>> I CALL TO ORDER THE DECEMBER 2, 2025, MEETING FOR THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. JUST A REMINDER TO SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES AND OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND TO SPEAK CLEARLY TO THE MICROPHONE WHEN AT THE DAIS OR GIVING TESTIMONY. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL SO WE MAY VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. >> COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. >> PRESENT. >> BOOTE. >> PRESENT. >> HERR IS ABSENT. KARATO IS ABSENT.
MELLBLOM. >> PRESENT. >> RODRIGUEZ. >> PRESENT. >> THOMAS. >> PRESENT. >> WALLACE. >> PRESENT. >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN. >> PRESENT. >> AND CHAIR BJORNBERG IS ABSENT. THAT IS SEVEN MEMBERS PRESENT. >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AND THAT COMMISSIONER HERR AND CHAIR BJORNBERG PROVIDED PROPER NOTICE THAT THEY HAVE A CONFLICT THIS EVENING AND THEIR ABSENCE IS EXCUSED. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO ADOPT THE AGEND FOR THE MEETING. WE WILL WORK FROM THE AGENDAS
THAT ARE AVAILABLE BY THE CLERK. I WILL GO THROUGHHE AGENDA AND SORT OUT WHICH ITEMS WILL BE DISCUSSED AND WHICH ITEMS WILL BE PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS 2418
WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH, WARD 5. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. ITEM NUMBER FOUR WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE I5 IS 410 3RD NORTH, WARD 3. THIS IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND HISTORIC VARIANCE. ITEM NUMBER FE WILL BE DISCUSSED. ITEM NUMBER SIX I6 IS 300 1ST A NORTH, WARD 7.
THIS IS FOR HISTORIC VARIANCE. ITEM SIX WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN ON OPPOSITION TO. ITEM SEVEN 7 IS 250 3RD AVENUE
WARD 3. ITEM SEVEN WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TOR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS 201 FRANKLIN AVENUE EAST WARD TEN.
THIS IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. ITEM EIGHT WILL BE DISCUSSED. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS THE 2025 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPORT. ITEM NUMBER NINE WILL BE DISCUSSED. THIS IS THE PROPOSED AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS WILL
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, ITEM 42418 WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH WARD FIVE. ITEM 6, 300 1ST AVENUE NORTH, WARD 7. ITEM NUMBER 7, 250 3RD AVENUE NORTH WARD 3. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION FROM
COMMISSIONERS TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE ITEMS? IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THESE ITEMS? HEARING NO OPPOSITION TO PLACING
THES ITEMS ON CONSENT, WE WILL APPROVE THESE CONSENT ITEMS IN ONE MOTION AT THE START OF THE . THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL HAVE STAFF PRESENTATION, PUBLIC COMMENT, AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ITEM NUMBER 5, 410 3RD AVENUE NORTH, WARD 3.
AND ITEM NUMBER 8, 201 FRANKLIN AVENUE EAST, WARD 10. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL HAVE STAFF PRESENTATION AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING: ITEM NUMBER NINE, THE 2025 CERTIFIED LOCAL
GOVERNMENT REPORT. COMMISSIONERS, MAY I HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AGENDA? >> MELLBLOM MOVES. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> BOOTE SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER
BOOTE. ANY DISCUSSION? >> I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM ITEM FIVE AS THAT IS THE FIRM THAT I WORK FOR. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? [CHORUS OF AS]
THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. AND THEN ANY ABSTENTIONS? COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. OKAY, THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.
OUR NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS WILL BE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR NOVEMBER 10, 2025, MEETING. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES? >> MELLBLOM MOVES. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. IS THERE A SECOND? >> THOMAS SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
>> ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? INCLUDING ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE ABSENT.
>> WALLACE ABSTAINS. >> ALEXANDER ABSTAINS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. OKAY. 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. APPLICANTS MAY CONTACT THE 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 FOR COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSIONERS MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF. THEN I WILL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND COMMISSIONERS MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE
APPLICANT. AFTER THAT, WE WILL INVITE PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, WE NEED YOU TO DO TWO THINGS. PLEASE BE SURE TO SIGN UP ON THE SIGN UP SHEET BY THE CLER 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 YOUR COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE APPLICATION BEFORE US TODAY. IF WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK ON ONE ITEM, I MAY LIMIT COMMENTS TO TWO MINUTES
EACH AND ASK THAT YOU FOCUS ONLY ON N INFORMATION NOT ALREADY PRESENTED. AND IF YOU HAVE MATERIALS TO HAND OUT, PLEASE GIVE THEM TO OUR COMMITTEE CLERK SO THAT THEY MAY BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSION AND ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. DO NOT APPROACH THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE DAIS.
AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE COMPLETE, I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND COMMISSIONERS WILL DELIBERATE AND ACT ON THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE US. SO I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS WHICH ARE ITEM NUMBER 4,
2418 WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH, WARD 5. ITEM 6, 300 1ST AVENUE NORTH, RD 7. AND ITEM 7, 250 3RD AVENUE NORT. AGAIN DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS OPPOSED TO STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE ITEMS? ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO OPPOSE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE ITEMS? SEEING NONE, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE ITEMS? >> WALLACE SO MOVES. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WALLACE. IS THERE A SECOND? >> ALEXANDER SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY
AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? THESE ITEMS ARE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF ON THE AGENDA. APPLICANTS MAY CONTACT PLANNING STF ABOUT NEXT STEPS.
OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 5, 410 3RD AVENUE NORTH, WARD 3. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR CERTIFICE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND HISTORIC VARIANCE. THE STAFF REPORT IS PRESENTED BY
ROB SKALECKI. >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR MASTIN. MY NAME IS ROB SKALECKI.
