[0:16] >> GOOD AFTERNOON. I CALL TO ORDER THE NOVEMBER 10TH REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEAPOLIS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. [0:22] FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS MARAIS BJORNBERG AND I SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION. [0:27] JUST A REMINDER TO SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES AND OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND TO SPEAK CLEARLY [0:32] INTO THE MICROPHONE WHEN SPEAKING AT THE DAIS OR GIVING TESTIMONY. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL SO WE MAY VERIFY THE [0:38] PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. >> COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER IS [0:46] ABSENT. BOOTE? >> PRESENT. >> HERR. >> PRESENT. [0:51] >> KARATO IS ABSENT. MELLBLOM. [0:56] >> HERE. >> RODRIGUEZ. >> PRESENT. >> THOMAS. >> PRESENT. [1:04] >> WALLACE IS ABSENT. MASTIN. >> PRESENT. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG. >> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THERE [1:09] IS A QUORUM. AND CUSTOMER MASTIN'S ABSENCE IS [1:18] EXCUSED. WE WILL WORK FROM THE AGENDA PROVIDED BY THE CLERK AND I WILL GO THROUGH THE AGENDA AND SORT [1:24] OUT WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED AND WHICH ITEMS WILL BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND WITHOUT [1:29] FURTHER DISCUSSION. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS 119, 4TH [1:39] STREET NORTH WARD 7, ADJACENT TO WARD 3. THIS IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF [1:46] APPROPRIATENESS AND WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. [1:52] ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS 415, 1TH STREET NORTH WARD 3. THIS IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF [1:58] APPROPRIATENESS AND WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. [2:04] ITEM NUMBER SIX IS 107, 3RD [2:10] AVENUE NORTH WARD 3. THIS IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WILL BE ON [2:16] CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. [2:21] ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST WARD [2:27] ONE. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR DELISTING FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND WILL BE DISCUSSED. [2:33] ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS 100, 2ND AVENUE NORTH WARD 3. [2:39] THIS IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WILL BE ON CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO [2:45] SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS 300, 1ST [2:55] AVENUE NORTH WARD SEVEN. THIS IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WILL BE ON [3:01] CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO OR MODIFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ITEM NUMBER TEN IS PARTIAL 2026 [3:10] HPC CALENDAR ALL WARDS. AND THIS ITEM WILL BE DISCUSSED. SO THE PROPOSED AGENDA IS THE [3:16] CONSENT AGENDA WHICH WILL INCLUDE ITEM NUMBER 4, 119, 4th [3:22] STREET NORTH WARD SEVEN, ADJACENT TO WARD THREE. ITEM NUMBER 5-415, 4th STREET [3:33] NORTH. ITEM NUMBER 6, 107, 3rd AVENUE [3:48] NORTH WARD THREE. ITEM 8, 100, 2nd AVENUE NORTH, [3:54] WARD THREE. ITEM 9, 300, 1st AVENUE NORTH [3:59] WARD SEVEN. IS THERE ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION OPPOSED TO THESE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC [4:05] WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO ONE OF THESE ITEMS? WHICH ITEM DO YOU WISH TO PULL [4:11] FROM CONSENT? NUMBER NINE. AND YOU WANT TO PULL THAT FROM [4:17] CONSENT? [4:27] OKAY. SO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL HAVE STAFF PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT AND COMMISSION [4:34] DISCUSSION AND ACTION. THAT WILL ITEM NUMBER 7-1505 [4:40] CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST WARD 1, ITEM NUMBER 9-300 1ST AVENUE [4:48] NORTH WARD SEVEN. AND THEN THE FOLLOWING ITEM WILL [4:54] HAVE STAFF PRESENTATION, COMMISSION DISCUSSION WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING WHICH IS ITEM [5:00] NUMBER TEN PARTIAL 2026 HPC CALENDAR, ALL WARDS. COMMISSIONERS, MAY I HAVE A [5:06] MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AGENDA? >> MASTIN SO MOVES. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER [5:12] MASTIN. IS THERE A SECOND? >> MELLBLOM SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER [5:18] MELLBLOM. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY A [5:27] [CHORUS OF AYES] THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. [5:32] OUR NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS WILL BE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR OCTOBER 14, 2025, MEETING. [5:38] MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES? >> THOMAS SO MOVES. [5:46] >> THANK YOU, CUSTOMER THOMAS. IS THERE A SECOND? >> RODRIGUEZ SECONDS. >> THANK YOU, CUSTOMER [5:51] RODRIGUEZ. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY [5:59] AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS INCLUDING COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE ABSENT? [6:07] OKAY. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. BEFORE I OPEN THE HEARING TO [6:13] PUBLIC COMMENTS, LET ME SUMMARIZE THE PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING THE PUBLIC HEARING. [6:18] FIRST, WE WILL ACT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WE JUST SET. ONCE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE APPROVED, THE COMMISSION IS [6:24] DONE WITH THOSE ITEMS AND APPLICANTS MAY CONTACT PLANNING STAFF TOMORROW ABOUT NEXT STEPS. [6:30] AFTER THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ARE APPROVED, WE WILL TAKE EACH REMAINING AGENDA ITEM IN ORDER. [6:38] PLANNING STAFF WILL PRESENT ITS REPORT AND COMMISSIONERS MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. THEN I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC [6:44] HEARING AND WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND CUSTOMERS MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. AFTER THAT, WE WILL INVITE [6:51] PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, WE NEED YOU TO DO TWO THINGS; PLEASE BE [6:58] SURE TO SIGN UP ON THE SHEET OVER BY THE CLERK. IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THIS ALREADY, YOU CAN DO SO [7:03] AFTERWARDS. WHEN YOU COME UP TO TESTIFY, YOU MUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. PLEASE KEEP COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO [7:09] THE APPLICATION BEFORE US. IF YOU HAVE MATERIALS TO HAND OUT, PLEASE GIVE THEM TO OUR [7:14] COMMITTEE CLERK SO THAT THEY CAN BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSION AND ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE [7:20] COMPLETE, I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND COMMISSIONERS WILL DELIBERATE AND ACT UPON THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE US. [7:27] SO I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA [7:33] ITEMS. ITEM NUMBER 4-119 4TH STREET [7:38] NORTH WARD SEVEN, ADJACENT TO WARD 3. [7:45] ITEM 5-415 4TH STREET NORTH WARD THREE. ITEM 6-107 3RD AVENUE NORTH, [7:53] WARD 3. ITEM 8-100 2ND AVENUE NORTH, [8:00] WARD 3. AGAIN TO COMMISSIONERS SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE ITEMS? [8:05] ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO OPPOSE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE ITEMS? [8:10] SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE [8:16] STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE ITEMS? [8:21] >> MELLBLOM SO MOVES. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. IS THERE A SECOND? >> MASTIN SECONDS. [8:27] >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MASTIN. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY [8:34] AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS? [8:41] OKAY. THESE ITEMS ARE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF ON THE AGENDA AND APPLICANTS MAY CONTACT PLANNING STAFF ABOUT [8:46] NEXT STEPS. OUR FIRST ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 7, [8:57] 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST WARD 1. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR DELISTING FROM THE NATIONAL [9:02] REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THE STAFF ROBERT IS PRESENTED BY ROB SKALECKI. [9:20] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. I'M ROB SKALECKI, CITY PLANNER [9:28] ON THE TEAM IN CPED. TODAY I'M PRESENTING THE REMOVAL FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF [9:33] HISTORIC PLACES FOR THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY [9:39] WHICH IS LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST. [9:45] ON OCTOBER 16, 2025, THE MINNESOTA DEPUTY STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SENT THE MINNEAPOLIS HPC A LETTER [9:52] REQUESTING COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE [9:57] NORTHEAST FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THIS LETTER WAS INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT NUMBER ONE FOR [10:04] COMMISSIONERS TO VIEW. AS A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW TO PARTICIPATE IN [10:10] THE NATIONAL REGISTER PROCESS AS FOLLOWS, AS RELATED TO THE [10:15] REMOVAL FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER PROCESS OR DELISTING. ONE, TO AFFORD THE PUBLIC A [10:21] REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE REMOVAL OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. TWO, TO PREPARE A REPORT AS TO [10:27] WHETHER OR NOT THE QUALITIES WHICH CAUSED THE PROPERTY TO BE LISTED HAVE BEEN LOST OR DESTROYED. [10:32] AND THREE, TO HAVE THE CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIAL, IN THIS SITUATION, THE MAYOR, SUBMIT THE [10:38] REPORT AND HIS OR HER COMMENTS ON THE REMOVAL OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF [10:43] HISTORIC PLACES TO THE MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER WITHIN 60 DAYS OF NOTICE [10:49] FROM THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE. CURRENTLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE STATE [10:55] HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE WERE INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENTS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND THAT'S UNDER ATTACHMENT NUMBER TWO. [11:03] THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY WAS LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC [11:08] PLACES ON OCTOBER 7, 2020. THE PROPERTY IS ONLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, THE PROPERTY IS [11:14] NOT LOCALLY DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK BY THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. THAT'S WHY THE REVIEW HERE TODAY [11:19] IS NOT THROUGH A FORMAL APPLICATION. [11:29] FOUNDED IN MINNEAPOLIS IN 1891, [11:34] THE AARON CARLSON COMPANY BUILT A REPUTATION FOR CUSTOM MILL WORK. THE FOUNDER AARON CARLSON WAS A [11:41] SWEDISH IMMIGRANT WHO BEGAN HIS MINNESOTA CAREER WORKING IN STILLWATER LUMBER CAMPS IN THE [11:46] 1880s. AFTER WORKING AS A FOREMAN, [11:52] CARLSON FOUND HIS OWN WOOD WORKING BUSINESS AND RECRUITED MEN FROM SWEDEN TO WORK AS CARPENTERS AT THE FIRM. [11:57] THE COMPANY MANUFACTURED MILLWORK FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND UPPER CLASS HOMES UNTIL [12:03] WORLD WAR II WHEN THE COMPANY SHIFTED ITS OPERATION TO THE PRODUCTION OF WOOD COMPONENTS FOR PONTOON BRIDGES. [12:08] THE COMPANY'S SKILL IN FINELY CRAFTED WOOD BUILDING COMPONENTS AND ITS PROXIMITY TO A RAIL LINE [12:18] MADE IT A FIT FOR SHIPPING OF PONTOON BRIDGING COMPONENTS TO [12:23] TROOPS IN WORLD WAR II. THE NOMINATION NOTED THIS BACKGROUND AND ALSO NOTED THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME MAINTAINED [12:30] EXCELLENT INTEGRITY FROM ITS PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FROM 1940 TO 1945. [12:37] SO THE NOMINATION STATES THAT THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION IS [12:43] HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT UNDER NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERION A, INDUSTRY FOR ITS ASSOCIATION WITH THE WARTIME LUMBER MINISTRY [12:49] IN MINNEAPOLIS. AS THE ONLY MINNEAPOLIS LUMBER MILL TO WIN THE ARMY NAVY E [12:56] AWARD FOR ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE WAR EFFORT FOR ITS MANUFACTURE OF PONTOON BRIDGE COMPONENTS DURING WORLD WAR II. [13:03] AT THE TIME OF THE NOMINATION, THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY RETAINED GOOD HISTORIC [13:09] INTEGRITY AND WAS ABLE TO CONVEY ITS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC [13:15] PLACES. THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION SITE WAS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF LATE 19th AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY [13:22] MANUFACTURING IN A COMPLEX WHICH EXEMPLIFIED THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. [13:27] IN A MEMO FILE DATED OCTOBER 15, [13:33] 2025, THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE DID NOTE HOWEVER, THAT BASED ON THEIR [13:38] REVIEW IT WAS IN THEIR OPINION AND THE OPINION -- IT WAS IN THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION [13:44] OFFICE'S OPINION THAT THE AARON CARLSON COMPANY FACTORY REMOVAL [13:49] DOCUMENTATION HAD BEEN ADEQUATELY PREPARED AND THE PROPERTY HAD CEASED TO MEET CRITERIA FOR LISTING BECAUSE OF [13:56] PROPERTIES WHICH CAUSED IT TO BE LISTED HAVE BEEN LOST OR [14:01] DESTROYED. HERE WAS A PHOTO THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE'S MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF THAT MEMO THAT WAS [14:07] PRODUCED. [14:12] CPED STAFF HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT AND AWARE OF THE BUILDING SINCE ITS LISTING OF [14:18] COURSE IN 2020. IN FEBRUARY 2025, REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DID CONTACT [14:24] STAFF TO EXPLORE DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING. AFTER THEIR PLANS FOR REHABILITATION, REUSE, OR [14:30] REDEVELOPMENT AT THAT TIME APPEARED TO BE NO LONGER POSSIBLE. SO SINCE THE PROPERTY IS [14:36] NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED, STAFF INFORMED THEM EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT A DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC [14:41] RESOURCE APPLICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GAIN APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION. STAFF DID HOLD A PREAPPLICATION [14:47] MEETING ON FEBRUARY 13, 2025, AND ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP MEETING ON [14:53] APRIL 14, 2025. BUT STAFF DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM THE APPLICANTS AFTER THAT. ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2025, THE AARON [14:58] CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED BY A LARGE [15:04] FIRE. STAFF DO WANT TO NOTE THAT ON OCTOBER 24, 2025, EMAIL THE [15:11] ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL NOTIFIED PLANNING STAFF THAT MINNEAPOLIS'S CONSTRUCTION CODE SERVICES STAFF HAD NOT DEEMED [15:17] THE REMAINING STRUCTURES TO BE IN IMMINENT DANGER OF COLLAPSE AND THAT THEY WERE NOT A HAZARD [15:22] TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THIS TIME. THERE'S CURRENTLY NO INTENT FOR [15:29] THE CITY TO PURSUE EMERGENCY DEMOLITION GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW AT THE SITE CURRENTLY. [15:35] AND THE CAUSE OF FIRE IS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION. BUT UNDERSTANDING THE LOSS OF [15:42] HISTORIC INTEGRITY, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE AARON [15:48] CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST NO LONGER RETAINS SUFFICIENT HISTORIC INTEGRITY TO [15:54] BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND DIRECTS STAFF TO TRANSMIT A LETTER SUMMARIZING THEIR OPINION AND COMMENTS TO THE STATE [16:00] HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. [16:08] >> THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [16:17] I GUESS I HAVE A SORT OF PROCEDURAL QUESTION. SO THIS IS NOT LOCALLY [16:23] DESIGNATED. DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF IT WAS [16:29] NATIONAL REGISTER DELISTED AND THE DEMOLITION PERMIT GOT PUT IN, WOULD THAT STILL GET [16:36] REVIEWED BY YOUR OFFICE? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, THAT'S [16:42] SOMETHING THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING THROUGHOUT AS SOON AS [16:51] THE FIRE HAPPENED AND GIVEN STAFF MEETING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. I MAY DEFER TO ANDREA BURKE [16:57] ABOUT THIS. I THINK SHE HAS THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THIS. THERE ARE CERTAIN STATE RULES THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH IN [17:04] ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DEMOLISH IT AND DELISTING IS ONE OF THE STEPS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. [17:11] BUT I'LL DEFER TO ANDREA IF SHE HAS ANYMORE COMMENTS. >> ANDREA BURKE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. [17:16] TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, IT STILL WOULD GET A REVIEW. HOWEVER, HOW WE PROCEED WITH [17:21] THAT REVIEW DEPENDS ON THIS DELISTING AT THIS POINT BECAUSE [17:27] THE WAY THE STATE STATUTE READS IS THAT ANY DEMOLITION IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED BUILDING MUST [17:33] GET AN EAW UNLESS IT GETS A HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION [17:40] REVIEW BUT 106 THERE'S SOME OTHER LANGUAGE IN THE LAW. BUT THEN AN EXCEPTION IS IF THE [17:45] PROPERTY IS DEEMED NONCONTRIBUTING OR BASICALLY HAS LOST ITS SIGNIFICANCE IS ANOTHER [17:52] WAY TO APPROACH IT. [17:59] AT THIS POINT IT HAS TO COME FOR YOU COMMENTS, IT THEN GOES TO THE STATE REVIEW BOARD. IT ALSO THEN FINALLY GOES TO THE [18:05] NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO HAVE THEIR COMMENTS AND DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT ACTUALLY BECOMES DELISTED. [18:11] AT THAT POINT, ONCE IT DOES, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SIGN OFF ON A WRECKING WITHOUT BRINGING IT TO [18:17] HPC BECAUSE IWOULD NO LONGER BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL [18:22] REGISTER. NOW IF A DEMOLITION WANTED IT TO COME THROUGH BEFORE, I THINK THERE IS A COUPLE OPTIONS TO [18:33] PURSUE, BUT AT THIS POINT THAT IS THE ROUTE WE ARE PLANNING TO TAKE GIVEN THAT NO WRECKING HAS COME THROUGH AT THIS POINT IN [18:38] TIME. BUT IT IS STILL LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER, BUT WE DO HAVE A FEW OPTIONS JUST BASED ON SOME LETTERS WE'VE RECEIVED. [18:47] THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, THAT'S HELPFUL. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU'RE [18:52] LOOKING FOR COMMENTS FOR [19:03] SOMETHING TO SUBMIT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF FROM [19:10] COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ. >> CHAIR, THANK YOU. THERE WAS ONE PHOTO POST FIRE [19:19] THAT SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN. AM I REMEMBERING CORRECTLY THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY PHOTO THAT WAS IN THE REPORT? [19:25] WERE THERE OTHERS? [19:34] >> THAT'S THE ONLY PHOTO THAT'S ON THEIR AGENDA FOR THE STATE [19:40] REVIEW BOARD. >> OKAY. IT KIND OF SEEMS TO ME LIKE THIS ISN'T QUITE A THOROUGH OVERVIEW [19:46] OF THE PROPERTY. WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION LATER. [19:52] BUT I WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED A FEW MORE PHOTOS WITHIN THE REPORT. BUT THANK YOU. [19:57] >> ONE OTHER QUESTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY. SO THE ACTION OF DELISTING WAS [20:05] INITIATED BY THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. [20:14] >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF FROM COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, THANK YOU. [20:21] I WILL NOW OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THIS WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR [20:27] AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC [20:35] COMMENT. COMMISSIONERS, LET'S DISCUSS. I WILL GO AHEAD AND START OFF [20:40] THAT AGAIN THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PLACES THAT I SEE LIKE MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY AS A NORTHEAST [20:46] RESIDENT AND I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS BUILDING AND WAS DEVASTATED [20:52] WHEN IT WAS ON FIRE THE MANY VARIOUS TIMES THAT IT HAS BEEN ON FIRE IN THE LAST WHILE. [21:02] ANDLY -- AND SIMILARLY IT SEEMS [21:10] LIKE THAT ICONIC TOWER FEATURE IS STILL STANDING. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF INTEGRITY FROM THE ONE PHOTO THAT WE SAW OF THE [21:20] VERY, VERY BURNED DOWN BUILDING. BUT I WOULD STILL LOVE IF THAT [21:27] ONE TOWER COULD STAND SO I THINK THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LIKE IF IT GETS [21:33] DELISTED, IS THERE ANYTHING TO PRESERVE IT. [21:41] >> YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE SMOKESTACK, CORRECT? [21:51] >> COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ. >> I HAVE A FEW MORE THOUGHTS KIND OF CONNECTED TO THAT. IT [21:56] SEEMED LIKE IN THE -- I THINK IT WAS THE SHIPO DOCUMENTATION, IF IT WAS IN THE PACKET WE RECEIVED [22:02] THAT THERE WAS A WHOLE KIND OF COMPLEX OF SEVERAL BUILDINGS [22:09] THAT WERE KIND OF INDIVIDUALLY LISTED AS CONTRIBUTING AND NONCONTRIBUTING. AND IT KIND OF SEEMS IMPORTANT TO ME THAT WE HAVE A MORE [22:16] THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF WHICH OF THOSE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN EFFECTED AND HOW BADLY AS TO [22:22] THEN BE ABLE TO KIND OF HAVE AN OPINION AS TO HOW MUCH INTEGRITY MAY OR MAY NOT REMAIN. [22:33] >> OTHER THOUGHTS FROM [22:38] COMMISSIONERS? I MEAN, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SAY [22:46] IT, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION DIGGING INTO IT [22:53] WOULD BE HELPFUL. COMMISSIONER MASTIN. >> MAYBE I'LL JUST ASK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG, FROM YOUR DAILY [22:59] TRAVELS, HOW MUCH OF THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE IT'S THERE? IS IT REALLY JUST THE SMOKESTACK OR IS THERE ANY INTEGRITY LEFT [23:05] OF THE BUILDINGS THAT YOU SEE? GOOGLE MAPS STILL SHOWS THE OLD. [23:12] >> REALLY GREAT QUESTION. I WILL ALSO SAY LIKE I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN MAKE A REALLY [23:18] GREAT DETERMINATION OF LIKE STRUCTURALLY WHAT IS IN GOOD SHAPE. [23:23] I THINK THAT THE -- I'M GOING TO KEEP REFERRING TO IT AS WHAT DID I SAY, THE TOWER? YOU SAID SMOKESTACK. [23:30] THE TOWER/SMOKESTACK LOOKS LIKE IT'S OKAY. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE [23:35] IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT IT'S SORT OF LIKE A ALL OR NOTHING TYPE OF SITUATION IT SEEMS LIKE HERE. [23:48] COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> I AGREE. BECAUSE ACCORDING TO GOOGLE MAPS, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE -- [23:58] THERE'S PROBABLY -- LOOKS LIKE THE BUILDING HAS BEEN ADDED ON [24:04] TO 4 OR 5 OR MAYBE EVEN SIX TIMES. AND THEN THERE'S THE SEPARATE LOOKING BUILDING NEXT TO IT. [24:09] SO IF THAT SEPARATE BUILDING IS COMPLETELY INTACT, IS THAT A [24:15] PROBLEM AND YEAH. I DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT'S THERE AND WHAT'S NOT THERE. [24:21] OBVIOUSLY THE SMOKESTACK AND THE BUILDING IN THE FOREGROUND IS [24:26] GONE. >> I WOULD SAY THAT'S EVEN MORE [24:31] OF A REASON TO SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT FOR MORE INFORMATION FOR TAKING SUCH A DRASTIC [24:37] MEASURE OF DELISTING ESPECIALLY WHEN IT MEANS THAT I FEEL LIKE [24:42] IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO EVENTUAL -- COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> ARE WE ALLOWED TO HOLD THIS [24:49] ITEM OVER TO OUR NEXT MEETING? >> SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE, [24:55] BUT PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE OF THE STATE REVIEW BOARD, I BELIEVE THEY'RE WAITING FOR COMMENTS BY, [25:03] I FEEL LIKE I READ THE 17th. BUT WE ARE JUST TRYING TO [25:09] DEVELOP COMMENTS TO THEN SEND TO THEM THAT WILL BE PART OF THAT [25:15] STATE REVIEW BOARD HEARING. I'M LOOKING AT ANDREA BURKE LIKE CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT? [25:21] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, THAT'S CORRECT. THE HPC IS ONLY ISSUING COMMENT. [25:26] THERE'S NO DECISION. THE STATE REVIEW BOARD IS ON NOVEMBER 17TH. IF YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR COMMENTS [25:32] TO BE CONSIDERED, YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE THEM TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. [25:40] >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ANDREA. ARE YOU COLLECTING OUR COMMENTS BASED ON A CONVERSATION OR DO WE [25:46] HAVE TO PUT THEM INTO A FORMAL MOTION? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER [25:51] MELLBLOM, WE'RE COLLECTING THEM DURING YOUR CONVERSATION. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER KARATO. [25:57] >> I GUESS I HAVE SIMILAR THOUGHTS IN THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE ENTIRE [26:02] COMPLEX DOESN'T EXIST, BUT THERE ARE PORTIONS THAT SEEM TO BE [26:07] EXTENT AND I GUESS SAFE CONDITION SINCE THE CITY IS NOT [26:13] SEEKING DEMOLITION IMMEDIATELY. BASED ON THAT TO ME, I DON'T THINK DELISTING IS THE PROPER [26:20] COURSE OF ACTION OR RATHER PERHAPS REDEFINING WHAT IS PROTECTED WITH THE SPECIFIC [26:26] ELEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE [26:34] PROTECTED. >> THANKS. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> I WAS REALLY GOING TO SAY [26:41] PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING THAT WAS JUST SAID. I WOULD ALSO LOVE TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT HEY IF THE WHOLE [26:47] BUILDING CAN'T BE SAVED, THE WHOLE COMPLEX, MAYBE EVEN JUST THE SMOKESTACK BEING PROTECTED [26:52] AND CHANGED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN. [27:00] >> OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? I HAD A QUESTION, I'M TRYING TO [27:08] REMEMBER IT. [27:16] I DON'T REMEMBER. COMMISSIONER MASTIN. [27:23] >> I THINK I AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT WERE HAVING CONCERNS ABOUT JUST [27:28] DELISTING THE ENTIRE THING BECAUSE THEN WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE MEMORY OF THIS PLACE FROM THE SITE WHERE IF THERE IS SOME [27:35] WAY TO ACKNOWLEDGE EVEN IF IT IS THE SMOKESTACK AS COMMISSIONER THOMAS WAS SUGGESTING, THERE IS [27:40] SOMETHING THAT IS STILL CONNECTED TO THAT PLACE. [27:49] >> OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? [28:02] COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> THANK YOU. [28:07] I'M CURIOUS IF IT'S FOUND THAT THE REASON FOR THE BUILDING [28:13] HAVING BURNT DOWN IS SOMETHING [28:18] DONE WITH ILL INTENTION, HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT WITH THE IDEA [28:24] THAT THE BUILDING CAN BE DEMOLISHED, THAT KIND OF IS A CONCERN OF MINE. [28:29] IT'S A VALUABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S BEEN VACANT, KIND OF EMPTY [28:37] FOR A LONG TIME. AND IT CATCHES FIRE SEVERAL TIMES, FINALLY BURNS DOWN, A [28:42] GOOD PORTION OF IT OR MAYBE ALL OF IT. WE'RE NOT SURE. BUT THE THING THAT KEEPS [28:50] STICKING IN MY MIND IS THE IDEA THAT IF IT'S NOT STATED THAT [29:02] CONCERN, I REALIZE THEY'RE DOING AN INVESTIGATION, BUT IT CONCERNS ME THAT WE ARE HELPING [29:08] TO AID AND ABET SOMETHING THAT IS NEFARIOUS. I KNOW IT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW, BUT [29:13] IT JUST SITS WITH ME. >> YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT [29:19] COMMENT. ESPECIALLY JUST SORT OF UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT OF LIKE IN FEBRUARY PURSUING THE [29:26] ROUTE OF WORKING WITH HPC STAFF TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE STEPS TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY WOULD BE [29:31] AND THEN JUST LIKE CONV CONVENIENTLY -- I DON'T KNOW, [29:37] CAN'T MAKE ANY JUDGMENT CALLS ON THAT. BUT IT IS INTERESTING. I DID REMEMBER MY QUESTION AND THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR STAFF. [29:43] ARE THERE ANY -- SIMILAR TO HOW IF THERE IS A LOCALLY DESIGNATED [29:49] PROPERTY, I'M GOING TO USE ALL OF THE WRONG NAMES FOR THIS, PEOPLE CAN COME BY AND SEE THAT [29:55] MAINTENANCE ISN'T HAPPENING AND CHARGE PENALTIES. IS THERE ANYTHING LIKE THAT FOR A PROPERTY THAT IS NOT NATIONAL [30:13] REGISTERED. SO THIS PROPERTY THAT IS POOR CONDITION AND VACANT AND NOW THERE HAS BEEN A FIRE. [30:18] IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LK OF MAINTENANCE ON IT. [30:25] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, REGARDING ENFORCEMENT FOR THIS, THERE IS AS YOU ARE AWARE AN ARTICLE IN [30:32] THE CURRENT CHAPTER REGARDING MAINTENANCE, THERE ARE OTHER ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCES THROUGH [30:43] OTHER GROUPS, BASICALLY THROUGH REGULATORY SERVICES. REGARDLESS OF ITS DESIGNATION [30:50] STATUS, YES REGULATORY SERVICES MAINTAINS ITS OWN PROGRAM. I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND WHETHER OR [30:56] NOT THIS BUILDING WAS ON THE VACANT BUILDING REGISTER WITH ANYTHING RELATIVE TO PROLONGED [31:01] VACANCY ENFORCEMENT. I DON'T THINK THERE MAYBE WOULD HAVE BEEN -- BUT THERE'S A [31:07] VARIETY OF FINDINGS AND CITATIONS THAT THE CITY PROVIDES TO REGULATORY SERVICES THAT THE [31:14] CITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY, WE DON'T GOVERN. SO THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. [31:21] >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM? [31:28] COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE A MOTION. [31:33] BUT I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO -- WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE SENSE IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE A [31:39] MOTION RECOMMENDING AND AGREEING WITH THE IDEA THAT THERE NO [31:48] LONGER RETAINS SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC INTEGRITY. MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF, CAN WE MAKE A MOTION, SHOULD WE NOT MAKE A MOTION OR [31:56] SHOULD WE MAKE A MOTION STATING EXACTLY THAT THE SENSE OF OUR [32:02] GROUP IS THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO JUDGE THIS, WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO? [32:07] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM, IT WOULD BE THE LATTER. I WOULD SUGGEST MAKING A MOTION [32:13] THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS SUFFICIENT INTEGRITY OR INFORMATION, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO WORD IT, BUT I WOULD STILL MAKE [32:20] THE MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO TRANSMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN A LETTER TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE BECAUSE [32:25] THAT'S THE REQUIRED ACTION THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> I WILL MAKE THE MOTION. [32:32] >> SO I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CANNOT RECOMMEND THAT [32:41] THE AARON CARLSON FACTORY LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST RETAINS SUFFICIENT [32:47] HISTORIC INTEGRITY TO BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF [32:53] HISTORIC PLACES. AND WE DIRECT STAFF TO TRANSMIT A LETTER SUMMARIZING OUR [32:59] COMMENTS AND OPINION TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION [33:06] OFFICER. >> ANDREA BURKE. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. CAN YOU READ THAT ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE I MISHEARD A WORD AND I [33:12] WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S THE RIGHT WORD THAT WE'RE COMMUNICATING. [33:17] THANK YOU. >> THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CANNOT RECOMMEND THAT [33:22] THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL [33:28] AVENUE NORTHEAST RETAINS SUFFICIENT HISTORIC INTEGRITY TO [33:34] BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND DIRECTS STAFF TO TRANSMIT A [33:39] LETTER SUMMARIZING OUR OPINIONS AND COMMENTS TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. [33:49] >> I FEEL LIKE YOU MAYBE DON'T WANT THE WORD CANNOT. I THINK THAT YOU WANT TO [33:57] RECOMMEND THAT BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, RETAINS THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY [34:02] TO BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER AND DIRECTS STAFF TO TRANSMIT THE LETTER SUMMARIZING THAT. [34:08] >> BUT I THINK WE DON'T WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT IT BE DELISTED. >> NO, YEAH. [34:15] THAT IT -- [34:23] >> OKAY, I ACCEPT THAT. YES. >> SHOULD WE READ THAT AGAIN OR [34:29] DO WE FEEL LIKE -- >> PLEASE, CHAIR BJORNBERG, ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE. [34:36] >> OKAY. LET'S SEE. THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION [34:41] FACTORY LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST RETAINS [34:47] SUFFICIENT HISTORIC INTEGRITY TO BE LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND DIRECTS STAFF TO TRANSMIT A [34:53] LETTER SUMMARIZING THEIR OPINION AND COMMENTS TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. [35:00] >> THANK YOU, I GOT IT. [35:10] IS THERE A SECOND? >> MELLBLOM SECONDS. [35:18] >> I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK -- I THINK [35:23] THE ISSUE IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION TO MAKE A JUDGMENT, RIGHT? [35:30] SO IT'S NOT THAT WE THINK THAT IT RETAINS THE SUFFICIENT HISTORIC INTEGRITY, WE DON'T [35:38] KNOW. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING WE CANNOT RECOMMEND THAT IT NO LONGER RETAINS SUFFICIENT [35:45] HISTORIC INTEGRITY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF IT DOES OR IT DOESN'T. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION [35:50] IN FRONT OF US. THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT I HEARD FROM PEOPLE. [35:57] SO I THINK INSERTING THE WORD CANNOT RECOMMEND AND KEEPING ALL THE OTHER LANGUAGE. [36:02] AND I REALIZE I LEFT OUT WORDS, THAT WAS THE CONFUSING PART. [36:11] >> SINCE THERE'S A SECOND, DO WE HAVE TO CALL THE ROLL OR CAN [36:17] THERE BE A FRIENDLY -- >> I FEEL LIKE HAVING A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IF YOU'RE ALL IN [36:22] AGREEMENT WOULD BE FINE. >> OKAY. SO THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS TO [36:28] ADD PRESERVATION COMMISSION CANNOT RECOMMEND THAT THE AARON CARLSON CORPORATION FACTORY [36:35] LOCATED AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST NO LONGER RETAINS BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. [36:42] >> CORRECT. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE INFORMATION TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS HEARING PEOPLE [36:53] SAYING. >> I HAVE THAT. THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. >> IT'S A JOURNEY. [37:00] ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WOULD THE CLERK [37:05] CALL THE ROLL? [37:14] >> ON THE AMENDED LANGUAGE. BOOTE. >> AYE. >> HERR. [37:20] >> AYE. >> KARATO. >> AYE. >> MELLBLOM. >> AYE. >> RODRIGUEZ. [37:25] >> AYE. >> THOMAS. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN. >> AYE. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG. [37:31] >> AYE. >> THERE ARE EIGHT AYES. >> THANK YOU, THAT MOTION PASSES. [37:38] OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER [37:48] 9-300 1ST AVENUE NORTH, WARD 7. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND THE STAFF REPORT IS [37:53] PRESENTED BY ERIN QUE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR BJORNBERG AND COMMISSIONERS. [38:03] MY NAME IS ERIN QUE AND I'M A SENIOR PLANNER IN CPED. I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT A [38:09] CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 1st AVENUE NORTH IN THE MINNEAPOLIS WAREHOUSE [38:14] HISTORIC DISTRICT. HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE [38:21] PROPERTY'S LOCATION. AND HERE ARE VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY SOUTHEAST AND NORTHEAST ELEVATIONS. THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN [38:28] 1887 AS A WAREHOUSE. IT IS A 5-STORY BRICK AND STONE [38:34] BUILDING. IT IS A CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE TO THE MINNEAPOLIS WAREHOUSE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THIS APPLICATION COVERS THREE [38:40] ALTERATIONS. [38:46] THE FIRST OPERATION IS TO DEMOLISH A NONFUNCTIONAL [38:53] CHIMNEY. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED AN APPLICATION THAT ADDRESSES THE [38:58] CHIMNEY'S STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES AND INDICATES IT NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED. TO RESERVE THE SHIMNY IT WOULD [39:05] NEED TO BE REBUILT -- CHIMNEY IT WOULD NEED TO BE REBUILT. [39:10] IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURE OF THE PROPERTY AND IT IS SUBORDINATE TO THE HIGH [39:16] ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL OF THE HIGH ELEVATION. STAFF CONSIDER DEMOLITION WITHOUT REBUILDING TO BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE. [39:21] THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDED TWO DIFFERENT BIDS TO THE APPLICANT RELATED TO THE REMOVAL OF THE [39:27] BRICK CHIMNEY. THE SELECTED OPTION IS TO LET THE CHIMNEY BRICK FALL INTO ITSELF. STAFF DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS [39:33] ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THIS APPROPRIATE, THEREFORE WE ARE RECOMMENDING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO ENSURE THAT THE [39:40] CHIMNEY REMOVAL DOES NOT CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING OR CREATE UNSAFE CONDITIONS FOR [39:45] PEDESTRIANS OR OTHER PROPERTY SUCH AS CARS GIVEN THAT THIS IS NEXT TO A PARKING LOT. [39:51] THE SECOND ALTERATION IS FOR BUILDING LIGHTING ON THE TWO PRIMARY ELEVATIONS. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO [39:57] HIGHLIGHT THE BUILDING'S ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THROUGH UP/DOWN LIGHTING AND ENHANCE THE [40:03] PEDESTRIAN'S EXPERIENCE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING SURE NO CRITICAL FEATURES ARE OBSCURED OR DAMAGED [40:09] IN THE PROCESS. WHAT'S SHOWN ON IN SLIDE HERE ARE CONCEPTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN [40:16] FINALIZED. EACH LIGHT FIXTURE WOULD MEASURE FOUR FEET LONG BY TWO AND A HALF INCHES BY TWO INCHES, AN EXAMPLE [40:22] OF WHICH IS SHOWN AT RIGHT DURING A TEST. THE APPLICANT INITIALLY [40:27] CONSIDERED THREE FIXTURES ON EACH OF THE PLASTERS ON BOTH ELEVATIONS. STAFF HAD SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE [40:33] NUMBER OF FIXTURES AS WELL AS HOW THE LOWEST LIGHT FIXTURE WOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING AND WHERE THE CONDUITS [40:39] WOULD RUN. IN CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT TWO FIXTURES IS LIKELY MORE FEASIBLE IN THE [40:45] BUDGET. AND ALSO SHE SHARED CONCERNS ABOUT NOT WANTING TO OBSCURE [40:51] CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES. AS SUCH STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON [40:57] EACH PLASTER TO TWO. THE CONCEPT IS TO ATTACH TWO FIXTURES WITH A METAL BRACKET SO THAT ONE FIXTURE COULD SHINE [41:04] UPWARD AND THE OTHER COULD SHINE DOWNWARD. THE ATTACHMENT WOULD REST ON THE WATER TABLE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS WOULD GO THROUGH THE MORTAR [41:10] JOINTS. HOWEVER GIVEN THAT SOME OF THE DETAILS ARE STILL BEING REFINED, INCLUDING THE EXACT DESIGN OF [41:16] THAT BRACKET, STAFF RECOMMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE APPLICANT WILL WORK WITH STAFF TO FINALIZE THE DESIGN AND [41:21] ENSURE THAT THE FIXTURES WILL NOT HARM OR OBSCURE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES, [41:26] THAT THE CONDUITS WILL BE MINIMALLY VISIBLE AND THAT ANY ATTACHMENTS WILL GO THROUGH THE MORTAR JOINTS. [41:31] STAFF SHALL APPROVE THE LIGHTING DETAILS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THE APPLICANT ALSO SUGGESTED A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THEY [41:37] WOULD WORK WITH STAFF TO INSTALL AND EVALUATE ONE LIGHT FIXTURE FIRST BEFORE DOING THE [41:43] REMAINDERS. STAFF APPRECIATED THAT SUGGESTION AND RECOMMENDED INCLUDING IT AS A CONDITION OF YOUR APPROVAL. AS I NOTED, THE APPLICANT AND [41:49] HER TEAM HAVE NOT FINALIZED THE DESIGN OF THE BRACKET AND YOU KNOW, THE INTENT OF THESE CONDITIONS IS WE WANT TO WORK [41:55] WITH THEM TO ENSURE THAT IT DOESN'T COVER UP ANY OF THE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ON THE BUILDING. [42:02] THE FINAL ALTERATION IS TO INSTALL LIGHTS ACROSS THE [42:08] PARKING LOT TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE BUILDING ON THE SAME PARCEL. THREE QUARTER INCH EYE HOOKS [42:13] WOULD ATTACH TO THE NORTHWEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND UP TO FOUR FREE-STANDING METAL POSTS WOULD BE INSTALLED ON THE [42:20] OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT. THE LIGHTS WOULD BE HUNG IN A [42:25] ZIGZAG PATTERN. THE GOAL IS TO INCREASE LIGHTING IN THE AREA AND INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES. [42:31] STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO ENSURE [42:37] THAT. WE BELIEVE THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE STANDARDS. THEREFORE STAFF RECOMMEND THAT [42:42] THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ADOPT STAFF FINDINGS AND APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE A [42:48] CHIMNEY AND MAKE EXTERIOR LIGHTING CHANGES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 1st [42:53] AVENUE NORTH IN THE MINNEAPOLIS WAREHOUSE HISTORIC DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING [42:58] CONDITIONS; NUMBER ONE, EYE HOOKS TO HOLD THE CATENARY LIGHTS SHALL BE INSTALLED [43:04] THROUGH MORTAR JOINTS. NUMBER TWO, THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH THE PRESERVATION STAFF TO FINALIZE THE UP/DOWN LIGHTING [43:10] DESIGN AND ENSURE THAT THE FIXTURES WILL NOT HARM OR OBSCURE CHARACTER-DEFINING [43:16] FEATURES AND THAT THE CONDUITS WILL BE MINIMALLY VISIBLE, AND THAT ATTACHMENTS WILL GO THROUGH THE MORTAR JOINTS. [43:21] STAFF SHALL APPROVE THE LIGHTING DETAILS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. NUMBER THREE, THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH THE STAFF TO [43:27] INSTALL ONE LIGHT FIXTURE AND REACH CONSENSUS BEFORE CONTINUING TO INSTALL THE REMAINING LIGHT FIXTURES. NUMBER FOUR, A MAXIMUM OF TWO [43:34] LIGHT FIXTURES PER PILASTER SHALL BE PERMITTED. NUMBER FIVE, THE CHIMNEY SHALL BE REMOVED IN A MANNER THAT DOES [43:40] NOT DAMAGE THE BUILDING OR CREATE UNSAFE CONDITIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS OR OTHER PROPERTY. [43:47] MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE APPLICANT MAY WISH TO DISCUSS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WITH YOU [43:52] TODAY. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M HAPPY TO STAY FOR QUESTIONS AND AS NOTED THE [43:58] APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT. [44:05] COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER KARATO. [44:10] >> QUESTION ON THE CATENARY LIGHTS. WHY IS IT POSTS ON ONE SIDE BUT NOT THE OTHER? [44:16] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER KARATO, THANK YOU FOR THAT [44:21] QUESTION. THE INITIAL IDEA WAS TO HANG THE LIGHTS FROM HOOKS ON BOTH SIDES. [44:27] I KNOW THE APPLICANT HAD SPOKEN TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT DOING IT AND THAT [44:33] CONVERSATION WAS KIND OF ONGOING IN ORDER TO MOVE THIS THROUGH THE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT YET GOTTEN THE WRITTEN CONSENT [44:40] OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, THEY CHOOSE TO DO POSTS INSTEAD. BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO ASK THAT [44:46] QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. [44:51] >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> HI, THANK YOU, CHAIR [44:58] BJORNBERG. IS THE CITY AWARE THAT RETHOS [45:04] OWNS A PRESERVATION EASEMENT ON THIS PROPERTY? IS THE OWNER AWARE AND THAT RETHOS WILL ALSO HAVE TO GIVE [45:11] APPROVAL AND HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE DECISIONS MADE HERE? >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, COMMISSIONER [45:17] THOMAS, THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT. WE DID RECEIVE A SURVEY ON THE [45:25] PROPERTY. WE DID NOT LOOK FURTHER INTO THE EASEMENTS. I KNOW THE PROPERTY OWNER IS AWARE OF AN EASEMENT. [45:31] I DON'T HAVE ANYMORE SPECIFICS ABOUT IT, SO THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD QUESTION TO ASK OF THEM. >> PERFECT. [45:40] >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM STAFF OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [45:50] >> CHAIR BJORNBERG, AND THEN TO DIRECT A QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER THOMAS, WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT. SO I WILL JUST STATE THAT. [45:56] >> THANK YOU. [46:04] >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM. [46:10] I UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS [46:15] FOR THE RECORD. [46:25] >> THANK YOU CHAIR BJORNBERG, AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ERIN FITZGERALD. [46:36] PROPERTY OWNER AT 1505 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTH. I LOVE WHAT YOU DO. THAT'S WHY I BOUGHT THIS [46:42] PROPERTY TO MAKE SURE IT STAYED IN GOOD HANDS. AND I APPRECIATE THAT WE HAVE THIS IN OUR CITY TO HELP PRESERVE THE HISTORY AND THE CHARACTER OF THESE BUILDINGS [46:49] BECAUSE LIKE YOU, THEY REALLY DO CAPTURE MY HEART. [46:58] SO I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS CONDITION THREE WHICH REQUIRES US TO INSTALL ONE LIGHT FIXTURE [47:03] AND REACH CONSENSUS BEFORE INSTALLING THE