►
From YouTube: October 13, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic
for
the
record,
my
name
is
madeleine
sundberg
and
I
serve
as
chair
of
the
minneapolis
heritage
preservation.
Commission.
I
will
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
rules.
We
may
verify
presence
of
a
quorum.
C
D
C
C
B
B
Our
first
order
of
business
is
to
adopt
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
We
will
work
from
the
agendas
that
are
available
online
I'll
go
through
the
agenda
and
sort
out
which
items
will
be
continuing
to
a
future
meeting.
What
items
would
be
discussed
and
what
items
we
put
on
the
consent
agenda
to
be
approved
and
recommended
by
staff
without
further
discussion
at
number.
Four
is
the
milwaukee
road
depot
300
washington,
avenue,
south
ward
3
certificate
of
appropriateness?
B
That
item
will
be
discussed,
item
number
5,
4736
dupont,
avenue,
south
ward,
13
certificate
of
appropriateness.
That
item
will
be
discussed,
item
number
6,
24
3rd
street,
north
ward,
3
certificate
of
appropriateness.
This
item
will
also
be
discussed
and
item
number
7,
1500
jackson
street
northeast
a
national
register
nomination
will
be
discussed.
B
C
F
B
B
B
B
The
process
for
the
public
hearing
is
as
follow
follows
we
will
take
each
agenda
item
in
order.
First,
planning
staff
will
present
its
report
and
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
staff.
Then
we
will
hear
from
the
applicant
and
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
applicant
after
that.
I
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
and
we
will
invite
public
comment.
B
B
We
ask
that
after
your
name
is
called
you
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
then
proceed
to
your
comments
after
we've
been
pre-registered.
Speakers
will
see
if
there
are
any
other
speakers
in
queue
who
may
have
called
in
in
order
to
activate
your
microphones,
you'll
need
to
press
star
six
on
your
phone
so
again
we'll
take
the
list
of
any
pre-registered
speakers
in
order
and
then
open
the
floor
to
any
other
speakers
who
may
be
in
the
queue.
B
We
ask
that
speakers
provide
their
name
and
address
before
making
their
comments
and
press
star
6
to
activate
their
microphone.
Please
keep
your
comments
to
the
specific
application
that
is
before
us
today.
After
the
public
comments
are
complete,
I
will
close
the
hearing.
Commissioners
will
deliberate
and
then
act
on
the
applications
before
us.
G
G
G
The
local
designation
includes
both
the
interior
and
exterior
of
the
property
the
applicant
proposes
to
remove
the
top
third
of
the
150
foot
tall
freestanding
chimney
that
you
see
in
the
photo
before
you
they'd
like
to
cap
the
remainder
of
the
chimney
and
reuse
serviceable
bricks
in
future
repairs
of
deteriorated
portions
of
this
chimney
next
slide.
Please,
the
current
chimney
is
not
the
original
chimney,
though
both
it
and
the
original
chimney
are
considered
historic.
G
Next
slide,
please:
the
current
chimney
is
a
150
foot
tall
with
14
foot
diameter
base
chimney
it
tapers
to
six
feet
in
diameter
about
10
feet
below
the
top
of
the
chimney
and
then
flares
back
out
to
seven
foot
six
six
inches
in
diameter.
At
the
cap,
it's
composed
of
non-standard
sized
buff-colored
curved
brick
set
in
gray
or
tan
mortar
next
slide.
Please,
the
applicant
notes
that
the
chimney
is
approximately
12
inches
out
of
plum
and
leaning
to
the
north
northwest.
G
Some
masonry
debris
has
fallen
from
the
chimney
in
the
past.
Fortunately,
this
only
resulted
in
vehicular
and
property
damage
and
no
one
was
injured.
Following
the
reported
damage
in
2019,
emergency
repairs
were
performed
to
remove
any
remaining
loose
mortar
and
fill
voids
with
a
soft
mortar
to
slow
deterioration
until
further
assessment
and
treatment
could
be
performed.
G
There
are
varying
degrees
of
masonry
deterioration
around
this
structure,
with
the
majority
being
at
the
top
50
feet
of
the
chimney.
The
applicant
reports
that
there's
significant
spalling
of
brick,
with
approximately
30
percent,
to
40
of
the
brick
requiring
replacement,
there's
also
some
mortar
deterioration.
G
Next
slide,
please,
the
chimney
appears
to
have
been
fully
repointed
in
the
past,
with
a
mortar
high
in
cement
content,
which
is
harder
than
the
brick
and
has
caused
some
spalling
of
the
masonry
units.
As
you
can
see
in
the
photo
before
you,
the
owner,
believes
the
work
was
completed
as
part
of
the
redevelopment
of
the
state
in
1999.
G
When
the
heritage
preservation
commission
approved
the
property
owner's
redevelopment
of
the
entire
two
block
depot
site.
At
that
time,
the
proposal
included
plans
to
rehabilitate
the
historic
depot
and
freight
house
to
construct
two
new
hotels
on
the
north
half
of
the
block
and
to
build
a
parking
structure,
two
levels
of
underground
parking
and
one
level
of
at-grade
parking
between
the
train
shed
and
the
hotels
new
features
included,
an
indoor
water
park
and
enclosed
skating
rink.
G
In
terms
of
public
comment,
staff
has
received
one
comment
letter
in
support
of
the
proposal
from
the
neighborhood
group,
and
that
is
found
in
your
staff
report.
Packing
next
slide,
please,
in
terms
of
findings
required
to
approve
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
staff
finds.
The
alteration
is
not
compatible
with
the
designation
of
this
landmark.
G
Next
slide,
please
in
terms
of
compliance
with
local
guidelines.
The
milwaukee
depot
site
development
guidelines
do
provide
flexibility
in
determining
the
chimney's
future,
but
the
top
10
feet
of
the
chimney
was
authorized
for
reconstruction
in
1999.
In
the
midst
of
a
massive
redevelopment
of
the
entire
site,
demonstrating
both
the
applicants
and
the
heritage
preservation
commission's
belief
in
the
feasibility
and
importance
of
appropriate
repairs
to
this
structure.
At
that
time
the
proposal
does
not
comply
with
the
secretary
of
the
interior
standards.
G
G
Removing
the
top
third
would
falsely
give
passersby
the
impression
that
the
chimney
never
exceeded
100
feet
in
height.
The
1912
chimney
is
a
highly
recognizable
feature
of
this
site
and
it
does
have
distinctive
construction
techniques
and
examples
of
craftsmanship
that
can
and
should
be
repaired
rather
than
removed
next
slide.
Please,
the
destruction
is
not
necessary
to
correct
an
unsafe
or
dangerous
condition
on
the
property.
G
B
D
B
D
Sorry
I
was
talking
while
I'm
mute
john,
when
they
are
talking
about
removing
the
top
50
feet.
This
is,
commissioner,
johnson.
Sorry,
let
me
get
on
camera.
Are
they
going
to
maintain
the
flare
if
they
were
to
do
that,
or
would
it
just
be
tacked
off
at
at?
I
guess
100
feet?
Do
you
know
what
the
the
plan
was?
I
lost
him
over.
I
didn't
see
it.
G
Madam
chair,
commissioner
johnson,
the
latter
is
correct.
They
would
just
be
capping
the
chimney
at
the
100
foot
mark
there
wouldn't
be
any.
You
know,
reconstruction
or
attempt
to
create
a
flare
at
that
point.
Okay,
thank
you.
B
Okay-
I
don't
see
me
at
this
time.
Thank
you,
john.
So,
with
that
I
will
open
the
public
hearing.
I
believe
the
applicant
is
here.
If
you
could
press
star
6
to
activate
your
microphone
and
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
F
H
There
we
go
now,
I'm
completely
unmuted.
