►
From YouTube: May 18, 2021 Heritage Preservation Commission
Description
B
Good
afternoon,
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
of
the
may
18
2021
regular
meeting
of
the
minneapolis
heritage
preservation.
Commission.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statute,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
B
C
Commissioner,
bjorn
berg
will
not
be
with
us
this
evening,
commissioner,
booty.
D
C
B
B
Our
first
order
of
business
is
to
adopt
the
agenda
for
this
meeting,
we'll
go
we'll
work
from
the
agendas
that
are
available
online
I'll,
go
through
the
agenda
and
sort
out
which
items
will
be
continued
to
a
future
meeting.
What
items
will
be
discussed
and
what
items
will
be
put
on
the
consent
agenda
to
be
approved,
as
recommended
by
staff
and
without
further
discussion.
B
Item
number.
Four
is
three:
four:
zero
zero
dupont
avenue
south
ward
10?
This
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
That
item
will
be
discussed
and
item
number
five
is
420
main
street.
What
ward
3?
This
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
This
item
is
recommended
for
consent
unless
someone
wishes
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendations
at
this
time.
I
would
like
to
ask
if
there
is
anybody
on
the
call
who
wishes
to
speak
in
opposition
or
to
modify
the
staff
recommendations
for
item
five?
B
If
you
could
press
star
six-
and
let
me
know
that
you
are
here
to
do
so,
so
I
can
pull
it
from
the
consent
agenda.
I'll
give
you
a.
B
E
B
That's
okay,
it
doesn't
seem
like
there's
anybody
here
to
object
to
420
main
street.
The
proposed
agenda
is
the
consent.
Agenda
will
include
item
number
five
420
main
street.
B
C
B
B
I
C
B
You
the
minutes,
are
approved
before
I
open
the
hearing
to
public
comments.
Let
me
summarize
the
process
for
conducting
the
public
hearing
in
this
virtual
format.
B
First,
we
will
act
on
the
consent
agenda
that
we
just
set
once
items
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved.
The
commission
is
done
with
those
items
and
applicants
may
contact
the
planning
staff
tomorrow
for
next
steps.
After
the
consent
agenda
items
are
approved,
we
will
take
each
remaining
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.
B
After
that
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
and
we
will
invite
public
comment.
We
will
take
speakers
in
the
order
they
pre-registered.
Speakers
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes.
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
completed
the
list
of
any
pre-registered
speakers
we'll
see
if
there
are
any
other
speakers
in
the
queue
who
may
have
called
in.
In
order
to
activate
your
microphone,
you'll
need
to
press
star.
B
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
act
on
the
applications
before
us,
so
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda
items.
So
again
this
is
420
main
street,
so
this
is
a
last
call.
Is
there
any
opposition
to
staff
recommendations
for
these
items.
B
B
D
C
No
worries,
thank
you
and
commissioner
sunburg
abstain.
Oh
yes,
so
that's
seven
years
and
one
abstention.
B
Thank
you.
Those
items
are
approved,
as
recommended
by
staff
on
the
agenda.
Applicants
for
those
items
may
contact
planning
staff
tomorrow
about
next
steps.
B
K
K
K
K
Here's
the
property,
as
it
appears
in
1948
about
the
middle
of
the
period
of
significance.
Next
slide,
please
and
here's
the
property
as
it
appears
very
recently.
You
can
see
the
synagogue
in
the
foreground
and
off
to
the
left
side
of
the
photo.
You
can
see
the
two-story
education
wing
next
slide.
Please.
K
K
They'd
also
like
to
replace
the
1977
aluminum
windows
in
the
northeast
stairwell,
with
a
thermally,
broken
double
glazed
system,
as
well
as
install
solar
panels
on
the
roof
of
the
education
wing,
install
a
small
retaining
wall
along
the
east,
walk
where
a
new
slope
walk
was
installed.
Last
year
install
a
handrail
and
bumper
rail
install
a
six
foot
tall
fence
on
the
back
side
of
the
building
to
create
a
safe
play.
Space
add
parking
lot,
lighting
upgrade
some
building
lighting,
add
path.
K
This
is
a
fairly
substantial
scope
of
work
in
addition
to
the
recently
approved
ramp,
roof
and
masonry
repair
work
that
the
applicant
had
approved
administratively,
like
that
work
staff
recommends
approval
of
this
new
scope
of
work
with
two
exceptions.
Those
are
noted
on
the
slide
before
you
in
red
next
slide.
Please.