REST ON THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING. [47:09] OUR INTENT IS TO PROVIDE UP/DOWN LIGHTING ON THIS CORNER BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF CRIME THAT [47:14] HAPPENS THERE, IT'S A DARK CORNER. AND WE WANT TO ILLUMINATE IT AND BE A LIGHT IN THE DARK. SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THIS [47:21] CONDITION BE REMOVED OR ALTERED FROM A PRACTICAL AND FINANCIAL [47:26] STANDPOINT, IT'S NOT FEASIBLE FOR US TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL A SINGLE FIXTURE AS A TEST. [47:31] THE FIXTURES AND ALL RELATED COMPONENTS HAVE TO BE ORDERED AS A COMPLETE SET AND IF CONSENSUS [47:37] ISN'T REACHED AFTER INSTALLING THE FIRST LIGHT FIXTURE, WE WOULD BE LEFT WITH ALL OF THESE [47:44] FIXTURES THAT WERE CUSTOM ORDERED THAT WE CAN'T RETURN. SO OUR INTENT IS TO BE [47:49] CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LIGHTING FOUND THROUGHOUT THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT INCLUDING THE [47:54] WYMAN BUILDING, BUTLER NORTH, BUTLER SQUARE, 119, 4th STREET [48:00] NORTH, SO THEY ALIGN WITH THE CHARACTER AND PRECEDENT ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE WAREHOUSE [48:06] DISTRICT. WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK CLOSELY WITH STAFF THROUGH CONDITION NUMBER TWO TO FINALIZE DESIGN DETAILS [48:12] AND ENSURE THAT THE FIXTURES MEET ALL PRESERVATION STANDARDS. THAT PROCESS ALREADY PROVIDES A [48:17] CLEAR OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSENSUS BEFORE INSTALLATION, BUT AS A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT FROM THE [48:24] BUILDING OWNER WHO IS SPENDING PROBABLY OVER $100,000 MAYBE CLOSER TO $200,000, I'LL WANT TO [48:30] MAKE SURE THAT THE FIXTURES ARE EXACTLY AS WE ANTICIPATE ON THE [48:36] PLANS, DRAWINGS, AND MOCK UPS BEFORE ORDERING INSTALLATION. SO I THINK WHERE THE DISCREPANCY [48:42] LIES IS THAT WE WANT TO DO A MOCK UP INSTALLATION OF ONE FIXTURE PRIOR TO INSTALLING ALL [48:48] OF THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAS THE LIGHTING EFFECT THAT WE WANT. BUT WE WON'T ACTUALLY DRILL INTO [48:56] THE MORTAR WITH AN ACTUAL INSTALLATION. IT WOULD JUST BE HOLDING THE LIGHT FIXTURES UP TO MAKE SURE [49:05] THAT IT'S NOT COVERING UP ANY ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND THAT THE LIGHTING ACTUALLY REACHES THE POINTS THAT WE WANT IT TO [49:13] WITH THAT MOCK UP. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO ALTER ITEM [49:19] NUMBER THREE TO SAY THIS THAT WE WOULD DO THIS MOCK UP [49:24] INSTALLATION WHERE WE RENT A TRUCK AND GET THE LIGHTING PEOPLE UP THERE TO MAKE SURE [49:30] THAT IT HAS THE EFFECT. BUT INSTALLING A SINGLE LIGHT FIXTURE ISN'T ACTUALLY [49:40] PRACTICAL. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS [49:48] CLARIF CLARIFICATION. WE'RE COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORIC [49:53] PROPERTY AND APPRECIATE YOUR [49:59] WORK. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> WE MET BEFORE. [50:08] I MANAGE OUR EASEMENT PROGRAM AT RETHOS. SO I HAPPEN TO BE VERY AWARE OF [50:14] OUR PRESERVATION EASEMENT ON THIS BUILDING. SO THERE WOULD BE A PROCESS WHERE YOU WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT YOUR DESIGN REQUEST TO RETHOS AS [50:20] WELL AND WE WOULD GO THROUGH WITH OUR EASEMENT COMMITTEE TO APPROVE ANYTHING AS WELL. >> OKAY. >> SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO BE [50:26] AWARE OF THAT. >> THANK YOU FOR MAKING ME AWARE OF THAT. >> YES. AND BASED UPON WHAT I'M SEEING [50:33] HERE, I THINK WHAT THE HPC VOTES WOULD PROBABLY GO WITH RETHOS AS WELL, BUT I HAVE TO PRESENT IT [50:40] TO THE COMMITTEE, AS WE ALL MANAGE THE EASEMENTS TOGETHER. >> OKAY. APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION, [50:46] COMMISSIONER THOMAS. >> SO I WILL SEND YOU ANOTHER EMAIL ABOUT IT. AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. [50:51] >> AND WHILE I HAVE THE MIC, I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT [50:57] TO ITEM NUMBER THREE THAT SHE IS PROPOSING. THANK YOU. >> IN THE MOCK UP YOU'RE [51:08] PROPOSING, WOULD YOU POSSIBLY ALSO BE ABLE TO I GUESS LIFT UP A SAMPLE BRACKET? [51:14] IS THAT, LIKE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE SAME MATERIAL, BUT AT LEAST THE AESTHETICS SO THAT WE [51:19] CAN TELL FROM THE STREET WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE? >> YEAH, I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY [51:24] MAKE THAT WORK, YEAH. [51:31] >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM? [51:39] COMMISSIONER HERR? >> IS THE CHIMNEY IN PLANE WITH THE EXTERIOR WALL ON THE I DON'T [51:48] KNOW WHICH FACADE THAT IS, THE ONE ADJACENT TO THE PARKING LOT? >> THE WEST. >> YEAH, THANK YOU. [51:53] >> BY IN PLANE DO YOU MEAN IN FLAT UP AGAINST IT? I DON'T THINK SO. [51:59] THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN INDENTATION. >> OKAY. >> YEAH, BECAUSE IT DOES SIT ON [52:05] THE ROOF. >> OKAY. [52:10] >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE [52:15] APPLICANT? OKAY, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC? [52:22] OKAY. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, LET'S DISCUSS. [52:34] STAFF, ANDREA BURKE. >> I'M GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT, ANDREA BURKE, SUPERVISOR OF THE HISTORIC [52:39] PRESERVATION TEAM. SINCE WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THE EASEMENT AND COMMISSIONER THOMAS DOES SIT ON RETHOS AND IS [52:45] MANAGER OF THAT PROGRAM, I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT COMMISSIONER THOMAS RECUSES HERSELF FROM THIS VOTE. [52:53] AT THAT POINT I WILL LEAVE THAT DECISION TO COMMISSIONER THOMAS, BUT JUST CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS A CONNECTION IN A WAY, NOT [53:00] SAYING THAT THERE IS ANY FINANCIAL CONFLICT, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION GIVEN [53:06] THIS SITUATION AND THE INFORMATION THAT'S JUST COME TO LIGHT. THANK YOU. [53:12] >> THANK YOU. >> AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS VOTE. [53:18] >> SHE CAN STAY HERE THOUGH? >> SAY THAT AGAIN, CHAIR [53:24] BJORNBERG. >> SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO LEAVE? >> SHE CAN STAY, SHE JUST RECUSES HERSELF WHEN IT COMES TIME TO VOTE ON THIS. [53:30] THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. >> PERFECT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, OTHER COMMENTS ON [53:35] THIS? [53:42] COMMISSIONER KARATO? >> I GUESS I HAVE A COUPLE. [53:51] I APPRECIATE THE CATENARY BEING ON POSTS ON ONE SIDE. I THINK THAT IT SEEMS LIKE IT [53:58] SERVES INTEREST THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO REVIEW THE NEXT BUILDING [54:03] OVER AS WELL. NOT SURE IF THAT'S TRUE. BUT ON THE POINT OF ITEM THREE, [54:11] I UNDERSTAND NOT HAVING TO WIRE THE LIGHTS AND DO EVERYTHING. SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE INTENT OF THAT CONDITION BEING [54:17] THAT YOU WANT TO SEE THE NIGHTTIME AND THE DAYTIME AESTHETIC OF THAT FIXTURE, THE [54:24] MOCK UP SOUNDS REASONABLE TO ME. >> OTHER COMMISSIONERS? [54:32] I'LL SORT OF, I MEAN I DON'T THINK THAT IT MATTERS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE CONDITION SAYS EYE [54:38] HOOKS ON THE ONE SIDE AND MORTAR JOINTS. BUT I'M SORT OF LAUGHING BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE ACTUALLY MORTAR [54:43] JOINTS ON BOTH SIDES WOULD BE EASIER TO REPAIR AND LESS INTRUSIVE. BUT I'M LIKE IT DOESN'T MATTER. [54:51] WE HAVE THIS CONDITION HERE. I'LL SAY I'M A LITTLE BIT SPLIT ON NUMBER THREE JUST BECAUSE I [54:58] DO FEEL LIKE CONDITION NUMBER TWO REALLY COVERS A LOT OF WHAT [55:04] IS IN CONDITION THREE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A TYPICAL THING FOR STAFF TO REVIEW MOCK [55:10] UPS OR IF THEY'RE USUALLY JUST REVIEWING DRAWINGS. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A MORE [55:17] TYPICAL THING. BUT OPEN TO WHAT OTHERS ARE THINKING. [55:30] COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> I'LL SPEAK TO THAT. WE OFTEN ASK CONTRACTORS, AS [55:36] ARCHITECTS, WE ASK CONTRACTORS TO DO MOCK UPS OF SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO BE ASSURED IS GOING [55:42] TO WORK AS ANTICIPATED. SO I THINK THE ISSUE OF ASKING FOR A MOCK UP, I WOULD AGREE [55:49] DOES SEEM REASONABLE TO ME. SO THEY CAN GUARANTEE THEY'RE GOING TO GET THE LIGHTING THAT [55:55] THEY WANT. AND THE CITY STAFF CAN COME OUT AND LOOK AT IT AND SAY YEAH, THAT LOOKS LIKE WHAT YOU SAID [56:01] YOU WERE GOING TO DO. >> THANK YOU. I THINK I'M USED TO CONTRACTORS [56:06] AND THE OWNERS WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND I'M LESS USED TO REGULATORY BODIES REVIEWING [56:14] MOCK UPS. BUT YEAH, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> WE OFTEN HAVE TO DO THAT WHEN [56:21] WE WORK WITH ANYTHING THAT IS ON THE REGISTER HAVING SHPO COME [56:28] AND ACTUALLY DO INSPECTIONS WITH [56:33] BRICK IT WILL ACTUALLY REQUIRE THEM TO COME AND LOOK AT A MOCK UP BEFORE ALL OF THE WORK IS DONE. [56:42] >> OTHER COMMENTS? ANYONE READY FOR A MOTION? [56:50] COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. >> YEAH, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. [56:55] I MAKE THE MOTION, THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVES THEIR CERTIFICATE OF [57:01] APPROPRIATENESS TO REMOVE A CHIMNEY AND MAKE EXTERIOR LIGHTING CHANGES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 1st [57:07] AVENUE NORTH IN THE MINNEAPOLIS WAREHOUSE DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, 1, 2, [57:14] 4 AND 5 REMAIN THE SAME. I'D LIKE TO REWORD NUMBER THREE TO SAY THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH STAFF TO INSTALL ONE LIGHT [57:23] FIXTURE MOCK UP AND REACH CONSENSUS BEFORE CONTINUING TO INSTALL THE REMAINING LIGHT [57:29] FIXTURES. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MELLBLOM. IS THERE A SECOND? >> KARATO SECONDS. [57:38] >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KARATO. ANY DISCUSSION? [57:43] WOULD THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL? >> BOOTE. [57:49] >> AYE. >> HERR. >> AYE. >> KARATO. >> AYE. [57:55] >> MELLBLOM. >> AYE. >> RODRIGUEZ. >> AYE. >> VICE CHAIR MASTIN. [58:01] >> AYE. >> CHAIR BJORNBERG. >> AYE. >> THERE ARE SEVEN AYES. [58:07] >> THANK YOU, THAT MOTION PASSES. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. [58:14] THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER [58:19] TEN, PARTIAL 2026 HPC CALENDAR, ALL WARDS. STAFF MEMO IS PRESENTED BY ANDREA BURKE. [58:44] >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M ANDREA BURKE, I'M THE SUPERVISOR FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM AND CPED. [59:00] MY SLIDES ARE NOW READY. I WANTED TO JUST QUICKLY SHOW YOU THE PARTIAL CALENDAR FOR [59:07] 2026 FOR YOUR ADOPTION THIS EVENING. AS YOU KNOW, THE HPC MUST ADOPT [59:13] THEIR CALENDAR PRIOR TO THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH WE ARE MEETING. THIS YEAR IS A PARTIAL CALENDAR [59:18] OF TWO MONTHS BECAUSE OF THE UPCOMING CHANGE IN COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL CALENDAR HAS NOT [59:24] BEEN SET YET. WE BASE OUR CALENDAR OFF THE COUNCIL'S CALENDAR. [59:29] SO OUR ADVICE FROM THE CLERKS IS WHERE WE ADOPT A PARTIAL CALENDAR SO WE CAN MEET. [59:34] AND I WILL SHOW YOU JUST A SLIDE OF WHAT THAT CALENDAR LOOKS LIKE. [59:42] RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST TWO MEETINGS IN JANUARY AND TWO MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY STARTING ON THE 13th OF [59:49] JANUARY. AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THIS SLIDE, WE HAVE CERTAIN DAYS WHERE WE CANNOT MEET DUE TO EITHER [59:55] HOLIDAYS OR ELECTIONS ARE SOME OF THE REASONS SO WE CALL THEM NO NIGHT MEETINGS. [1:00:01] ONCE THE NEW COUNCIL DOES BECOME SEATED AND THEY ADOPT THEIR CALENDAR, I WILL BRING THE REST [1:00:07] OF THE 2026 CALENDAR TO YOU FOR ADOPTION. [1:00:13] SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE HPC ADOPT THE PARTIAL 2026 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION [1:00:19] CALENDAR. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. [1:00:24] >> THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [1:00:35] WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I'LL GO FOR IT. [1:00:41] >> MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE ONE SMALL UPDATE AS WELL. >> YES? [1:00:46] >> WE ARE EXPECTING THAT ON MONDAY, JANUARY 5TH, THEY WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD A FULL 2026 [1:00:53] CALENDAR AND THEN AT THAT MOMENT WE'LL HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE REST OF OUR MEETINGS. SO THIS IS STILL OUR TEMPORARY [1:01:00] CALENDAR, BUT THAT FULL CALENDAR IS GOING TO BE SET ON THE 5th. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. [1:01:06] COMMISSIONER MASTIN. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THE HPC ADOPTS THE PARTIAL 2026 [1:01:14] HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CALENDAR. >> BOOTE SECONDS. [1:01:19] >> THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? WOULD THE CLERK CALL ROLL? [1:01:24] OKAY, WE CAN JUST ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] [1:01:30] ALL OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. THAT MOTION PASSES. [1:01:35] AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. [1:01:41] I'LL START WITH ONE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WE HAVE A NEW CLERK, [1:01:46] RACHEL. THAT'S ALL. ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF? [1:01:52] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR BJORNBERG. I FIGURED I WOULD JUST STAY HERE INSTEAD OF CIRCLING BACK IF [1:01:58] THAT'S OKAY. I JUST HAVE TWO QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS. ONE, WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO [1:02:06] TRAVIS, COMMISSIONER TRAVIS HERR, FOR THIS WILL BE HIS LAST MEETING. HE IS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE NEXT [1:02:12] AND WANT TO THANK HIM FOR HIS TIME ON THE HPC AND FOR STICKING WITH US AND APPRECIATE HAVING [1:02:18] YOU HERE THROUGH WHAT HAVE BEEN SOME VERY LARGE ITEMS COMING [1:02:23] THROUGH. SO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. ALSO THANK YOU, WELCOME, RACHEL. [1:02:32] BUT ALSO WANTED TO GET A GAUGE FOR ATTENDANCE AT THE LAST [1:02:38] MEETING, SO WE'RE COMING UP ON OUR LAST MEETING OF 2025 WHICH [1:02:44] IS DECEMBER 2ND, THAT IS A TUESDAY, NOT A MONDAY. AND I WILL SEND OUT A MESSAGE TO COMMISSIONERS TO ENSURE THAT WE [1:02:50] HAVE QUORUM. AS YOU KNOW WITH THE LAST MEETING OF THE YEAR, SOMETIMES EITHER WE HAVE LOTS OF AGENDA [1:02:55] ITEMS OR WE HAVE VERY FEW AGENDA ITEMS. BUT IT CAN BE SOMETIMES CHALLENGING WITH VACATIONS AND [1:03:01] OTHER TIMES TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE QUORUM. SO WANTED TO JUST PUT THAT AS A [1:03:08] NOTICE TO YOU AND WE'LL COMMUNICATE THAT WAY GOING FORWARD. [1:03:13] BUT THAT CONCLUDES MY UPDATES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER [1:03:23] UPDATES? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE COMPLETED ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. AND THERE BEING NO OTHER [1:03:29] BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS MEETING, WITHOUT OBJECTION, I WILL DECLARE THE MEETING ADJOURNED. [1:03:34] NEXT REGULAR MEETING IS DECEMBER 2ND. THANK YOU.