>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I CALL TO ORDER THE NOVEMBER 10TH 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
INTO THE MICROPHONE WHEN SPEAKING AT THE DAIS OR GIVING TESTIMONY. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL SO WE MAY VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. >> COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER IS ABSENT. BOOTE?
>> PRESENT. >> HERR. >> PRESENT. >> KARATO IS ABSENT. MELLBLOM. >> HERE. >> RODRIGUEZ. >> PRESENT. >> THOMAS. >> PRESENT.
>> WALLACE IS ABSENT. MASTIN. >> PRESENT. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG. >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THERE IS A QUORUM. AND CUSTOMER MASTIN'S ABSENCE IS EXCUSED. WE WILL WORK FROM THE AGENDA PROVIDED BY THE CLERK AND I WILL
GO THROUGH THE AGENDA AND SORT OUT WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED AND WHICH ITEMS WILL BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS 119, 4TH
STREET NORTH WARD 7, ADJACENT TO WARD 3. THIS IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS 415, 1TH STREET NORTH WARD 3.
THIS IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS 107, 3RD AVENUE NORTH WARD 3.
THIS IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST WARD ONE. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR
DELISTING FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND WILL BE DISCUSSED. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS 100, 2ND AVENUE NORTH WARD 3. THIS IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS 300, 1ST AVENUE NORTH WARD SEVEN. THIS IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ITEM NUMBER TEN IS PARTIAL 2026 HPC CALENDAR ALL WARDS. AND THIS ITEM WILL BE DISCUSSED. SO THE PROPOSED AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH WILL
INCLUDE ITEM NUMBER 4, 119, 4th STREET NORTH WARD SEVEN, ADJACENT TO WARD THREE. ITEM NUMBER 5-415, 4th STREET NORTH.
ITEM NUMBER 6, 107, 3rd AVENUE NORTH WARD THREE. ITEM 8, 100, 2nd AVENUE NORTH, WARD THREE.
ITEM 9, 300, 1st AVENUE NORTH WARD SEVEN. IS THERE ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION OPPOSED TO THESE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO ONE OF THESE ITEMS? WHICH ITEM DO YOU WISH TO PULL FROM CONSENT?
NUMBER NINE. AND YOU WANT TO PULL THAT FROM CONSENT? OKAY. SO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL HAVE
STAFF PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION. THAT WILL ITEM NUMBER 7-1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST WARD 1, ITEM NUMBER 9-300 1ST AVENUE
NORTH WARD SEVEN. AND THEN THE FOLLOWING ITEM WILL HAVE STAFF PRESENTATION, COMMISSION DISCUSSION WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER TEN PARTIAL 2026 HPC CALENDAR, ALL WARDS.
COMMISSIONERS, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AGENDA? >> MASTIN SO MOVES. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MASTIN. IS THERE A SECOND? >> MELLBLOM SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. ANY DISCUSSION?
ALL IN FAVOR SAY A [CHORUS OF AYES] THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. OUR NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS WILL BE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR OCTOBER 14, 2025, MEETING. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE
THOSE MINUTES? >> THOMAS SO MOVES. >> THANK YOU, CUSTOMER THOMAS. IS THERE A SECOND? >> RODRIGUEZ SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, CUSTOMER RODRIGUEZ. ANY DISCUSSION?
SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS INCLUDING COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE ABSENT? OKAY. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. BEFORE I OPEN THE HEARING TO
PUBLIC COMMENTS, LET ME SUMMARIZE THE PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING THE PUBLIC HEARING. FIRST, WE WILL 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, WE WILL TAKE EACH REMAINING AGENDA ITEM IN ORDER. PLANNING STAFF WILL PRESENT ITS REPORT AND COMMISSIONERS MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. THEN I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING AND WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND CUSTOMERS MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. AFTER THAT, WE WILL INVITE PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, WE NEED YOU TO DO TWO THINGS; PLEASE BE SURE TO SIGN UP ON THE SHEET OVER BY THE CLERK. IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THIS
ALREADY, YOU CAN DO SO AFTERWARDS. WHEN YOU COME UP TO TESTIFY, YOU MUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. PLEASE KEEP COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE APPLICATION BEFORE US. IF YOU HAVE MATERIALS TO HAND OUT, PLEASE GIVE THEM TO OUR COMMITTEE CLERK SO THAT THEY CAN BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSION
AND ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE COMPLETE, I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND COMMISSIONERS WILL DELIBERATE AND ACT UPON THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE US. SO I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS.
ITEM NUMBER 4-119 4TH STREET NORTH WARD SEVEN, ADJACENT TO WARD 3. ITEM 5-415 4TH STREET NORTH WARD THREE.
ITEM 6-107 3RD AVENUE NORTH, WARD 3. ITEM 8-100 2ND AVENUE NORTH, WARD 3. AGAIN TO COMMISSIONERS SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE ITEMS? 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? >> MELLBLOM SO MOVES.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. IS THERE A SECOND? >> MASTIN SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MASTIN. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS?
OKAY. THESE ITEMS ARE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF ON THE AGENDA AND APPLICANTS MAY CONTACT PLANNING STAFF ABOUT NEXT STEPS. OUR FIRST ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 7,
1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST WARD 1. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR DELISTING FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THE STAFF ROBERT IS PRESENTED BY ROB SKALECKI.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. I'M ROB SKALECKI, CITY PLANNER ON THE TEAM IN CPED. TODAY I'M PRESENTING THE REMOVAL FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES FOR THE AARON
CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY WHICH IS LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST. ON OCTOBER 16, 2025, THE MINNESOTA DEPUTY STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SENT THE MINNEAPOLIS HPC A LETTER REQUESTING COMMENTS ON THE
PROPOSED REMOVAL OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THIS LETTER WAS INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT NUMBER ONE FOR COMMISSIONERS TO VIEW. AS A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE NATIONAL REGISTER PROCESS AS FOLLOWS, AS RELATED TO THE REMOVAL FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER PROCESS OR DELISTING. ONE, TO AFFORD THE PUBLIC A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE REMOVAL OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. TWO, TO PREPARE A REPORT AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE QUALITIES WHICH CAUSED THE PROPERTY TO BE LISTED HAVE BEEN LOST OR DESTROYED. AND THREE, TO HAVE THE CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIAL, IN THIS SITUATION, THE MAYOR, SUBMIT THE REPORT AND HIS OR HER COMMENTS ON THE REMOVAL OF THE PROPERTY
FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES TO THE MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER WITHIN 60 DAYS OF NOTICE FROM THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE. CURRENTLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE WERE INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENTS FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION AND THAT'S UNDER ATTACHMENT NUMBER TWO. THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY WAS LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ON OCTOBER 7, 2020. THE PROPERTY IS ONLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, THE PROPERTY IS
NOT LOCALLY DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK BY THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. THAT'S WHY THE REVIEW HERE TODAY IS NOT THROUGH A FORMAL APPLICATION.
