Good evening. I call to order the December 2nd, 2025 regular meeting of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. For the record, my name is Kelly Masten and I serve as vice chair of the commission. Just a reminder to silence your cell phones and other electronic devices and to 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. >> Commissioner Alexander >> present. >> Booty >> present. >> Her is absent. Curado is absent. Melbourne >> present. Rodriguez >> present. >> Thomas >> present. >> Wallace >> present. >> Vice Chair Masten >> present. >> And Chair Bjornberg is absent. That is seven members present. >> Let the record reflect that we do have a quorum and that the and that Commissioner Hair and Chair Bourneberg provided proper notice that they have a conflict this evening and their absence is excused. Our first order of business is to adopt the agenda for the meeting. We will work from the agendas that are available by the clerk. I will go through the 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 a certificate of appropriateness. Item number four will be on consent unless someone wants to speak in his opposition to or modify the staff recommendation. Item number five is 410 3rd Avenue North Ward 3. This application is for a certificate of appropriateness and historic variance. Item number five will be discussed. Item number six is 300 1st Avenue North W 7. This application is for historic variance. Item number six will be on consent unless someone wants to speak in opposition in opposition to or modify the staff recommendation. Item number seven is 2503rd Avenue North Ward 3. This application is for a certificate of appropriateness. Item number seven will be on consent unless someone wants to speak in opposition to or modify the staff recommendation. Item number eight is 201 Franklin Avenue East, Ward 10. This application is for a certificate of appropriateness. Item number eight will be discussed and item number nine is the 2025 certified local government report. Item number nine will be discussed. So the this is the appro proposed agenda. The consent agenda items will include the following items. Item number four 2418 Washington Avenue North W 5. Item number six, 300 1st Avenue North, Ward 7. Item number seven, 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 these items on consent, we will approve these consent items in one motion at the start of the meeting. The following items will have staff presentation, public comment, and commission discussion and action. Item number five, 4103rd Avenue North, Ward 3, and item number 8, 201 East, Ward 10. The following items will have staff presentation and commission discussion without a public hearing. Item number nine, the 200, sorry, the 2025 certified local government report. Commissioners, may I have a motion to approve the proposed agenda? >> Melbum moves. >> Thank you, Commissioner Melbum. Is there a second? >> Booty seconds. >> Thank you, M. Commissioner Booty. 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 fa favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. And then any abstensions? We have Commissioner Alexander. >> Okay. The commission or the agenda is approved. Our next order of business will be to approve the minutes from our November 10th uh 2025 meeting. May I have a motion to approve those minutes? >> Melbum moves. >> Thank you, Commissioner Melbum. Is there a second? >> Thomas seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed say nay. Any abstensions, including any commissioners who are absent? >> Wallace abstains. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. >> Alexander abstains. >> Thank you, Commissioner Alexander. The minutes are approved. Okay. Before I open the public or the hearing to public comments, um 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 um and commissioners may ask questions of the staff. Then I will open to public 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 wish to speak we need you to do two things. Um please be sure to sign up on the signup sheet by the clerk. Um 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. Um, if we have a lot of people here to speak on one item, I may limit comments to 2 minutes each and ask that you focus only on new information already not already presented. And if you have materials to hand out, please give them to our uh committee clerk so that we may they may be distributed to the commission and entered into the record. Do not approach the commissioners on the dis. 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 four, 2418 Washington Avenue North, W 5, item number six, 300 1st Avenue North, Ward 7, and item number seven, 2503rd Avenue North, W 3. 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 I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed say nay. Any abstensions. These items are approved as recommended by staff on the agenda. Applicants may contact planning staff about next steps. Okay. Our next item is item number five, 410 3rd Avenue North, Ward 3. This application is for a certificate of appropriateness and historic variance. The staff report is presented by Rob Scleki. Thank you, Vice Chair Masten. Um, good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Rob Scleki. I'm a senior city planner in the historic preservation team in the planning division of CPED. Uh today I'm presenting a certificate of appropriateness for the property located at 410 3rd Avenue North. And this project is for rehabilitation. Um 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 uh between staff and the applicants team about getting this on the consent agenda. Um so that was just um kind of found out right now. With that being said, I'll try to keep my presentation brief and just kind of highlight uh where staff condition for um items related to this approval here. So, the subject