I'M A SENIOR PLANNING IN THE HISTORIC PLANNING TEAM IN THE DIVISION OF CPED. TODAY I'M PRESENTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 410 3rd AVENUE NORTH, THIS PROJECT IS FOR REHABILITATION. I WILL NOTE IT DOES SEEM LIKE THE APPLICANT DID PREFER TO HAVE
THIS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ALTHOUGH THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT'S TEAM ABOUT GETTING THIS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. THAT WAS JUST FOUND OUT RIGHT NOW. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'LL TRY TO KEEP MY PRESENTATION BRIEF AND HIGHLIGHT WHERE STAFF CONDITIONED FOR ITEMS RELATED TO
THIS APPROVAL HERE. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A FOUR-STORY BRICK AND STONE COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A FLAT ROOF AND PARAPETS. ON THE REAR, WHICH IS THE NORTH ELEVATION, IT INCLUDES A
HISTORIC BASEMENT FLOOR THAT FRONTED RAILROAD TRACK. THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED SPECULATIVELY UNDER PARKER BROS AND PLANS WERE PREPARED BY MINNEAPOLIS ARCHITECT WD KIMBALL. THE CONSTRUCTION BEGAN IN
FEBRUARY 18, ' FEBRUARY 18, '84 AND WAS PLANNED TO BE COMPLETED IN AUGUST OF TH RESEARCH. CAMP AND PARKER MARKETED THE WAREHOUSE FOR PERSPECTIVE TENANTS IN WHOLESALING AND THE DAKOTA PACKAGING COMPANY IS THE ONE THAT MOVED INTO THE BUILDING
BY DECEMBER 18, '84. AND THEY OPERATE AS A STORAGE AND SMOKEHOUSE BUSINESS OUT OF THIS LOCATION FOR THEIR MEAT PRODUCTS AND THEY LEFT THIS SITE IN 1887. FOLLOWING THIS, THE BUILDING WAS HOME TO MANY DIFFERENT
BUSINESSES UP UNTIL 1911 WHEN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY TOOK OVER THE PROPERTY. AND THIS IS PER PHOTO EVIDENCE AND STAR TRIBUNE ARCHIVE EVIDENCE AND MINNEAPOLIS CITY DIRECTORIES. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A REHABILITATION OF THE BUILDING AS PART OF A STATE AND FEDERAL
HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX CREDIT. THE EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS ARE FOCUSED ON REMOVING NONHISTORIC INFILL MATERIALS AT THE FRONT WHICH IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION. STORE FRONT BAYS WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE CURRENTLY ON THE LEFT, A PHOTO HERE COVERED BY VERTICAL
WOOD SIDING, AND ALSO WITH THE NORTH WHICH IS THE REAR ELEVATIO WHICH IS CURRENTLY INFILLED WITH CMU BLOCK THAT'S NONHISTORIC. SO A LOT OF THE PROJECT IS RELATED TO REHABILITATION AND REPAIR WORK THAT'S TAKING PLACE AT THE PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING MASONRY REPAIR AND PAINT REMOVAL AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK. THAT'S ONE AREA THAT STAFF HAS CONDITIONED THAT I'LL GET INTO IN A LITTLE BIT. OTHER THAN THAT, DOORS AND WINDOWS ARE WHERE HISTORICRE PROPOSED TO BE REPAIRED USING
THE NECESSARY MEANS DEPENDING ON WHICH WINDOW IS BEING TREATED FOR THAT. FOR THE STORE FRONTS AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S A SCOPE HERE TO RECONSTRUCT STORE FRONTS AT THE FRONT ELEVATION, THE PRIMARY WHICH HAS BEEN INFILLED WITH THOSE WOOD PANELS. THERE'S A PROPOSAL TO INSTALL
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AT THE ROOFTOP WHICH STAFF HAS CONDITIONED JUST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. THE REAR ELEVATION INCLUDES A CANOPY WHICH YOU CAN SEE PARTIALLY HERE ON E RIGHT PHOTO. THAT'S NONHISTORIC. THE APPLICANT IS PLAN TO REMOVE THAT. AND THEN WITH THE FRONT
ELEVATION, LOADING DOCK, A SIDEWALK, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE PARTS OF THAT INFILL ACTUALLY PART OF THAT AS WELL AND THEN REFINISH THE TOP. SO WITH THAT, STAFF EVALUATED THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS MATERIALS. AND I JUST WANT TO FOCUS ON A
FEW OF THE EVALUATIONS THAT STAFF MADE. UNDER THE THIRD FINDING FOR THE DESIGN GUIDELINES SO WITH FACADE MATERIALS, AGA THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING TO HAVE AN AGGREGATE SOLUTION FOR PAINT REMOVAL. YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE PAINT ON THE ELEVATION HERE IN THE AR.
THAT'S COVERING BRICK. WITH THAT, STAFF DID CONDITION THAT A DIFFERENT METHOD BE TESTED AND USED FOR THAT. THE AGGREGATE WASHES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED ARE GENERALLY NOT CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE FOR PAINT REMOVAL OR PAINT CLEANING ON BRICK, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE
WORKING WITH CHASKA CREAM BRICK WHICH CAN BE MORE BRITTLE DUE TO THE HIGH LEVELS OF SILICA CONTENTS IN THEM. THAT'S ONE OF STAFF'S CONDITION WHICH I'LL SUMMARIZE AT THE END. IN ADDITION, WITH ENTRYWAYS HOW
THE GUIDELINES REGULATE THOSE IS IF ORIGINAL ENTRYWAYS WERE ALTERED, THE PREFERRED TREATMENT IS TO RESTORE THEM TO AN ORIGINAL CONDITION BASED ON HISTORIC PHOTOS AND OTHER EVIDENCE. AND AS I SHOWED EARLIER, WE DO HAVE HISTORIC PHOTO EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE FRONT ELEVATION STO
STOREFRONT LOOKED LIKE HISTORICALLY. WITH THAT, STAFF DID INCLUDE CONDITION OF APPROVAL JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT BULKHEADS WERE BEING USED IN THE DESIGN FOR THE NEW STOREFRONT. SO IT'S CURRENTLY PROPOSED TO HAVE A FULLY GLAZED STOREFRONT SYSTEM AND TO BE MORE COMPATIBLE TO WHAT EXISTED HISTORICALLY,
STAFF HAS ADDED THAT CONDITION. IN ADDITION TO THAT, STAFF DID OF COURSE EVALUATE THE PROJECT UNDER THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS AND CALLED OUT A FEW OF THE AREAS THAT I JUST MENTIONED HERE AND THE CONDITIONS DO COINCIDE WITH STAFF'S EVALUATION THERE. AS I MENTIONED, I BELIEVE I
MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS IS A STATE AND FEDERAL TAX CREDIT PROJECT THAT'S BEING SUBMITTED HERE. SO IT'S CONCURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED BYSHPO AND NPS. AND THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN CLEAR ABOUT THAT WITH STAFF AND THEY INCLUDED THOSE MATERLS FOR THE
HPC'S EVALUATION AND THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET AS WELL. WITH ALL OF THAT, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDS THE HPC ADOPT STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BY 410 NORTH 3RD STREET REGADE HOLDINGS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 410 3rd AVENUE, SORRY, NORTH 3rd LLC, THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 410 3rd AVENUE FOR THE PROPERTY IN THE MINNEAPOLIS WAREHOUSE
HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND RECOMMENDS YOU APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REHABILITATE THE PROPERTY AND ALTER STOREFRONTS IN THE MINNEAPOLIS WAREHOUSE HISTORIC DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS; ONE, THAT
THE THREE NEW FRONT SOUTH ELEVATION STOREFRONT STEMS SHALL INCLUDE BULKHEADS DESIGNED TO BE CONTEMPORARY AND CAM PATABLE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BUILDING'S FORMER HISTORIC STOREFRONT BULKHEAD AT THIS ELEVATION. THE APPLICANT SHALL FINALIZE DESIGNS AND SUBMIT THEM TO STAFF
PRIOR TO THE PERMIT BEING ISSUED. TWO, AGGREGATE OR MEDIA BLASTING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CLEANING OR PAINT REMOVAL ON THE BUILDING. GENTLE PRESSURE WASHERS OR SOLVENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW, CONSIDERATION, AND APPROVAL.