This
is
melissa.
Christensen
ekman,
with
miller
dunwoody
address
is
100
south
washington
avenue
suite
500
in
minneapolis
minnesota
55401,
I
am
speaking
on
behalf
of
csn
corporation
and
peter
coyle
will
also
speak
briefly
after
I
go
through
the
slides
that
I
have
submitted.
H
H
There
was
one
item
that
john
had
mentioned
that
I
do
want
to
correct
and
I
believe
it
was
misstated
in
the
national
register
nomination.
The
original
chimney
was
actually
only
60
feet
tall,
not
70,
feet
tall
based
on
the
original
documents
that
we
were
able
to
view.
If
you
want
to
go
to
the
next
slide,
I
did
include
a
comparison
between
the
original
1899
blueprint,
along
with
the
1912
blueprint
and,
as
mr
smiley
had
mentioned,
the
top
10
feet
were
rebuilt
in
1999..
H
One
of
the
questions
that
the
commissioner
just
asked
regarding
the
flare
at
the
top,
we
did
decide
and
had
extensive
conversation
about
how
to
proceed
with
that
and
opted
not
to
recreate
a
flare
so
as
not
to
create
a
false
sense
of
history
by
adding
that
at
a
lower
point,
here's
a
historic
image
that
shows
the
original
60-foot
chimney
in
composition.
With
the
original
tower.
The
original
tower
was
175
feet
tall
and
in
1941.
H
H
By
removing
that
top
50
feet,
it
would
actually
lower
it
20
feet
lower
than
the
existing
tower,
so
that
historic
comparison
between
the
clock
tower
height
and
the
chimney
would
be
more
reminiscent
of
what
it
was.
Historically,
as
john
had
mentioned,
the
top
10
feet
of
the
chimney
had
been
reconstructed
in
1999..
H
H
F
H
H
Could
you
advance
aside
please
so,
while
mr
smolya
is
correct,
there
is
a
lot
of
repair
that
could
be
done.
The
one
thing
that
it
doesn't
correct
is
that
lien
and
that
lien
is
and
continues
to
be,
a
liability
concern
for
the
owner,
which
is
why
we're
presenting
this
option
to
take
down
just
that
top
50
feet
where
the
lien
is
most
prominent.
I
I
This
application
really
frames
a
policy
question
for
you
and
and
in
simple
terms
it's
how
much
is
enough.
Mr
smalley
has
documented,
from
his
vantage
point,
the
record
that
relates
to
the
site
itself.
Melissa
has
amplified
on
that.
We've
tried
to
provide
photographs
that
depict
sort
of
the
before
and
after
image,
for
the
primary
purpose
of
trying
to
convey
to
you
that
we
are
not
seeking
to
diminish.
I
In
fact,
we
think
we
are
preserving
the
historical
integrity
of
the
site
in
in
the
manner
in
which
the
plans
present,
but,
but
I
want
to
start
by
saying
that
csm
has
been,
has
been
and
continues
to
be,
a
really
proud,
steward
and
owner
of
the
depot
property
since
its
purchase
from
the
city
back
in
1999
and
since
that
time,
with
city
support,
it
has
made
a
dramatic
renovation
of
the
property
that
all
of
you
are
familiar
with.
I
It
continues
to
be
a
proud
asset
of
csm,
which
has
required
frankly,
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
of
private
capital
beyond
the
support
that
the
city
has
provided
as
most
recently
evidenced
by
the
parapet.
Repair
work
that
mr
smalley
is
documented
to
the
tune
of
about
2
million
bucks,
the
entertainment
space
that
was
recently
built
out,
I
think
in
2017
to
the
tune
of
about
10
million
bucks.
Those
are
real
dollars,
they're
dollars
that
the
applicant
has
chosen
to
invest
in
the
project
and
we're
not
complaining
about
that.
I
But
in
this
one
instance
with
respect
to
the
chimney,
we
are
raising
respectfully
a
complaint
to
the
degree
that
that
staff
chooses
not
to
support
the
application
and-
and
again
I
say
that
very
respectfully,
of
course,
because
we
understand
where
mr
small
is
coming
from.
I
But
I
want
to
just
remind
all
of
you
of
the
record
that
underlies
this
site.
First
of
all,
the
federal
designation
of
the
site,
which
dates
back
to
1978,
approximately
makes
no
reference
whatsoever
to
the
chimney.
I
No
discussion
at
all
that
I
could
identify
the
subsequent
city.
Designation
of
the
site
again
makes
no
substance
substantive
reference
to
the
chimney
as
either
a
significant
feature
of
the
site,
unlike
the
depot
and
the
train
shed
itself
and
in
fact,
only
holds
it
out
as
a
subject
for
further
discussion,
which
I
guess
is
why
this
application
seems
to
make
sense.
I
The
city,
design
policies,
as
melissa
noted,
actually
advocate
keeping
other
structures
on
the
site
below
that
of
the
the
main
tower.
And
while,
admittedly,
the
tower
was
the
subject
of
an
alteration
that
was
caused
by
a
fire.
I
How
much
is
really
enough.
If
the
chimney
is
itself
is
not
central
to
the
historic
designation
of
the
site.
Contrary
to
the
the
depot
building
and
the
train
shed,
and
in
fact
our
plan
would
not
remove
the
chimney
but
would
would
preserve
it,
albeit
in
a
modified
form.
I
It
seems
to
us
that
it's
a
very
reasonable
policy
request
to
seek
the
support
of
the
hpc,
to
give
csm
some
latitude
to
use
its
resources,
as
it
sees
most
appropriate
to
enhance
those
pieces
of
the
site
that
are
that
are
most
valuable
based
on
the
designation,
while
also
preserving
those
elements
of
the
site,
including
the
chimney,
albeit
in
a
modified
form
that
will
allow
it
to
be
representative
of
what's
been
on
the
property.
I
Since
the
inception
of
the
depot
back
in
the
1800s
and
and
as
melissa
noted,
and
as
mr
smally
noted,
this
is
the
replacement
chimney.
This
isn't
even
the
original
chimney,
so
so,
contrary
to
mr
smally's
contention,
that
modification
of
this
chimney
would
somehow
be
a
distortion
of
history.
There's
already
been
a
distortion.
If
you
want
to
use
that
word-
and
that's
my
word
not
his.
So
it
seems
to
us
that
there's
a
there's,
honest
room
for
debate
here
again
we're
proud
of
the
site.
I
But
that's
a
that's
a
project
by
itself
and
even
having
that
work
completed
as
we
know,
is
no
guarantee
that
there
won't
be
more
work
required
to
maintain
the
chimney
into
the
future.
So
I
I'll
stop
there.
Commissioners.
I
appreciate
your
time.
I
appreciate
your
indulgence.
I
I
apologize
for
the
informal
format
that
all
of
us
are
required
to
follow
here
in
making
these
comments
to
you,
but
we
do
close
by
urging
you
to
work
with
us
to
strike
a
balance
that
allows
the
historical
educational
aspects
of
the
of
the
site
to
be
preserved,
as
they
are
today
with
with,
admittedly,
a
modification
to
the
chimney
which
none
of
the
technical
documentation
for
the
history
of
the
property
calls
out
as
anything
more
than
a
vest.
I
would
say
contributing,
and
there
are
many
contributing
factors
on
the
site,
not
just
the
chimney.
I
B
J
Hi
thanks
for
the
additional
information
I
just
wanted
to
get
some
clarification.
J
The
claim
was
made
that
this
modification
would
be
more
historic
because
of
the
earlier
chimney
design,
but
this
is
the
chimney
that
was
there
when
this
property
was
listed
on
the
national
register
and
when
the
property
was
designated
correct,
the
earlier
chimney
is
gone,
so
we're
not
trying
to
bring
it
back
to
a
certain
point
in
time.