property is a fourstory brick and stone commercial building uh with a flat roof and parapits. Um on the rear, which is the north elevation, the property does include an additional basement floor that historically fronted railroad track. The property was developed speculative speculatively by Dr. AA Camp and FA Parker under Parker Bros. Um, and plans were prepared by Minneapolis architect WD Kimble. Uh, the construction began in February 1884 and the building was planned to be completed by August of that year per Minnesota Star Tribune research. Camp and Parker marketed um the warehouse for prospective tenants and wholesaling and the Dakota Packaging Company was the one that moved into the building by December 1884. um and they operate a storage and smokehouse um business out of this location for their meat products. And they they left this site in 1887. Uh following this, the building was home to many different businesses up until 1911 when the General Electric Company took over the property. Um and this is per um photo evidence and 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 project. The exterior alterations are focused on removing non-historic infill materials at the front which is the south elevation uh storefront bays which you can see here um currently on on the left uh photo here um covered by vertical wood siding and also with the north which is the rear elevation which is currently infilled with um CMU block that's non-historic. Um, so a lot of the the project is related to just rehabilitation and repair work that's taking place at the property. Um, the applicant is proposing masonry repair and paint removal as part of the scope of work. Uh, that's one area that staff has conditioned, which I'll get into in a little bit. Uh, but other than that, doors and windows are where historic are proposed to be um, repaired using the necessary means depending on which um, window is is being treated for that. Uh for the storefronts, as I mentioned, there's a a scope here to reconstruct uh storefronts at at the front elevation, the primary, which which has been infilled with those wood panels. Um 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 the right photo. Um that's non-historic. The applicant is planning to remove that. And then with the front elevation loading dock and sidewalk, they're proposing to uh remove parts of that infill actually um 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 the um evaluations that staff made under the third finding for the design guidelines. So with facade materials, again, the applicant was proposing to have an aggregate solution for paint removal. Um you can see some of the the paint on the elevation here in the in the rear that's covering brick. Um 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 um appropriate for paint removal or paint cleaning on on brick especially when we're working with chasa cream brick which can be more um brittle due to the the high levels of silica contents in them. Um so that's one of staff's condition which I'll uh summarize at the end. In addition um with entryways and and fenestration how the the guidelines um regulate those is if original entryways were altered the preferred treatment is to restore them to an original uh condition based on historic photos and other evidence. And as I showed earlier, we do have historic photo evidence of what um the the front elevation storefront looked like historically. Uh so with that, staff did include a condition of approval just to make sure that bulkheads were being um used in the design for the new storefront. So it's currently proposed to have a fully glazed storefront system um and to be more compatible to what existed historically. Staff has added that condition. Um, 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. Um, and the conditions do coincide with staff's evaluation there. Um, as I mentioned, I believe I mentioned earlier, this is a state and uh, federal tax credit project that's being submitted here. So, it's concurrently being reviewed by Shipo and NPS. Um and um the applicant has been been clear about that with staff and they did include those materials for the HPC's evaluation and those are included in the packet as well. Um, so with all that, the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development recommends that the Heritage Preservation Commission adopt staff findings for the certificate of appropriateness um by 410 North 3rd Street LLC on behalf of 410 North 3rd Street LLC. Um, Renegade Holdings for the property located at 4103rd Avenue. Um, sorry, North Thirdrd LLC on the property located at 4103rd Avenue for the property um in the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District and recommends the Heritage Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness to alter storefronts and rehabilitate the property located at 410 3rd Avenue North in the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District subject to the following conditions. So, one that the three new um the three new front south elevation storefront systems shall include bulkheads designed to be contemporary and compatible interpretations of the building's former historic storefront bulkheads at this elevation. The applicant shall finalize designs and submit them to staff for review and approval prior to the permit being issued. Two, aggregate or media blasting shall not be used for cleaning or paint removal on masonry on the building. Gentle pressure washes or solvents may be submitted to staff for review, consideration, and approval. Three, masonry test panels and mortar and brick matches shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the permit being issued. And four, the new rooftop top mechanical equipment that projects above the roof line shall be set back from the front building elevation uh one structural bay and they shall