K
The
increased
component
width
in
the
proposed
doors
does
serve
a
purpose
beyond
energy
efficiency.
However,
the
increased
component
width
will
facilitate
replacement
of
the
historic
doors
interior
bars
and
flip
lock,
with
building
code
compliant
surface
mount
panic
exit
bars
which
require
thicker
frame
components
for
mounting.
K
For
this
reason,
staff
recommends
the
proposed
replacement
of
those
doors
be
allowed
next
slide.
Please
I've
posted
images
of
the
three
storefront
style
systems
that
staff
recommends
be
preserved,
with
the
exception
of
the
french
doors
on
the
connection
between
the
education
wing
and
the
synagogue
itself,
you
can
see
that
in
the
upper
left-hand
corner
of
the
photo
labeled
sf1
staff
recommends
all
three
of
those
storefront
style
systems.
Those
historic,
anodized,
aluminum,
storefront
style
systems
be
preserved,
with
the
exception
of
the
two
french
doors
again
for
egress
purposes.
B
I
don't
see
any
questions
at
this
time.
Thank
you,
john.
It
sounds
like
the
applicant
is
here
jennifer
crowe.
If
you
would
like
to
speak,
if
you
could
press
star
six
so
that
we
can
hear
you.
L
L
L
So,
like
any
religious
institution,
we
hold
a
set
of
values
that
guide
our
faith
and
our
practice
as
unitarian
universalists.
We
ground
ourselves
in
seven
principles
and
two
of
them
are
particularly
relevant
today.
One
of
them
is,
we
affirm
and
promote
the
inherent
worth
and
dignity
of
every
human
being.
The
second
we
live
with
respect
for
the
interdependent
web
of
all
existence,
of
which
we
are
apart.
L
So
in
2016,
our
congregation
embarked
on
a
capital
campaign
to
renovate
and
improve
our
building,
to
make
it
more
welcoming
and
inclusive
and
accessible
to
everyone.
The
capital
campaign
was
titled
not
for
ourselves
alone,
building
an
inclusive
future
and
it
inspired
us
to
live
even
more
deeply
into
our
values.
To
create
this
new
central
entrance,
which
is
that
atrium
entrance
to
essentially
create
a
new
front
door.
L
That
would
be
a
place
that
everyone
could
enter
into
together,
accessible
to
everyone,
the
doors
of
the
atrium
and
the
glass
there
and
the
storefront
are
the
centerpiece
of
our
new
front
door.
It's
a
physical
representation
of
the
wide
welcome
that
we
proclaim
in
our
faith
and
the
inclusion
that
we
strive
to
embody.
L
So
our
congregation,
absolutely
honors,
the
history
of
our
building
and
the
people
who
dared
to
proclaim
a
place
in
minneapolis
people
of
worth
and
dignity.
In
a
largely
anti-semitic
city
and
a
neighborhood
that
would
have
preferred
they
not
be
there,
we
honor
their
legacy,
we
live
into
it
and
we
ask
that
you
approve
our
request
to
create
a
front
door
that
will
truly
welcome
everybody.
B
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
explain
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
how
the
because,
as
I
understand
it
in
the
drawings
you're
wanting
to
switch
the
kind
of
like
flip-flop,
where
the
doors
and
windows
are
on
that
atrium
correct.
And
how
can
you
explain
to
us
how
that
improves
the
accessibility.
L
Sure
so
the
primary
thing
is
we'll
be
moving
the
doors
over
to
the
side
of
the
entrance
where
the
ramp
is
so
folks
would
be
able
to
come
directly
up
the
ramp
and
in
the
doors,
and
then
it
would
allow
us
to
create
a
resting
space
like
a
little
nook
on
the
other
side
of
that
entrance.
Where
folks,
who
need
a
break
from
movement,
can
stop
and
rest
and
kind
of
regroup.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
questions
for
the
applicant.
B
I
don't
see
any
at
this
time
if
your
architect
is
here.
I
would
like
to
speak
to
that.
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
L
G
G
What
jen
said
is
correct.
We
swapped
the
door,
the
storefront
mirrored
it
for
just
that
reason
to
create
direct
accessibility
off
the
ramp
and
then
on
the
interior
side
to
create
that
waiting
space.
Logistically.
On
the
interior
side,
there
are
some
some
existing
conditions
that
wouldn't
allow
us
to
put
a
seating
area
in
the
opposite
corner
because
of
doors
and
storage
closets,
and
things
like
that.
H
This
is
commissioner
johnson
just
to
be
clear.
There
is
currently
an
accessible
entrance,
correct.
