed here with some illumination? and and yes, window signs are um generally not regulated by HPC when they don't have dynamic function and when they are not covering up um a
full area of a transom window for a storefront. So um we again we work closely with our our zoning team to make sure that we are bringing forward the correct um you know type of sign for evaluation in this situation. So
>> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you speaking to that, >> Commissioner Rodriguez. >> Thank you. Um I don't have a question. Thank you. [laughter] Um I guess to me there's kind of a couple of things going on here that seem kind of straightforward and then also kind of a
a technical preservation thing as well. Um the sign is dynamic, which is not allowed by the district guidelines. The sign is too big uh for the zoning guidelines. Um, and when it comes to the Secretary of Interior standards, um, I
would argue that it has a pretty big impact on the visual relationship of the district, uh, which is one of the criteria that the Secretary of the Interior's interior's guidelines for rehab rehab rehabilitation are supposed
to consider. Um, visual impacts aren't just uh, changing the fabric of a building. their uh signage, view sheds, all sorts of things going on. Um, and I think that this definitely falls under
that. Um, and is a pretty significant impact to the surrounding buildings, not just to this particular building, which you know, it's an impact to that one as well. >> Thank you. Other comments from
Commission Commissioner Wallace? Yeah, kind of along those lines too. And to what Commissioner Smith had said before, I completely agree with the idea that the best way to preserve a building is for its continued use. I don't think
that this sign will make or break the business's use of this building. I think the other piece of this that should be a part of this discussion is the reason that the warehouse district is currently functioning as an entertainment district
to some degree is because of its historic resources. So the more we well I wouldn't say it's an agreed upon thing but say the more people try to argue that the installation of this kind
of upgraded technology or new technology is [snorts] in keeping with what attracts people to the district in the first place. I think there's a a mis disconnection between that and that's why we have the guidelines. So, I think all of that said, I don't know that we
have much of much room to um to argue against what what does already go against the guidelines, which we're here essentially to uphold. Um, obviously, there are other other ways to go around that or not around it, but to speak to that and
to interpret, but given all the facts, I would uh I would be supportive of the staff recommendation. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Other thoughts or comments from commissioners? Commissioner Curado.
>> Yeah, I think to the going back to the fact that this is a historic district and not necessarily just a historic resource, um it's the overall character I think is what we're discussing. And and while yes, this technology allows the
preservation of the structure itself, um it does have an impact on the overall, I think, fabric of the district. And quite frankly, I just walked by this uh like three times this past week. Um
you notice the businesses and the energy by walking by them and seeing in the window. It's I was I don't think I noticed the sign personally. Um from across the street I think you would and I think that's where it starts to kind of play into that character that it
is it is a very different type of visual um visual object um within the fabric. So I think it's just the weave becomes different and I think that's evident.
Um, and then going back to yes, businesses have different reasons for successes. I think some of the most successful businesses quite frankly in North Loop, but the ones that are impossible to find because there is no signage. So, um, I I don't know how that all works. I'm sure there's marketing
studies. So, I'll let others speak to that, but thank you. >> Do other commissioners have comments on this item? Commissioner Rodriguez, >> I can go ahead and make a motion. Um, I move that the Heritage
Preservation Commission denies the Commission preservation application to install a video film dynamic sign on storefront glazing above the primary entrance in the Minneapolis warehouse district um at 411 Washington Avenue North. >> Thank you, Commissioner Rodriguez. Is
there a second? >> Wallace seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Any further discussion? Seeing none, would the clerk call the role? Member Alexander. >> I >> Booty.
>> I >> Curado. >> I >> Melbam. >> I >> Rodriguez. >> I >> Smith >> I >> Thomas >> I >> Wallace >> I >> Vice Chair Masten >> I. >> Chair Bjornberg >> I.
>> There are 10 eyes. >> Thank you. That motion passes. And that concludes our public hearing items. Do staff have any announcements? Chair Bjornberg. Yes, I am Andrea Burke. I am supervisor for the historic
preservation team in CPAD. I have a few announcements. Um, one is to recap the um, business housing and zoning meeting this afternoon. The Lakeshore Arms designation was discussed at that meeting this afternoon and it was
forwarded to the city council without recommendation. So that will be taken up next week by the city council. Um also um as everyone has seen um the NAPC forum conference is coming up in about a
little over two weeks. Um volunteers are still needed. I have sent out the spreadsheet. Um, happy I I will I'm I'm happy to volunteer and I'm happy to recommend uh that for others to volunteer if you so are able to and have
the time and if you don't that is uh just fine. You have jobs during the day um when you're not sitting on the commission. Um I am though reaching out um as Aaya had noted in the email to request volunteers for an upcoming event
at the um National Alliance of Preservation Commission's forum conference which is called Meet the Minneapolis HPC. It is on Thursday um July 23rd from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the forum cafeteria, the historic forum cafeteria. Um looking for three to five
volunteers who can attend and represent uh the current HPC. I've also reached out to former HPC commissioners throughout the years. Um, and it's mostly to share a bit about the space, talk about your work on the HPC, simply
offer a warm welcome, say hello. Um, we're receiving conference attendees from all around the country. Um, and your presence would help explain your work on the HPC, the city, and um, we would just greatly appreciate your support. And if you've noticed, I'm
specifically looking for a number of volunteers that is less than quorum. So, um, you are you can volunteer now. You can also email me. I understand it's a few weeks away. Schedules happen. So, um, I just wanted to reiterate that request.
Thank you, Commissioner Curado. [snorts] >> Question on that volunteer spreadsheet. Is it one person per slot? Are you looking for backups? >> I believe it is one person per slot. So any of those openings is is for one person. So and they kind of have the
times and my understanding now is the color differences is doesn't matter at this point. If the slot is open, a volunteer is requested at that time. >> Commissioner Melo, >> thank you. Um I have a question about
your previous um item about the CBiz >> re making no recommendation. Is that typical or is that unusual and does that indicate any sense of where the city council may end up on this?
>> Uh Commissioner Blabum. Um to recap it that has seemed to happen uh as just to state of fact that has seemed to happen as a at a few recent biz committee meetings on items. Um so in 2026 it has happened more than once. Um and based on
the discussion which you are more than welcome to go back and and listen to because it is public. It seemed that the biz committee was divided on their um on their decision on that item. So, thank you. >> Go for it.
>> So, I have a question that has nothing to do with this, but relates back to the the transom window issue in the in the city or in the staff report. Well, the applicant for the what was it?
the 227 First Street North had identified two properties that might not be in compliance with the uh warehouse district historic guidelines. Is that something that the CPAD staff then will look into and take some action
on if that's necessary or does nothing happen with that? I'm kind of curious. Commissioner Melbourne. And items or properties where we do find unpermitted work, we do have the ability to send our enforcement out to look at the project.
We can investigate whether or not proper approvals were sought. Um, and so that is something that is available to us and something we do exercise as our right within the ordinance. >> Thank you. >> Any other staff announcements?
No, that concludes my announcements. Thank you. >> Thank you. Do commissioners have any announcements. Okay, with that we've completed all items on the agenda. There being no other business to come before this meeting and without objection, I will declare the meeting adjourned. And the
next regular meeting of the HPC is July 21st, 2026. Thank you.