FOUNDED IN MINNEAPOLIS IN 1891, THE AARON CARLSON COMPANY BUILT A REPUTATION FOR CUSTOM MILL WORK. THE FOUNDER AARON CARLSON WAS A SWEDISH IMMIGRANT WHO BEGAN HIS MINNESOTA CAREER WORKING IN STILLWATER LUMBER CAMPS IN THE 1880s.
AFTER WORKING AS A FOREMAN, CARLSON FOUND HIS OWN WOOD WORKING BUSINESS AND RECRUITED MEN FROM SWEDEN TO WORK AS CARPENTERS AT THE FIRM. THE COMPANY MANUFACTURED MILLWORK FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND UPPER CLASS HOMES UNTIL WORLD WAR II WHEN THE COMPANY
SHIFTED ITS OPERATION TO THE PRODUCTION OF WOOD COMPONENTS FOR PONTOON BRIDGES. THE COMPANY'S SKILL IN FINELY CRAFTED WOOD BUILDING COMPONENTS AND ITS PROXIMITY TO A RAIL LINE MADE IT A FIT FOR SHIPPING OF
PONTOON BRIDGING COMPONENTS TO TROOPS IN WORLD WAR II. THE NOMINATION NOTED THIS BACKGROUND AND ALSO NOTED THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME MAINTAINED EXCELLENT INTEGRITY FROM ITS PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FROM 1940 TO 1945.
SO THE NOMINATION STATES THAT THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION IS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT UNDER NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERION A, INDUSTRY FOR ITS ASSOCIATION WITH THE WARTIME LUMBER MINISTRY IN MINNEAPOLIS. AS THE ONLY MINNEAPOLIS LUMBER
MILL TO WIN THE ARMY NAVY E AWARD FOR ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE WAR EFFORT FOR ITS MANUFACTURE OF PONTOON BRIDGE COMPONENTS DURING WORLD WAR II. AT THE TIME OF THE NOMINATION, THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY RETAINED GOOD HISTORIC INTEGRITY AND WAS ABLE TO CONVEY
ITS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION SITE WAS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF LATE 19th AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY MANUFACTURING IN A COMPLEX WHICH EXEMPLIFIED THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS.
IN A MEMO FILE DATED OCTOBER 15, 2025, THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE DID NOTE HOWEVER, THAT BASED ON THEIR REVIEW IT WAS IN THEIR OPINION AND THE OPINION -- IT WAS IN THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE'S OPINION THAT THE AARON
CARLSON COMPANY FACTORY REMOVAL DOCUMENTATION HAD BEEN ADEQUATELY PREPARED AND THE PROPERTY HAD CEASED TO MEET CRITERIA FOR LISTING BECAUSE OF PROPERTIES WHICH CAUSED IT TO BE LISTED HAVE BEEN LOST OR DESTROYED. HERE WAS A PHOTO THAT WAS
INCLUDED IN THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE'S MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF THAT MEMO THAT WAS PRODUCED. CPED STAFF HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT AND AWARE OF THE BUILDING SINCE ITS LISTING OF
COURSE IN 2020. IN FEBRUARY 2025, REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DID CONTACT STAFF TO EXPLORE DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING. AFTER THEIR PLANS FOR REHABILITATION, REUSE, OR REDEVELOPMENT AT THAT TIME APPEARED TO BE NO LONGER POSSIBLE.
SO SINCE THE PROPERTY IS NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED, STAFF INFORMED THEM EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT A DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE APPLICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GAIN APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION. STAFF DID HOLD A PREAPPLICATION MEETING ON FEBRUARY 13, 2025,
AND ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP MEETING ON APRIL 14, 2025. BUT STAFF DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM THE APPLICANTS AFTER THAT. ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2025, THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED BY A LARGE FIRE. STAFF DO WANT TO NOTE THAT ON
OCTOBER 24, 2025, EMAIL THE ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL NOTIFIED PLANNING STAFF THAT MINNEAPOLIS'S CONSTRUCTION CODE SERVICES STAFF HAD NOT DEEMED THE REMAINING STRUCTURES TO BE IN IMMINENT DANGER OF COLLAPSE AND THAT THEY WERE NOT A HAZARD TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THIS
TIME. THERE'S CURRENTLY NO INTENT FOR THE CITY TO PURSUE EMERGENCY DEMOLITION GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW AT THE SITE CURRENTLY. AND THE CAUSE OF FIRE IS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION. BUT UNDERSTANDING THE LOSS OF
HISTORIC INTEGRITY, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST NO LONGER RETAINS SUFFICIENT HISTORIC INTEGRITY TO BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND DIRECTS STAFF TO TRANSMIT A LETTER SUMMARIZING THEIR OPINION
AND COMMENTS TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
I GUESS I HAVE A SORT OF PROCEDURAL QUESTION. SO THIS IS NOT LOCALLY DESIGNATED. DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF IT WAS NATIONAL REGISTER DELISTED AND THE DEMOLITION PERMIT GOT PUT
IN, WOULD THAT STILL GET REVIEWED BY YOUR OFFICE? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING THROUGHOUT AS SOON AS
THE FIRE HAPPENED AND GIVEN STAFF MEETING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. I MAY DEFER TO ANDREA BURKE ABOUT THIS. I THINK SHE HAS THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THIS. THERE ARE CERTAIN STATE RULES THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DEMOLISH IT AND DELISTING IS ONE OF THE
STEPS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. BUT I'LL DEFER TO ANDREA IF SHE HAS ANYMORE COMMENTS. >> ANDREA BURKE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, IT STILL WOULD GET A REVIEW. HOWEVER, HOW WE PROCEED WITH THAT REVIEW DEPENDS ON THIS
DELISTING AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THE WAY THE STATE STATUTE READS IS THAT ANY DEMOLITION IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED BUILDING MUST GET AN EAW UNLESS IT GETS A HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION REVIEW BUT 106 THERE'S SOME
OTHER LANGUAGE IN THE LAW. BUT THEN AN EXCEPTION IS IF THE PROPERTY IS DEEMED NONCONTRIBUTING OR BASICALLY HAS LOST ITS SIGNIFICANCE IS ANOTHER WAY TO APPROACH IT.