G
F
G
Thanks
for
your
time,
my
name
is
aaron
gramas,
like
I
said
I
work
for
lhc
and
I'm
one
of
the
architects
working
on
this
project.
So
I'm
also
going
to
focus
on
the
storefronts
in
question
and
would
like
to
make
two
points.
G
First,
we
actually
were
really
disappointed
to
see
that
our
argument
to
replace
the
storefronts
was
reduced
to
saving
money,
as
stated
under
number.
Four
of
the
analysis
section
like
jen
said
this
isn't
the
case
and
it's
only
a
fraction
of
the
story.
The
church
has
always
understood
that
making
energy
improvements
to
their
building
would
be
a
financial
investment
which
they
are
willing
to
make.
We
did
not
provide
the
hp
with
a
27-year
payoff
calculation
as
they
provided
in
their
analysis.
Nor
do
we
think
it's
accurate.
G
The
main
reason
for
replacing
the
storefronts
is
like
jen,
said
rooted
in
the
unitarian
universal's
core
religious
tenet
of
environmental
responsibility.
Replacing
the
single
pane
glass
with
a
better
system
is
only
part
of
this
effort,
as
shown
by
the
church's
investment
in
new
roofing
and
solar
panels.
Additionally,
the
energy
savings
are
not
perceived
as
the
staff
summary
states.
G
We
have
demonstrated
in
our
energy
analysis
that
the
amount
of
energy
saved
by
replacing
these
few
windows
is
the
equivalent
of
around
6000
miles,
driven
by
the
average
car,
300
gallons
of
gas
or
300
000
smartphones
being
charged.
The
second
point,
and
last
point
I
would
like
to
make,
is
that
the
analysis
states
that
the
proposed
window
profiles
will
double
in
width.
F
G
Some
of
the
mullions
on
the
larger
winter
windows
will
need
to
increase
from
one
inch
to
two
inches,
but
we
feel
that
the
overall
aesthetic
effect
of
this
will
be
minimal.
The
national
park
service,
the
folks
who
write
these
guidelines
recently
replaced
all
the
original
aluminum
frame
windows
at
its
historic
visitor
center
in
death
valley,
with
carefully
detailed
modern
replacements.
G
For
many
of
the
same
reasons
that
we
are
undertaking
to
do
this
work,
we
feel
that
our
proposed
changes
follow
that
precedent
which
had
buy-in
from
the
national
park
service
and
the
california
shippo
I've
submitted
some
reading
material
regarding
this
project.
That's
all
I
have
thank
you
for
your
time.
B
B
Doesn't
sound
like
it
so
with
that
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
item
and
I
will
go
through
this
list
of
pre-registered
speakers
in
order
and
then
open
the
floor
to
any
other
speakers
who
may
be
in
the
queue
again.
If
you
can
provide
your
name
and
address
before
making
your
comments,
and
when
I
call
your
name,
you
could
press
star
six
on
your
phone,
wait
to
hear
the
pre-recorded
message
to
activate
your
microphone.
So
we
can
hear
you
and
then
proceed
to
your
comments.
B
M
55422
and
like
I
said,
my
name
is
mike
lovato,
I'm
a
historical
architect
with
lhp
and
I
assisted
on
the
design
of
this
project.
I
wanted
to
address
the
condition
regarding
the
retention
of
the
aluminum
frame
components
at
the
1950
division.
I'm
also
a
board
member
with
docomo
us
minnesota,
which
is
an
organization
that
advocates
for
mid-century
modern
architecture.
So
I
do
absolutely
appreciate
modern
architecture
with
components
like
this.
I
think
that
the
character
defining
features
are
really
more
related
to
the
effects
that
they
create
than
the
actual
materials
themselves.
M
I
too
am
skeptical
of
many
of
the
arguments
about
replacing
original
historical
features
in
the
name
of
sustainability,
but
I
believe
that
the
standards
that
we
use
every
day
to
make
these
decisions
were
developed
for
buildings
of
a
different
era.
So
I
do
think
it's
worth
considering
adjusting
our
approach
to
different
features
from
different
eras
to
best
respect
our
historic
buildings
as
well
as
be
as
well
as
being
energy
as
as
energy
conscious
as
possible.
B
B
The
next
name
I
have
in
the
queue
is
laura
cooper.
You
can
press
star
sex.
E
Hello,
my
name
is
laura
cooper
5001,
queen
avenue
south
minneapolis.
I
was
for
42
years
a
law
professor
at
the
university
of
minnesota
and
I've
also
five
times
taught
u.s.