THREE, MASONRY TEST PANELS AND MORTAR AND BRICK MATCHES SHALL BE SUBMIED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO APPROVAL. AND THE NEW ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT THAT PROJECTS ABOVE THE ROOFLINE SHALL BE SET BACK FROM THE FRONT BUILDING ELEVATIONS ONE STRUCTURAL BAY.
AND THEY WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. I HAVE A FEW SLIDES SHOWING REMAINING ELEVATIONS IF COMMISSIONERS WANT TO REFERENCE ANY OF THEM. BUT I AM AVAILABLE HERE FOR QUESTIONS AND I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANDREA BURKE. >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN, FORGE ME, I AM NOT A COMMISSIONER. BUT I WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK
CLARIFICATION, THERE IS NO HISTORIC VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS APPLICATION AS STATED IN THE AGENDA IN THE STAFF REPORT. IT IS JUST THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.
OKAY. I THINK WE DO NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM. IS THE APPLICANT HE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
FOR THE RECORD. >> GOOD EVENING, ALEX, WH ARCHITECTS 2409 HENNEPIN AVENUE. WE JUST MOVED, SO. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE ON CONSENT, SO I'M GLAD I SHOWED UP. BUT IT'S KIND OF BOILERPLATE, HPC APPLICATION PART TWO TAX PROJECT. >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR
THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS APPLICATION? OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. LET'S SEE. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, LET'S DISCUSS. ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS OR COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED APPLICATION?
COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> HEARING NO COMMENTS, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVES THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ALTER STOREFRONTS AND REHABILITATION THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 410 3rd AVENUE NORTH IN THE MINNEAPOLIS WAREHOUSE HISTORIC DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS 1 THROUGH 4. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. IS THERE A SECOND? >> WALLACE SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WALLACE. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WOULD THE CLERK
CALL THE ROLL. >> ALEXANDER. >> ABSTAIN. >> BOOTE. >> AYE. >> KARATO. >> AYE. >> MELLBLOM. >> AYE. >> RODRIGUEZ.
>> AYE. >> THOMAS. >> AYE. >> WALLACE. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN. >> AYE. >> THAT IS SEVEN AYES AND ONE ABSTAIN. >> THANK YOU. THE MOTION PASSES. AND CLERK, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER KARATO
HAS ARRIVED. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. 201 FRANIN AVENUE EAST, WARD 10. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THE STAFF REPORT IS PRESENTED BY ERIN QUE. >> GOOD EVENING, VICE CHAIR MASTIN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ERIN QUE. I'M A SENIOR CITY PLANNER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR CPED. I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 FRANKLIN AVENUE EAST IN THE WASH BURN-FAIR OAKS HISTORIC DISTRICT. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY OUTLINED I TEAL.
THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1885. IT BECAME A DUPLEX AROUND 1924 AND THEN WAS CONVERTED INTO A MULTIFAMILY DWELLING. A PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN 1964 TO RESIDE THE DWELLING WHICH IS LIKELY WHEN THE ALUMINUM SIDING WAS ADDED. STAFF BELIEVED THE ORIGINAL
SIDING WOULD HAVE BEEN WOOD. THE HOUSE HAS BEEN REROOFED AT LEAST ONCE IN 1980 AND THE PROPERTY IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO THE WASHBURN-FAIR OAKS HISTORIC DISTRICT. HERE IS A HISTORIC PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE 10s. THERE ARE SEVERAL FEATURES ON THE WEST ELEVATION OR THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PHOTO THAT APPEAR TO
BE ADDITIONS LIKELY RELATED TO THE CONVERSION INTO A MULTIFAMILY DWELLING. ON OCTOBER 28TH, THE CITY RECEIVED A 311 INQUIRY TO REPORT UNPERMITTED WORK AT THE PROPERTY. SINCE THEN, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BRING
THE PROJECT INTO COMPLIANCE. THE PROPOSAL IS TO SEEK RETROACTIVE APPROVAL TO REPLACE THE SIDING, ROOF, A GUTTERS. THE APPLICANT INDICATED THE ALUMINUM SIDING EXPERIENCED WEATHERING DUE TO MOISTURE, PESTS, AND CLIMATE EXPOSURE, AS
WELL AS DENTING FROM INCLEMENT WEATHER. WE BELIEVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS AFFECTED BY THE AUGUST 2023 HAILSTORM. THE APPLICANT SELECTED VINYL SIDE AS THE REPLACEMENT TO REDUCE RISKS OF DENTS AND SURFACE DAMAGE AND TO MORE
CLOSELY RESEMBLE THE LIKELY ORIGINAL WOOD SIDING IN THEIR OPINION. HERE ARE TWO PHOTO OF THE HOUSE WITH THE VINYL SIDING AS PROPOSED AND A SCREENSHOT TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE MATERIAL. THE DESIGN GUIDELINES INDICATE
VINYL SIDING IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A HOUSE THAT WOULD HAVE ORIGINALLY HAD WOOD SIDING. THIS IS BECAUSE IT HAS A DIFFERENT TEXTURE AND FINISH THAN WOOD. WHEN NONHISTORIC MATERIALS NEED TO BE REPLACED, THEY ENCOURAGE RESTORATION OF HISTORIC WALL CLADDING WHICH WOULD BE WOOD IN
THIS PLACE, OR IN KIND REPLACEMENT WHICH WOULD BE ALUMINUM IN THIS PLACE. THE APPLICANT HAD CONCERNS ABOUT METAL SIDING DUE TO ITS SUSTAINABILITY AND ABILITY TO BE DENTED. THEREFORE STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING TWO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A MORE SUITABLE REPLACEMENT.