This
chimney
is
the
historic
fabric
that
was
there,
and
I
guess
I
also
have
a
question
related
to
that.
I
I
So
sure
I'm
not
going
to
I'm
not
going
to
ignore
the
fact
that
the
chimney
exists
today
and
existed
at
the
time
that
the
city's
designation
of
the
site
was
processed,
but
it's
notable
at
least
to
me
that
there's
no
reference
at
all
in
the
in
the
technical
analysis
of
the
property
by
both
the
city
and
the
federal
applicants
as
to
the
chimney
itself,
and
so
I
there's
an
interest
to
be
taken
there,
which
is
that,
in
my
opinion,
the
chimney
is
a
secondary
factor
at
best.
I
Yes,
it's
a
visible
one,
but
it's
not
the
dominant
feature
by
any
means
of
the
site.
Certainly
the
tower
is
that
dominant
feature.
If
you
want
to
call
one
out
and
and
the
city's
own
documents
argue
for
having
structures
built
around
the
property
being
below
the
height
of
the
tower,
so
it's
a
it's
a
factor,
and
we
understand
that
there
may
be
reasonable
disagreement
about
that.
J
Another
part
of
my
question
was:
has
there
been
any
discussion
of
reconstructing
the
the
third
that's
being
taken
away
similar
to
what
was
done
in
the
documentation
that
was
provided
with
today's
application
related
to
the
top
10
feet?
So
has
there
been
discussion
of
reconstructing
the
the
portion?
That's
coming
that's
being
proposed
for
coming
down.
I
Commissioner,
this
is
peter
coyle
again
in
melissa's
absence.
I'll
respond
to
my
knowledge.
There's
been
no
discussion.
The
the
proposal
would
be
to
remove
the
top
50
feet
to
to
renovate
the
bottom,
the
remaining
the
balance
of
the
chimney,
but
the
retention
of
the
plans
would
allow
for
a
future
owner
should
they
choose
to
to
rebuild
it
to
do
so,
which
we
think
would
be
in
keeping
with
the
federal
standards.
I
But
but
the
goal
of
the
applicant,
the
owner,
is
to
do
what
he
can
to
avoid
the
expenditure
of
literally
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
on
a
fairly
repetitive
cycle
now,
apparently,
to
maintain
something
that's
secondary
to
the
site.
H
B
So
much
at
this
point
I
will
open
this
up.
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
additional
registered
speakers
in
the
queue,
but
if
there
is
anybody
who
wished
to
speak
for
or
against
this
application,
if
you
could
press
star
6
on
your
phone
and
wait
to
hear
the
recorded
message
and
to
activate
your
microphone,
so
we
can
hear
you,
sir,
is
there
anybody
else
on
the
line.
B
Okay,
doesn't
sound
like
there's
anybody
else
so
with
that
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
on
this
item
and
open
it
to
commissioner
discussion.
B
J
Yeah
thanks,
I
you
know,
I
I
understand
the
concern
about
the
the
chimney.
The
the
structural
analysis
that
has
been
done
seems
to
me
to
say
that
there
isn't
a
major
issue
with
it
structurally
right
now,
so
that
kind
of
puts
us
in
a
bad
position.
We
can't
just
say:
oh,
of
course
you
know
it's
falling
over.
We
need
to
take
it
down
because
we
have
structural
information.
That's
saying
that
it's
okay,
I'm
very
concerned
about
this
concept
that
you
can
restore
the
history
by
taking
it
down
and
making
it
shorter.
J
This
is
the
chimney
that
was
there
when
it
was
designated,
and
we
all
know
that
designations,
whether
they
were
national
registered
designations
or
local
designations
back
in
the
70s,
were
done
completely
differently
than
we
do
today.
Periods
of
significance,
as
we
know
them
today,
did
not
exist
back
in
the
1970s,
so
we
would
be
looking
at
this
today
as
a
property
that
has
a
history
that
goes
well
beyond
the
the
dates
that
were
mentioned
in
the
presentation
and
you
know
into
the
20th
century.
J
I
think
this
is
a
character
defining
feature
of
the
site.
I
think
it
would
be
horrific
to
lose
it.
I
think
that
the
commission
did
the
right
thing
or
staff
did
the
right
thing
and
the
commission
did
the
right
thing
back
when
they
had
the
the
reconstruction
done
on
the
top
10
feet.
I
would
feel
completely
differently
about
this
if
they
were
proposing
to
do
a
reconstruction,
that's
a
it's
a
it's
a
significant
part
of
the
site,
and
I
just
I
I
don't
think
that
I
can
agree
with
with
demolition.
J
B
I
have
to
agree
looking
at
the
the
structural
report
on
it
that
I
I
understand
that
it
can
be
disconcerting
to
see
something
out
of
plum
like
this,
and
the
the
structural
analysis
seems
pretty
clear
that
at
this
point
it
is
stable
and
that
maintenance-
and
I
think
they
recommended
doing
another
laser
scan
in
several
years,
to
make
sure
that
it
hasn't
moved
more
out
of
plumb
that
there
are
repair
methodologies
at
this
point
that
can
be
used
to
stabilize
it.
B
So
I
agree,
commissioner,
howard,
that
the
the
case
just
hasn't
really
been
made
at
this
point
for
the
the
deconstruction.
K
K
A
direction
we
would
like
to
see
pursued,
especially
considering
like,
like
commissioner
howard,
said,
that
the
period
of
significance
there's
somewhat
of
an
argument
there,
but
I
do
believe
that
you
know
this.
This
feature
is
something
that's
prominent
of
the
site
that,
when
they
designated
the
site,
they
were
probably
taking
into
account
all
of
these
features,
including
the
chimney,
despite
the
fact
that
it
was
not
specifically
called
out.
L
Yeah,
I'm
just
going
to
sound
like
a
broken
record
now
and
that
I
I
agree
with
everything
that's
being
said
here
and
that
I
do
think
that
that
the
chimney
that
we
see
now
is
really
a
feature
of
this
building
and
I
would
totally
support
the
reconstruction
of
it.
But
again
I
don't.
I
don't
think
that
the
removal
is
right
with
what
we
have
now.
D
Again,
I'm
gonna
be
reiterating
what
everybody
said
so
I'll
just
save
everyone
I
I
was
looking
at
it
more
from
a
safety
standpoint
from
the
spalling
brick
and
falling
debris.
But
after
reading
that
structural
report,
it
sounds
like
a
lot
of
that
spalling
brick
should
be.
We
should
try
to
repair
it
first
before
just
you
know,
carte
blanche
taking
off
a
third
of
it.
So.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
johnson.
I
think
their
safety
point
is
a
good
note,
though,
but
by
denying
this
application
I
don't.
We
are
not
encouraging
the
applicant
to
not
repair
it.
We
would
like
to
see
it
repaired
and
that
demolition
by
neglect
is
not
a
situation.
We
want
to
have
a
rise
here,
and
so
we
would
want
to
see
repairs
move
forward
in
the
future.
B
J
B
F
F
C
B
Thank
you
that
motion
passes.
You
may
speak
to
staff
about
next
steps
tomorrow.
B
M
Good
evening,
madam
chair
and
commissioners,
my
name
is
andrea
burke
and
I
am
the
supervisor
for
the
historic
preservation
team
in
cpen
next
slide.
Please,
I
am
presenting
tonight
the
certificate
of
appropriateness,
application
for
the
proposed
window
replacement
project
at
4736,
dupont,
avenue
south
in
the
lindhurst
residential
historic
district.
