[0:27] >> GOOD AFTERNOON, I CALL TO ORDER THE MARCH 18, 2025, REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEAPOLIS HERITAGE [0:34] PRESERVATION COMMISSION. FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS MARAIS BJORNBERG AND I SERVE AS CHAIR [0:39] OF THE COMMISSION. JUST A REMINDER TO SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES AND OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND TO SPEAK CLEARLY [0:45] WHEN SPEAKING AT THE DAIS OR GIVING TESTIMONY. WILL THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL SO [0:51] WE MAY VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. >> COUNCIL MEMBER ALEXANDER. [0:56] >> PRESENT. >> BOOTE. >> PRESENT. >> HERR. >> PRESENT. >> KARATO IS ABSENT. [1:06] MELLBLOM. >> PRESENT. >> THOMAS. >> PRESENT. >> WALLACE. >> PRESENT. >> RODRIGUEZ IS ABSENT. [1:11] VICE CHAIR MASTIN. >> PRESENT. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG. >> PRESENT. >> THERE ARE EIGHT MEMBERS [1:17] PRESENT. >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE DO HAVE QUORUM AND THAT [1:23] COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ PROVIDED NOTICE THAT THEY HAD A CONFLICT THIS AFTERNOON AND THEIR ABSENCE IS EXCUSED. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS [1:29] TO ADOPT THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING. WE WILL WORK FROM THE AGENDA PROVIDED BY THE CLERK AND GO [1:35] THROUGH AND SORT OUT WHICH ITEMS WILL BE DISCUSSED AND WHICH ITEMS WILL BE PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF [1:42] AND WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS 4724 EMERSON [1:48] AVENUE SOUTH WARD 13. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS [1:54] AND WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE [2:02] STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS 200 3rd AVENUE NTH WARD THREE, THIS [2:09] APPLICATION IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND ITEM NUMBER FIVE WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN [2:15] OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. [2:20] ITEM NUMBER SIX IS CHAPTER 599 ORDINANCE REVISIONS SECOND DRAFT [2:27] ALL WARDS. ITEM NUMBER SIX WILL BE DISCUSSED. SO THE PROPOSED AGENDA IS THE [2:36] CONSENT AGENDA WILL INCLUDE ITEM [2:44] NUMBER 4, 4724 EMERSON AVENUE SOUTH WARD 13, AND ITEM FIVE 200 [2:52] 3rd AVENUE NORTH WARD THREE. [2:57] IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THESE ITEMS? [3:02] HEARING NO OPPOSITION TO PLACING THESE ITEMS ON CONSENT, WE WILL APPROVE THESE CONSENT ITEMS IN ONE MOTION AT THE START OF THE [3:08] MEETING. THE FOLLOWING ITEM WILL HAVE STAFF PRESENTATION AND COMMISSION DISCUSSION WITHOUT A [3:15] PUBLIC HEARING, ITEM NUMBER SIX, CHAPTER 599 ORDINANCE REVISION [3:20] SECOND DRAFT ALL WARDS. COMMISSIONERS, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA? [3:27] >> MASTIN SO MOVES. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MASTIN. IS THERE A SECOND? [3:33] >> I SECOND. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WALLACE. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [3:40] [CHORUS OF AYES] >> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? [3:46] ANY ABSTENTIONS? THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. OUR NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS WILL BE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR MARCH 4, 2025, MEETING. [3:55] MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES. >> MELLBLOM MOVES TO APPROVE. [4:02] >> THANK YOU, IS THERE A SECOND? >> HERR SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HERR. [4:08] ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [4:13] [CHORUS OF AYES] >> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? ANY ABSTENTIONS? [4:19] THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. [4:25] BEFORE I OPEN THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, LET ME SUMMARIZE THE PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING. [4:31] FIRST WE WILL ACT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA JUST SET. ONCE THE CONSENT AGENDA IS [4:38] APPROVED, THOSE ITEMS ARE APPROVED AND APPLICANTS CAN CONTACT STAFF TOMORROW FOR NEXT [4:43] STEPS. AFTER, WE WILL TAKE THE REMAINING AGENDA ITEM, STAFF [4:49] WILL PRESENT ITS REPORT AND COMMISSIONERS MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA [4:59] ITEMS, ITEM NUMBER 4, 4724 [5:07] EMERSON AVENUE SOUTH WARD 13, AND ITEM FIVE, 200 3rd AVENUE [5:13] NORTH WARD THREE. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO OPPOSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE [5:19] PUBLIC WHO OPPOSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THESE ITEMS? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE [5:24] PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE [5:31] STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS? [5:37] >> SO MOVED. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? >> THANK YOU. [5:44] ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [5:49] [CHORUS OF AYES] >> ANY ABSTENTIONS? [5:56] THESE ITEMS ARE APPROVED. APPLICANTS MAY CONTACT PLANNING STAFF ABOUT NEXT STEPS. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER [6:03] SIX, CHAPTER 599 ORDINANCE REVISIONS SECOND DRAFT ALL WARDS. [6:09] THE STAFF MEMO IS PRESENTED BY ROB SKALECKI. [6:40] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. [6:46] TODAY I AM BRINGING FORWARD WHAT WE ARE CALLING THE SECOND DRAFT OF CHAPTER 599. THE FIRST ONE THAT WE MIGHT [6:53] REFER TO WAS THE ONE THAT COMMISSIONERS HAD THE CHANCE TO REVIEW BACK IN OCTOBER OF LAST [7:00] YEAR. SINCE THAT POINT, STAFF HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A LOT OF CHANGES BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK [7:05] AND FEEDBACK FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. WE'RE EXCITED TO BRING ANOTHER DRAFT FORWARD FOR YOU TODAY AND [7:13] OF COURSE YOU'VE ALL HAD TIME TO REVIEW THAT WITH THE ATTACHMENT AND THE STAFF MEMO. I JUST WANT TO GIVE A BRIEF [7:19] BACKGROUND JUST TO KIND OF [7:27] REITERATE HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT OF REWRITING THE ORDINANCE HERE. AS YOU ALL KNOW IN 1972 THE CITY [7:35] ADOPTED THE LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE TO ENCOURAGE THE DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTIES THAT [7:41] ARE SIGNIFICANT TO THE CITY'S BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURAL [7:46] HERITAGE. SO OVER 50 YEARS, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DESIGNATE 20 HISTORIC [7:52] DISTRICTS AND OVER 195 INDIVIDUAL LANDMARKS THROUGH A PROGRAM RELATED TO THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. [7:59] SO SINCE THE EARLY 70s, WE'VE HAD SOME VERSION OF A LOCAL PRESERVATION ORDINANCE IN LOCAL [8:05] LAW. OUR PROGRAM IS A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SO IT'S A [8:14] MUNICIPALITY THAT'S DEMONSTRATED A COMMITMENT TO PRESERVE HISTORY [8:19] AND WE HAVE CERTAIN THINGS WE HAVE TO ADHERE TO WHEN LOOKING AT HOW WE WRITE OUR ORDINANCE AND WHAT STANDARDS WE ABIDE BY. [8:27] AND AS YOU ARE ALL AWARE PROBABLY AFTER SAYING THIS MANY TIMES OVER THE PAST YEAR, IT'S [8:33] TITLE 23, CHAPTER 599, THE LOCAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION IT'S LOCAL [8:38] PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND THAT'S WHAT ADMINISTERS OUR PRESERVATION PROGRAM. THAT'S WHAT ALLOWS FOR THE HPC [8:45] TO OPERATE AS IT DOES AND CHAPTER 599 WAS NOT COMPREHENSIVELY UPDATED [8:50] SINCE 2001. SO THERE HAVE BEEN MINOR CHANGES SINCE THAT TIME, BUT NOT [8:56] COMPLETELY LOOKED AT AND CHANGES LOOKED AT SINCE 2001. [9:04] SO SINCE 2001, AS WE ARE ALL AWARE PRACTICES AND PROCESSES IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION HAVE [9:10] CHANGED. SO ALL OF CHAPTER 599 AS PART OF THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSED TO BE [9:15] REPEALED AND REPLACED IN ITS ENTIRETY. SO THERE'S SOME ARTICLES THAT [9:22] YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT REMAIN PRETTY SIMILAR IF NOT EXACTLY THE SAME TO WHAT WAS [9:28] WRITTEN WITH SOME MINOR REVISIONS. AND SOME SECTIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY REORGANIZE AND HAD REWRITTEN HERE. SO OUR STAFF MEMO THAT WAS SENT [9:35] OUT FOR YOUR REVIEW DETAILS A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS WE ARE PROPOSING DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS [9:41] AND IT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS WHAT WAS ADDITIONALLY CONSIDERED FOR CHANGES WHEN WE WERE REWRITING [9:47] THE TEXT. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, ON [9:56] OCTOBER 22, 2024, STAFF BROUGHT THIS FIRST DRAFT FOR YOUR [10:02] COMMENTS. SO A LOT OF YOUR COMMENTS WERE USED IN FORMULATING CHANGES. [10:07] WE DID INCLUDE IN THE MEMO AS YOU SAW BASICALLY THE SAME KIND OF DRAFT THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH IN OCTOBER, ALTHOUGH THERE [10:14] ARE SOME AREAS WITH STRIKE THROUGHS AND THOSE AREAS ARE [10:19] LOCATIONS THAT HAVE SINCE CHANGED. SO WHATEVER STAFF HAD BROUGHT TO YOU BEFORE, PARTS OF THAT HAVE [10:24] CHANGED AND WE DO NOTE THAT IN OUR NOTES ON PAGES BELOW IN THE [10:30] MEMO. SO WE'VE ALSO ADDRESSED THESE OTHER CHANGES. BOTH AGAIN THROUGH STAKEHOLDER [10:38] COMMENTS FROM HPC COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AS OTHER STAFF, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, A HANDFUL OF [10:45] EXTERNAL PRESERVATION STAKEHOLDERS. SO THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO THE DOCUMENT SINCE OCTOBER WERE [10:51] OUTLINED IN THE STAFF MEMO AND THEY DO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. [10:57] SO THE FIRST ONE AND I THINK THE LARGEST SCALE CHANGE AT LEAST THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A [11:03] LOT RECENTLY IS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION APPLICATIONS ARE NO LONGER SUPPOSED TO BE DIVIDED INTO TWO [11:10] APPLICATIONS SO THAT WAS A LARGER CHANGE THAT WE HAD BROUGHT FORWARD INITIALLY IN [11:15] OCTOBER TO DIVIDE WHAT IS CURRENTLY ONE ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION APPLICATION, A [11:20] CERTIFICATE OF NO CHANGE INTO TWO APPLICATIONS, ONE THAT WOULD FUNCTION VERY SIMILARLY TO A [11:25] CERTIFICATE OF NO CHANGE, AND ONE THAT WOULD BE A BIT OF A HIGHER TIER AND REQUIRE A FEE, [11:31] AND FOR LARGER SCALE PROJECTS THAT HAVE A CHANCE OF AFFECTING GREATER MATERIALS. [11:36] THAT IS WHAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU IN OCTOBER. SINCE THEN STAFF WITH A LOT OF INTERNAL CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND OTHER [11:44] PLANNING STAFF HAVE REALIZED THAT THE BEST ROUTE TO GO FORWARD HERE IS GOING TO BE ONE [11:52] ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION, BUT ALLOWING STAFF THE ABILITY TO REVIEW CHANGES JUST WITHIN PERMIT REVIEW. [11:58] SO MANY CHANGES THAT ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWED THROUGH A CERTIFICATE OF NO CHANGE WILL [12:04] NOW ONLY REQUIRE PERMIT REVIEW, SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A SEPARATE PRESERVATION APPLICATION NEEDED FOR KIND OF [12:10] THAT LOWEST TIER OF PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY REVIEW THROUGH A CERTIFICATE OF NO [12:16] CHANGE. THIS FOLLOWS ALONG WITH HOW A LOT OF OTHER SECTIONS OF CPED DO [12:22] REVIEW BUILDING PERMITS TO COMPLY WITH ZONING CODE, BUILDING CODE DEPENDING ON THE [12:28] STAFF. SO THIS NEW PROCESS HAS BEEN THOUGHT UP TO TRY TO REDUCE [12:34] ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING TIMES BOTH FOR APPLICANTS AND FOR STAFF. AND HOPEFULLY TO ALLOW FOR THE [12:40] PRODUCTS THAT WILL HAVE THOSE GREATER IMPACTS, POTENTIAL GREATER IMPACTS I SHOULD SAY ON [12:47] HISTORIC PROPERTIES TO STILL HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. SO WE'RE KEEPING ONE [12:53] ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION, WE'RE KEEPING THAT HAVING A FEE SO ESSENTIALLY THAT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE [13:00] APPLICATION PRESERVATION TOO THAT YOU ALL SAW IN OCTOBER. BUT INSTEAD OF HAVING AN [13:07] ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION APPLICATION ONE, IT WOULD JUST BE STAFF'S PERMIT REVIEW THERE. [13:12] ANOTHER ITEM I KNOW COMMISSIONERS COMMENTED ON LAST TIME WE BROUGHT THIS FORWARD IS JUST THAT AT THE TIME WE THOUGHT [13:20] OF THE NAMES ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION APPLICATION ONE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION [13:26] APPLICATION TWO TO NAME THOSE APPLICATIONS. I THINK THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS AT THAT TIME MAYBE UNSURE IF [13:31] THOSE WERE THE BEST NAMES. SO WE ARE REQUESTING AGAIN THAT IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THE [13:37] NAMES AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN, ADMINISTRATIVE [13:42] PRESERVATION APPLICATION AND COMMISSION PRESERVATION APPLICATION, WE'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. THE SECOND CHANGE THAT WE NOTED [13:51] IN THE MEMBER IS THAT THE HISTORIC VARIANCE TOOL IS ACTUALLY BEING RENAMED TO A [13:58] HISTORIC EXCEPTION. THIS IS TO DIFFERENTIATE THIS TOOL, THE HISTORIC VARIANCE AS WE'VE KNOWN IT FOR DECADES NOW [14:05] FROM A ZONING VARIANCE. SO THE ZONING TERM VARIANCE HAS A VERY STRICT DEFINITION AND [14:12] THERE ARE POSSIBLE LEGAL ISSUES THAT COME WITH THAT TERM BEING APPLIED TO HOW IT'S USED FOR A [14:18] HISTORIC VARIANCE AS WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND IT. SO THE GUIDANCE THERE WAS THAT WE CAN KEEP THE TOOL AS IT [14:25] EXISTS SO ALLOW THE VARIANCE TO STILL BE USED AS WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND IT TO BE. BUT IT WOULD HAVE THIS DIFFERENT [14:31] NAME WHICH IS THE HISTORIC [14:39] EXCEPTION. THE THIRD ITEM IS THE FINDINGS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAVE BEEN [14:44] ADDED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMISSION PRESERVATION APPLICATIONS. WITH DISCUSSION INTERNALLY, WE [14:49] REALIZED IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THOSE BACK IN. SO THOSE ARE PLACED BACK IN THE FINDINGS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMISSION APPLICATIONS. [14:55] AND THE FOURTH ONE HERE IS THAT SECTIONS OF CODE HAVE BEEN REMOVED WHERE LANGUAGE IS [15:02] OBSOLETE OR ALTERED OR OUTDATED. SO THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO KIND OF THE CLEANING UP THAT WE DID [15:07] IN THE PREVIOUS DRAFT. BUT THERE ARE FEW AREAS THAT WERE NOTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND MAYBE [15:12] OTHER STAFF THAT COULD BE CHANGED TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH [15:18] CURRENT LANGUAGE AS WELL AS MORE IN LINE WITH ZONING LANGUAGE WHERE APPLICABLE JUST TO BE UP TO DATE AND CONSISTENT WHERE NEEDED. [15:25] THE FIFTH ITEM, SO STAFF EXPANDED AND CLARIFIED FINDINGS [15:34] FOR THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. SO WE HAVE ADDED LANGUAGE AND [15:42] CLARIFIED THAT A PROPERTY HOW A [15:47] PROPERTY COULD BE DENIED AND STUDIED FOR INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK STATUS AS THIS COMES UP. [15:53] THIS MAY OCCUR IF WE HAVE A PROPERTY PLANNED FOR DEMOLITION WITHIN AN ALREADY DESIGNATED [15:58] HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE EXAMPLE WE THOUGHT OF IS ST. ANTHONY FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT [16:04] IS VERY LARGE WITH SOME NONCONTRIBUTING RESOURCES. SOME OF THOSE NONCONTRIBUTING [16:10] RESOURCES COULD BE FOR EXAMPLE A MODERN OR POST MODERN SIGNIFICANCE WHICH WOULDN'T BE [16:17] CAPTURED UNDER THE PERIOD SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE DISTRICT. WE'VE ADDED TO STUDY FOR INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK STATUS [16:24] PROPERTIES LIKE THAT THAT ARE ALREADY RECOGNIZED BUT MAY BE RECOGNIZED FOR A DIFFERENT [16:29] SIGNIFICANCE WHERE THEY COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK STATUS. THE SIXTH ONE HERE IS WE ADDED [16:35] TEXT TO CLARIFY THE DEMOLITION OF DESIGNATED PROPERTY APPLICATION THAT THAT IS THE ONE [16:40] THAT IS NEEDED TO AUTHORIZE THE DEMOLITION OF A PROPERTY THAT IS UNDER INTERIM PROTECTION. [16:46] SO WHEN PROPERTIES ARE UNDER INTERIM PROTECTION AND BEING STUDIED, IF A PROPERTY WOULD WANT TO PROPOSE A DEMOLITION OF [16:51] THAT, WE CLARIFIED THAT IT WOULD BE THE DEMOLITION OF DESIGNATED PROPERTY APPLICATION THAT WOULD [16:56] BE SUBMITTED AT THAT POINT. SO THAT WAS JUST KIND OF TYING UP AN AREA THAT WAS AN UNCERTAINTY OF WHICH APPLICATION [17:02] WOULD BE SUBMITTED IN THAT SITUATION. AND THE LAST TWO ITEMS HERE I [17:10] BELIEVE, SO THE SEVENTH ITEM IS KEEPING DISTRICTS DESIGNATED BY STATE LAW AND IN THE DEFINITION [17:17] OF HISTORIC DISTRICT, SO THAT FALLS BACK ON ONE OF THE ITEMS WE BROUGHT FORWARD IN OCTOBER AS [17:24] SOMETHING WE WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO REMOVE. SO THE ONLY DISTRICT THIS APPLIES TO IS VICTORY MEMORIAL [17:30] DRIVE. THAT IS A STATE DISTRICT THAT WE HAD BEEN REVIEWING ALTERATIONS [17:36] TO AND MAKING EVALUATION TO DESIGN CHANGES THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES. WE DO STILL HAVE THAT ABILITY [17:41] AND THAT WAS KIND OF A LONG DISCUSSION ON WHETHER OR NOT WE WANTED TO KEEP THAT IN THERE. [17:47] ULTIMATELY THE CONSENSUS WAS THAT WE WOULD KEEP THAT SECTION [17:53] IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DEFINITION SO THAT DISTRICTS UNDER STATE LAW COULD STILL BE [18:01] REGULATED. THEN FOR THE EIGHTH POINT, WE ADDED TEXT FOR AMENDMENTS AND [18:07] DESIGNATIONS. AND WITHIN DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OUR TEAM HAS BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT INTERNALLY. [18:14] SO AS WRITTEN IN THE CURRENT DRAFT OF 599, WE DO DETAIL [18:23] CHANGES FOR CONTRIBUTING, NONCONTRIBUTING RESOURCES, WHAT ROUTES EACH OF THOSE HAVE TO GO [18:29] THROUGH TO HAVE THOSE ITEMS FORMALLY CHANGED OR ADOPTED WITHIN A DESIGNATION. [18:36] SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS SEEKING FINAL FEEDBACK FROM THE HERITAGE [18:42] PRESERVATION COMMISSION ON THE FORMATTING CONTENT OF THIS SECOND DRAFT. WE DID ACTUALLY SEND THE SAME [18:49] DRAFT THAT YOU RECEIVED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON FRIDAY. WE GOT COMMENTS BACK YESTERDAY [18:57] NOTING THAT THEY WERE OKAY ESSENTIALLY WITH EVERYTHING THAT THE CHANGES WERE MADE. SO WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY [19:02] CONCERNS FROM THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THAT. [19:13] FOLLOWING YOUR COMMENTS TODAY, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO MAKE SURE THE CLERK'S OFFICE CAN HAVE [19:19] FINAL READING AND MAKE SURE THAT MAKES SENSE AND RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK FROM THEM AS WELL. AND THEN THE FINAL DRAFT WOULD [19:25] COME BACK TO YOU, HPC, WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ADOPTION [19:33] SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD VOTE ON AND EVENTUALLY FROM THAT POINT IT WOULD GO ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH THE COUNCIL [19:39] PROCESS AND EVENTUALLY BE SIGNED BY THE MAYOR AND PUBLISHED. AND THAT IS TBD, WE'RE NOT [19:44] EXACTLY SURE WHEN WE CAN GET THAT ON A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE FOR HPC. [19:50] BUT WE'RE HOPING SOMETIME THIS SUMMER IF NOT LATE SPRING DEPENDING ON WHERE IT GOES. [20:01] WITH THAT, A FEW THINGS TO MENTION, I KNOW WE HAD A SPECIFIC QUESTION BACK HERE FOR COMMISSIONERS IF YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THAT FIRST. [20:08] ALSO WE DID GET COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ WHO IS ABSENT CURRENTLY, JUST A FEW [20:13] POINTS THAT COULD BE DISCUSSED AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, WE AS STAFF ARE OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS, BUT [20:20] HAPPY AND I GUESS EXCITED TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS AS WELL ON THIS SECOND DRAFT. THANK YOU. [20:27] >> THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE [20:34] QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [20:49] COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. I HAVE A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS SO [20:54] SORRY IF EVERYBODY GETS STUCK NOW BEHIND ME. THAT'S WHY I SAT QUIETLY. [21:00] MR. SKALECKI, DO YOU HAVE THE [21:09] DOCUMENT THAT WAS SENT TO US THAT WE PUT UP SO WE COULD KIND OF SEE WHAT I'M REFERRING TO. IT WAS THE MEMORANDUM THAT YOU [21:18] SENT DATED MARCH 18TH TO THE HPC ABOUT THE SECOND DRAFT FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. [21:25] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW TO BRING UP [21:30] DIRECTLY ON THE SCREEN. I DO HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME THOUGH TO REFERENCE AND I'M SURE MANY COMMISSIONERS DO AS WELL. [21:39] >> OKAY. SO ON PAGE THREE, ITEM SIX, YOU [21:45] REFERRED TO REMOVING SECTIONS OF CODE THAT ARE RARELY OR NO LONGER UTILIZED IN PARTICULAR [21:51] TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RATES IN CONSERVATION DISTRICTS WHICH [21:56] SEEMS LIKE THAT MAKES SENSE IF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN USED WHY ARE THEY IN THERE? BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU'VE [22:04] GOTTEN ANY FEEDBACK OR PUSHBACK ON REMOVING THEM FROM ANYBODY? [22:10] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. AND THAT IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED A LOT [22:18] INTERNALLY FOR MORE SO THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ITEM. [22:23] SO I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WAS AN INITIATIVE THAT WAS DEVELOPED OVER TEN YEARS AGO [22:29] NOW. AND AT THE TIME IT WAS A PRETTY LARGE UNDERTAKING TO KIND OF [22:35] DEVISE THIS NEW TOOL. SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT REMOVING IT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE TOOK [22:41] LIGHTLY. IT WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS THAT WE BROUGHT IN. [22:47] ULTIMATELY, AND I BELIEVE WE MAY HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST TOO ABOUT KIND OF STAFF'S [22:53] REASONING FOR THIS, A CONSERVATION DISTRICT HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED IN THE DECADE THAT IT HAS BEEN A TOOL. [23:01] IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE TOOL IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO KIND OF GRASP AND [23:08] UNDERSTAND AS WELL AS STAFF AS WELL. SO TO DESIGNATE A CONSERVATION [23:17] DISTRICT AND THEN TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR THAT AND RULES [23:22] FOR THAT CONSERVATION DISTRICT, IT IS A VERY CHALLENGING TASK [23:30] AND IN THE END -- >> I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT. I AGREE WITH YOU, BOTH OF THESE AS AN ARCHITECT HAVING LOOKED AT [23:37] THEM, THEY'RE BOTH REALLY COMPLICATED. MY QUESTION WAS JUST HAVE YOU GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM ANYBODY [23:43] THAT HAS SAID DON'T GET RID OF THAT OR HAS BASICALLY THE WORLD [23:50] BEEN MUTE ON THIS? >> SURE, INITIALLY I THINK WE HAD SOME PUSHBACK, BUT IN [23:55] DISCUSSIONS THAT'S WHERE KIND OF OUR REASONING WAS DISCUSSED AND [24:02] I THINK EVENTUALLY THERE REALLY WASN'T A WHOLE LOT OF FINAL PUSHBACK ON GETTING RID OF THESE TOOLS. [24:07] BUT IF COMMISSIONERS THINK OTHERWISE OR HAVE KIND OF OTHER COMMENTS THAT THEY WANT TO PROVIDE, WE'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR [24:13] THOSE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. NO, IT MAKES SENSE TO ME TO GET RID OF SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE [24:19] AREN'T USING THAT IT FEELS OVERLY COMPLICATED. ON PAGE FOUR, ITEM C, NUMBER [24:28] TWO, IT SAYS THE REQUIREMENT TO BE A POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE DOES NOT APPLY TO COUNCIL [24:35] MEMBERS OR THE MAYOR MAY DIRECTLY SUBMIT A NOMINATION TO CPED STAFF. WHY IS THAT? [24:41] WHY DO THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT MECHANISM THAN JOE CITIZEN? [24:48] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION THAT WE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH INTERNALLY. [24:56] I THINK I'D BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM OTHER STAFF ON THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THIS, BUT IF [25:02] WE DO HAVE ELECTED OFFICIALS SEEKING NOMINATION, I THINK THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ELECTED [25:10] OFFICIALS KIND OF MAKES THEM THE SPEAKER ON BEHALF OF THEIR [25:16] CONSTITUENTS FOR THAT. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED KIND OF AT LENGTH. [25:21] IS THIS THE CORRECT WAY TO GO AND ULTIMATELY WE THOUGHT IT STILL PROVIDES FOR PLENTY OF [25:28] OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO RECEIVE THAT POTENTIAL HISTORIC [25:34] RESOURCE DETERMINATION IF THEY'RE NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. [25:39] SO WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE IT WILL BE AN EQUITABLE APPROACH BETWEEN WHO [25:45] IS ABLE TO SUBMIT A NOMINATION [25:51] HERE. >> I'LL JUST -- >> CAN I ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT SAME ITEM? >> GO AHEAD. [25:56] >> CAN YOU JUST REMIND ME, SO IS THERE A REASON THAT HPC MEMBERS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT? [26:13] >> I THINK -- AND YOU'LL HAVE TO FORGIVE ME AS WELL, WITH ALL OF [26:19] THESE DRAFTS WE'RE GOING THROUGH, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER -- IF ANDREA BURKE [26:25] WANTS TO FIELD THIS ONE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. [26:30] SORRY, I'M GOING TO USE THE KLEENEX, I THINK MY LITTLE RED FLAG IS MISSING BUT YOU KNOW [26:36] WHAT I MEAN. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IF I'M HEARING COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM CORRECTLY, REGARDING [26:43] THE POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE DETERMINED PRIOR TO NOMINATION AND WHY ARE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND [26:48] THE MAYOR EXCLUDED FROM THAT VERSUS THE OTHER FOLKS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE LIST THAT HAVE TO [26:54] RECEIVE THAT DETERMINATION FIRST BEFORE BEING ABLE TO SUBMIT A [26:59] NOMINATION. IT WAS RECOMMENDED INTERNALLY BY OTHER MEMBERS OF STAFF SIMILAR [27:07] TO WHAT ROB HAD SAID, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ELECTED OFFICIAL TO GIVE THEM THE GREATEST EASE OF [27:13] OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO, I WOULD SAY FAST TRACK AN ITEM BASED ON CONSTITUENT INTEREST OR [27:21] POLITICAL INTEREST, AND TO REMOVE THAT PRE-STEP FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS BUT NOT FOR THE HPC OR [27:32] FOR THE PUBLIC. SO THAT WAS MORE OR LESS THE REASONING BEHIND IT, BUT IT WAS [27:39] INTENTIONAL BEING PUT IN THERE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> DO YOU MIND IF I JUST ADD AS [27:46] ONE FOLLOW UP TO THAT, IN ORDER [27:53] TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE THRESHOLD FOR THE FAST TRACKING, IS THERE A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY PROVE THAT [28:00] IT'S A CONSTITUENT-LED REQUEST OR IS IT MORE UP TO THEIR [28:06] DISCRETION AS ELECTED OFFICIALS? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG AND COMMISSIONER WALLACE, IT IS AT [28:12] THEIR DISCRETION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. [28:18] >> YEAH, AND SO FOR BASED ON THE CONVERSATION WE'VE JUST HEARD, I WOULD SAY I AM COMPLETELY [28:24] OPPOSED TO IT. I THINK THAT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS ALREADY HAVE A VERY [28:30] LARGE PODIUM TO BE ABLE TO INFLUENCE THINGS AND THIS JUST GIVES THEM A SLIGHTLY LARGER [28:36] PODIUM AND FRANKLY IF IT'S ALL THAT IMPORTANT, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THEY CAN'T MARSHALL [28:42] THE RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO GET [28:47] PEOPLE TO DO THIS. NOT WANTING TO GET OVERLY POLITICAL, BUT WATCHING WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE NATION'S [28:53] CAPITAL, IT MAKES ME QUESTION THE ABILITY TO BE ABUSE PROCESSES AND I COULD EASILY SEE [29:02] SOMEBODY SUBMITTING A WHOLE BUNCH OF THESE BECAUSE IT'S VERY EASY FOR THEM TO DO SOMETHING AND GUMMING UP THE PROCESS. [29:08] SO IT FEELS LIKE HAVING ONE SET OF RULES THAT APPLIES TO EVERYBODY IS ACTUALLY A BETTER [29:14] PROCESS, I THINK, FOR US TO BE UNDER. AND THEN IN THAT SAME SECTION C, [29:21] ITEM FIVE, IT SAYS THE INTERIM PROTECTION TIMELINE WAS INCREASED TO 16 MONTHS, BUT [29:27] THERE'S AN OPTION TO EXTEND IT LONGER INTERIM PROTECTION FOR [29:34] LANDMARKS COVERS EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS BUT ONLY DEMOLITION IS REVIEWED. [29:39] SO HOW DOES THIS INTERSECT WITH THE ALREADY STUDIED BUT NOT YET DESIGNATED PROPERTIES THAT SIT [29:45] ON THE HPC LEDGER? THIS IS LIKE THE BRANCH I'M [29:52] GOING TO KEEP BEATING EVERYBODY WITH. [29:57] NONE OF THOSE -- AND MAYBE I'M GETTING THE TERMINOLOGY INCORRECT HERE. BUT ALL OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT [30:04] WERE LOOKED AT DECADES AGO AND OR DISTRICTS THAT WERE LOOKED AT [30:14] DECADES AGO STILL ARE IN WHAT I THINK OF AS THIS LIMBO. [30:21] I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE ALL SUBJECT TO THESE INTERIM PROTECTIONS. SO WOULD THIS BE RETRO ACTIVELY [30:27] APPLIED TO ALL OF THOSE AS A WAY TO FLUSH THEM OUT OF THE SYSTEM? [30:43] >> MAYBE I MIGHT NEED CLARIFICATION ON YOUR ITEM OR YOUR REQUEST. [30:48] SO FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, THE PROCESS OF HAVING A MORE CLEAR [30:54] AND CODIFIED WAY OF DETERMINING WHAT A POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE IS IS HELPING TO TAKE [31:00] AWAY ANY OF THAT UNCERTAINTY THAT THERE HAS BEEN IN THE PAST. [31:05] SO AS FAR AS HOW THAT APPLIES TO THE INTERIM PROTECTION TIMELINE, THE INTERIM PROTECTION IS ONLY PLACED ON PROPERTIES IF THEY ARE [31:16] BROUGHT FORWARD FOR NOMINATION IF THAT NOMINATION IS APPROVED. SO I THINK TO GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS POINT, WHEN WE DO HAVE [31:27] A SYSTEM NOW IN PLACE, THAT IS GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT FOR [31:33] PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUBMIT THAT IN ORDER TO NOMINATE A PROPERTY. [31:44] THAT IS ALREADY ANOTHER LAYER OF MORE CERTAINTY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS. IT TAKES AWAY SOME OF THOSE [31:49] SITUATIONS WHERE PROPERTY OWNERS MAY HAVE BEEN UNAWARE. THAT IS MY RESPONSE. IF THAT'S NOT WHERE YOUR QUESTION WAS HEADING, I'D BE [31:56] HAPPY TO -- >> NO, IT DOES BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I WAS DOING WAS MIXING UP INTERIM AND POTENTIAL SO THAT [32:01] SEEMS TO BE THE DIFFERENCE THERE. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. [32:14] ON PAGE FIVE, NUMBER SEVEN WHICH IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, IT [32:21] SAYS KEEPING DISTRICTS DESIGNATED BY STATE LAW IN THE [32:29] DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC DISTRICT -- I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. I KNOW YOU JUST SPOKE ABOUT IT, [32:35] BUT I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. AND I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE GOING [32:42] TO MOVE THIS. I THOUGHT THAT PREVIOUSLY YOU ALL SAID YOU WERE GOING TO [32:49] REMOVE THIS BECAUSE OUR REVIEW [32:54] OF SOMETHING IS REALLY A DUPLICATION OF EFFORT BECAUSE THE STATE ALREADY WILL CONTROL [33:03] WHAT HAPPENS AND IN THEORY SHOULD I WOULD ASSUME DO A GOOD JOB. [33:12] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG AND COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. I THINK THIS IS WHAT I WOULD [33:18] DEFER TO ANDREA BURKE ON BECAUSE SHE'S HAD MORE CONVERSATIONS AT THE STATE LEVEL WITH THAT TOO. >> THANKS, ROB. [33:24] YES, CHAIR BJORNBERG AND COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION, YOU ARE [33:29] CORRECT. WE DID PREVIOUSLY PROPOSE REMOVING THIS OUT OF THE DESIGNATION SO THAT A LOCAL [33:35] HISTORIC DISTRICT DID NOT INCLUDE A STATE HISTORIC DISTRICT. BUT THROUGH DISCUSSIONS AND SOME OF THE COMMENTS AT THE PREVIOUS [33:40] MEETING AT HPC, THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE THAT THERE IS SOME BIT OF A LOOPHOLE FOR STATE [33:46] HISTORIC DISTRICTS REGARDING A LEVEL OF REVIEW, SO WE LOOKED A LITTLE FURTHER INTO THAT AND THAT IS CORRECT. [33:52] STATE HISTORIC DISTRICTS AREN'T REALLY CAPTURED UNDER ANY [33:58] PARTICULAR SPECIFICALLY MANDATED REVIEW. [34:03] AND THAT VERY WELL COULD HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION FOR WHY IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. BUT AFTER IDENTIFYING THAT FELT [34:12] THAT IT WAS REASONABLE TO INCLUDE IT AND KEEP IT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN HERE SINCE 2003. [34:18] SO INSTEAD OF REMOVING IT AND ALLOWING SOMEBODY TO COME AND BRING IT THROUGH THE LOCAL [34:25] DESIGNATION PROCESS WOULD RATHER JUST KEEP IT AND CONTINUE DOING AS WE HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THERE IS [34:30] UNFORTUNATELY NO METHOD, IT'S NOT CAPTURED UNDER SECTION 106, IT'S NOT CAPTURED UNDER [34:37] SPECIFICALLY I BELIEVE A CHAPTER 138. SO THIS DOES GIVE SOME MEASURE [34:43] OF A OVERSIGHT TO THAT BY THE LOCALITY, IN THIS CASE THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. [34:49] SO THANKS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. >> I'M JUST ALSO GOING TO ADD, I [34:56] APPRECIATE THE CHANGE THAT IT IS ADDED BACK IN BECAUSE IT ABSOLUTELY IS A LOOPHOLE THAT I BELIEVE JUST SETS UP THAT THERE [35:03] CAN BE ENFORCEMENT OF SOMETHING ON THAT. SO I REALIZE IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A WEIRD THING, BUT APPRECIATE [35:11] THAT IT'S BACK IN. [35:16] COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. [35:24] >> AT THE BOTTOM EMERGENCY [35:31] EXCEPTION, IF YOU GO DOWN 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 LINES, THE SENTENCE [35:37] STARTS WITH HOWEVER. SO IT SAYS HOWEVER ONLY SUCH [35:42] WORK THAT IS NECESSARY TO CORRECT THE UNSAFE OR DANGEROUS [35:47] CONDITION MAY BE PERFORMED. THE EXTENT OF SUCH WORK SHALL BE DETERMINED IN CONSULTATION WITH [35:52] THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WHO MAY RECOMMEND TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT SIALVAGE AND [36:03] PRESERVATION, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I'M WONDERING IF WE NEED TO BE MORE EXPLICIT THERE AND INSERT, [36:11] SO THE SECOND SENTENCE WOULD READ THE EXTENT OF SUCH WORK SHALL BE DETERMINED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PLANNING [36:21] DIRECTOR PRIOR TO THE WORK BEING ENACTED OR COMMENCED OR STARTED, WHATEVER WORD YOU WANT TO DO, [36:26] YOU MAY RECOMMEND TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT SALVAGE OR PRESERVATION, IT DOESN'T [36:31] REALLY EXPLICITLY SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO GET THIS PERMISSION FOR [36:37] AND I'M JUST THINKING OF ENFORCEMENT AND THE FACT THAT WE [36:49] HAD TODAY BEFORE US APPROVED IN UNANIMOUS CONSENT, AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY DOING SOMETHING WITHOUT [36:55] CONSULTING YOURSELF AND