THE GUTTER AND ASPHALT SHINGLES WERE ALSO AFFECTED BY THIS WEATHER EVENT. STAFF CONFIRMED THAT THE GUTTERS HAVE NOT BEEN REPLACED YET, BUT THE INTENTION WAS TO REPLACEMENT IN KIND. THE IN KIND REPLACEMENT OF
NONHISTORIC ASPHALT SHINGLES COMPLIES WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS. IN KIND REPLACEMENT OF NONHISTORIC DOWN SPOUTS IS ALSO WITH THE GUIDELINES. STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING A CONDITN OF APPROVAL TO ENSURE THAT THE DOWN SPOUTS AND GUTTERS
WILL APPLY. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE HPC APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO SEEK RETROACTIVE APPROVAL TO REPLACE THE SIDING, ROOF, AND GUTTERS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 FRANKLIN AVENUE EAST IN THE WASHBURN-FAIR OAKS HISTORIC DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THE REPLACEMENT SIDING SHALL BE FIBER CEMENT, COMPOSITE WOOD OR OTHER SIMILAR MATERIALS, VINYL SIDING IS NOT PERMITTED. NUMBER TWO, THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH STAFF TO DETERMINE THE
COMPATIBLE DIRECTION AND DIMENSIONS OF E REPLACEMENT SIDING. NUMBER THREE, NEW GUTTERS SHALL BE METAL AND EITHER A K-STYLE OR HALF-ROUND PROFILE. NEW GUTTERS AND DOWN SPOUTS SHOULD BE INSTALLED TO AVOID DAMAGE TO OR ON CURING HISTORIC
CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES. THE STRAPS FOR GUTTERS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER THE ROOF SHINGLES WHERE POSSIBLE. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS ON THIS. I'M HAPPY TO STAY FOR QUESTIONS, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM. IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE
AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> HELLO, MY NAME IS NICHOLAS DAVID BATES. 201 EAST
201 EAST FRANKLIN AVENUE, MINNEAPOLIS. JUST GOT SOME NOTES THAT'S AN OUTLINE BASED ON THE APPLICATION. DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I START? SORRY, I'M NEW TO ALL OF THIS, I'M KIND OF NERVOUS. I OWN A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY CALLED CONCEPTS 26. AND WE HELP PEOPLE WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUCH AS EMERGENCY LODGING, IS -- SRO'S, AND THIS APARTMENT IN QUESTION WE CALL THE FRANKLIN FLATS. IT WAS INITIALLY FOUNDED BY MY FAMILY IN 1983.
IN 2019 I FOUNDED IT WITH ONE SRO, THREE LODGING HOUSES, AND WE EXPANDED TO FRANKLIN FLATS IN 2022. DUE TO THE STORM, AS STAFF INDICATED, THERE WAS SOME DAMAGE IN ADDITION TO THE OVERALL DETERIORATION OF THE EXTERIOR OF
THE PROPERTY WHICH ALLOWED ME HAD ME CLAIM AGAINST MY INSURANCE TO REPLACE THE DAMAGE. INSURANCE APPROVED SOME OF THE REPAIRS BUT NOT ALL OF THEM DUE TO THE DEPRECIATION AND CONDITION OF THE PREVIOUS SIDING. AFTER REACHING OUT TO
CONTRACTORS, THEY SUGGESTED A SUSTAINABLE SIDING THAT COMES IN DIFFERENT FORMATS SUCH AS SHAKE, WOOD LOOK, AND PANELS TO MATCH THE NEIGHBORING HOUSING. I MADE THE DECISION TO GO WITH
THE CONTRACTOR SUGGESTIONS. AT PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, I WAS UNAWARE OF THE HISTORICAL TAG. WHICH IS WHY I'M HERE FOR RETROACTIVE APPROVAL.
AND I'M ASKING THAT THE HPC APPROVE ITEMS 2 AND 3 WHILE STRIKING OUT NUMBER ONE TO PREVENT ME FROM HAVING TO INVEST IN THE REPLACEMENT OF SIDING TWO TIMES. IF NOT, THEN I'M AFRAID I DON'T
KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO AT THAT POINT. SO I'M JUST GRACIOUSLY REQUESTING THAT ITEM ONE IS STRUCK, ITEM 2 AND 3 APPROVED IN ORDER FOR MY PROGRAM TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND KEEP INDIVIDUALS
PLACED WITHIN THE UNIT. I'M PROUD OF MY COMMUNITY, MY BUSINESS, AND MY PROPERTIES, AND THE PEOPLE WE SERVE AND I PLAN TO KEEP THIS PROPERTY FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
COMMISSIONER WALLACE. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. JU ONE QUESTION. HOW MANY -- ARE THERE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE PROPERTY NOW AND HOW MANY FOLKS? >> YES, IT'S A SIX-UNIT APARTMENT AND THERE'S SIX PEOPLE LIVING THERE. OR SOME INDIVIDUALS, SOME
FAMILIES, BUT THEY'RE ALL OCCUPIED. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER KARATO. >> WAS THERE AN ESTIMATE DONE TO HAVE THE OTHER SIDING MATERIALS
COMPARISON? >> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY $60,000. >> IN RELATION TO THE VINYL SIDING THAT'S ON. >> THE VINYL SIDING WAS $35,000. >> THANK YOU.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO? COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. >> THE INSURANCE, I'M ASSUMING WITH AN INSURANCE CLAIM, THE INSURANCE COVERED BEYOND YOUR
DEDUCTIBLE, TH COVERED THE COST OF THE VINYL SIDING? >> IT COVERED THE COST OF THE VINYL, BUTT WOULD NOT COVER THE COST OF ANYTHING BESIDES THAT. BUT WE DID BUY LIKE A SUPER QUALITY VINYL WOOD LOOK SIDING
SO IT'S LIKE A HIGH GRADE TEXTURE SIDING AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE LIKE A LONG-LASTING DURABILITY OF 35 YEARS. >> DID THE INSURANCE COMPANY REJECT GOING WITH THE IN KIND
REPLACEMENT OF THE DING? >> NO, THEY DIDN'T REJECT IN THAT FASHION. BUT THEY -- DUE TO THE AGE AND THE DETERIORATION AND THE DEPRECIATION AS THEY SAY, THEY WOULD ONLY APPROVE SO MUCH AND I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FIND A MATCH
FOR TWO SIDES OF THE BUILDING, IT WOULD BE KIND OF LIKE A HODGEPODGE, LIKE TWO SIDES WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER TWO SIDES. SO WE TRIED TO WRAP THE WHOLE BUILDING IN AN UPGRADED NEWER STE BUT WITH A CLASSIC LOOK. >> THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSIONER WALLACE. >> WHEN DID -- AND YOU NOTED AND THANKS FOR NOTING IT THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABO THE DISTRICT AND THE RESTRICTIONS WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. WHEN DID THAT INFORMATION COME TO YOU? WAS IT WITH THE 311 CALL?