M
Next
slide,
please
4736,
dupont,
avenue
south
is
a
two
and
a
half
story,
brick
residence
designed
in
the
classical
revival
style
by
liebenberg,
kaplan
and
martin.
It
is
located
in
the
lindhurst
residential
historic
district,
which
was
recently
designated
by
the
city
council
in
july
of
this
year.
The
existing
windows
are
wood,
double
hung,
sashes
with
true
divided
lights,
and
it's
my
understanding
that
the
home
also
has
some
existing
replacement
windows
next
slide,
please,
as
part
of
the
mac
sound
insulation
program
program,
max
standing
for
metropolitan
airports.
M
Next
slide,
please,
the
four
windows
on
the
second
story
of
the
front
elevation
will
be
fiberglass
double
hung
windows
with
a
simulated
muntin
next
slide.
Please
the
two
windows
on
the
second
story:
side,
elevations
at
the
front
corners
of
the
property-
will
be
aluminum,
clad
wood
double
hung
windows.
M
M
M
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
design
work
for
the
mac
program
occurs
well
in
advance
of
permitting
at
the
city
and
the
applicant.
It's
my
understanding
was
nearly
ready
for
permits
prior
to
the
interim
protection
being
established
in
july
of
2019,
but
hadn't
applied
for
permits.
Quite
yet,
the
applicants
opted
to
wait
out
the
designation
process
before
applying
for
their
certificate
of
appropriateness.
M
The
max
sound
insulation
program
is
a
program
that
is
out
there
to
a
number
of
residents
in
the
metropolitan
area,
offering
sound
insulation
window
replacement,
interior
insulation
and
then,
in
some
cases,
hvac
improvements
to
properties
that
are
within
certain
flight
patterns
of
the
airport
that
have
increased
noise,
and
the
purpose
of
the
program
is
to
reduce
the
the
sound
level
in
the
house
to,
and
there
is
an
applicant
the
applicant
is
here
to
speak
and
I'll.
M
M
Removing
character,
defining
features
of
a
historic
property
that
are
not
severely
deteriorated
are
in
conflict
with
the
secretary
of
the
interior
standards
number
five
and
six,
which
are
being
used
to
evaluate
this
particular
project
as
design
guidelines
for
this
district
have
not
been
developed.
Yet
the
standards
recommend
repair
over
replacement,
but
are
flexible.
M
In
this
case,
window
deterioration
is
not
necessa,
necessitating
the
proposed
replacement,
sound,
debasement.
Sound
abatement
is
the
primary
reason,
as
such
staff
is
recommending
that
the
applicants
repair
those
windows
that
are
most
visible
on
the
property,
specifically
those
four
windows
on
the
front
elevation
and
the
two
windows
on
the
front
side,
corners
of
the
second
story
of
the
home,
but
allowing
replacement
of
the
windows
on
the
rear
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
standards
next
slide.
M
Please,
the
department
of
community
planning
and
economic
development
recommends
that
the
heritage
preservation
commissioners
adopt
staff
findings
for
the
application
by
miller,
dunwiddie
kelly
mastin
for
the
property
located
at
4736
dupont,
avenue
south
in
the
lindhurst
residential
historic
district,
with
the
following
conditions.
To
that,
the
four
original
wood
windows
on
the
front,
elevation
of
the
property
shall
be
repaired
and
not
replaced
and
the
two
original
wood
windows
on
the
second
floor
of
the
side,
elevations
shall
be
repaired
and
not
replaced,
otherwise
the
rest
of
the
project
is
being
recommended
for
approval.
M
B
I
don't
see
any
questions
at
this
time,
so
with
that
I
will
open
the
public
hearing.
It
looks
like
the
applicant,
I'm
not
sure,
with
the
architect
or
the
homeowner
like
to
speak.
First
kelly
maston,
it
looks
like
you're
listed
as
the
applicant.
N
Hi,
this
is
kelly
madison
with
miller
dunwoody
architecture.
I
will
be
turning
it
over
to
the
homeowners,
then
then,
and
live
here
soon,
but
I
am
available
for
any
questions
you
have
with
the
application
tom
hoffas.
The
project
manager
for
my
office
for
the
max
sound
abatement
project
is
also
available
to
handle
any
questions
you
may
have
about
the
sound
abatement
project.
B
I
don't
see
any
at
the
moment.
Oh
commissioner,
sandbolt.
K
Hi
I
see
that
staff
is
recommending
repairs
to
some
of
these
windows
in
lieu
of
replacement,
and
I
just
like
to
hear
if
we
do
recommend
repairs.
What
kind
of
repairs
would
meet
the
requirements
that
to
abate
the
sound.
N
There
is
refurbishment
of
existing
windows.
That
is
an
option,
however,
the
homeowner
over
a
year
ago,
when
they
met
with
the
contractor
to
discuss
the
options,
did
select
to
pick
replacement
windows.
N
Air
movement-
it's
you'd,
be
having
an
insulated
glass
panel
in
the
window
rather
than
a
single
pane
of
glass,
in
addition
to
the
storm
window,
so
you're
getting
an
extra
layer
of
glass
to
help
block
the
sound
and
the
rooms
in
question
are
the
family's
sleeping
room.
So
they
chose
those
rooms
because
it
would
have
the
most
impact
on
their
quality
of
life.
B
Don't
see
at
the
moment
did
the
homeowner
wish
to
make
a
statement
if
so
press
star
six
to
activate
your
microphone.
B
O
Yeah,
okay,
hi:
this
is
liz
smith.
I
am
the
owner
at
4736,
dupont,
avenue
south.
I
am
going
to
reiterate
some
of
the
things
that
kelly
just
said,
but
we
purchased
our
home
in
2018
and
we're
aware
of
all
of
the
noise
from
the
planes,
but
we
planned
on
using
the
money
from
the
mac
grant
to
replace
the
windows
in
the
bedroom.
The
high
level
of
noise
really
does
keep
us
up
at
night.
It
wakes
our
kids.
O
P
O
That
we
would
be
able
to
use
this
money
until
the
study
began.
So
the
six
windows
in
questions
are
all
in
our
family's
second
floor
sleeping
rooms,
and
that
is
the
most
important
place
for
the
sound
abatement.
We
value
our
home's
historic
appearance.
It
is
why
we
bought
it.
We
intentionally
did
not
include
the
first
floor
windows
because
we
love
their
appearance
and
the
noise
doesn't
make
as
big
of
a
difference
when
we're
in
the
dining
room
or
the
living
room.
O
The
new
airtight
double
pane
windows,
plus
the
new
storms,
is
the
best
way
to
achieve
the
highest
sound
reduction
and,
according
to
kelly,
the
current
second
source
storms
are
not
original
they'd,
be
replaced
with
flush-mounted
storms.
That
more
closely
resemble
the
historic
first
floor
windows
and
the
replacement
of
the
primary
windows,
which
is
what's
up
for
debate,
I
believe,
will
not
noticeably
alter
the
exterior
appearance
of
the
home
because
they
are
very
close
to
the
current
windows
and
they
would
be
behind
the
storms.
O
My
husband
who's,
not
here,
but
I
speak
for
both
of
us
would
just
like
to
emphasize
that
we
love
the
historic
characteristics
of
our
our
home
and
our
neighborhood.
It's
the
reason
we
looked
in
this
neighborhood
and
why
we
bought
it,
and
we
just
want
to
resolve
this
quality
of
life
issue
in
the
best
way
possible,
which,
in
our
opinion,
is
replacing
rather
than
repairing
our
bedroom
windows
and
just
in
response
to
something
andrea
said.