AT THIS POINT IT HAS TO COME FOR YOU COMMENTS, IT THEN GOES TO THE STATE REVIEW BOARD. IT ALSO THEN FINALLY GOES TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO HAVE THEIR COMMENTS AND DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT ACTUALLY BECOMES DELISTED. AT THAT POINT, ONCE IT DOES, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SIGN OFF ON A
WRECKING WITHOUT BRINGING IT TO HPC BECAUSE IWOULD NO LONGER BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER. NOW IF A DEMOLITION WANTED IT TO COME THROUGH BEFORE, I THINK THERE IS A COUPLE OPTIONS TO
PURSUE, BUT AT THIS POINT THAT IS THE ROUTE WE ARE PLANNING TO TAKE GIVEN THAT NO WRECKING HAS COME THROUGH AT THIS POINT IN TIME. BUT IT IS STILL LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER, BUT WE DO HAVE A FEW OPTIONS JUST BASED ON SOME LETTERS WE'VE RECEIVED. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, THAT'S HELPFUL. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR COMMENTS FOR SOMETHING TO SUBMIT, IS THAT
CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ. >> CHAIR, THANK YOU. THERE WAS ONE PHOTO POST FIRE THAT SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN.
AM I REMEMBERING CORRECTLY THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY PHOTO THAT WAS IN THE REPORT? WERE THERE OTHERS? >> THAT'S THE ONLY PHOTO THAT'S
ON THEIR AGENDA FOR THE STATE REVIEW BOARD. >> OKAY. IT KIND OF SEEMS TO ME LIKE THIS ISN'T QUITE A THOROUGH OVERVIEW OF THE PROPERTY. WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION LATER. BUT I WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED A FEW MORE PHOTOS WITHIN THE
REPORT. BUT THANK YOU. >> ONE OTHER QUESTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY. SO THE ACTION OF DELISTING WAS INITIATED BY THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF FROM COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, THANK YOU. I WILL NOW OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THIS WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR
AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. COMMISSIONERS, LET'S DISCUSS. I WILL GO AHEAD AND START OFF THAT AGAIN THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PLACES THAT I SEE LIKE MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY AS A NORTHEAST
RESIDENT AND I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS BUILDING AND WAS DEVASTATED WHEN IT WAS ON FIRE THE MANY VARIOUS TIMES THAT IT HAS BEEN ON FIRE IN THE LAST WHILE.
ANDLY -- AND SIMILARLY IT SEEMS LIKE THAT ICONIC TOWER FEATURE IS STILL STANDING. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF INTEGRITY FROM THE ONE PHOTO THAT WE SAW OF THE
VERY, VERY BURNED DOWN BUILDING. BUT I WOULD STILL LOVE IF THAT ONE TOWER COULD STAND SO I THINK THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE IF IT GETS DELISTED, IS THERE ANYTHING TO
PRESERVE IT. >> YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE SMOKESTACK CORRECT? >> COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ. >> I HAVE A FEW MORE THOUGHTS
KIND OF CONNECTED TO THAT. IT SEEMED LIKE IN THE -- I THINK IT WAS THE SHIPO DOCUMENTATION, IF IT WAS IN THE PACKET WE RECEIVED THAT THERE WAS A WHOLE KIND OF COMPLEX OF SEVERAL BUILDINGS
THAT WERE KIND OF INDIVIDUALLY LISTED AS CONTRIBUTING AND NONCONTRIBUTING. AND IT KIND OF SEEMS IMPORTANT TO ME THAT WE HAVE A MORE THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF WHICH OF THOSE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN EFFECTED AND HOW BADLY AS TO THEN BE ABLE TO KIND OF HAVE AN OPINION AS TO HOW MUCH INTEGRITY
MAY OR MAY NOT REMAIN. >> OTHER THOUGHTS FROM COMMISSIONERS?
I MEAN, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SAY IT, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION DIGGING INTO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. COMMISSIONER MASTIN. >> MAYBE I'LL JUST ASK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG, FROM YOUR DAILY TRAVELS, HOW MUCH OF THE
BUILDING LOOKS LIKE IT'S THERE? IS IT REALLY JUST THE SMOKESTACK OR IS THERE ANY INTEGRITY LEFT OF THE BUILDINGS THAT YOU SEE? GOOGLE MAPS STILL SHOWS THE OLD. >> REALLY GREAT QUESTION. I WILL ALSO SAY LIKE I DON'T
KNOW THAT I CAN MAKE A REALLY GREAT DETERMINATION OF LIKE STRUCTURALLY WHAT IS IN GOOD SHAPE. I THINK THAT THE -- I'M GOING TO KEEP REFERRING TO IT AS WHAT DID I SAY, THE TOWER? YOU SAID SMOKESTACK. THE TOWER/SMOKESTACK LOOKS LIKE IT'S OKAY.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT IT'S SORT OF LIKE A ALL OR NOTHING TYPE OF SITUATION IT SEEMS LIKE HERE.
COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> I AGREE. BECAUSE ACCORDING TO GOOGLE MAPS, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE -- THERE'S PROBABLY -- LOOKS LIKE THE BUILDING HAS BEEN ADDED ON
TO 4 OR 5 OR MAYBE EVEN SIX TIMES. AND THEN THERE'S THE SEPARATE LOOKING BUILDING NEXT TO IT. SO IF THAT SEPARATE BUILDING IS COMPLETELY INTACT, IS THAT A PROBLEM AND YEAH. I DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT'S THERE AND WHAT'S NOT THERE.
OBVIOUSLY THE SMOKESTACK AND THE BUILDING IN THE FOREGROUND IS GONE. >> I WOULD SAY THAT'S EVEN MORE OF A REASON TO SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT FOR MORE INFORMATION FOR TAKING SUCH A DRASTIC
MEASURE OF DELISTING ESPECIALLY WHEN IT MEANS THAT I FEEL LIKE IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO EVENTUAL -- COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> ARE WE ALLOWED TO HOLD THIS ITEM OVER TO OUR NEXT MEETING? >> SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE,
BUT PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE OF THE STATE REVIEW BOARD, I BELIEVE THEY'RE WAITING FOR COMMENTS BY, I FEEL LIKE I READ THE 17th. BUT WE ARE JUST TRYING TO DEVELOP COMMENTS TO THEN SEND TO
THEM THAT WILL BE PART OF THAT STATE REVIEW BOARD HEARING. I'M LOOKING AT ANDREA BURKE LIKE CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, THAT'S CORRECT. THE HPC IS ONLY ISSUING COMMENT. THERE'S NO DECISION.
THE STATE REVIEW BOARD IS ON NOVEMBER 17TH. IF YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED, YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE THEM TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ANDREA. ARE YOU COLLECTING OUR COMMENTS
BASED ON A CONVERSATION OR DO WE HAVE TO PUT THEM INTO A FORMAL MOTION? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, WE'RE COLLECTING THEM DURING YOUR CONVERSATION. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER KARATO. >> I GUESS I HAVE SIMILAR THOUGHTS IN THAT I UNDERSTAND
THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE ENTIRE COMPLEX DOESN'T EXIST, BUT THERE ARE PORTIONS THAT SEEM TO BE EXTENT AND I GUESS SAFE CONDITION SINCE THE CITY IS NOT SEEKING DEMOLITION IMMEDIATELY.