>> IT WAS DURING THIS PROCESS, YEAH. WE HAD TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND WHEN WE DID, I INDICATED TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, IS TT WHAT IT IS? >> YEAH.
THAT THERE'S A PROCESS INVOLVED IN ADDITION TO THE PERMIT. SO THE PERMIT GOT APPROVED, BUT THIS IS THEECOND STEP OF THAT PROCESS SO I'M KIND OF LEARNING AS I GO. >> YEAH, SO THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED AND THEN WAS IT THE ORDER LIKE THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED AND THEN THE REPLACEMENT SIDING WAS INSTALLED
AND THEN THIS? >> NO, SO I DIDN'T KNOW THAT JUST THE SIDING. I DID A PERMIT FOR THE ROOF BUT I DIDN'T KNOW SIDING NEEDED A PERMIT BECAUSE I'M JUST A PROPERTY OWNER AND MANAGER. WE ACTUALLY JUST REPLAC THE SIDING AND THEN SOMEBODY SEEING
OR I DON'T KNOW, THE BUILDING CITY PERMIT INSPECTOR DROVE BY, STOPPED IN AND SAID I DON'T SEE A PERMIT ON FILE FOR THIS SO WE APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT AND THE HISTORICAL PIECE CAME INTO ACTION SO HERE WE ARE. >> GOT YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
>> YEAH. >> I'M GOING TO GO COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ FIRST. >> SURE. WE MAY HAVE THE SAME QUESTION. I'M JUST WONDERING, WHAT WAS THE TIMELINE WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE NOTICE THAT YOU NEEDED A PERMIT? WAS THE SIDING ALREADY FINISHED
OR DID YOU CONTINUE WITH THE SIDING AFTER YOU HEARD THAT YOU NEEDED A PERMIT? >> RIGHT NOW IT'S PROBABLY 98% FINISHED. THERE'S A COUPLE LITTLE SPOTS THAT NEED ADDITIONAL INSTALLATION, SO AS SOON AS IT'S APPROVED WE CAN DO THAT. BUT IF IT'S NOT APPROVED THEN I
HAVE TO GO IN ANOTHER DIRECTION, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I WOULD SAY 98% DONE A THEN THE PROJECT GOT HALTED. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> SO YOUSED A CONTRACTOR TO DO THE SIDING, RIGHT? >> YES.
>> AND THAT CONTRACTOR NEVER TOLD YOU THA YOU NEEDED A PERMIT IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS TO DO SIDING? >> THEY DID NOT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS APPLICATION? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I HAVE TO SKIP THAT, SORRY. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, LET'S DISCUSS. ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS OR
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED APPLATION? COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. QUE. I'M ASSUMING THAT BOTH OF THE
BECAUSE THIS IS ON A CORNER, I'M ASSUMING BOTH OF THE STREET FRONTS ARE CONSIDERED PRIMARY FACADES AND THE 2 NOT STREET FRONTS ARE CONSIDERED SECONDARY FACADES. >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, THAT IS CORRECT.
>> SO WOULD IT BE -- I KNOW THAT THE HOMEOWNER DOESN'T WANT TO MIX MATERIALS, BUT IN A THOUGHT OF TRYING TO HELP MINIMIZE THE COST IMPACT FOR WHAT SEEMS LIKE AN HONEST MISTAKE AND
POTENTIALLY THE CONTRACTOR DIDN'T DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND DUTY, WOULD IT BE COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE TO JUST REPLACE THE SIDINGN THE TWO PRIMARY FACADES OF THE BUILDING AND
LEAVE THE INSTALLED SIDING ON THE TWO SECONDARY FACADES? >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE IN TERMS OF INSTALLING SIDING AND WHAT THE FEASIBILITY
WOULD BE OF HAVING DIFFERENT MATERIALS MEET AT THE CORNER AND IF THAT COULD POTENTIALLY INTRODUCE OTHER RISKS TO THE PROPERTY. BUT IF THERE ARE OTHER STAFF WH. I THINK THERE IS, YES.
>> ANDREA BURKE. >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR MASTIN AND COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE REGARDING WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE, IT DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES VERY, VERY CLEARLY, VINYL SIDING IS NOT
PERMITTED. IT'S STATED VERY CLEARLY. SO IN TERMS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE ANSWER IS NO. BECAUSE IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE GUIDELINES THAT WERE ADOPTED FOR THIS DISTRICT ARE VERY CLEAR IN TERMS OF VINYL SIDING. SO THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I PROBABLY WAS ASKING STAFF A QUESTION MAYBE THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. BUT I WONDER IF WE CAN FIND A MIDDLE GROUND HERE TO REQUIRE
ONLY THE REPLACEMENT -- ONLY THE SIDING ON THE TWO PRIMARY FACADES BE REPLACED IN A WAY TO HELP MINIMIZE THE COST OF DOING THIS PLUS THE FACT THAT THAT SIDING WAS THEN GOING TO BE THROWN AY BECAUSE IT WON'T BE
USABLE AND THAT SEEMS PARTICULARLY WASTEFUL TO ME. >> COMMISSIONER WALLACE. >> THIS IS -- I'M NOT SURE WHO WOULD ANSWER THIS OR IF IT IS ANSWERABLE, BUT IT SEEMS A POINT TO BRING UP THAT WE'RE MAYBE ALL
THINKING ABOUT IS WHEN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP WOULD COME INTO PLAY IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS GIVEN THAT THIS DOE NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN A WILLFUL DISREGARD OF THE GUIDELINES.