First
amendment
religious
freedom
to
law,
students
from
around
the
world
in
courses
in
sweden
now
in
retirement,
I'm
a
volunteer
teacher
preparing
refugees
and
immigrants
to
take
the
u.s
citizenship
test
in
class
students
of
many
different
faiths,
some
themselves
victims
in
their
home
countries
of
religious
discrimination,
learn
the
meaning
of
the
first
amendment
religious
freedom
protection.
E
I
hope
that
when
this
proceeding
concludes
I'll,
be
able
to
cite
this
commission's
decisions
here
as
an
example
of
how
the
u.s
protects
religious
freedom,
I
was
congregational
president
from
1997
to
1999,
when
the
church's
historic
designation
was
first
considered
by
this
commission.
The
church
agreed
to
a
consensual
resolution
without
litigation.
E
Only
when
assured
that
our
free
exercise
rights
would
not
be
infringed
by
the
designation
scope,
that
designation
explicitly
reserved
the
right
of
the
church
to
cover
if
it
wished
one
of
the
most
significant
features
of
the
building.
The
inscription
hear:
o
israel,
the
lord,
our
god.
The
lord
is
one
as
a
congregation.
E
We
understood
that
although
the
building
was
afforded
historic
designation
because
of
its
role
as
a
synagogue,
we
nevertheless
retained
the
right
to
cover
this
core
statement
of
jewish
faith,
because
we
were
a
religious
community
whose
own
religious
faith
deserve.
First
amendment
protection
and
the
commission
recognized
that
we
have
not
chosen
to
cover
that
inscription
and
description,
because
we
like
the
hvc,
respect
the
history
of
the
building
and
of
the
historic
role
of
the
congregation
that
preceded
us.
E
F
N
Thank
you.
So
I
live
at
4212,
west
44th
street
in
edina
55424.
I
also
own
a
law
firm
in
downtown
minneapolis.
I
am
a
member
of
first
universalist
church
for
27
years.
I
am
was
also
a
member
of
our
board
of
trustees
for
six
years
ending
in
2020,
and
I
was
board
president
for
three
of
those
years,
particularly
when
we
were
engaging
in
our
capital
campaign
to
renovate
this
building
and
refreshing
our
visionary
goals,
which
are
the
guiding
principles
of
our
particular
church.
I've
uploaded
those
visionary
goals
to
your
website.
N
Those
features
were
the
front
doors
of
the
church,
the
four
front
doors
that
are
at
the
top
of
the
steps,
as
you
look
through
the
door
from
dupont
avenue
and
the
stained
glass
windows
that
were
in
the
sanctuary.
These
are
very
significant
features,
but
they
were
not
consistent
with
what
we
wanted
to
create
in
this
church,
and
the
city
agreed
that
they
needed
to
respect
our
religious
freedom.
In
the
same
context,
I
think
that
the
commission
should
respect
these
sentiments
and
be
consistent
with
that
agreement
to
allow
us
to
make
this
change.
N
One
of
the
commissioners,
I
think,
asked
whether
there
were
other
accessible
entrances.
There
is
at
least
one
other
accessible
entrance
off
to
the
side
on
34th
avenue,
but
this
entrance
is
designed
to
be
the
main
entrance
of
our
building.
This
is
where
most
of
the
congregation
and
visitors
will
enter
our
building.
We've
made
several
changes
that
have
already
been
approved
by
the
commission
to
make
this
a
welcoming
entrance,
the
other
entrance
that
most
people
use
in
the
parking
lot,
which
is
not
accessible.
N
Of
being
a
welcoming
congregation,
that
people
of
all
backgrounds
and
particularly
abilities,
are
able
to
access
our
ability
as
freely
and
as
easily
as
any
other
member
of
our
congregation.
That
is,
there's
been
a
paramount
importance
throughout
this
capital
campaign,
which
has
been
in
process
now
for
over
five
years.
It
is
something
that
we
have
promised
to
our
congregation.
B
B
Oh,
it
looks
like
marnie's
number
is
not
showing
up
as
online.
I
will
move
to
the
next
name.
Then
dan.
F
A
Hi,
my
name
is
dan
berg.
I
live
at
4901,
fremont
avenue
south
minneapolis
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
speak
to
the
commission's
recommendation
regarding
this
entrance
to
first
universalist
church.
I've
been
a
member
of
the
church
for
some
25
years.