not be visible from the street. Uh, and with that, I do have a few extra slides here that show kind of remaining elevations if um commissioners want to reference any of them, but I'm 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. Uh, Vice Chair Masten, forgive me. I am not a commissioner, but I wanted to um just make a quick clarification and an error I noticed in the agenda and in the staff report. There is no historic variance associated with this application as stated um 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. Um, 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. Good evening, Alex Hecker, EWH Architects, 25, No Henipin Avenue. Right. We just moved. So, uh, I'm here to answer any questions. I thought it was going to be on consent, so I'm glad I showed up. Um, but it's kind of a boilerplate HBC application part two tax credit project. >> Do we have any com or questions for the applicant? >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Are there any members of the public um who wish to speak for or against this applica application? Okay. Uh thank you for your comments. Um 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 Malbum. >> Well, hearing no comments, I'll make a motion that the Heritage Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness to alter storefronts and rehabilitate the property located at 143rd Avenue North in the Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District subject to the following additions 1 through 4. >> Thank you, Commissioner Malbum. Um, is there a second? >> Wallace seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Wallace. Um, see, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, uh, would the clerk call the role? >> Alexander. >> Abstain. >> Booty. >> I >> Melbourne. >> I >> Rodriguez. >> I >> Thomas. I >> Wallace >> I vice chair Masten I. That is seven eyes and one abstain. Thank you. The motion passes and clerk I would also like to note that Commissioner Curado has arrived. Um our next item is item number eight 2011 Franklin A East Ward 10. This application is for certificate of appropriateness. The staff report is presented by Aaron Kay. >> Good evening, Vice Chair Masten and Commissioners. My name is Aaron Kay and I'm 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 certificate of appropriateness application for the property located at 2011 Franklin Avenue East in the Washurn Fair Oaks Historic District. Uh here you can see an aerial view of the property's location outlined in teal. The house was built in 1885. It became a duplex around 1924 and then in 1962 it was converted into a multifamily dwelling. A permit was issued in 1964 to resside the dwelling which is likely when the aluminum sighting was added. Staff believe that the original sighting would have been wood. The house has been re-roofed at least once in 1980 and the property is a contributing resource to the Washurn Fair Oaks Historic District. Here is a historic photo of the property from the 1970s. 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, and gutters. The applicant has indicated that the aluminum siding had experienced significant weathering and deterioration over time due to moisture, pests, and climate exposure, as well as denting from inclement weather. Uh we believe the subject property was affected by the August 2023 hail storm that hit uh several of our historic districts. The applicant selected vinyl sighting as the replacement to reduce risks of dents and surface damage and more closely resemble the likely original wood sighting in their opinion. Here are two photos of the house with the vinyl sighting installed as proposed and a screenshot from the product sheet to give you a sense of the material. The design guidelines for this historic district indicate that vinyl siding is not considered an appropriate substitute material for a house that would have originally had wood siding. This is because it has a very different finish, texture, and appearance from wood. Additionally, when non-historic materials need to be replaced according to the guidelines, they encourage restoration of historic wall cladding, which would be wood in this case, or inind replacement, which would be aluminum in this case. The applicant had concerns about using metal sighting based on its durability and tendency to be dented. As such, staff are recommending two conditions of approval to select a more suitable replacement for the sighting. The gutters and asphalt shingles were also impacted by the weather event. The shingles have been replaced in kind. During preparation of the staff report, staff confirmed with the applicant that the gutters have actually not been replaced yet. Um, but the intention was to replace them in kind. The inkind replacement of non-historic asphalt shingles complies with the design guidelines and the standards. In kind of replacement of non-historic gutters and downspouts would also comply with the design guidelines. Staff are recommending a third condition of approval to ensure that the gutters and downspouts will comply. Staff recommend that the HPC adopt staff findings and approve the certificate of appropriateness to seek retroactive approval to replace the siding, roof, and gutters for the property located at 2011 Franklin Avenue East in the Washurn Fair Oaks Historic District subject to the following conditions. Number one, the replacement siding shall be fiber cement, composite wood, or other similar material. vinyl sighting is not permitted. Number two, the applicant shall work with staff to determine the compatible direction and dimensions of the replacement sighting. It shall be compatible but different from historic sighting remaining on similar properties in the historic district. Number three, new gutters shall be metal and of either a Kstyle or half round profile. New gutters and downspouts should be installed to avoid damage to or obscuring historic character-defining features. The straps for gutters shall be installed under the roof shingles where possible. Staff have not received any public comments pertaining to this project. 