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WERE A FEW STEPS ALONG THE WAY WHERE FOLKS IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY SHOULD HAVE ADVISED DIFFERENTLY OR SHOULD HAVE LET FOLKS KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS. SO I'M WONDERING IN THIS KIND OF
SCENARIO, DOES ANYONE KNOW, IS ECONOMIC HARDSHIP SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONSIDER AS A PART OF THIS CONSIDERION? >> ANDREA BURKE. VICE CHAIR MASTIN AND COMMISSIONER WALLACE, NO ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IS NOT
SOMETHING HPC CONSIDERS UNDER THEIR PURVIEW UP HERE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> I DON'T WANT THIS TO COME OFF HARSHLY SO I'M TRYING TO BE VERY NICE.
AS A PROPERTY OWNER, I DO THINK IT IS A PROPERTY OWNER'S, IT IS PART OF THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AS A PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY KNOW ALL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING AND WHAT REQUIREMENTS IT NEEDS TO MEET. I DO DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE
GOING TO BE MISLED, I THINK THERE WAS SO CONTRACTOR NEGLIGENCE HERE WITH THE SIDING, THEY SHOULD HAVE DEFINITELY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT. AT THE SAME TIME, AS A PROPERTY OWNER, MYSELF, IT IS ON ME TO KNOW THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW OF THEM DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY
DON'T STI APPLY TO ME. AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AS WELL. I DO FEEL FOR THE APPLICANT. AND I'M VERY SORRY THAT THIS HAPPENED TO YOU. BUT AS A PROPERTY OWNER AND BUSINESS OWNER, I DEFINITELY FEEL LIKE IIS ON THE APPLICANT TO KNOW THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS BEFORE MAKING ANY
CHANGES. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER KARATO. >> I GUESS THIS IS A LITTLE BIT
OF A -- I'M HAVING A HARD TIME REMEMBERING WHEN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES WERE WRITTEN FOR WASHBURN-FAIR OAKS DISTRICT. I KNOW WE TK ABOUT SOMETIMES HOW MATERIALS CHANGE OVER TIME AND PERHAPS MATERIALS THAT WERE DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE AT THE TIME
OF A DESIGN GUIDELINE MAY HAVE ADVANCED TO A POINT WHERE IT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE CONSIDERED, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT APPLIES IN THIS CASE, BUT THAT WAS A QUESTION.
>> ANDREA BURKE. >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN AND COMMISSIONER KARATO, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THIS DISTRICT WERE ADOPTED IN JULY 2024.
>> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> SINCE WE CAN'T CONSIDER ECONOMIC HARDSHIP WHICH IS WHERE MY BRAIN WAS GOING, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE HPC APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 201 FRANKLIN
AVENUE EAST IN THE WASHBURN-FR OAKS HISTORIC DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS 1, 2, AND 3 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> RODRIGUEZ SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WOULD THE CLERK CALLHE ROLL? >> COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. >> AYE. >> BOOTE. >> AYE. >> KARATO.
>> AYE. >> MELLBLOM. >> AYE. >> RODRIGUEZ. >> AYE. >> THOMAS. >> AYE. >> WALLACE. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN. >> AYE. >> THAT IS EIGHT AYES. >> THANK YOU.
THE MOTION PASSES. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. OUR LAST ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER NINE, THE 2025 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPORT PRESENTED BY
ANDREA BURKE. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS ANDREA BURKE AND I AM
THE SUPERVISOR FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM IN CPED. AND I HERE TO GIVE YOU A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION ON OUR ANNUAL REPORT WHICH IS WE PUT TOGETHER ACTUALLY FOR THE CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM TO WHICH WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT SINCE THE
1980s WITH THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE. SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE END OF THE YEAR HIGHLIGHTS ON SOME OF THE WORK WE'VE DONE OVER THE PAST YEAR. AS I MENTIONED, WE PREPARE THIS REPORT EVERY YEAR, WE SUBMIT IT TO THE STATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICE. THIS IS OUR 2025 ANNUAL RORT AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE A NOTE THAT WE FOLLOW A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT TIMELINE. WE FOLLOW THE STATE FISCAL YEAR. SO IT GOES FROM OCTOBER 1ST TO SEPTEMBER 30TH. SO THERE IS WHERE WE RUN OUR
NUMBERS VERSUS A JANUARY TO DECEMBER TIMEFRAME. BUT ON THE COVER, WE HIGHLIGHT SOME OF OUR PROJECTS WE'VE DONE OVER THE PAST YEAR. AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE AN WIDGETS. WE EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT.
BUT WE HAVE SOME NOMINATIONS, WE'VE DONE SOME DESIGNATIONS, SOME OF E CONFERENCES WE'VE WORKED ON AND SOME OF THE OTHER INITIATIVES. FOR EXAME, JUST FROM ONE OF THE PAGES, THESE ARE SOME OF THE GRANT PROJECTS THAT WE RECEIVED
IN THAT STATE FISCAL YEAR AND ON THIS PARTICULAR PAGE IT SHOWS JUST ONE OF THE NOMINATIONS THAT WAS HEARD SO WE GIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY. BUT I THINK ONE THING I'D LIKE TO GIVE IN THIS WHICH IS PART OF THIS BRIEF PRESENTATION IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF STATISTICS FOR
SOME OF THE DESIGN REVIEW NOMINATIONS AND PERMITS THAT WE HAVE. SO AGAIN THIS IS FOR THE TIMEFRAME OF OCTOBER 1, 2024, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2025. I WILLIST THEM HERE ON THE SLIDE.