O
I
actually
don't
know
the
answer
to
this,
but
we
have
this
schedule
to
actually
them
to
be
put
in
and
were
called,
and
it
was
canceled,
maybe
two
or
possibly
three
weeks.
I
I
didn't
look
back
so
I'm
surprised
to
hear
that
we
didn't
hear.
I
mean
before
the
installation
is
when
the
study
started.
So
I'm
surprised
to
hear
that
we
didn't
have
the
permits,
but
I
I
don't
necessarily
have
the
full
answer
to
that.
B
E
Hello
says
tom:
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay?
I
just
I'm
here
to
answer
questions.
I'm
excuse
me.
I
am
a
project
manager.
I
work
for
milla
domini
architecture
in
minneapolis,
along
with
kelly,
I'm
the
project
manager
on
behalf
of
the
mac.
So
I'm
here
to
answer
any
program,
questions
that
may
be
applicable
to
to
this
application.
B
I
guess
I
have
a
question
if
we
were
to
proceed
with
repairing
the
existing
windows
and
then
putting
the
new
storm
windows,
I'm
curious.
I
realized
that
it
would
not
be
as
good
as
a
new
window
with
the
new
storm
window.
I'm
curious
if
you've
done
any
studies,
how
different
would
it
be
because
the
new
storm
window,
I
imagine,
would
cut
down
significantly.
E
The
storm
product
would
be
the
same,
regardless
of
which
prime
window
is
installed,
but
the
difference
you
cannot
really
compare
the
the
new
windows
were
tested
in
the
laboratory
and
the
combination
of
the
of
the
new
window
plus
the
storm
window
is,
is
we're.
We're
assured
by
the
manufacturer,
will
achieve
an
an
spc
rating
of
40
or
greater,
which
is
the
minimum
standard
for
for
the
sound
insulation.
E
Upgrades
reconditioning
of
an
existing
window
along
with
the
acoustic
storm,
would
likely
not
reach
40
decibels
or
an
sdc
of
40.
However,
if
every
opening
in
the
home
were
treated
with
reconditioning
and
an
acoustic
storm,
we
would
still
achieve
a
five
decibel
reduction
of
noise
within
the
living
spaces
of
the
house
on
an
average
on
average
metering.
E
The
current
program
does
not
perform
any
testing
prior
to
reconditioning
or
or
after
reconditioning
earlier
programs
that
were
conducted
on
on
by
the
mac
on
behalf
of
the
faa
program.
Back
in
the
early
2000s
did
perform
pre
and
post
testing,
and
we
used
the
guidelines
that
were
developed
during
those
those
design
and
resulting
tests.
To
confirm
that
that
the
modifications
achieve
the
goal.
B
I
don't
see
anyone
else
listed
in
the
queue,
but
if
there
is
anybody
else
who
wishes
to
speak
for
or
against
this
application
again,
if
you
could
press
star
6
to
activate
your
microphone
and
wait
to
hear
the
recorded
message,
so
we
can
hear
you
you
could
do
so
at
this
time.
B
I
don't
see
that
there
is
anybody,
so
with
that
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
this
commission
discussion
concerns
comments
on
the
proposed
application.
B
I
know
I
sympathize
with
this
issue.
I
also
live
in
south
minneapolis
and
if
we
hear
a
plane
go
over,
you
will
notice
on
this.
This
call
because
they
they
sound
like
they're,
going
to
land
right
in
the
house.
So
I
understand
that
this
is
a
concern.
B
I
also
understand
where
staff
is
coming
from,
because
these
windows
look
to
be
in
relatively
good
condition,
which
is
something
we're
always
excited
to
see
for
historic
windows,
and
this
puts
it
in
a
difficult
place,
especially
since
we
don't
have
guidelines
for
this
historic
district.
Yet
I'm
curious
to
hear
what
other
commissioners
thought
about
this.
J
This
is
commissioner,
howard
I'll
I'll
chime
in
just
because
everyone
else
is
being
quiet.
I
I
think
that
the
the
conditions
placed
on
this
approval
are
a
good
compromise
and
I
do
understand
the
the
frustration
of
of
airlines
flying
overhead,
I'm
not
in
a
max
zone,
but
I'm
close
enough
that
when,
when
the
air
is
right,
when
the
wind
is
right,
we
get
our
our
noise
here
too.
So
I
understand
that
that
concern,
but
I
do
think
that
the
compromise
put
in
by
the
conditions
makes
sense.
K
I'll
say
I
agree
that
I
think
this
might
be
a
good
compromise.
It's
sad
to
see
some
original
historic
windows
that
aren't
in
good
shape
going
away,
but
at
the
same
time,
I'm
happy
that
we're
going
to
be
able
to
preserve
some
on
the
house
and
also
that
there
will
still
be
the
storm
and
primary
window.
Configuration
to
me
seems
like
a
good
compromise.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
sandbolt.
I
agreed
that
this
seemed
like
a
a
good
compromise
that
staff
was
proposing
with
the
conditions
meeting
the
secretary
of
interior
standards
by
concentrating
on
the
the
primary
facades
of
the
part.
That's
viewed
from
the
street.
B
I
do
wonder
if
there
are
other
storm
windows
that
could
be
utilized.
That
would
provide
a
better,
sound
installation,
but
I
do
not
know
in
depth
the
mac
program,
and
I
I
know
that
they
did
do
research
when
they
first
started
this.
So
I
I
will
assume
that
they
have
helped
guide
to
the
best
storm
windows
possible
for
the
situation.
B
K
B
K
A
motion
I
moved
to
approve
the
certificate
of
appropriateness,
including
the
conditions
that
were
laid
out
in
the
agenda
for
the
meeting.
B
B
I
don't
see
any
at
this
time
so
with
that
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
roll
on
the
motion.
F
B
Thank
you.
The
motion
passes
I'd
like
to
ask
the
applicant
to
talk
to
the
staff
tomorrow
about
their
next
steps.
B
B
M
Evening
again,
my
madam
chair
and
commissioners,
I
am
andrea
burke
and
I
am
the
supervisor
for
the
historic
preservation
team
in
cped
next
slide.
Please,
I
am
presenting
tonight
the
certificate
of
appropriateness,
application
for
the
proposed
cornice
and
windowsill
rebuilding
project
at
24
3rd
street
north
in
the
warehouse
historic
district.
M
Next
slide,
please,
the
mckesson
building
at
24
3rd
street
north
is
a
six-story,
brick
and
stone
building
designed
in
the
renaissance
revival
style
by
warren
h,
hayes
the
building
once
featured
two
bayfield
sandstone
cornice
bands,
above
one
above
the
first
floor
and
one
below
the
top
floor
as
well
as
sandstone
windowsills.
Next
slide.
Please
photos
from
previous
preservation
applications
show
that
the
lower
cornice
was
removed
between
1997
and
1998,
while
the
upper
cornice
was
removed
after
2008
by
using
a
drill.
M
Next
slide,
please
the
window
sills
were
removed
around
the
same
time
in
a
similar
manner.
These
removals
were
undertaken
without
heritage
preservation,
commission
or
city
approvals.
The
hpc
did
approve
safety
netting
surrounding
both
coordinates
until
a
solution
could
be
found
for
replacement
of
the
cornices
and
the
window
cells
next
slide.
M
Next
slide,
please,
the
applicant
also
proposes
to
patch
deteriorated
stone
window
sills
with
a
yawn
restoration,
mourner
or
similar
or
dutchman
patches
of
salvage
stone,
where
possible
next
slide.
Please,
the
applicant
cites
lack
of
availability
of
the
original
material,
the
bayfield
sandstone,
also
known
as
western
lake
superior
sandstone,
as
well
as
public
safety,
as
the
reasons
for
not
using
in-kind
materials
next
slide.