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 the report. Commissioners, are there any questions for staff? Um, I will now open the public hearing for this item. Is the applicant here and would like to speak? Um, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Hello, my name is Nicholas David Bates of 2011 East Franklin Avenue, uh, Minneapolis. Uh, I just got some notes. Here's an outline based on the application. Um, do you guys have any questions before I start? Sorry, I'm new to all this. I'm kind of nervous. Uh, so I own a a property management company called COP 26 and uh we help people with affordable housing such as emergency lodging, SRO, and independent apartment, which is this application in question, which we call the Franklin Flats. I've been in the industry since 2027 or 2007. Uh it was initially founded by my family in 1983. In 2019, I founded concept 26 with one SRO, three lodging houses, and then we expanded to the Franklin Flats in 2022. Uh due to the storm, as staff indicated, there was some damage in addition to just the general overall deterioration of the exterior of the property. um which which uh allowed me or had me claim against my insurance to replace the damage. Um insurance approved some of the repairs but not all of them due to the depreciation and condition of the previous sighting. After meeting with the contractors, they suggested a sustainable synthetic sighting which comes in a variety of colors, textures, and formats such as shake, wood look, shingle, and textured panels to be able to match the classic look of the building and the neighboring houses while being able to afford the improvement of the entire building. I made the decision to go with the contractor suggestions. Um, let's see here. I have one other note about that. Uh at purchase of the property, I was unaware of the historical tag. Um which is why I'm here for a retroactive approval and I'm asking that the HBC approve uh items two and three while striking out number one uh to prevent me from having to invest in the replacement of siding two times. Um, if so, if not, then I'm, you know, I'm afraid I might I don't know what I would do at that point. Um, so I'm I'm just graciously requesting that item one is struggle two and three is approved um in order for my program to continue to operate and and keep individuals placed within the unit. Um, I'm proud of, you know, my community, my business, and my properties and and the people we serve, and I plan to keep this property for the foreseeable future. Thank you for your comments. Uh, commissioners, are there any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Wallace, >> thank you for your presentation. Um, just a one question. Um, how many are there people living in the property now? And how many folks are? >> Yes, it's a six-unit apartment and there's six people living there or six Well, some individuals, some families, but they're all occupied. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Curado. >> Um, was there an estimate done to have been the other sighting materials? >> Yeah, it would have been approximately $60,000 >> and, uh, I guess in relation to the vinyl sighting that's on >> Oh, the vinyl signing was $35,000. >> Thank you. Are there Okay. Are there any other other questions? No. >> Oh, Commissioner Alexander. >> Um, the insurance I mean, I'm assuming with an insurance claim, the insurance covered be beyond your deductible. They covered the cost of the vinyl siding. >> It it covered the cost of the vinyl, but it would not cover the cost of anything besides that. Um, but we did buy like a super quality vinyl like woodlook lab siding. So, it's like uh a high grade textured sighting and uh um it's like supposed to have like a long-lasting durability of at 35 years. >> Did the insurance company reject um going with a inind replacement of the sighting? >> No, they didn't. They didn't reject in that in that fashion. Um, but they due to the the age and the deterioration and the depreciation as they say. Um, 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 hodge podge. Like two sides would be different from the other two sides. So, we tried to wrap the whole building in an upgraded newer style but with a with a classic look. >> Thank you. Commissioner Wallace, when did So you noted um and thanks for noting it that you didn't know about the district and the restrictions when you bought the property. When um when did that information come to you? Was it with the 311 call or >> It was during this process. Yeah. Um we had to apply for a permit and when we did it indicated to the >> the Heritage Preservation Committee. Is that what it is? Yeah. >> Um that that there's a process involved in addition to the to the permit. So the permit got approved. Um but then this this is the second step with that process. So I'm kind of learning as I go. >> Okay. Yeah. So the the permit was approved and then was it the order like the permit was approved and then the uh replacement siding was installed and then this or >> uh No. So I didn't know that the just the siding I did a permit for the roof, but I didn't know siding needed a permit cuz I'm just a property manager and owner. Got you. Got you. >> Um, so we actually replace the sighting >> and then somebody's seen or I don't know. Anyway, the building city inspe city permit inspector >> uh drove by stopped in and he's like I don't see a permit on file for this. So we Oh, okay. So we applied for the permit and then the the historical piece came into action. >> So here we are. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thanks. >> Yeah. I'm going to go uh Commissioner Rodriguez first. >> Sure. We may have the same question. Um I'm just wondering uh did you what was the timeline um when you received the notice that you needed a permit? Was the sighting already finished or did you continue with the sighting after you heard that you needed a permit? >> It was right now it's probably 98% finished. There's a couple little spots that need additional installation. Um, so as soon as it's approved, we can do that. But if it's not approved, then I have to go another direction. I don't know. But, um, I would say 98% done and then the project got halted. >> Thank you, Commissioner Malbum. >> Yeah. Did So, you used a contractor to do the sighting, right? >> Yes. >> And that contractor never told you that you needed a permit in the city of Minneapolis to do sighting? >> He did not. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you. >> Okay, thank you. >> Um, are there any members of the public who wish to speak for against this application? Uh, seeing none. Uh, thank you. Thank you for your comments. Are there Oh, 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 application? Commissioner Melbourne? Yeah, I have a question for um Miss K. I'm assuming that both of the because this is on a corner, I'm assuming that both of the street fronts are considered primary facades and the two non- street fronts are considered secondary facads. >> Vice Chair Masten, Commissioner Melbam, that is correct. So would the would it be completely I know that the 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 mistaken and potentially the contractor didn't do their due diligence and duty. Would it be completely um inappropriate to just replace the siding on the two primary facads of the building and leave the uh installed siding on the two secondary facades? Vice Chair Masten, Commissioner Melbum. Um, I don't know how to answer that question because I don't have the expertise in terms of installing sighting and what the feasibility would be of having different materials meet at the corner. Um, and if that could potentially um, introduce other risks to the property. Um, but if there are others who other staff who wish to speak on that um, they can. I don't know that I think there is. >> Yes. >> Andrea Burke. Uh thank you uh Vice Chair Masten and Commissioner Melbam. Just uh 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 is it's not appropriate because the guidelines that were adopted for this district are very clear in terms of uh vinyl sighting. So thank you. Uh, Commissioner Melbourne, >> and and I appreciate that. I I probably was asking staff a question. Maybe that was inappropriate, but I wonder if we can find a middle ground here um to require um only the replacement side, only the siding on the two primary facads be replaced in a in a way to help minimize the cost of um doing this. Plus the fact that that sighting is then going to be thrown away because it won't be usable. And that seems particularly wasteful to me. >> Commissioner Wallace. Um, 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 does not appear to have been a willful disregard of this of the guidelines. Um it seems like there were a few steps along the way where folks in their professional capacity should have advised differently, you know, or should have let folks know like where the property was. So I'm wondering if in this kind of scenario does any do anyone does anyone know is economic hardship something that we can consider as a part of this like consideration? >> Andre Burke Uh, Vice Chair Mass and Commissioner Wallace, no. Economic hardship is not something the HPC considers under their purview up here. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Thomas. I I don't want this to come off harshly, so I'm trying to be very nice. Um, as a property owner, I do think it is a property owner's um, it is part of their their due diligence as a property owner to make sure that they know all of the history of the building um, and what requirements it needs to meet. Um, I do definitely understand that there are some people can be misled. I do think there was some contractor negligence here with this sighting. 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. I just because I don't know of them doesn't mean that they don't still apply to me. And I think that is something to consider as well. I I do feel for the applicant and I'm very sorry that this happened to you. Um, but as a property owner and business owner, I definitely feel like it is on it is on the applicant to know these rules and regulations before making any changes. Thank you. Commissioner Curado, >> I guess this is a little bit of a I don't I guess I I just I'm having a hard time remembering when the um design guidelines were written for Washurn Fair uh Fair Oaks Historic District, but I know sometimes we talk about how materials change over time and that perhaps materials that were deemed inappropriate at the time of a design guideline may have advanced to a point where it might be um con be able to be considered. I don't know if that applies in this case, but thought that was just sort of a question. >> Andre Burke, >> uh Vice Chair Mass and Commissioner Curado, the design guidelines for this de district were adopted in July 2024. Commissioner Malbum. >> Okay. Well, since we can't consider economic hardship, which was where my brain was going, um, then I would like to make a motion that the Heritage Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness to seek retroactive approval to replace the siding, roof, and gutters for the property located at 21 Franklin Avenue East in the Washurn Farox Historic District subject to the following conditions one, two, and three as presented by staff. >> Thank you, Commissioner Melbourne. Do I have a second? Rodriguez seconds. >> Thank you, Commissioner