BASED ON THAT TO ME, I DON'T THINK DELISTING IS THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION OR RATHER PERHAPS REDEFINING WHAT IS PROTECTED WITH THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE
PROTECTED. >> THANKS. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> I WAS REALLY GOING TO SAY PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING THAT WAS JUST SAID. I WOULD ALSO LOVE TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT HEY IF THE WHOLE BUILDING CAN'T BE SAVED, THE WHOLE COMPLEX, MAYBE EVEN JUST
THE SMOKESTACK BEING PROTECTED AND CHANGED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN. >> OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? I HAD A QUESTION, I'M TRYING TO
REMEMBER IT. I DON'T REMEMBER. COMMISSIONER MASTIN. >> I THINK I AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT WERE
HAVING CONCERNS ABOUT JUST DELISTING THE ENTIRE THING BECAUSE THEN WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE MEMORY OF THIS PLACE FROM THE SITE WHERE IF THERE IS SOME WAY TO ACKNOWLEDGE EVEN IF IT IS THE SMOKESTACK AS COMMISSIONER THOMAS WAS SUGGESTING, THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS STILL
CONNECTED TO THAT PLACE. >> OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS?
COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> THANK YOU. I'M CURIOUS IF IT'S FOUND THAT THE REASON FOR THE BUILDING HAVING BURNT DOWN IS SOMETHING
DONE WITH ILL INTENTION, HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT WITH THE IDEA THAT THE BUILDING CAN BE DEMOLISHED, THAT KIND OF IS A CONCERN OF MINE. IT'S A VALUABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
IT'S BEEN VACANT, KIND OF EMPTY FOR A LONG TIME. AND IT CATCHES FIRE SEVERAL TIMES, FINALLY BURNS DOWN, A GOOD PORTION OF IT OR MAYBE ALL OF IT. WE'RE NOT SURE. BUT THE THING THAT KEEPS
STICKING IN MY MIND IS THE IDEA THAT IF IT'S NOT STATED THAT CONCERN, I REALIZE THEY'RE DOING AN INVESTIGATION, BUT IT CONCERNS ME THAT WE ARE HELPING
TO AID AND ABET SOMETHING THAT IS NEFARIOUS. I KNOW IT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW, BUT IT JUST SITS WITH ME. >> YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT COMMENT. ESPECIALLY JUST SORT OF UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT OF
LIKE IN FEBRUARY PURSUING THE ROUTE OF WORKING WITH HPC STAFF TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE STEPS TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY WOULD BE AND THEN JUST LIKE CONV CONVENIENTLY -- I DON'T KNOW, CAN'T MAKE ANY JUDGMENT CALLS ON THAT. BUT IT IS INTERESTING.
I DID REMEMBER MY QUESTION AND THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR STAFF. ARE THERE ANY -- SIMILAR TO HOW IF THERE IS A LOCALLY DESIGNATED PROPERTY, I'M GOING TO USE ALL OF THE WRONG NAMES FOR THIS, PEOPLE CAN COME BY AND SEE THAT MAINTENANCE ISN'T HAPPENING AND
CHARGE PENALTIES. IS THERE ANYTHING LIKE THAT FOR A PROPERTY THAT IS NOT NATIONAL
REGISTERED. SO THIS PROPERTY THAT IS POOR CONDITION AND VACANT AND NOW THERE HAS BEEN A FIRE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LK OF MAINTENANCE ON IT. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, REGARDING ENFORCEMENT FOR THIS, THERE IS
AS YOU ARE AWARE AN ARTICLE IN THE CURRENT CHAPTER REGARDING MAINTENANCE, THERE ARE OTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCES THROUGH OTHER GROUPS, BASICALLY THROUGH
REGULATORY SERVICES. REGARDLESS OF ITS DESIGNATION STATUS, YES REGULATORY SERVICES MAINTAINS ITS OWN PROGRAM. I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND WHETHER OR NOT THIS BUILDING WAS ON THE VACANT BUILDING REGISTER WITH ANYTHING RELATIVE TO PROLONGED
VACANCY ENFORCEMENT. I DON'T THINK THERE MAYBE WOULD HAVE BEEN -- BUT THERE'S A VARIETY OF FINDINGS AND CITATIONS THAT THE CITY PROVIDES TO REGULATORY SERVICES THAT THE CITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY, WE DON'T GOVERN. SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE A MOTION. BUT I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO --
WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE SENSE IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE A MOTION RECOMMENDING AND AGREEING WITH THE IDEA THAT THERE NO LONGER RETAINS SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC INTEGRITY. MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR
STAFF, CAN WE MAKE A MOTION, SHOULD WE NOT MAKE A MOTION OR SHOULD WE MAKE A MOTION STATING EXACTLY THAT THE SENSE OF OUR GROUP IS THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO JUDGE THIS, WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO?
>> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, IT WOULD BE THE LATTER. I WOULD SUGGEST MAKING A MOTION THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS SUFFICIENT INTEGRITY OR INFORMATION, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO WORD IT, BUT I WOULD STILL MAKE THE MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO TRANSMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN A
LETTER TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE BECAUSE THAT'S THE REQUIRED ACTION THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> I WILL MAKE THE MOTION. >> SO I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION
COMMISSION CANNOT RECOMMEND THAT THE AARON CARLSON FACTORY LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST RETAINS SUFFICIENT HISTORIC INTEGRITY TO BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.
AND WE DIRECT STAFF TO TRANSMIT A LETTER SUMMARIZING OUR COMMENTS AND OPINION TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. >> ANDREA BURKE. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. CAN YOU READ THAT ONE MORE TIME
BECAUSE I MISHEARD A WORD AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S THE RIGHT WORD THAT WE'RE COMMUNICATING. THANK YOU. >> THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CANNOT RECOMMEND THAT THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL
AVENUE NORTHEAST RETAINS SUFFICIENT HISTORIC INTEGRITY TO BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND DIRECTS STAFF TO TRANSMIT A LETTER SUMMARIZING OUR OPINIONS AND COMMENTS TO THE STATE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. >> I FEEL LIKE YOU MAYBE DON'T WANT THE WORD CANNOT. I THINK THAT YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,
RETAINS THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY TO BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER AND DIRECTS STAFF TO TRANSMIT THE LETTER SUMMARIZING THAT. >> BUT I THINK WE DON'T WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT IT BE DELISTED. >> NO, YEAH.