Please
staff
receive
one
comment
letter
in
support
of
the
proposed
scope
of
work,
a
unique
regional
project
of
its
time.
The
original
bayfield
sandstone
cornices,
as
well
as
many
silk
as
well.
M
Many
of
the
stills
were
intentionally
removed
in
the
recent
past,
which
were
severely
alt,
which
severely
altered
the
design,
materials
and
workmanship
of
the
building.
They
were
distinctive
architectural
features
of
this
building
and
any
proposed
replacement
should
match
in
kind
unless
the
material
is
not
readily
available.
M
M
Therefore,
the
proposed
project
does
not
meet
the
warehouse
design
guidelines
under
general
guidance,
roofs
and
parapets
and
fenestration
cast
stone
may
be
appropriate,
provided
the
stone
match
at
the
historic
bayfield
standstone
in
size,
massing,
color
and
profile
and
match
as
closely
as
possible
in
texture,
and
finish
with
that,
the
department
of
community
planning
and
economic
development
recommends
that
the
heritage
preservation
commission
adopt
staff
findings
for
the
application
by
casey
bradford
of
new
history
for
the
property
located
at
24th
third
street
north
in
the
minneapolis
warehouse
historic
district,
and
recommends
that
the
hpc
approve
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
the
stone
to
rebuild
the
stone
cornices
with
fiberglass
and
cast
stone
at
the
northwest
and
south
facades,
and
to
repair
this
and
replace
the
stone
window.
M
Stills
with
cast
stone
at
the
north
west
and
south
facades
subject
to
the
following
conditions.
One,
the
upper
and
lower
bayfield
sandstone
cornices
shall
be
replaced
with
cast
stone
that
matches
the
historic
bayfield,
sandstone
cornices
in
size,
massing,
color
and
profile
and
shall
match
as
closely
as
possible
in
texture
and
finish.
Fiberglass
is
not
permitted
and
two.
M
B
I
don't
see
any
questions
at
this
time,
so
with
that
I
will
open
the
public
hearing.
It
sounds
like
the
applicant
casey
radford
is
here
to
speak.
If
you
could
press
star
6
on
your
phone
to
activate
your
microphone
and
wait
to
hear
the
recorded
message,
so
we
can
hear
you
and
then
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
B
Q
All
right,
casey,
radford,
575,
9th
street
southeast
suite
215.
minneapolis
55414
first,
I
would
just
like
to
say
that
we
cannot
speak
to
past
projects
or
work
that
have
occurred
as
none
of
this
current
team
or
building
ownership
were
involved,
but
we
can
speak
to
this
application
being
discussed
tonight
and
how
the
current
owners
are
trying
to
do
the
right
thing
now
by
replacing
the
missing
cornice
with
substitute
materials
for
the
standards.
Q
So
with
that,
thank
you
all
for
your
review
of
the
project
and
for
hearing
us
tonight.
I
would
like
to
introduce
myself
and
team
I
I'm
a
director
at
new
history
and
also
a
licensed
architect
who
specializes
in
historic
buildings
and
materials.
Q
I
am
joined
by
cynthia
schultz
of
acre
real
estate,
representing
the
ownership
group
and
tom
miller
of
advanced
masonry
restoration,
who
is
the
mason
doing
the
work
they're
both
here
tonight
and
also
available
for
questions
that
come
up
from
the
commission.
So.
P
Q
Some
slides
to
run
through,
and
I
will
see
that
now
and
I
honestly
can't
even
see
if
they're
up
there,
so
I'm
just
gonna,
I'm
just
gonna
keep
going
so
tonight.
I
will
present
the
masonry
rehabilitation
work
related
to
the
cornices
and
window
filled,
specifically
at
the
mckesson
building
located
in
the
warehouse
district.
As
andrea
mentioned,
I
will
review
the
guiding
principles
for
the
design
of
the
repairs
and
then
go
through
the
decision
process
for
the
material
we've
selected.
Q
Q
Then
we
also
reviewed
the
technical
preservation
services
guide
on
brickstone
terracotta,
concrete,
adobe,
stucco
and
mortar
for
building
exterior
masonry.
Q
And
finally,
we
followed
preservation,
brief,
16,
the
use
of
substitute
materials
on
historic
building,
exteriors,
which
guided
us
to
our
selected
materials
of
both
capstone
and
frp.
For
the
cornices
and
the
cells,
I
should
say
capstone
for
the
corner,
lower
cornice
and
field
and
frp
for
the
upper
aquarius.
Q
In
addition
to
the
published
documents,
the
project
team
also
strongly
considered
safety.
We
worked
with
the
mason
and
structural
engineer
to
develop
repair
methods
that
are
safe
for
installation,
given
the
height
and
location
of
the
upper
furnace
and
the
difficulties
with
installing
heavy
materials
such
as
capstone
and
real
stone.
Q
Next
slide,
please
so
in
review
of
the
minneapolis
warehouse
district
design
guidelines,
2.9
replacement
with
a
substitute
material
will
be
considered
if
the
form
and
design
of
the
substitute
material
is
proven,
durable
and
also
conveys
the
visual
appearance
of
the
original
material
standard.
Six
of
the
secretary
of
the
interior
standard
states
deteriorated
historic
features
shall
be
repaired
rather
than
replaced
where
the
severity
of
deterioration
requires
replacement
of
a
distinctive
feature.
Q
The
new
feature
shall
match
the
old
in
design,
color,
texture
and
other
visual
qualities
and
where
possible,
materials
replacement
of
missing
features
shall
be
substantiated
by
documentary,
physical
or
pictorial
evidence
and
within
the
text.
No
sorry
within
the
technical
preservation
services,
brickstone,
terracotta,
concrete,
adobe,
stucco
and
order
building
exterior
masonry
guide.
The
recommended
treatments
include
repair
may
also
include
the
limited
replacement
in
kind
or
with
compatible
substitute
material
of
those
extensively
deteriorated
or
missing
parts
of
masonry
features
and
also
replacing
and
kind.
Q
An
entire
masonry
feature
that
is
too
deteriorated
to
repair
if
the
overall
form
and
detailing
are
still
evident
using
the
physical
evidence
as
a
model
to
reproduce
the
feature,
examples
can
include
large
sections
of
a
wall,
a
cornice,
balustrade
column
or
stairway.
If
using
the
same
kind
of
material
is
not
technically
or
economically
feasible,
then
a
compatible
substitute
material
may
be
considered
so
similar
to
the
standards.
This
document
does
also
allow
for
the
use
of
compatible
materials
for
building
elements,
including
the
forces,
which
is
what
we
are
asking
for
next
slide.
Q
Please
preservation
brief,
16,
the
use
of
substitute
materials
on
historic
building.
Exteriors
discusses
the
use
of
fiber,
reinforced
polymers,
frp
and
fiberglass
as
a
substitute
material.
Fiberglass
is
a
non-load-bearing
material
attached
to
a
separate
structural
frame.
In
the
case
of
mckesson,
we
are
proposing
a
stainless
steel
frame
for
durability
and
longevity.
It
is
also
used
when
a
lightweight
element
is
needed
or
in
inaccessible
locations,
which
we
are
up
against
here
at
the
mckesson
building.
For
the
sixth
level,
foreign
fiberglass
can
be
molded
into
any
shape
and
can
resemble
many
materials,
such
as
stone.
Q
Next
slide,
please
so
technically
the
nps
does
give
us
the
option
to
do
nothing
and
retain
the
courses
as
they
are,
but
our
team
would
instead
like
to
restore
historic
integrity
to
the
building
by
repairing
and
reconstructing
the
cornice,
and
I
will
run
through
now
how
we
selected
our
proposed
substitute
materials.