Rodriguez. Um, any further discussion. >> Okay, seeing none, uh, would the clerk call the role? >> Commissioner Alexander, >> I. Booty. >> Hi >> Curado. >> Hi >> Melbourne. >> Hi >> Rodriguez. >> I >> Thomas >> I >> Wallace >> I >> vice chair Masten >> I. >> That is eight I's. >> Uh thank you. The motion passes. That concludes our public hearing items. Our last item um is item number nine, the 2025 certified local government report presented by Andrea Burke. Good evening. Uh my name is Andrea Burke and I am the supervisor for the historic preservation team in CPED and I am here to give you a very brief uh presentation on our annual report which is uh 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, um, on some of the work we've done over the past year. Um, as I mentioned, uh, we prepare this report every year. We submit it to the state historic preservation office. This is our 2025 annual report. And I just want to make a note that we follow a little bit of a different timeline. We do follow um our 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 uh time frame. But uh on the cover we you know we highlight some of our projects that we've done over the past year and pretty much kind of just kind of it's a little bit more than widgets. We explain a little bit more than that. Um but we have some nominations, what we've done for designations, some of the conferences that we've worked on um and some of the other initiatives. Um for example um just from one of the pages um these are some of the grant projects that uh we received in um that uh state fiscal year. Um and on this particular page it shows just one of the nominations that was heard and so we give a brief summary but um I think one thing I'd like to give in this um 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. Um so again this is for the time frame of October October 1st 2024 to September 30th 2025. Um I list them here on the slide but um it was you know all in all maybe a a slightly heavy year not as heavy as last year um but you know around 24 certificates of appropriateness four historic variances. We had three appeals three demolitions uh three nominations which was a little higher than previous years. Um, we did not disopt any design guidelines this year. Um, 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 um a lot of our applications um names and we've uh split other applications out. So that is all I have to present. Uh and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Commissioners, are there any questions or comments for staff? I think I have a question. Um do we have an update on the Glendale Town Homes? I saw it listed and there's a photo, but I I'm not sure that I saw how it finally ended. I think it said it went back back to the planning director. Does that mean it's just done? Uh, well, I can Yeah, I can provide. So, Vice Chair Masten, um, the Glendale did go um after the biz 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 I'm going to defer to uh the clerk. Ken Ken. >> Um thank you, Chair Mast. Um anything that the the city council term uh ends at the end of this year as we uh just had an election. Everything that they have left undone essentially expires. Um, so as they had their final business, housing and zoning committee today, um, I I do not believe it's slated to be considered at the uh, next um, uh, council meeting, their final council meeting of the year on December 11th. So I would assume that it is on track to the application would essentially expire. >> Okay, >> Commissioner Melb. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Masten. So, I'll just add a comment and then I have two questions um about the Glendel Town Homes. Um it I find it really disturbing that twice this body has I believe unanimously both times recommended um historic designation and both times the city council has um instead of taken action either accepting or revoking or disproving disapproving a recommendation um that the city council has just let it stall out. It's It's I think a blot on the city council. I do have two other questions um 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 Masten and Commissioner Melbam. That is part of my updates in the next agenda item. Thank you. >> All right, then I'll hold my other question. Thank you. Any other question? Okay, thank you. Uh, this concludes our discussion items. So, do commissioners or staff have any announcements or commission business to discuss? Do you want to do it from here? Thank you, Vice Chair Manson. Yes, I will just stay here. Um, again, Andrea Burke and I'm the supervisor for the historic preservation team uh team in CPAD. Yes, I want to give a few announcements for our last HPC meeting of 2025. Um, so wanted to just uh in addition to stating that because of the ordinance which I will get into a moment um we will have a mix of applications on some of our next meetings. So to answer your question, Commissioner Belum, yes, the ordinance was adopted and it was on November 20th at city council. There were two amendments that ended up happening with it. Um, one of them then was also discussed but ended up being voted against and I can explain that. So, one of the amendments that was taken was um, one of the amendments made by the HPC regarding um, time limits for applications, basically making them all consistent at 3 years. um staff ended up modifying some of the language that HBC had recommended to uh 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 um by W one, the council president, was adding language to the enforcement section about um was it maintenance, Rob, or m was it maintenance? Yeah, it was maintenance, excuse me, not enforcement, it was maintenance article um adding language about ensuring that a building is weathertight. Um, so and then there was a few extra definitions that were added to explain what a weathertight