THAT IT -- >> OKAY, I ACCEPT THAT. YES. >> SHOULD WE READ THAT AGAIN OR DO WE FEEL LIKE -- >> PLEASE, CHAIR BJORNBERG, ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE.
>> OKAY. LET'S SEE. THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST RETAINS SUFFICIENT HISTORIC INTEGRITY TO BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND
DIRECTS STAFF TO TRANSMIT A LETTER SUMMARIZING THEIR OPINION AND COMMENTS TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. >> THANK YOU, I GOT IT.
IS THERE A SECOND? >> MELLBLOM SECONDS. >> I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK -- I THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION
TO MAKE A JUDGMENT, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT THAT WE THINK THAT IT RETAINS THE SUFFICIENT HISTORIC INTEGRITY, WE DON'T KNOW. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING WE CANNOT RECOMMEND THAT IT NO LONGER RETAINS SUFFICIENT
HISTORIC INTEGRITY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF IT DOES OR IT DOESN'T. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US. THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT I HEARD FROM PEOPLE. SO I THINK INSERTING THE WORD CANNOT RECOMMEND AND KEEPING ALL
THE OTHER LANGUAGE. AND I REALIZE I LEFT OUT WORDS, THAT WAS THE CONFUSING PART. >> SINCE THERE'S A SECOND, DO WE HAVE TO CALL THE ROLL OR CAN
THERE BE A FRIENDLY -- >> I FEEL LIKE HAVING A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IF YOU'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT WOULD BE FINE. >> OKAY. SO THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS TO ADD PRESERVATION COMMISSION CANNOT RECOMMEND THAT THE AARON
CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST NO LONGER RETAINS BLAH BLAH BLAH. >> CORRECT. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE INFORMATION TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS HEARING PEOPLE SAYING. >> I HAVE THAT. THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. >> IT'S A JOURNEY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WOULD THE CLERK
CALL THE ROLL? >> ON THE AMENDED LANGUAGE. BOOTE. >> AYE. >> HERR. >> AYE. >> KARATO. >> AYE. >> MELLBLOM. >> AYE. >> RODRIGUEZ.
>> AYE. >> THOMAS. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN. >> AYE. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG. >> AYE. >> THERE ARE EIGHT AYES. >> THANK YOU, THAT MOTION PASSES.
OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 9-300 1ST AVENUE NORTH, WARD 7. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND THE STAFF REPORT IS PRESENTED BY ERIN QUE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
BJORNBERG AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ERIN QUE AND I'M A SENIOR PLANNER IN CPED. I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 1st AVENUE NORTH IN THE MINNEAPOLIS WAREHOUSE
HISTORIC DISTRICT. HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY'S LOCATION. AND HERE ARE VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY SOUTHEAST AND NORTHEAST ELEVATIONS. THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1887 AS A WAREHOUSE.
IT IS A 5-STORY BRICK AND STONE BUILDING. IT IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO THE MINNEAPOLIS WAREHOUSE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THIS APPLICATION COVERS THREE ALTERATIONS. THE FIRST OPERATION IS TO
DEMOLISH A NONFUNCTIONAL CHIMNEY. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED AN APPLICATION THAT ADDRESSES THE CHIMNEY'S STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES AND INDICATES IT NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED. TO RESERVE THE SHIMNY IT WOULD
NEED TO BE REBUILT -- CHIMNEY IT WOULD NEED TO BE REBUILT. IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURE OF THE PROPERTY AND IT IS SUBORDINATE TO THE HIGH ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL OF THE HIGH ELEVATION. STAFF CONSIDER DEMOLITION WITHOUT REBUILDING TO BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE.
THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDED TWO DIFFERENT BIDS TO THE APPLICANT RELATED TO THE REMOVAL OF THE BRICK CHIMNEY. THE SELECTED OPTION IS TO LET THE CHIMNEY BRICK FALL INTO ITSELF. STAFF DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THIS APPROPRIATE, THEREFORE WE ARE RECOMMENDING A CONDITION OF
APPROVAL TO ENSURE THAT THE CHIMNEY REMOVAL DOES NOT CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING OR CREATE UNSAFE CONDITIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS OR OTHER PROPERTY SUCH AS CARS GIVEN THAT THIS IS NEXT TO A PARKING LOT. THE SECOND ALTERATION IS FOR
BUILDING LIGHTING ON THE TWO PRIMARY ELEVATIONS. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THE BUILDING'S ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THROUGH UP/DOWN LIGHTING AND ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN'S EXPERIENCE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING SURE NO CRITICAL FEATURES ARE OBSCURED OR DAMAGED
IN THE PROCESS. WHAT'S SHOWN ON IN SLIDE HERE ARE CONCEPTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FINALIZED. EACH LIGHT FIXTURE WOULD MEASURE FOUR FEET LONG BY TWO AND A HALF INCHES BY TWO INCHES, AN EXAMPLE OF WHICH IS SHOWN AT RIGHT DURING A TEST.
THE APPLICANT INITIALLY CONSIDERED THREE FIXTURES ON EACH OF THE PLASTERS ON BOTH ELEVATIONS. STAFF HAD SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE NUMBER OF FIXTURES AS WELL AS HOW THE LOWEST LIGHT FIXTURE WOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING AND WHERE THE CONDUITS WOULD RUN. IN CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT
INDICATED THAT TWO FIXTURES IS LIKELY MORE FEASIBLE IN THE BUDGET. AND ALSO SHE SHARED CONCERNS ABOUT NOT WANTING TO OBSCURE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES. AS SUCH STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON
EACH PLASTER TO TWO. THE CONCEPT IS TO ATTACH TWO FIXTURES WITH A METAL BRACKET SO THAT ONE FIXTURE COULD SHINE UPWARD AND THE OTHER COULD SHINE DOWNWARD. THE ATTACHMENT WOULD REST ON THE WATER TABLE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS WOULD GO THROUGH THE MORTAR JOINTS. HOWEVER GIVEN THAT SOME OF THE DETAILS ARE STILL BEING REFINED,
INCLUDING THE EXACT DESIGN OF THAT BRACKET, STAFF RECOMMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE APPLICANT WILL WORK WITH STAFF TO FINALIZE THE DESIGN AND ENSURE THAT THE FIXTURES WILL NOT HARM OR OBSCURE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES, THAT THE CONDUITS WILL BE MINIMALLY VISIBLE AND THAT ANY ATTACHMENTS WILL GO THROUGH THE
MORTAR JOINTS. STAFF SHALL APPROVE THE LIGHTING DETAILS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THE APPLICANT ALSO SUGGESTED A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THEY WOULD WORK WITH STAFF TO INSTALL AND EVALUATE ONE LIGHT FIXTURE FIRST BEFORE DOING THE REMAINDERS. STAFF APPRECIATED THAT SUGGESTION AND RECOMMENDED INCLUDING IT AS A CONDITION OF
YOUR APPROVAL. AS I NOTED, THE APPLICANT AND HER TEAM HAVE NOT FINALIZED THE DESIGN OF THE BRACKET AND YOU KNOW, THE INTENT OF THESE CONDITIONS IS WE WANT TO WORK WITH THEM TO ENSURE THAT IT DOESN'T COVER UP ANY OF THE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ON THE BUILDING.