Q
Q
Next,
to
that
salvage,
stone
would
be
the
next
best
option.
The
use
of
salvage
stone
is
difficult
because
of
the
size
as
needed
and
availability
of
the
required
quantity
of
materials.
The
size
of
the
cornice
is
large.
Salvaged
pieces
would
need
to
be
larger
so
that
they
can
be
carved
to
fit
the
right
profiles.
Q
Next,
we
consider
replacement
with
a
similar
material
such
as
capstone
capstone
can
be
used
to
replicate
the
appearance
of
stone.
It
is
proposed
currently
at
the
second
level
furnace
and
also
the
window
sills,
where
it
can
be
safely
installed
for
this
particular
project.
Public
safety
is
a
primary
concern
at
the
upper
level
corners
due
to
the
difficult
installation
requirements,
the
swing
stage
that
will
be
used
to
do
the
repairs
on
the
cornice
is
unable
to
support
stone
over
200
pounds,
which
is
about
30
inches
in
length
for
the
size
of
stone
required.
Q
Tom
might
have
to
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
on
my
numbers
there,
the
structural
connection
to
support
the
stone
is
also
significant
enough.
That
there
is
concern
with
the
ability
for
the
crew
to
safely
handle
the
stone
and
put
in
place
with
the
proper
attachment,
which
is
a
severe,
not
severe.
It's
a
significant
concern
when
you're
six
levels
up
in
the
air
when
the
building
was
constructed,
the
cornice
could
be
accessed
from
the
interior
and
exterior
and
constructed
from
bottom
up.
Q
Therefore,
the
attachment
and
installation
methods
were
much
different
than
what
is
required
today
in
order
to
replace
the
existing
stone
with
a
cast
stone
or
salvaged
stone.
If
it
was
available,
the
back
portion
of
the
existing
stone
will
be
retained
in
place
as
the
means
for
providing
the
structural
connection
to
the
capstone
and
also
for
the
fiberglass
cornice,
as
well
as
licensed
professionals.
Q
Q
So,
following
following
those
options,
we
we
had
to
consider
lighter
weight,
substitute
materials
where
we
had
to
deal
with
safety
considerations.
So
we
looked
at
sheet
metal,
which
is
not
not
appropriate
in
our
mind,
due
to
the
sheen
and
inability
to
provide
a
close
color
match.
What
is
also
not
appropriate
in
this
situation,
as
it
is
not
durable
and
also
does
not
provide
for
the
appearance
of
stone
and
generally
should
not
be
in
contact
with
masonry
in
an
exterior
application.
Q
Q
Will
help
tie
it
together,
the
back
portion
of
the
stone
will
be
retained
in
place
and
flashing
will
be
provided
at
the
top
of
the
cornice
to
manage
water.
This
solution
of
fiberglass
was
not
a
cost-driven
material
selection.
The
cost
of
fiberglass
is
comparable
to
real
stone
and
capstone,
but
is
easier
to
install
from
that
standpoint.
Q
Q
Q
This
new
generation
of
ownership,
property
manager
and
our
entire
team
are
working
to
restore
historic
integrity
and
maintain
the
mckelson
building.
Repointing
is
already
underway
on
the
east
facade,
which
was
reviewed
and
approved
by
a
certificate
of
no
change,
and
the
the
project
team
would
like
to
order
materials
now,
so
they
can
start
getting
everything
ready
to
do.
The
actual
coordinates
work
next
spring
and
I
think
that's
everything
so
thank
you,
staff,
chair
and
commission
for
your
time
tonight
and
are
there
any
questions.
B
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
I
guess
I'd
like
to
clarify
the
safety
concerns
with
the
upper
level
cornice,
but
I'm
not
one,
I'm
wondering
if
that's
a
better
question
for
tom.
I
don't
know.
B
Q
No,
I
think,
she's,
just
no
she's
just
there
for
questions.
Okay,.
B
B
B
B
Tom,
if
you
could
press
star
six
and
then
you
should
get
a
little
pre-recorded
message
and
then
you
can
speak.
R
Right,
can
you
hear
me
now?
Yes,
okay,
so
the
the
cornice
section
to
put
it
on
with
cast
stone,
there's
a
weight
restriction.
I
have
on
my
equipment.
We
have
to
go
to
significantly
smaller
and
shorter
pieces,
which
literally
would
be
18
inches
long,
which
would
not
even
look
close
to
what
the
original
building
looked
like.
The
second
concern
is:
I've
got
to
take
these
pieces
and
slide
them
from
a
deck
into
a
opening
that
is
only
12,
inches
high
and
these
pieces
are
front
heavy.
R
It's
just
almost
impossible
to
do
using
a
swing
stage.
The
stone
on
the
bottom
is
a
lot
easier
because
we
can
have
a
forklift
down
there
to
maneuver
the
stone
for
the
guys
on
the
crew
and
that's
the
big
reason
for
the
light
material.
B
So
with
that
I'll
check
to
see,
if
there's
anyone
else
wishing
to
speak
for
or
against
this
application,
if
you
could
just
press
star
six,
wait
to
hear
the
recorded
message
and
then
give
us
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
B
I
don't
see
there
being
any
other
people
in
the
queue.
So
with
that
I
will
close
the
public
hearing.
Commissioners,
let's
discuss,
are
there
any
concerns
comments
about
the
proposed
application.
B
I
guess
I
can
start
out
by
commenting.
I
remember
when
this
kind
of
first
came
on
our
radar
after
I
think
with
the
previous
owner
and
the
destruction
of
the
cornice,
so
I'm
glad
to
see
that
they
are
trying
to
move
forward
with
with
these
repairs.
B
Typically,
an
appropriate
repair
material.
On
the
other
hand,
I
do
understand
the
constructability
issues
that
they
would
be
running
into
at
this
location
and
so
wanting
to
make
sure
that
our
conditions
are
feasible
as
well.
I
don't
know
if
any
other
commissioners
have
thoughts
on
that.
Maybe
somebody
who
has
used
fiberglass,
commissioner
howard.
J
I
I
personally
haven't
been
involved
in
a
project
that
uses
fiberglass,
but
I
have
seen
it
successfully
used
on
on
upper
stories,
and
so
I
I
understand
this
the
conditions
as
written,
but
I
also
know
that
you
know
five
stories
up
six
stories
up,
and
this
is
between
the
the
fifth
and
sixth
floor.
J
It's
not
going
to
be
as
noticeable
from
the
from
the
ground
level.
So
I
guess
a
question
for
the
city
staff
is.
If
we
were
to
modify
this
to
allow
fiberglass
on
the
upper
cornice.
Only
would
you
be
open
to
having
mock-ups
to
review
and
approve
so
that
we
can
get
the
best
finish
visually
as
possible.
J
J
There
are
some
pretty
famous
examples
in
in
new
york,
but
again
that's
much
higher
stories.
It's
still
five
to
six
stories
up,
someone
walking
by
the
visual
is
going
to
be
close.
B
Yeah,
I
would
agree
that
I'm
less
concerned
about
the
upper
cornice
because
from
the
ground
I
don't
think
you're
gonna.
Really.
As
long
as
the
mock-up
looks
good,
I
don't
think
you're
really
gonna
be
able
to
tell.
B
Application
or
perhaps
somebody
would
like
to
make
a
motion,
altering
staff
conditions.