building is and um 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 um situations where perhaps we have um a degree of neglect happening. Um, so the hope is to at least if we can put something in there regarding keeping them secure and weathertight uh may help ensure their longevity to a longer time frame. That one was voted on and also accepted. The third one that was discussed um was one of the also uh two of the sorry let me mention this. Two of the other HPC amendments were not accepted. These were the um requests about adding council language to or by city council. Um this was one we had a very long discussion about at the HPC hearing that was not accepted. There was also the third one um it was about time limits for an application was also not accepted. And then the one about um adding the HPC to a um excluded nominator was discussed at length at the council and ended up not passing on a 6 to5 vote. Um, so that one did amendment did not make it in, but it was brought up by a council member at the 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 actually was working on that today. Um, 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, but um and 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 a an overlap because we have, you know, continue to have applications that come in. So there will be essentially a cut off date and we're still kind of working out some of the the details of that to make sure that you know applications by a certain time will be under the old code and then applications submitted after the first will be under the new code. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other Oh, Commissioner Melbourne, >> I do have one other question. Um, do we know when we will get the calendar for 2026 beyond the first two months? >> Vice Chair Mast and Commissioner Melbum. I'm actually going to turn to Ken for that question. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you, Chair Masten, Commissioner Melbum. The city council will be uh having its organizational meeting on January 5th. That's when we anticipate they will adopt their calendar for the year. Um, so within that week and in the next week, we'll be drafting calendars for the remainder of the year because you're uh because you are a broadcast meeting, you're kind of tied to their schedule, and you kind of have to fill in the gaps of when they're not meeting. Um, so we expect that you will have a full calendar to approve that goes March and the remainder of the year uh in mid to late January of 2026. >> Last call. One more. >> Oh, sorry. Uh, sorry, Vice Chair Mast. I have one more update that I wanted to give you from the city council meeting because along with our ordinance adoption. Um, we also had an appeal that went to the BIS committee and then also it it was the demolition of the designated landmark, the Cook House. Um, we heard this a while back. Um it did get continued a cycle, two cycles actually. Um and then it did go on the November 20th as well city council meeting um because it was forwarded without recommendation from the biz committee. The city council ended up referring that back to staff. Um, and the reason being, and you can watch the city council meeting, um, the owner, uh, or they requested a six-month extension on their 6120, um, allowance under state law to, uh, be able to try and sell the property, um, to someone who would be willing to, uh, fix it. So, um, in that in light of that information and there was, um, some agreements made, uh, with the city attorneys about how this would would play out. Um, that now has been is back in our our staff in our hands. So, there has been no decision on it at this point. Um, 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 just have one question on that. So, if they under that circumstance, the owner has six months in which to sell it. If they're not successful in selling it, what happens then? uh that comes back to staff and then it is it is on us to bring it back to council for a final decision. >> Okay, got you. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Actually, a followup to that. >> Is successful in selling the property and the next property owner wants to demolish it, do they start from scratch essentially? Okay. >> Essentially, yes. That's how I believe although it's >> more yeah >> still still working ironing out some of the details but um any new ask to to de demolish the property would would essentially be heard under the new code. >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Commissioner Curado. >> Um, related to that, is the owner under any obligation to stabilize the property because it seemed like a lot of the wall studs were chopped out and it seems like a easy fix for the winter with the snow. >> Vice Chair Mat and Commissioner Crow, I'll be honest, I can't speak entirely to that. That was not part of the council recommendation um or the council action. Excuse me. There was no recommendation. the council action to refer it back to staff. Um, if you would like to rewatch some of the council presentation, um, and some of the discussion happened, um, I had given a little bit of an update about some of the, um, fines that have been attributed to the properties through some of the city programs, um, such as the vacant building registration, prolonged vacancy enforcement. Um, and they're I think that's where some of the the negotiation came with some of the the attorney's office, but in terms of asking the property interest table, I am not aware of that. But I will be honest, that is not something I have have entirely clear information on. Thank you. Okay. Uh with that we have completed all items on the agenda for this meeting. I will ask members and staff once more if there are any other matters to come before this meeting. There being no business 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.