BUT IT WAS ALL IN ALL MAYBE A SLIGHTLY HEAVIER YEAR. NOT AS HEAVY AS LAST YEAR. BUT AROUND 24 CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS, FOUR HISTORIC VARIANCES, WE HAD THREE APPEALS, THREE DEMOLITIONS. THREE NOMINATIONS WHICH WAS A LITTLE HIGHER THAN PREVIOUS
YEARS. WE DID NOT ADOPT ANY DESIGN GUIDELINES THIS YEAR. 135 CERTIFICATE OF NO CHANGES, THOSE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS. WE HAD 83 WRECKING PERMITS. 37 HISTORIC REVIEW LETTERS AND 683 BUILDING PERMITS. THAT IS MY LAST SLIDE AND I
WANTED TO JUST MAKE A SMALL NOTE ON THIS SLIDE THAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT NEXT YEAR BECAUSE WE ARE CHANGING A LOT OF OUR APPLICATIONS NAMES AND WE HAVE SPLIT OTHER APPLICATION OUT. SO THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO PRESENT. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIS.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF? I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION. DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THE GLENDALE TOWNHOMES?
I SAW IT LISTED AND THERE'S A PHOTO, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT I SAW HOW IT FINALLY ENDED. I THINK IT SAID IT WENT BACK TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. DOES THAT MEAN IT'S DONE?
>> YEAH, SO VICE CHAIR MASTIN, GLENDALE DID GO AFTER THE BHZ COMMITTEE IT WENT UP TO CITY COUNCIL AND FROM CITY COUNCIL IT WAS REFERRED BACK TO STAFF WITH NO FURTHER DIRECTION.
>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> I'M GOING TO DEFER TO THE CLERK KEN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MASTIN. ANYTHING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TERM ENDS AT THE END OF THIS
YEAR AS WE JUST HAD AN ELECTION. EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE LEFT UNDONE ESSENTIALLY EXPIRES. SO AS THEY HAVE THEIR FINAL BUSINESS HOUSING AND ZONING COMMITTEE TODAY, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT'S SLATED TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE NEXT COUNCIL
MEETING, THEIR FINAL COUNCIL MEETING OF THE YEAR ON THE DECEMBER 11TH. SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT IS ON TRACK, THE APPLICATION WOULD ESSENTIALLY EXPIRE. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR MASTIN. I'LL JUST ADD A COMMENT AND THEN I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GLENDALE TOWNHOMES. I FIND IT REALLY DISTURBING THAT TWICE THIS BODY HAS I BELIEVE
UNANIMOUSLY BOTH TIMES RECOMMENDED HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND BOTH TIMES THE CITY COUNCIL HAS INSTEAD OF TAKING ACTION EITHER ACCEPTING OR DISAPPROVING
OUR RECOMMENDATION, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS JUST LET IT STALL OUT. IT'S, I THINK, A BLOT OTHE CITY COUNCIL. I DO HAVE TWO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ANDREA BURKE.
ANDREA, DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THE ORDINANCE AND WHEN THAT'S GOING TO BE APPROVED? AND HOW THAT IS COMING THROUGH? >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN AND COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, THAT IS PART OF MY UPDATES IN THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. THEN I'LL HOLD MY OTHER
QUESTION, THANK YOU. >> ANYTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. SO DID COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS OR
COMMISSION BUSINESS TO DISCUSS? DO YOU WANT TO DO IT FROM HERE? >> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR MASTIN. YES, I WILL JUST STAY HERE. AGAIN, ANDREA BURKE AND I'M THE SUPERVISOR FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM IN CPED AND YES I WANT TO GIVE A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR OUR LAST HPC
MEETING OF 2025. SO WANTED TO JUST IN ADDITION TO SAYING THAT, BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE WHICH I WILL GET INTO IN A MOMENT, WE WILL HAVE A MIX OF APPLICATIONS ON SOME OF OUR NEXT MEETING. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, YES, THE
ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED AND IT WAS ON NOVEMBER 20TH AT CITY COUNCIL. THERE WERE TWO AMENDMENTS THAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WITH IT. ONE OF THEM THEN WAS ALSO DISCUSSED BUT ENDED UP BEING VOTED AGAINST AND I CAN EXPLAIN THAT. SO ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS THA
WAS TAKEN WAS ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE HPC REG REGARDING TIME LIMITS FOR APPLICATIONS BASICALLY MAKING THEM ALL CONSIENT AT THREE YEARS. STAFF ENDED UP MODIFYING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT HPC HAD RECOMMENDED TO MAKE IT MORE
CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THE ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN, BUT THAT AMENDMENT WAS TAKEN INTO THE ORDINANCE AND PRESENTED BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND THAT ONE WAS ACCEPTED. ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT WAS MADE BY WARD ONE, THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT WAS ADDING LANGUAGE TO
THE ENFORCEMENT SECTION ABOUT WAS IT MAINTENANCE? YEAH, IT WAS MAINTENANCE. EXCUSE ME, NOT ENFORCEMENT, IT WAS MAINTENANCE ARTICLE. ADDING LANGUAGE ABOUT ENSURING THAT A BUILDING IS WEATHER
TIGHT. AND THEN THERE WAS A FEW EXTRA DEFINITIONS THAT WERE ADDED TO EXPLAIN WHAT A WEATHER TIGHT BUILDING IS AND SOME MORE INFORMATION AND THE INTENT BEHIND THIS WAS TO TRY AND HELP SECURE BUILDINGS THAT ARE DESIGNATED AND PREVENT OR AT
LEAST TAKING A MEASURE TO PREVENT SITUATIONS WHERE PERHAPS WE HAVE A DEGREE OF NEGLECT HAPPENING. SO THE HOPE IS TO AT LEAST IF WE CAN PUT SOMETHING IN THERE REGARDING KEEPING THEM SECURED
AND WEATHER TIGHT MAY HELP ENSURE THEIR LONGEVITY TO A LONGER TIMEFRAME. THAT ONE WAS VOTED ON AND ALSO ACCEPTED. THE THIRD ONE THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS, SORRY, LET ME MENTION THIS,
TWO OFHE OTHER HPC AMENDMENTS WERE NOT ACCEPTED, THESE WERE THE REQUESTS ABOUT ADDING COUNCIL LANGUAGE TO BY CITY COUNCIL THIS WAS ONE WE HAD A VERY LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT ADD THE HPC HEARING, THAT WAS ONE
THAT WAS NOT ACCEPTED. THE THIRD ONE WAS ABOUT TIME LIMITS FOR AN APPLICATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED. AND THE OTHER ONE ABOUT ADDING THE HPC TO A EXCLUDED NOMINATOR WAS DISCUSD AT LENGTH AT THE COUNCIL AND ENDED UP NOT PASSING ON A 6-5 VOTE.