THE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS BEFORE THEY MADE A CHANGE TO SOMETHING. [37:01] SO THAT WAS MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE PUT IN THAT WORDING IN THERE. [37:08] IF YOU BELIEVE IT'S SUPERFLUOUS, [37:14] THAT'S FINE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE. >> THAT'S FINE, WE WANT TO MAKE [37:20] SURE ANY LANGUAGE WE'RE USING THAT MIGHT MIRROR ZONING CODE IS [37:25] CONSISTENT WITH THAT. SO WE'LL HAVE TO CHECK OTHER TEXTS. BUT UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE APPLICATION [37:34] TODAY. >> ON PAGE NINE OF THE PDF UNDER SECTION 599.130 NUMBER TWO. [37:46] I THINK THIS IS MORE JUST A [37:53] QUESTION OF WHAT DO WE HAVE. BUT TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON GUIDELINES [38:02] FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS, DO WE HAVE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR [38:08] LANDMARKS? >> WE DO, THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF LANDMARKS THAT HAVE DESIGN [38:13] GUIDELINES. THEY'RE I WOULD SAY RELATIVELY UNCOMMON CONSIDERING WE HAVE CLOSE TO 200 LANDMARKS AND I [38:20] DON'T KNOW MAYBE 20 OF THEM HAVE INDIVIDUAL DESIGN GUIDELINES. [38:26] I MAY BE WRONG ON THAT NUMBER, BUT THAT'S JUST TO ILLUSTRATE IT'S A RATHER SMALL AMOUNT. >> THANK YOU, IT WAS MORE OF A [38:32] CLARIFICATION AND PROBABLY EDUCATION ON MY PART. [38:37] ON PAGE TEN AT THE TOP, THE COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP. SO THE SECOND SENTENCE IS [38:43] MEMBERS SHALL BE PERSONS WITH DEMONSTRATED INTEREST, KNOWLEDGE, ABILITY, OR EXPERTISE IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION, [38:49] NEIGHBORHOOD REVITE [38:54] REVITALIZATION AND ARCHITECTURE. I'M WONDERING WHY WE DON'T HAVE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING AS EXAMPLES THERE. [39:02] I'M JUST THINKING OF COMMISSIONER KARATO WOULD LIKELY [39:08] BE ABLE TO SPEAK ABOUT ANYTHING ABOUT A HISTORIC LANDSCAPE MUCH BETTER THAN PROBABLY MOST OF US. [39:14] SO IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE A NICE THING TO ADD. AND THEN I WAS THINKING OF ALSO [39:20] PLANNING BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE HISTORIC PLANNERS AND THEY DO LOOK AT THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY THAN ARCHITECTS DO CERTAINLY, IN [39:28] A GOOD WAY, THAT WASN'T TRYING [39:33] TO MAKE A SLIGHT. [39:41] THEN I JUMPED AHEAD TO PAGE 17 WHICH IS PAGE 11 OF THE [39:48] ORDINANCE. AND IT'S SECTION 599.320. SO THIS IS THE POTENTIAL [39:53] HISTORIC RESOURCE RECURRENCE. SO THIS IS KIND OF REVISITING WHAT I WAS I THINK A LITTLE [39:58] CONFUSED EARLIER ABOUT INTERIM VERSUS POTENTIAL. [40:05] SO IT SAYS ONLY PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED TO BE POTENTIAL HISTORIC [40:11] RESOURCES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FIVE, POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES MAY BE NOMINATED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION. [40:17] NOMINATIONS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION SUBMITTED FOR PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED SHALL BE [40:25] INVALID. SO THERE EXISTS ALL OF THESE POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS, AND I BELIEVE THAT I'M USING THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY [40:31] NOW. BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO DISPOSE OF [40:38] THEM WHEN THERE'S NOT AN INCOMPLETE PROCESS BECAUSE THERE'S NEITHER THE TIME NOR THE [40:46] MONEY TO HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE STUDY THESE THINGS. SO IS THERE ANY APPETITE TO ADD [40:54] SOME SORT OF TIME LIMIT TO THE STATUS OF A POTENTIAL HISTORIC [41:01] RESOURCE THAT IF IT'S NOT ADVANCED, IF THERE'S NO DECISION [41:07] MADE BY DEFAULT AFTER TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, FIVE YEARS, TEN YEARS, WHATEVER SEEMS LOGICAL, [41:14] THAT THAT NO LONGER IS CONSIDERED A POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE. AND THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO MOVE [41:21] OFF THE BOOKS ALL OF THESE POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES THAT ARE JUST SITTING OUT THERE. [41:28] WAS THAT EVER CONSIDERED OR DO YOU THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA? KIND OF TWO QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, [41:34] COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. I'M JUST LOOKING THROUGH TEXT RIGHT NOW. SO IF YOU GIVE ME MAYBE A MINUTE [41:41] TO LOOK AT THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF ANDREA BURKE HEARD ANYTHING IN [41:47] THAT QUESTION SHE MIGHT WANT TO ANSWER RIGHT AWAY. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM AND CHAIR BJORNBERG, [41:54] YES, I CAN ANSWER THIS RIGHT AWAY. WE DID HEAVILY DISCUSS AND ACTUALLY HAD IN A VERY EARLY [42:00] DRAFT OF THIS A TEN YEAR SUNSET DATE FOR POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES. [42:05] AND THAT WAS WHAT MADE IT THROUGH SEVERAL ROUNDS OF REVIEW, I'LL JUST PUT IT THAT [42:10] WAY. IT CAME TIME AT A CERTAIN PART OF DECISION MAKING INTERNALLY [42:18] AND IT WAS VOTED DOWN TO KEEP THAT TEN YEAR SUNSET ON THERE. [42:24] BUT THAT WAS AN INITIAL IDEA FROM THE START TO ADDRESS [42:29] ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU HAD MENTIONED, BUT INTERNALLY THERE [42:34] WAS CONSENSUS TO TAKE IT OFF AND HAVE IT EXIST, I WOULD SAY MORE [42:41] OR LESS INDEFINITELY AND OF COURSE UNTIL THERE IS DEMOLITION. AND THAT DEMOLITION IS APPROVED. [42:49] BUT THE BIG PART OF THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE WHICH I THINK YOU'RE WELL AWARE OF IS THAT IT'S ELEVATING THE STATUS OF [42:56] POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES TO BRING MORE AWARENESS AND [43:01] TRANSPARENCY TO THIS KIND OF PRESTEP BEFORE NOMINATION OR DEMOLITION OF A POTENTIAL [43:08] HISTORIC RESOURCE. BUT IN THE END, THERE IS NO SUNSET AT THIS POINT IN TIME. [43:15] THANKS. >> DO YOU KNOW WHY, WHAT THE RATIONALE FOR NOT INCLUDING THAT [43:20] WAS? TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE A LOGICAL THING TO DO. IF IT WAS ACTUALLY A HISTORIC [43:26] RESOURCE, ONE WOULD THINK THAT SOMEBODY WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE ACTION ON IT. THE TWO YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, I BELIEVE WE'VE [43:34] DESIGNATED TWO MAYBE THREE HISTORIC RESOURCES IN THAT TIME. SO IT'S NOT AS IF THERE'S A LACK [43:44] OF FOCUS TO DO THIS. I THINK SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN SITTING THERE FOR 20 OR 30 YEARS [43:50] PROBABLY ISN'T REALLY ACTUALLY HISTORIC. IT FEELS LIKE IT'S AN ARTIFICIAL, TO ME PERSONALLY, IT [43:56] FEELS LIKE IT'S AN ARTIFICIAL DESIGNATION THAT IS UNSUPPORTABLE AND IF IT REALLY [44:02] IS SUPPORTABLE, SOMEBODY SHOULD ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING WITH IT. BUT THAT'S A PERSONAL OPINION. [44:09] >> YEAH. COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, THANKS FOR YOUR OPINION ON THAT. FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, THE [44:15] ARGUMENT WAS THAT IF WE AFTER TEN YEARS THIS FELL OFF THAT [44:22] LIST AND THEN SOMEBODY, LET'S SAY IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS OR TWO YEARS WANTED TO COME BACK AND [44:27] START THE PROCESS OVER, WE WOULD LIKELY REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION UNLESS IT HAD BEEN DEMOLISHED OR [44:34] SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERED AND THE CHANCES OF THAT LIKELY HAPPENING ARE HIGH AND THE FACT THAT WE [44:41] WOULD LIKELY REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT IT'S STILL ELIGIBLE BUT THAT THE ALTERATIONS DIDN'T TAKE IT TO A [44:47] LEVEL WHERE IT WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE. THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE CASES, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR REMOVING IT [44:57] INTERNALLY. >> OKAY. I'D JUST LIKE TO GO ON THE RECORD SAYING THAT I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A SUNSET DATE AND TEN [45:03] YEARS SEEMS LIKE IT'S MORE THAN ADEQUATE TIME TO ADJUDICATE SOMETHING, BUT THAT'S AGAIN PERSONAL OPINION. [45:09] >> COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT [45:15] ON THIS. I DEFINITELY AM IN SUPPORT OF NOT HAVING A SUNSET. [45:21] PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY BUILDINGS THAT STAND VACANT FOR MANY YEARS THAT ARE NOT BEING TOUCHED BUT THEN AT SOME [45:27] POINT SOME DEVELOPER MAY COME ALONG WHO WANTS TO REVITALIZE THAT BUILDING AND HAVING THOSE [45:34] EXTRA INCENTIVES THAT THEY CAN RESTORE THIS BUILDING, IT'S EASIER TO GET IT AS A LANDMARK [45:40] OR DESIGNATED GIVES THEM MORE INCENTIVES TO THEN RESTORE THAT [45:46] BUILDING VERSUS DEMOLISH IT. AND HAVING WORKED IN AN AREA WHERE A LOT OF DEVELOPERS TAKE [45:51] MANY YEARS TO PUT DEALS TOGETHER, I FEEL LIKE SUN SETTING IT WOULD PREVENT SOME [45:59] BUILDINGS FROM GETTING THAT DESIGNATION THAT DESERVE IT. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER [46:04] THOMAS. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT SPECIFIC ITEM? [46:11] COMMISSIONER WALLACE. >> JUST A QUESTION, IT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE FUTURE, BUT [46:16] GIVEN THAT THERE ISN'T A SUNSET DATE, WILL THERE BE ANY ACTIVITY [46:22] TO BASICALLY PUBLICIZE WHAT, SIMILAR TO HOW WE HAVE MAPS OF [46:28] THE LOCAL LANDMARKS AND THAT SORT OF THING, IS THERE ANY [46:33] EFFORT OR INTENTION TO MAKE AN EFFORT AROUND MAPPING THOSE SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE WHERE THOSE [46:38] POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES ARE? I'M JUST THINKING IF THEY ARE UNDER THE SAME KIND OF PURVIEW [46:45] AS THE FORMALLY LANDMARKED PROPERTIES, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A HOUSE, IF YOU'RE BUYING X, [46:51] Y, Z PROPERTY, HAVING THOSE KIND OF RESOURCES IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE COULD BE REALLY HELPFUL. [46:56] JUST A THOUGHT. BUT WONDERED IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT COME DOWN [47:01] THE ROAD POTENTIALLY. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER WALLACE, I THINK STAFF HAS [47:10] DISCUSSED THAT AS POSSIBLY A GOAL IN THE FUTURE. TO DO THAT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF [47:16] STAFF TIME AND LIKELY FUNDING. WE DO CURRENTLY HAVE AN INTERNAL [47:23] MAP. IT IS NOT INCREDIBLY ACCURATE, BUT IT DOES MARK THE PAST SURVEY DATES GOING BACK TO THE 2000S A [47:31] RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY OF THE CITY. I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED IT, BUT WE HAVEN'T, UNLESS I'M INCORRECT [47:38] ON THAT, WE HAVEN'T MADE A DETERMINATION OF THAT BEING AN INITIATIVE THAT WOULD FOR CERTAIN GO FORWARD IN THE [47:43] FUTURE. >> GOTCHA, THANK YOU. >> ANDREA BURKE. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER [47:50] WALLACE, SORRY, ROB. JUST A SLIGHT CLARIFICATION TO ROB'S STATEMENT. [47:56] IT IS AN INITIATIVE, PROBABLY ONE THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE REALIZED IN 2025. [48:01] BUT WITH THE IDEA TO CREATE THIS, ELEVATE THE STATUS OF POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES. [48:08] THE JUSTIFICATION WAS TO PROVIDE MORE TRANSPARENCY FOR THE PUBLIC AND REALLY THE MOST REASONABLE WAY TO DO THAT IS THROUGH AN [48:13] ONLINE MAP. BUT ROB IS CORRECT, IT WILL TAKE A LOT OF STAFF TIME AND COORDINATION AND SO YES, IT'S [48:20] NOT A 2025 WORK PLAN ITEM. BUT WE HAVE STARTED SOME INITIAL CONVERSATIONS TO SEE WHAT THIS [48:26] MAY LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THE WORK WILL BE INVOLVED. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, [48:33] JUST NOT AT THE MOMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU BOTH FOR RESPONDING. [48:40] >> OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AROUND THAT? [48:48] >> JUMPING THE GUN HERE. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO I THINK [48:53] REINSTATE WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THIS END THAT I THINK THERE'S REASONS TO NOT SUNSET AND [49:00] ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO BRING [49:06] TRANSPARENCY TO THAT LIST OF PROPERTIES. JUST TO MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE TO CITIZENS WHO WILL PURCHASE A [49:12] PROPERTY THAT WILL LATER FIND OUT THIS IS ON THIS LIST OF POTENTIAL RESOURCES WOULD BE HELPFUL. THAT'S MY COMMENT. [49:18] >> THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? [49:26] >> I THINK I ONLY HAVE ONE MORE. >> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> ON PAGE 20 OF THE PDF WHICH [49:35] IS PAGE 14 OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 599.440 D THE [49:44] REMOVING A LANDMARK FROM DESIGNATION. [49:49] SO BASICALLY THERE IS, THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE IT IS IF IT'S A [49:54] DANGER OR IT'S DESTROYED BY FIRE WHICH IS WHAT I READ. [50:00] SHOULD THERE BE SOME METHOD, A VERY HIGH BAR, TO REMOVE A [50:06] DESIGNATION? SO WHAT I'M THINKING OF IS IN [50:11] SOME COMMUNITIES, NOT OURS, [50:17] THERE ARE CIVIL WAR HEROES WITH [50:23] ALL OF THE STATUES BEING TAKEN [50:29] DOWN, HAVE ANY OF THOSE BEEN DESIGNATED, THOSE PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE TAKEN DOWN. [50:37] I CAN'T THINK OF ANY PRACTICAL THING IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT THIS WOULD WARRANT. BUT I'M WONDERING HAVE YOU EVER [50:43] CONSIDERED THERE BEING MORE OF A MECHANISM TO DO THIS OR MORE [50:49] WAYS BUT WITH A VERY, VERY HIGH BAR TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS. [50:56] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT. THAT IS ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK OUR TEAM DISCUSSED A [51:04] LITTLE BIT INTERNALLY. ULTIMATELY WE WANTED TO BE VERY [51:10] CLEAR ABOUT IN WHICH SITUATIONS WE THOUGHT LANDMARK STATUS COULD [51:16] BE REMOVABLE. CURRENTLY WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE IT IN OUR ORDINANCE OF HOW TO REMOVE LANDMARK STATUS. [51:22] WE HAVE LANDMARKS THAT HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED OR REMOVED WHERE TECHNICALLY THE PARCEL IS STILL [51:27] DESIGNATED AND WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS THERE FOR PROCEEDING. [51:34] SO WE REALLY LOOKED TO THE CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANUAL TO DEVELOP LANGUAGE FOR [51:41] THIS. AND THERE ARE REALLY CLEAR SPECIFICATIONS IN THE CLG MANUAL [51:48] ABOUT DESIGNATIONS AND WHEN SOMETHING CAN ESSENTIALLY BE [51:57] DEDESIGNATED. I LIKE THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, IT'S INTERESTING SOMETHING WE DIDN'T REALLY THINK [52:04] ABOUT WHEN TALKING ABOUT THIS. BUT IF A SITUATION LIKE THAT CAME FORWARD, I THINK WE WOULD ADDRESS IT AS IT COMES FORWARD [52:11] WITH THE INFORMATION AT HAND. >> THERE WOULD BE NO MECHANISM [52:17] TO ADDRESS IT. BECAUSE THE ONLY TWO CAUSES WOULD BE, IT'S FIRE OR PERIL. [52:25] AND I WOULD INTERPRET PERIL AS BEING SOMETHING DANGEROUS. IT'S JUST A THOUGHT, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BELABOR IT. [52:33] BUT I ADVISE THAT WE CONSIDER THAT THERE IS SOME MECHANISM TO [52:39] DELIST SIMILAR TO DEASESSIONING ART FROM AN ART MUSEUM WHEN IT [52:45] NO LONGER FITS THE COLLECTION OR YOU FIND THAT THERE'S ISSUES [52:51] WITH IT, LIKE IT WAS LOOTED ART OR SOMETHING. THAT IS THE END OF MY QUESTIONS. [52:57] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THOSE THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS. [53:09] >> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, CHAIR BJORNBERG. I WANTED TO ADD ONE MORE ITEM TO COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM'S REQUEST [53:15] AND ADDING A LITTLE BIT MORE ONTO WHAT ROB SPALECKI SAID. [53:21] WE DID CONSIDER THIS QUITE A BIT, BUT AS ROB SAID THE CLG [53:27] MANUAL IS VERY CLEAR ON WHAT IS ALLOWED WHEN REMOVING A PROPERTY [53:32] FROM DESIGNATION, AND BASICALLY [53:38] IT'S NOT IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN YOUR CLG STATUS. [53:43] GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE HAD THIS HAPPEN, AS ANY CITY HAS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PROPERTIES THAT CATCH FIRE, THEY ARE [53:52] DEMOLISHED FOR MULTIPLE REASONS THAT WERE NOT INTENTIONAL, MAYBE INTENTIONAL, AND WANTED TO [53:59] PROVIDE THIS CLARIFICATION IN THERE TO IDENTIFY SO IT DOES GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY HEY, HERE IS THE PROCESS IF THIS [54:08] NEEDS TO HAPPEN. BECAUSE WE HAVE ABOUT SIX PROPERTIES RIGHT NOW THAT ARE SITTING OUT THERE THAT ARE DESIGNATED BUT THEY ARE NO [54:15] LONGER STANDING. AND TO HAVE A PROCESS TO SAY HEY IF WE ACTUALLY WANT TO TAKE THIS [54:20] OFF, THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE. BUT WE WERE VERY, VERY [54:28] INTENTIONAL TO NOT GIVE GREATER ROADS FOR THIS BECAUSE OF OUR CLG STATUS AND BECAUSE OF THE [54:35] POTENTIAL FOR IT TO MAYBE TAKE [54:40] ANOTHER LIFE OF ITS OWN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. [54:49] DO OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SHARE? [55:04] I DON'T KNOW IF WE TALKED ABOUT [55:09] THIS PREVIOUSLY, BUT HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT ADDING QUALIFICATIONS TO THE [55:15] PLANNING DIRECTOR POSITION WITHIN THE ORDINANCE? [55:21] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. THAT IS SOMETHING I THINK WE [55:26] BROUGHT UP AND ULTIMATELY WE DECIDED THAT IT HAS NEVER BEEN [55:32] INCLUDED AND THAT TYPE OF REQUIREMENT OR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION WOULD BE SOMETHING [55:40] THAT OCCURS OUTSIDE OF THE ORDINANCE. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF ITEMS IN THE TEXT THAT ARE BEING MOVED TO [55:46] ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES. SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THEM THAT AS A TEAM, AS A PLANNING [55:52] TEAM WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED THERE, [55:57] ESPECIALLY WHEN I DON'T BELIEVE THE CLG MANUAL REQUIRES THAT TO BE QUALIFICATION FOR THE [56:04] PLANNING DIRECTOR. BUT IT IS ANOTHER THING THAT WE DISCUSSED AND ULTIMATELY THAT'S KIND OF THE DIRECTION WE WENT [56:10] WITH JUST TO LEAVE IT OUT AS EXISTS. >> I WILL SAY IT MAKES ME VERY [56:17] NERVOUS BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF ONUS THAT IS [56:22] NOW GOING TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO MAKE A LOT OF DECISIONS AND THEN NOT [56:29] NECESSARILY HAVE TO REPORT TO OTHER STAFF OR JUST HAS TO REPORT BACK TO HPC. [56:34] AND WHILE I WOULD LOVE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT IN ALWAYS HIRING PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED FOR IT, [56:43] IT FEELS LIKE IT WOULD NOT BE A BAD THING TO HAVE INCLUDED IN [56:49] HERE SOME TYPE OF QUALIFICATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEBODY WHO IS IN CHARGE OF MAKING A LOT OF [56:57] PRESERVATION DECISIONS HAS SOME EXPERIENCE OR UNDERSTANDING IN [57:02] THAT. ANDREA BURKE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. [57:08] I GUESS JUST TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE THOUGHT PROCESS AND THE REASONING FOR WHY THERE [57:14] WAS A VERY EARLY DRAFT TOO THAT DID HAVE THIS IN THERE BUT IT WAS TAKEN OUT VERY EARLY WITH [57:21] THE DIRECTION THAT IT IS NOT, WE DIDN'T WANT TO LIMIT WHO CAN DO [57:29] WHAT UNDER THE ORDINANCE. [57:34] GIVEN LARGELY THERE ARE OTHER SECTIONS OF CODE THAT DON'T HAVE IT VERY SPECIFIC THAT MAYBE A MASTER'S DEGREE IN URBAN [57:41] PLANNING TO MAKE SUCH DECISIONS. AND YOU LIKELY KNOW THIS, BUT [57:47] THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN AND THE AUTHORITY IS GIVEN IN THE ORDINANCE, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IS ESSENTIALLY STAFF. [57:53] AND I THINK YOU KNOW THAT, BUT IT WAS ADVISED TO NOT EXCLUDE [58:01] INDIVIDUALS BASED ON TRAINING, I THINK EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION. I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE THAT [58:06] EXACTLY RIGHT IN ORDINANCE TEXT TO BE ABLE TO OPEN IT UP AND HAVE FOLKS WITH DIFFERENT [58:12] BACKGROUNDS BEING ABLE TO DO IT. BUT ALSO THAT IS HOW THE OTHER [58:18] SECTIONS OF CODE ARE PUT TOGETHER. BUT HAVE NOTED YOUR CONCERNS WITH IT. SO THANK YOU. [58:24] >> THANK YOU. [58:29] COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> THIS IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION. I JUST WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE [58:38] DEMOLITION MITIGATION PLANS. JUST STATE THAT THEY MAY INCLUDE [58:44] DOCUMENTATION OF THE PROPERTY, HISTORIC RESEARCH, ET CETERA. HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT INTO [58:50] MAKING PART OF THAT MITIGATION FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTY BE DECONSTRUCTION TO SAVE OR [58:56] SALVAGE SOME OF THE MATERIALS THAT ARE IN THAT PROPERTY? [59:03] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER THOMAS, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. [59:08] I KNOW KIND OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DECONSTRUCTION AND THE IDEA AND [59:14] POSSIBLY FINDING A ROUTE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE REALLY GO BACK FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS OR SO WITHIN [59:20] THE HPC SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE. STAFF GENERALLY HAVE A SIMILAR [59:26] RESPONSE WHEN IT COMES FORWARD IS THAT AS A MITIGATION OPTION, [59:33] IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO REGULATE. AND A LOT OF TIMES, WHILE WELL [59:39] MEANING IN MITIGATION, IT REALLY DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH WHAT IT'S SET [59:44] OUT TO DO. SO IN SOME SITUATIONS, YOU MIGHT HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS SAVING MATERIALS AND THEN THAT BECOMING [59:52] A BURDEN AND THEN THOSE MATERIALS BEING PLACED IN STORAGE AND ULTIMATELY DETERIORATING AT THAT POINT [59:59] ANYWAY. SO I GUESS TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THE PAST. [1:00:05] IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WERE CONSIDERING TO ADD TO THE ORDINANCE DRAFT AS EXISTS. [1:00:11] BUT I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST THE HPC HAS TALKED ABOUT A SIMILAR [1:00:16] TOOL LIKE THAT, BUT JUST TO REITERATE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO REGULATE THAT TYPE OF [1:00:22] MITIGATION. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. [1:00:30] OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? [1:00:39] THOUGHTS ON THE PROPOSED APPLICATION NAMES? [1:00:45] COMMISSIONER MASTIN. >> I LIKE THE NAMES, I THINK THEY'RE KIND OF SIMPLE AND [1:00:50] EXPLANATORY FOR WHAT THEY ARE VERSUS JUST KIND OF REFERRING TO [1:00:56] THEM AS -- IT'S A PRESERVATION APPLICATION SO I'M IN FAVOR. [1:01:02] >> THANK YOU. OTHER THOUGHTS FROM [1:01:07] COMMISSIONERS ON THE NAME CHANGE? [1:01:12] I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT IT'S BETTER THAN 1 AND 2. [1:01:31] QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST [1:01:37] ROUND. DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE ENOUGH FEEDBACK ON THIS? [1:01:49] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, I THINK SO. IT'S WHATEVER YOU AS COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO [1:01:56] RELAY TO STAFF. WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO TAKE ANY COMMENTS. I THINK JUST TO UNDERSTAND TOO, [1:02:03] AS WE KNOW THE LAST OPPORTUNITY YOU REALLY HAVE TO GIVE COMMENTS BEFORE IT WOULD COME BACK TO YOU [1:02:09] FOR ADOPTION. SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING MAYBE YOU'RE EVEN UNCERTAINTY ABOUT, I [1:02:15] THINK NOW IS KIND OF THE FINAL TIME THAT YOU SHOULD PLAN TO RAISE THOSE CONCERNS OR ASK THOSE QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE [1:02:20] THEM. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. ANDREA BURKE. [1:02:25] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE, WE DID PRINT OUT [1:02:30] COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ QUESTION AND COMMENT IF YOU WOULD BE SO KIND AS TO READ THAT SO IT COULD [1:02:36] BE SHARED ON THE RECORD. THANK YOU. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THE [1:02:42] WHOLE THING OR JUST THE -- >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, I THINK JUST THE QUESTION THAT SHE POSED OR [1:02:48] COMMENT THAT SHE POSED. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ SAYS I [1:02:54] HAVE ONE PROCEDURAL QUESTION ABOUT THE UPDATED CERTIFICATE APPLICATIONS. IS THERE A REASON THE NEW [1:03:00] REGULATIONS REMOVE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS SECTION 599.420 IN CURRENT REGULATIONS FOR WHAT [1:03:06] WOULD NOW BE ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION APPLICATIONS? [1:03:14] I'D IMAGINE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS AND PROCESS GUIDES THAT STAFF PRODUCED AS MENTIONED [1:03:20] IN THE MEMORANDUM WILL BE VERY ILLUMINATING, BUT IT IS USEFUL TO HAVE FURTHER DETAIL WITHIN THE REGULATIONS AS WELL. [1:03:27] >> THANK YOU FOR READING THAT, CHAIR BJORNBERG. [1:03:33] AND I THINK STAFF, THIS KIND OF TIES BACK TO STAFF IN THE NEW DRAFT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF [1:03:41] FINDINGS WITHIN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PRESERVATION AND A COMMISSION PRESERVATION APPLICATION REVIEW. [1:03:49] AND THAT WAS REALLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO DO INITIALLY. IT WAS KIND OF ONE OF OUR WISH [1:03:56] LIST ITEMS FOR A HANDFUL OF REASONS. AND I THINK YOU AS COMMISSIONERS MAY KIND OF SEE THIS TOO AS WELL [1:04:03] IN THE STAFF REPORTS YOU RECEIVE AND THE APPLICATIONS WE RECEIVE [1:04:08] FROM APPLICANTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIRST FINDING IN THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT THE [1:04:13] ALTERATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT [1:04:18] INCLUDING CRITERIA SIGNIFICANCE. STAFF KIND OF HAVE A STOCK ANSWER FOR THAT RESPONSE ALMOST EVERY TIME BECAUSE WHAT'S REALLY [1:04:25] BEING ASKED IS HOW IS THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY BEING AFFECTED, AND THAT IS FINDING [1:04:31] NUMBER TWO. SO THERE'S CERTAIN ITEMS THAT I THINK THERE ARE JUST KIND OF A [1:04:37] LOT OF WORDS IN THESE FINDINGS THAT MIGHT BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR APPLICANTS TO REALLY ADDRESS IF [1:04:44] THERE ARE FIVE FINDINGS INSTEAD OF THREE. IT IS SOMETHING TOO THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT APPLICANTS COME [1:04:49] TO US SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS FROM A WIDE VARIETY OF PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUNDS. AND WE WANT TO TRY TO MAKE IT AS [1:04:56] CLEAR AND EASY FOR THEM TO ADDRESS THOSE FINDINGS BECAUSE [1:05:02] THOSE ARE REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATIONS ESPECIALLY FOR AN APPLICANT TO REALLY [1:05:09] CLEARLY ADDRESS THOSE FINDINGS IN ORDER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO EVEN DEEM THEIR APPLICATION [1:05:15] COMPLETE. SO I THINK IF I'M INTERPRETING COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ'S QUESTION CORRECTLY, IT IS MORE [1:05:22] SO TRYING TO BE MORE CLEAR AND TRYING TO ALLOW APPLICANTS THE [1:05:30] ABILITY TO MAYBE BETTER UNDERSTAND AND ALSO BETTER ADDRESS WHAT'S REALLY BEING LOOKED AT AND THE INTENT OF THE [1:05:36] PRESERVATION ORDINANCE IN ITSELF WITHIN THOSE THREE FINDINGS. >> THANK YOU. [1:05:43] I HAVE ONE OTHER LAST QUESTION. CAN YOU WALK THROUGH THE PROCESS [1:05:49] AGAIN AND SO THE NEXT STEP, WE'LL SEE THIS AGAIN ONCE IT'S LIKE READY FOR APPROVAL. [1:05:55] AND AT THAT POINT, IT GETS PUBLIC COMMENTS? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, THAT'S [1:06:02] CORRECT BASED ON OUR CURRENT SCHEDULE. IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE SOMETHING COULD COME UP AND WE WOULD WANT [1:06:08] TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU FOR COMMENTS AGAIN. I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY PRETTY [1:06:14] UNLIKELY, BUT AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE SCHEDULE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT SET YET. [1:06:21] BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE NEXT STEP AFTER THIS IS THAT OUR [1:06:27] TEAM WILL GET TOGETHER AND INTERNALLY KIND OF REVIEW ALL OF THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED, SEE WHERE WE'RE PLANNING TO MAKE [1:06:33] CHANGES BASED OFF OF THAT. AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT, WE WILL SEND IT TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE [1:06:39] AND THEY WILL BE THE ONES MAKING SURE THE FORMATTING LOOKS [1:06:44] CORRECT, SENDING BACK ANY CONCERNS OR COMMENTS THAT THEY HAVE. AND ONCE WE GET IT BACK FROM THE [1:06:52] CLERKS AND WE KIND OF HAVE THE OKAY THERE, THEN IT WOULD GET NOTICED FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT [1:06:58] THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. AND THAT'S WHERE THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR THE HPC TO BE THE ONES [1:07:06] VOTING ON THE ADOPTION WHEREAS I THINK ZONING CODE REQUIRES COUNSEL TO DO IT EVEN THOUGH [1:07:12] COUNSEL IS GOING TO BE, COUNCIL HOLDS THE PUBLIC HEARING I [1:07:18] SHOULD SAY IN ZONING ORDINANCE. HPC HOLDS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR [1:07:23] CHANGES TO THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. SO IT WILL COME BACK TO HPC FOR THAT HEARING, YES WE WILL HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THAT [1:07:31] POINT ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC COULD SHOW UP AND SPEAK. BUT HPC'S VOTE DOES THEN GO [1:07:38] THROUGH THE COUNCIL PROCESS. SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULDN'T HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING [1:07:43] AT LATER TIME SO HPC WOULD PROBABLY BE THE FINAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITS ADOPTION. [1:07:49] >> THANK YOU. AND ONE OTHER QUESTION, SORRY. I SEE YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. [1:07:55] HAS THERE BEEN A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OR HAS THIS BEEN OPEN TO [1:08:01] THE PUBLIC PREVIOUSLY? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, SO IT HAS BEEN OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IN A WAY [1:08:08] THAT THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PUBLIC SINCE WE PUBLISHED THE FIRST DRAFT IN OCTOBER. [1:08:15] SO WE HAVE RECEIVED JUST A HANDFUL OF COMMENTS FROM MORE SO [1:08:21] STAKEHOLDERS IN THE FIELD OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AT ONE POINT WE DID SEND THE [1:08:27] DRAFT OUT TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS IN THE FIELD AND WE GOT A HANDFUL OF COMMENTS BACK [1:08:34] FROM THAT. BUT AS FAR AS LIKE A FORMAL KIND OF OUTREACH PERIOD, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE [1:08:43] INCORPORATED INTO THIS CHANGE. >> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. [1:08:48] JUST KIDDING, NEVER MIND. [1:08:55] ANY OTHER FINAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? [1:09:00] OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES OUR DISCUSSION ITEM. [1:09:06] DO STAFF HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? ANDREA BURKE. [1:09:14] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. YES, I HAVE A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS. THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO CAME TO THE PRESERVATION AWARDS LAST [1:09:21] THURSDAY. IT AGAIN WAS A LOVELY EVENT AND MANY THANKS TO ROB FOR BEING OUR [1:09:28] TEAM REPRESENTATIVE THAT GOES INTO PLANNING THAT EVENT AND THEN ALSO YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG, [1:09:35] WHO IS ALSO OUR COMMISSION REP THAT GOES INTO PLANNING THAT EVENT. VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR [1:09:41] TIME GOING INTO HELPING PUT THAT TOGETHER. OUR NEXT MEETING OF THE AFRICAN [1:09:48] AMERICAN HERITAGE WORK GROUP IS THIS COMING, A WEEK FROM TODAY, TUESDAY, MARCH 25TH. [1:09:59] THAT WILL BE I THINK MEETINGS ARE HELD MONTHLY NOW UNTIL THE WORK GROUP ENDS WHICH WOULD BE [1:10:04] ROUGHLY AROUND JUNE. BUT JUST LIKE TO GIVE NOTICE TO THAT, THAT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IF YOU ARE SIGNED UP FOR THE GOV [1:10:16] DELIVERY, YOU WILL GET NOTICES ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE BEGUN PLANNING FOR THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF [1:10:23] PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS FOREIGN CONFERENCE WHICH WILL BE HELD HERE IN JULY OF 2026. WE JUST HAD OUR FIRST KICK OFF [1:10:28] MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND WILL VERY MUCH BE LOOKING FOR MORE VOLUNTEER HELP [1:10:35] AS THIS RAMPS UP. IT WILL BE A VERY LARGE EVENT. [1:10:41] BUT NO DIRECTIONS ON WHERE THAT IS NEEDED NOW. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE AN UPDATE [1:10:47] THAT IT HAS STARTED. SO VERY EXCITED THOUGH. AND THEN ALSO AN EARLY HEADS UP [1:10:53] THAT THE NEXT HPC RETREAT IS HAPPENING MAY 15TH. AND SO I WILL BE SENDING OUT MY, [1:11:00] I GUESS IT'S STILL MARCH, THAT'S TWO MONTHS AWAY. BUT AS IT GETS INTO EARLY APRIL, I WILL SEND OUT MY USUAL REQUEST [1:11:09] FOR TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED AT THAT MEETING AND I CAN WORK THEM IN. BUT THAT CONCLUDES MY [1:11:15] ANNOUNCEMENTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY [1:11:22] ANNOUNCEMENTS? COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. >> I DON'T HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT, I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE RETREAT IS. [1:11:28] >> YES, OF COURSE, CHAIR BJORNBERG AND COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER. THE RETREAT IS WE HAVE TWO OF [1:11:35] THEM ON THE CALENDAR PER YEAR. AND IT IS A PUBLIC MEETING, BUT IT IS NOT ONE WHERE WE HEAR [1:11:42] BUSINESS. IT IS MORE OF AN INFORMAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN STAFF AND THE [1:11:48] COMMISSION THAT WE DISCUSS TOPICS RELATIVE TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION, TO STAFF INITIATIVES, TO INITIATIVES AT [1:11:53] THE CITY. I OFTEN HAVE BEEN SENDING OUT A REQUEST FOR TOPICS ABOUT 4-6 [1:12:01] WEEKS IN ADVANCE FROM COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE A PARTICULAR TOPIC THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS. [1:12:08] WE'LL OFTEN GIVE UPDATES ON SOME OF THE BIG PROJECTS WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON, WHAT SOME OF [1:12:16] STAFFING OR OTHER NEW INITIATIVES THAT ARE HAPPENING KIND OF ON THE STAFF SIDE, BUT IT IS A CHANCE FOR US TO TALK [1:12:25] WHILE PUBLIC IN A MORE INFORMAL SETTING AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WHERE WE ARE NOT USING ROBERT'S [1:12:32] RULES AND BRING EACH OTHER UP TO SPEED ON ITEMS. SO THANK YOU. >> THANKS. [1:12:42] >> OKAY. WITH THAT, WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING. [1:12:48] THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE IT AND WITHOUT OBJECTION, I'LL DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED. [1:12:53] THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE HPC IS APRIL 8, 2025. [1:12:58] THANKS.