THE FINAL ALTERATION IS TO INSTALL LIGHTS ACROSS THE PARKING LOT TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE BUILDING ON THE SAME PARCEL. THREE QUARTER INCH EYE HOOKS WOULD ATTACH TO THE NORTHWEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND UP TO FOUR FREE-STANDING METAL POSTS WOULD BE INSTALLED ON THE
OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT. THE LIGHTS WOULD BE HUNG IN A ZIGZAG PATTERN. THE GOAL IS TO INCREASE LIGHTING IN THE AREA AND INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES. STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO ENSURE
THAT. WE BELIEVE THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE STANDARDS. THEREFORE STAFF RECOMMEND THAT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ADOPT STAFF FINDINGS AND APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE A CHIMNEY AND MAKE EXTERIOR LIGHTING CHANGES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 1st
AVENUE NORTH IN THE MINNEAPOLIS WAREHOUSE HISTORIC DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS; NUMBER ONE, EYE HOOKS TO HOLD THE CATENARY LIGHTS SHALL BE INSTALLED THROUGH MORTAR JOINTS. NUMBER TWO, THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH THE PRESERVATION STAFF TO FINALIZE THE UP/DOWN LIGHTING
DESIGN AND ENSURE THAT THE FIXTURES WILL NOT HARM OR OBSCURE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES AND THAT THE CONDUITS WILL BE MINIMALLY VISIBLE, AND THAT ATTACHMENTS WILL GO THROUGH THE MORTAR JOINTS. STAFF SHALL APPROVE THE LIGHTING DETAILS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. NUMBER THREE, THE APPLICANT
SHALL WORK WITH THE STAFF TO INSTALL ONE LIGHT FIXTURE AND REACH CONSENSUS BEFORE CONTINUING TO INSTALL THE REMAINING LIGHT FIXTURES. NUMBER FOUR, A MAXIMUM OF TWO LIGHT FIXTURES PER PILASTER SHALL BE PERMITTED. NUMBER FIVE, THE CHIMNEY SHALL BE REMOVED IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT DAMAGE THE BUILDING OR
CREATE UNSAFE CONDITIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS OR OTHER PROPERTY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE APPLICANT MAY WISH TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WITH YOU TODAY. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M HAPPY TO STAY FOR QUESTIONS AND AS NOTED THE
APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER KARATO. >> QUESTION ON THE CATENARY LIGHTS.
WHY IS IT POSTS ON ONE SIDE BUT NOT THE OTHER? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER KARATO, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. THE INITIAL IDEA WAS TO HANG THE LIGHTS FROM HOOKS ON BOTH SIDES. I KNOW THE APPLICANT HAD SPOKEN
TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT DOING IT AND THAT CONVERSATION WAS KIND OF ONGOING IN ORDER TO MOVE THIS THROUGH THE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT YET GOTTEN THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, THEY CHOOSE TO DO POSTS INSTEAD. BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO ASK THAT
QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> HI, THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. IS THE CITY AWARE THAT RETHOS
OWNS A PRESERVATION EASEMENT ON THIS PROPERTY? IS THE OWNER AWARE AND THAT RETHOS WILL ALSO HAVE TO GIVE APPROVAL AND HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE DECISIONS MADE HERE? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER THOMAS, THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT.
WE DID RECEIVE A SURVEY ON THE PROPERTY. WE DID NOT LOOK FURTHER INTO THE EASEMENTS. I KNOW THE PROPERTY OWNER IS AWARE OF AN EASEMENT. I DON'T HAVE ANYMORE SPECIFICS ABOUT IT, SO THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD QUESTION TO ASK OF THEM. >> PERFECT.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM STAFF OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, AND THEN TO DIRECT A QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER THOMAS, WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT. SO I WILL JUST STATE THAT.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
FOR THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU CHAIR BJORNBERG, AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ERIN FITZGERALD.
PROPERTY OWNER AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTH. I LOVE WHAT YOU DO. THAT'S WHY I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY TO MAKE SURE IT STAYED IN GOOD HANDS. AND I APPRECIATE THAT WE HAVE THIS IN OUR CITY TO HELP PRESERVE THE HISTORY AND THE CHARACTER OF THESE BUILDINGS BECAUSE LIKE YOU, THEY REALLY DO
CAPTURE MY HEART. SO I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS CONDITION THREE WHICH REQUIRES US TO INSTALL ONE LIGHT FIXTURE AND REACH CONSENSUS BEFORE INSTALLING THE REST ON THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING. OUR INTENT IS TO PROVIDE UP/DOWN
LIGHTING ON THIS CORNER BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF CRIME THAT HAPPENS THERE, IT'S A DARK CORNER. AND WE WANT TO ILLUMINATE IT AND BE A LIGHT IN THE DARK. SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THIS CONDITION BE REMOVED OR ALTERED FROM A PRACTICAL AND FINANCIAL STANDPOINT, IT'S NOT FEASIBLE
FOR US TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL A SINGLE FIXTURE AS A TEST. THE FIXTURES AND ALL RELATED COMPONENTS HAVE TO BE ORDERED AS A COMPLETE SET AND IF CONSENSUS ISN'T REACHED AFTER INSTALLING THE FIRST LIGHT FIXTURE, WE WOULD BE LEFT WITH ALL OF THESE
FIXTURES THAT WERE CUSTOM ORDERED THAT WE CAN'T RETURN. SO OUR INTENT IS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LIGHTING FOUND THROUGHOUT THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT INCLUDING THE WYMAN BUILDING, BUTLER NORTH, BUTLER SQUARE, 119, 4th STREET
NORTH, SO THEY ALIGN WITH THE CHARACTER AND PRECEDENT ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT. WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK CLOSELY WITH STAFF THROUGH CONDITION NUMBER TWO TO FINALIZE DESIGN DETAILS AND ENSURE THAT THE FIXTURES MEET ALL PRESERVATION STANDARDS.