J
Since
everyone
is
so
talkative
tonight,
I'll
just
keep
talking,
this
is
where,
when,
if
we
were
in
the
the
actual,
the
city
council
room,
I'd
be
looking
down
the
dice
going
come
on,
somebody
speak
up,
so
I
guess
I
will
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
certificate
of
appropriateness,
appropriateness
to
stone,
cornices
with
fiberglass
and
castor
of
the
northwest
and
south
facades
to
repair
and
replace
stone
window
sills
with
castor
of
the
northwest
and
south
facades
subject
to
the
following
conditions,
and
I
would
rewrite
the
first
one
as
follows:
the
upper
and
lower
cornices
shall
match
the
historic
bayfield,
sandstone
cornices
in
size,
massing,
color
profile
and
shall
match
as
closely
as
possible
in
texture
and
finish.
J
M
Yeah,
I'm
just
taking
notes
here.
I've
got
basically,
mostly
the
conditions
should
mostly
be
the
same,
except
instead
of
the
fiberglass
should
not
be
permitted.
It
will
be
fiberglasses
only
permitted
on
the
upper
corners
and
not
the
lower
corners.
Mockups
will
be
provided
for
review
and
approval
by
staff.
Is
that
correct.
J
Yeah,
I
think
that
works
all
right,
I'm
not
usually
the
one
that
rewrites
conditions
that
that
would
be
chair.
J
K
L
C
F
C
F
B
P
Scalecki
good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
rob
scalecki,
I'm
a
city
planner
in
the
historic
preservation
section
of
cped.
Today,
I'm
presenting
a
national
register
of
historic
places,
nomination
for
clg
hbc
comment:
the
property
is
the
northrop
king
and
company
complex
located
at
1500
jackson
street
northeast
next
slide.
Please.
P
The
property
was
part
of
the
survey
area
for
the
2004
northeast
minneapolis,
historic
resources
inventory
by
meet
and
hunt,
and
the
complex
was
recommended
eligible
for
listing
in
the
national
register
under
criteria.
A
the
property
was
also
recommended
eligible
for
local
designation
under
criteria,
one
for
its
association
with
business
and
industry
in
northeast
minneapolis
and
for
the
important
contributions
made
to
the
commercial
seed
industry
by
northrop
king
and
company
and
the
property
was
recommended
for
local
designation
under
criterion
4
as
an
intact
example
of
an
early
20th
century
manufacturing
complex
that
exemplifies
the
manufacturing
process.
P
P
The
subject
property
is
a
single
irregular
shaped
parcel
approximately
11
acres
in
area,
which
includes
six
contributing
buildings
that
show
multiple
additions
and
one
contributing
structure
that
is
made
of
twelve
reinforced
concrete
silos.
The
collection
of
buildings
are
between
one
and
six
stories
in
height
they're,
constructed
of
wood,
brick,
concrete
and
steel
elements.
P
The
resources
were
constructed
between
1916
and
1947.
As
the
northrop
king
and
company
complex,
with
the
first
buildings
being
constructed
on
the
site
between
1916
and
1919
by
local
contractors,
the
barnett
and
record
company
next
slide.
Please,
the
peer
significance
for
the
property
begins
in
1916
when
the
first
building
was
constructed
and
ends
in
1976.
P
P
The
company
began
in
1884
as
the
northrop
brass
line
and
company
with
a
retail
store
located
at
22
hennepin
avenue.
The
northrop
king
and
company
was
incorporated
in
1896
by
jesse
northrup
preston,
king
and
charles
massey,
due
to
the
development
of
the
postal
service
and
the
growth
of
transportation.
At
the
time
mail-order
seed
companies
like
northrop
king
experienced
expansive
growth.
P
P
The
company
had
expanded
on
research
and
production
initiatives
and
included
12
branch
production
sites
in
the
midwest,
with
23
other
other
divisions
located
throughout
the
country
by
1963.
The
company
had
1
200
full-time
employees
with
more
than
half
of
those
working
in
minneapolis
and
the
company's
sales
were
an
estimated
40
million
dollars
that
year
next
slide.
Please,
the
northrop
king
and
company
complex
retains
its
historic
integrity
and
is
able
to
convey
its
significance
and
association
to
agriculture
production
in
the
20th
century.
P
The
buildings
and
structure
retain
integrity
of
location
and
setting
next
slide.
Please
integrity
of
design,
worksmanship
materials
are
all
intact
and
there's
sufficient
integrity
shown
in
the
interior
and
exterior
to
convey
the
property
significance
and
communicate
the
site's
history
as
a
20th
century
industrial
complex
next
slide.
Please.
G
H
B
B
D
Application
I'll
speak
again
happy
to
see
this
come
forward.
It
is
a
beautiful
sight.
I
love
shopping
up
there
at
the
the
part
stores
that
are
in
that
there
now
so
glad
to
see
this
coming
forward.
F
K
F
K
A
lot
of
character
left
in
this
building,
so
it's
great
to
see
that
it
that
it's
moving
forward
and
I'm
also
happy
to
know
that
the
building
has
a
current
use
and
that
that
youth
has
been
very
compatible
with
the
historic
building
and
I
feel
like
that's
a
it's
a
good
relationship
there
that
they
have.
K
K
A
lot
of
the
things
that
get
added
in
those
later
years
are
sometimes
of
materials
that
aren't
necessarily
easy
to
maintain.
So
I'm
kind
of
interested
in
that.
I
think
that
would
be
my
only
concern.
K
That
being
said,
I
do
believe
that
you
know
the
history
of
the
building.
Some
of
the
things
that
changed
over
those
you
know
60
some
years
that
it
was
in
service,
are
probably
important
features
to
maintain.
I
just
know
that
the
materiality
and
kind
of
the
the
construction
quality
of
things
that
happened,
probably
in
the
last
20
to
30
years
of
its
you
know,
life
as
in
its
phase.
One
of
life
are
probably
going
to
be
hard
to
me,
so
some
concern.
F
K
But
generally,
I
think
the
application
is
good.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Sam
gold.
I
guess
maybe
that
kind
of
directs
to
staff
rob.
Do
you
foresee
any
possible
issues
with
the
the
length
of
the
period
of
significance,
any
changes
that
we
think
they
might
want
to
return
to
or
not
return
to?
Based
on
that.
P
I
don't
know
if
I'll
be
able
to
fully
comment
on
that,
but
it's
definitely
something
I
can
include
as
a
top
concern
from
the
commission
and
in
the
letter
to
the
shippo
just
for
their
reference,
one
that
goes
to
the
nomination
review
board.
B
L
I
was
just
gonna
echo.
The
same
things
super
excited
to
see
this
absolutely
support
it
and
appreciate
that
it's
in
use
and
feels
very
effective
right
now.
K
I'll
make
a
motion
that
that
we
adopt
the
cped
report,
approve
the
national
register
nomination
for
the
northrop
king
and
company
complex
located
at
1500
jackson
street
northeast
and
we
direct
staff
to
transmittal
weather
summarizing.
The
report
to
the
state,
historic
preservation
officer.
B
I
don't
see
any
so
with
that
with
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll
on
the
motion.
L
F
C
B
B
M
Burke
yeah,
thank
you,
as
I've
mentioned
the
previous
two
meetings,
just
the
recruitment
period
recruitment
period,
but
the
open
vacancy
period
for
applications
to
be
a
commissioner
on
the
hpc
has
been
extended
until
november
1st.
I
have
done
some
recruiting
myself
and
some
calls
and
some
emails
I've
sent
out,
but
just
a
reminder
to
anyone
if
they
are
know
anybody
who's
interested
to
reach
out
to
candidates
and
encourage
them
to
apply
to
sit
on
the
commission.
Like
I
said
that
deadline
was
extended
until
november
1st,
but
that's
probably
the
latest.
M
We
can
extend
it
as
we
will
need
to
get
these.
The
open
seats
filled
before
current
commissioner's
terms
expire
at
the
end
of
the
year.
Thank
you.
B
M
Have
not
heard
anything
yeah.