THAT AMENDMENT DID NOT MAKE IT IN, BUT IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY A COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE COUNCIL HEARING. SO THE ORDINANCE DID GET PASSED WITH A FEW AMENDMENTS AND SO WE'RE WORKING ON MAKING ALL OF THAT FINAL OR ELSE IT MIGHT ALREADY BE FINAL. I'M WORKING ON THAT TODAY.
SO THAT GOES INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST. SO IN THE MOMENT, WE ARE TURNING OVER A LOT OF APPLICATION FORMS AND MANY OTHER DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT THIS. WHAT I WOULD MENTION A LITTLE BIT EARLIER BECAUSE WITH IT GOING INTO EFFECT ON
JANUARY 1ST, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERLAP BECAUSE WE CONTINUE TO HAVE APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN. SO THERE WILL BE ESSENTIALLY A CUT OFF DATE AND WE'RE STILL WORKING OUT SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT APPLICATIONS BY A CERTAIN TIME WILL BE UNDER THE OLD CODE AND
THEN APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED AFTER THE 1st WILL BE UNDER THE NEW CODE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER -- COMSSIONER MELLBLOM. >> I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.
DO WE KNOW WHEN WE WILL GET THE CALENDAR FOR 2026 BEYOND THE FIRST TWO MONTHS? >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN AND COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO TURN TO KEN FOR THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MASTIN, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM.
THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HAVING ITS ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING ON JANUARY 5TH. THAT'S WHEN WE ANTICIPATE THEY WILL ADOPT THEIR CALENDAR FOR THE YEAR. SO WITHIN THAT WEEK AND THE NEXT WEEK WE'LL BE DFTING CALENDARS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THEEAR, BECAUSE YOU ARE A BROADCAST
MEETING YOU'RE KIND OF TIED TO THEIR SCHEDULE AND YOU HAVE TO FILL IN THE GAPS OF WHEN THEY'RE NOT MEETING, SO WE EXPECT THAT YOU WILL HAVE A FULL CALENDAR TO APPROVE THAT GOES MARCH AND THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR IN MID TO LATE JANUARY OF 2026.
>> LAST CALL. OH SORRY. >> SORRY, VICE CHAIR MASTIN. I HAD ONE MORE UPDATE I WANTED TO GIVE YOU FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. BECAUSE ALONG WITH OUR ORDINANCE ADOPTION, WE ALSO HAD AN APPEAL
THAT WENT TO THE BHZ COMMITTEE AND IT WAS THE DEMOLITION OF THE DESIGNATED LANDMARK THE COOK HOUSE. WE HEARD THIS A WHILE BACK, IT DID GET CONTINUED A CYCLE, TWO CYCLES ACTUALLY. AND THEN IT DID GO ON THE
NOVEMBER 20TH AS WELL CITY COUNCIL MEETING BECAUSE IT WAS FORWARDED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BHZ MMITTEE. THE CITY COUNCIL ENDED UP REFERRING THAT BACK TO STAFF AND THE REASON BEING, YOU CAN WATCH THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THE
OWNER OR THEY REQUESTED A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION ON THEIR 6120 ALLOWANCE UNDER STATE LAW TO BE ABLE TO TRY AND SELL THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO FIX IT. SO IN LIGHT OF THAT INFORMATION
AND THERE WAS SOME AGREEMENTS MADE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEYS ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD PLAY OUT, THAT IS NOW BACK IN STAFF'S HANDS SO THERE HAS BEEN NO DECISION ON IT AT THIS POINT.
BUT THAT IS WHAT THE FORECAST IS FOR THAT PROPERTY AT THIS POINT. SO THERE HAS BEEN NO DECISION ON A DEMOLITION, BUT THE OWNER IS GOING TO ATTEMPT TO SELL THE PROPERTY. >> OKAY. >> AND THAT CONCLUDES MY UPDATES, THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER WALLACE.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THAT. SO IF UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE THE OWNER HAS SIX MONTHS IN WHICH TO SELL IT. IF THEY'RE NOTUCCESSFUL IN SELLING IT, WHAT HAPPENS THEN? >> THAT COMES BACK TO STAFF AND THEN IT IS ON US TO BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR A FINAL
DECISION. >> OKAY. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. >> YEAH. >> ACTUALLY A FOLLOW UP. >> GO FOR IT. >> IF HE IS SUCCESSFUL IN SELLING THE PROPERTY AND THE NEXT PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO
DEMOLISH IT, DO THEY START FROM SCRATCH ESSENTIALLY? >> ESSENTIALLY S, THAT'S HOW I BELIEVE ALTHOUGH IT'S STILL IRONING OUT SOME OF THE DETAILS. BUT ANY NEW ASKO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE
HEARD UNDER THE NEWCODE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER KARATO. >> RELATED TO THAT, IS THE OWNER UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO STABILIZE THE PROPERTY?
BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE A LOT OF THE WALL SDS WERE CHOPPED OUT AND IT SEEMS LIKE AN EASY FIX FOR THE WINTER WITH THE SNOW. >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN AND COMMISSIONER KARATO, I'LL BE HONEST, I CAN'T SPEAK ENTIRELY THAT, THAT WAS NOT PART OF
THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION OR THE COUNCIL ACTION, EXCUSE ME, THERE WAS NO RECOMMENDATION. THE COUNCIL ACTION TO REFER IT BACK TO STAFF. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO REWATCH SOME OF THE COUNCIL PRESENTATION AND SOME OF THE DISCUSSION HAPPENED, I HAD GIVEN A LITTLE BIT OF AN UPDATE ABOUT SOME OF
THE FINDS THAT HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO SOME OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH SOME OF THE CITY PROGRAMS SUCH AS THE VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION, PROLONGED VACANCY ENFORCEMENT, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE NEGOTIATION CAME WITH SOME OF
THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. BUT IN TERMS OF ASKING THE PROPERTY -- I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. BUT I'LL BE HONEST, THAT IS SOMETHING I DON'T HAVE ENTIRELY CLEAR INFORMATION ON.
THANK YOU. >> OKAY. WITH THAT, WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR TS MEETING. I WILL ASK MEMBERS AND STAFF ONCE MORE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER MATTERS TO COME BEFORE THIS
MEETING? THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS MEETING AND WITHOUT OBJECTION, I DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE
HPC IS JANUARY 13, 2026.