THAT PROCESS ALREADY PROVIDES A CLEAR OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSENSUS BEFORE INSTALLATION, BUT AS A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT FROM THE BUILDING OWNER WHO IS SPENDING PROBABLY OVER $100,000 MAYBE CLOSER TO $200,000, I'LL WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FIXTURES ARE
EXACTLY AS WE ANTICIPATE ON THE PLANS, DRAWINGS, AND MOCK UPS BEFORE ORDERING INSTALLATION. SO I THINK WHERE THE DISCREPANCY LIES IS THAT WE WANT TO DO A MOCK UP INSTALLATION OF ONE FIXTURE PRIOR TO INSTALLING ALL OF THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAS
THE LIGHTING EFFECT THAT WE WANT. BUT WE WON'T ACTUALLY DRILL INTO THE MORTAR WITH AN ACTUAL INSTALLATION. IT WOULD JUST BE HOLDING THE LIGHT FIXTURES UP TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT COVERING UP ANY
ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND THAT THE LIGHTING ACTUALLY REACHES THE POINTS THAT WE WANT IT TO WITH THAT MOCK UP. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO ALTER ITEM NUMBER THREE TO SAY THIS THAT WE WOULD DO THIS MOCK UP
INSTALLATION WHERE WE RENT A TRUCK AND GET THE LIGHTING PEOPLE UP THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAS THE EFFECT. BUT INSTALLING A SINGLE LIGHT FIXTURE ISN'T ACTUALLY
PRACTICAL. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS CLARIF CLARIFICATION. WE'RE COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORIC
PROPERTY AND APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> WE MET BEFORE. I MANAGE OUR EASEMENT PROGRAM AT
RETHOS. SO I HAPPEN TO BE VERY AWARE OF OUR PRESERVATION EASEMENT ON THIS BUILDING. SO THERE WOULD BE A PROCESS WHERE YOU WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT YOUR DESIGN REQUEST TO RETHOS AS WELL AND WE WOULD GO THROUGH WITH OUR EASEMENT COMMITTEE TO APPROVE ANYTHING AS WELL. >> OKAY. >> SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO BE
AWARE OF THAT. >> THANK YOU FOR MAKING ME AWARE OF THAT. >> YES. AND BASED UPON WHAT I'M SEEING HERE, I THINK WHAT THE HPC VOTES WOULD PROBABLY GO WITH RETHOS AS WELL, BUT I HAVE TO PRESENT IT TO THE COMMITTEE, AS WE ALL
MANAGE THE EASEMENTS TOGETHER. >> OKAY. APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> SO I WILL SEND YOU ANOTHER EMAIL ABOUT IT. AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> AND WHILE I HAVE THE MIC, I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT
TO ITEM NUMBER THREE THAT SHE IS PROPOSING. THANK YOU. >> IN THE MOCK UP YOU'RE PROPOSING, WOULD YOU POSSIBLY ALSO BE ABLE TO I GUESS LIFT UP A SAMPLE BRACKET?
IS THAT, LIKE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE SAME MATERIAL, BUT AT LEAST THE AESTHETICS SO THAT WE CAN TELL FROM THE STREET WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE? >> YEAH, I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY MAKE THAT WORK, YEAH.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER HERR? >> IS THE CHIMNEY IN PLANE WITH THE EXTERIOR WALL ON THE I DON'T
KNOW WHICH FACADE THAT IS, THE ONE ADJACENT TO THE PARKING LOT? >> THE WEST. >> YEAH, THANK YOU. >> BY IN PLANE DO YOU MEAN IN FLAT UP AGAINST IT? I DON'T THINK SO. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN INDENTATION. >> OKAY. >> YEAH, BECAUSE IT DOES SIT ON
THE ROOF. >> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC?
OKAY. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, LET'S DISCUSS. STAFF, ANDREA BURKE. >> I'M GOING TO MAKE A
STATEMENT, ANDREA BURKE, SUPERVISOR OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM. SINCE WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THE EASEMENT AND COMMISSIONER THOMAS DOES SIT ON RETHOS AND IS MANAGER OF THAT PROGRAM, I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT COMMISSIONER THOMAS RECUSES HERSELF FROM THIS VOTE.
AT THAT POINT I WILL LEAVE THAT DECISION TO COMMISSIONER THOMAS, BUT JUST CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS A CONNECTION IN A WAY, NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS ANY FINANCIAL CONFLICT, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION GIVEN THIS SITUATION AND THE
INFORMATION THAT'S JUST COME TO LIGHT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS VOTE. >> SHE CAN STAY HERE THOUGH? >> SAY THAT AGAIN, CHAIR BJORNBERG.
>> SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO LEAVE? >> SHE CAN STAY, SHE JUST RECUSES HERSELF WHEN IT COMES TIME TO VOTE ON THIS. THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. >> PERFECT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS?
COMMISSIONER KARATO? >> I GUESS I HAVE A COUPLE. I APPRECIATE THE CATENARY BEING ON POSTS ON ONE SIDE. I THINK THAT IT SEEMS LIKE IT
SERVES INTEREST THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO REVIEW THE NEXT BUILDING OVER AS WELL. NOT SURE IF THAT'S TRUE. BUT ON THE POINT OF ITEM THREE, I UNDERSTAND NOT HAVING TO WIRE THE LIGHTS AND DO EVERYTHING.
SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE INTENT OF THAT CONDITION BEING THAT YOU WANT TO SEE THE NIGHTTIME AND THE DAYTIME AESTHETIC OF THAT FIXTURE, THE MOCK UP SOUNDS REASONABLE TO ME. >> OTHER COMMISSIONERS?
I'LL SORT OF, I MEAN I DON'T THINK THAT IT MATTERS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE CONDITION SAYS EYE HOOKS ON THE ONE SIDE AND MORTAR JOINTS. BUT I'M SORT OF LAUGHING BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE ACTUALLY MORTAR JOINTS ON BOTH SIDES WOULD BE EASIER TO REPAIR AND LESS INTRUSIVE.
BUT I'M LIKE IT DOESN'T MATTER. WE HAVE THIS CONDITION HERE. I'LL SAY I'M A LITTLE BIT SPLIT ON NUMBER THREE JUST BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE CONDITION NUMBER TWO REALLY COVERS A LOT OF WHAT IS IN CONDITION THREE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A TYPICAL THING FOR STAFF TO REVIEW MOCK UPS OR IF THEY'RE USUALLY JUST REVIEWING DRAWINGS. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A MORE TYPICAL THING. BUT OPEN TO WHAT OTHERS ARE
THINKING. COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> I'LL SPEAK TO THAT. WE OFTEN ASK CONTRACTORS, AS ARCHITECTS, WE ASK CONTRACTORS TO DO MOCK UPS OF SOMETHING THAT
WE WANT TO BE ASSURED IS GOING TO WORK AS ANTICIPATED. SO I THINK THE ISSUE OF ASKING FOR A MOCK UP, I WOULD AGREE DOES SEEM REASONABLE TO ME. SO THEY CAN GUARANTEE THEY'RE GOING TO GET THE LIGHTING THAT THEY WANT. AND THE CITY STAFF CAN COME OUT
AND LOOK AT IT AND SAY YEAH, THAT LOOKS LIKE WHAT YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO DO. >> THANK YOU. I THINK I'M USED TO CONTRACTORS AND THE OWNERS WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND I'M LESS USED TO REGULATORY BODIES REVIEWING
MOCK UPS. BUT YEAH, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> WE OFTEN HAVE TO DO THAT WHEN WE WORK WITH ANYTHING THAT IS ON THE REGISTER HAVING SHPO COME
AND ACTUALLY DO INSPECTIONS WITH BRICK IT WILL ACTUALLY REQUIRE THEM TO COME AND LOOK AT A MOCK UP BEFORE ALL OF THE WORK IS DONE. >> OTHER COMMENTS?
ANYONE READY FOR A MOTION? COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> YEAH, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. I MAKE THE MOTION, THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVES THEIR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE A
CHIMNEY AND MAKE EXTERIOR LIGHTING CHANGES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 1st AVENUE NORTH IN THE MINNEAPOLIS WAREHOUSE DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, 1, 2, 4 AND 5 REMAIN THE SAME. I'D LIKE TO REWORD NUMBER THREE
TO SAY THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH STAFF TO INSTALL ONE LIGHT FIXTURE MOCK UP AND REACH CONSENSUS BEFORE CONTINUING TO INSTALL THE REMAINING LIGHT FIXTURES. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> KARATO SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KARATO. ANY DISCUSSION? WOULD THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL? >> BOOTE. >> AYE.
>> HERR. >> AYE. >> KARATO. >> AYE. >> MELLBLOM. >> AYE. >> RODRIGUEZ. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN. >> AYE. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG. >> AYE. >> THERE ARE SEVEN AYES.
>> THANK YOU, THAT MOTION PASSES. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER TEN, PARTIAL 2026 HPC CALENDAR, ALL WARDS. STAFF MEMO IS PRESENTED BY
ANDREA BURKE. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M ANDREA BURKE, I'M THE SUPERVISOR FOR THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION TEAM AND CPED. MY SLIDES ARE NOW READY. I WANTED TO JUST QUICKLY SHOW YOU THE PARTIAL CALENDAR FOR 2026 FOR YOUR ADOPTION THIS EVENING.
AS YOU KNOW, THE HPC MUST ADOPT THEIR CALENDAR PRIOR TO THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH WE ARE MEETING. THIS YEAR IS A PARTIAL CALENDAR OF TWO MONTHS BECAUSE OF THE UPCOMING CHANGE IN COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL CALENDAR HAS NOT BEEN SET YET. WE BASE OUR CALENDAR OFF THE
COUNCIL'S CALENDAR. SO OUR ADVICE FROM THE CLERKS IS WHERE WE ADOPT A PARTIAL CALENDAR SO WE CAN MEET. AND I WILL SHOW YOU JUST A SLIDE OF WHAT THAT CALENDAR LOOKS LIKE. RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST TWO MEETINGS
IN JANUARY AND TWO MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY STARTING ON THE 13th OF JANUARY. AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THIS SLIDE, WE HAVE CERTAIN DAYS WHERE WE CANNOT MEET DUE TO EITHER HOLIDAYS OR ELECTIONS ARE SOME OF THE REASONS SO WE CALL THEM
NO NIGHT MEETINGS. ONCE THE NEW COUNCIL DOES BECOME SEATED AND THEY ADOPT THEIR CALENDAR, I WILL BRING THE REST OF THE 2026 CALENDAR TO YOU FOR ADOPTION. SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS
RECOMMENDING THAT THE HPC ADOPT THE PARTIAL 2026 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CALENDAR. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I'LL GO FOR IT. >> MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE ONE SMALL UPDATE AS WELL. >> YES?
>> WE ARE EXPECTING THAT ON MONDAY, JANUARY 5TH, THEY WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD A FULL 2026 CALENDAR AND THEN AT THAT MOMENT WE'LL HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE REST OF OUR MEETINGS. SO THIS IS STILL OUR TEMPORARY CALENDAR, BUT THAT FULL CALENDAR IS GOING TO BE SET ON THE 5th.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. COMMISSIONER MASTIN. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THE HPC ADOPTS THE PARTIAL 2026 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CALENDAR. >> BOOTE SECONDS. >> THANK YOU.
ANY DISCUSSION? WOULD THE CLERK CALL ROLL? OKAY, WE CAN JUST ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] ALL OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. THAT MOTION PASSES. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR
DISCUSSION ITEMS. I'LL START WITH ONE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WE HAVE A NEW CLERK, RACHEL. THAT'S ALL. ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG.
I FIGURED I WOULD JUST STAY HERE INSTEAD OF CIRCLING BACK IF THAT'S OKAY. I JUST HAVE TWO QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS. ONE, WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO TRAVIS, COMMISSIONER TRAVIS HERR, FOR THIS WILL BE HIS LAST
MEETING. HE IS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE NEXT AND WANT TO THANK HIM FOR HIS TIME ON THE HPC AND FOR STICKING WITH US AND APPRECIATE HAVING YOU HERE THROUGH WHAT HAVE BEEN SOME VERY LARGE ITEMS COMING THROUGH. SO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
ALSO THANK YOU, WELCOME, RACHEL. BUT ALSO WANTED TO GET A GAUGE FOR ATTENDANCE AT THE LAST MEETING, SO WE'RE COMING UP ON OUR LAST MEETING OF 2025 WHICH IS DECEMBER 2ND, THAT IS A TUESDAY, NOT A MONDAY.
AND I WILL SEND OUT A MESSAGE TO COMMISSIONERS TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE QUORUM. AS YOU KNOW WITH THE LAST MEETING OF THE YEAR, SOMETIMES EITHER WE HAVE LOTS OF AGENDA ITEMS OR WE HAVE VERY FEW AGENDA ITEMS. BUT IT CAN BE SOMETIMES CHALLENGING WITH VACATIONS AND OTHER TIMES TO ENSURE THAT WE
HAVE QUORUM. SO WANTED TO JUST PUT THAT AS A NOTICE TO YOU AND WE'LL COMMUNICATE THAT WAY GOING FORWARD. BUT THAT CONCLUDES MY UPDATES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER UPDATES? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE COMPLETED ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. AND THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS MEETING, WITHOUT OBJECTION, I WILL DECLARE THE MEETING ADJOURNED. NEXT REGULAR MEETING IS
DECEMBER 2ND.
THANK YOU.