I've
served
on
the
board
for
six
years
and
I
co-chaired
the
capital
campaign
that
has
funded
most
of
the
improvements
currently
underway
at
3400
dupont,
I'm
retired
and
a
long-time
resident
of
minneapolis.
A
As
an
illustration,
I
provided
in
my
application
request
to
speak
a
photograph
of
the
current
entrance
with
a
line
drawing
of
the
proposed
revision
to
a
great
extent.
It
appears
that
the
new
door
and
storefront
will
be
a
mirror
image
of
the
current
design
for
this,
and
all
the
reasons
that
others
have
provided
having
to
do
with
our
role
as
an
historic
religious
entity,
an
active
urban
congregation
and
a
good
citizen
of
the
uptown
neighborhood.
I
encourage
you
to
reconsider
your
rejection
of
this
proposed
alteration.
B
B
Seeing
none,
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
open
the
commissioner
discussion.
Commissioner
johnson,
I
believe
you
have
a
question
for
staff.
H
Hi,
I'm
I'm
wondering
if
somebody
from
staff
can
kind
of
speak
to
this
letter
from
the
city
attorney
from
july
of
1998
and
what
the
intent
of
that
front
door
clause
is
because
that
seems
to
be
where
the
discussion
is
kind
of
revolving.
Around
about
this
gentleman's
agreement,
I
mean
it's
less
of
a
gentleman's
agreement
and
more
of
a
actual
agreement
from
the
city
attorney
at
the
time.
H
So
I'm
kind
of
curious
if
anybody
on
staff
has
institutional
knowledge
or
you
know,
can
give
us
some
background
as
to
that
that
that
letter.
K
Sheriff
sunburg,
commissioner
johnson,
you
know
I
believe
that
relates
to
the
synagogue
doors
themselves.
I
seem
to
remember
that
being
listed
in
the
city
council
documentation,
but
I
can
certainly
check
into
that
and
get
back
to
you
momentarily.
B
Thank
you,
john.
Does
anyone
else
have
a
comment
they'd
like
to
make.
Should
I
start
off
the
discussion
here?
B
I
I'm
curious
to
hear
what
commissioners
think
about
the
discussion
specifically
about
the
doors,
because
looking
at
the
proposal
from
a
design
point
of
view,
I
understand
for
like
a
purpose
of
flow
in
the
space
why
they
are
proposing
to
flip-flop
with
the
door
of
the
window,
and
so
I
guess
I
am
personally
feeling
a
little
I'm
not
sure
about
this
one,
because
I
I
can
see
for
circulation
purposes
how
it
would
be
beneficial
to
make
this
change.
B
O
Yeah,
I
can
understand
your
kind
of
thinking
both
directions
on
this
one.
It
seems
to
me
that,
as
conditioned
accessibility
is
still
achievable
in
this
space.
So
if
I
understood
dr
smalley's
presentation
correctly,
the
doors
can
still
be
changed
out,
so
it
will
be
an
accessible
entrance,
the
flow
of
the
building.
I
I'm
afraid
that
if
I
were
to
apply
that
to
most
historic
properties
that
argument,
I
think
we
would
run
into
lots
of
issues
with
whether
or
not
things
meet
the
standards
to
me.
It's
it.
O
Can
these
be
still
reused.
Are
they
you
know?
Has
it
deteriorated
to
the
point
where
they
must
be
replaced
and
is
it
in
kind
enough?
Is
the
replacement
in
kind
enough,
and
that's
where
I
I
I
think
back
to
the
comment
we
received.
O
I
think
it
was
michael
lovato,
the
architect
decommo
member
I
mean
we
definitely
do
have
to
think
differently
about
integrity
and
materials
when
it
comes
to
modern
buildings.
So
I
I
too
have
kind
of
gone
back
and
forth
on
this
one.
So
I'm
I'm
also
interested
to
hear
what
other
commissioners
have
to
say.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
howard.
I
think
that
is
a
good
point
about
integrity
with
modern
materials,
because
I
guess
maybe
that's
the
other
part
of
my
concern
is
that
would
this
be
just
like
kicking
the
can
down
the
road?
Are
they
gonna
be
coming
back
in
another
five
years
now,
with
new
doors
but
needing
to
replace
the
rest
of
the
storefront
system,
really
have
the
the
same
lifespan
that
the
older
historic
materials
have.
O
O
I
would
just
point
out
that
some
of
the
discussion
that
we've
heard
or
some
of
the
points
we've
heard
thus
far
have
all
been
related
to
the
storefront,
the
actual
doors
and
not
the
other
store
front
window
systems
that
are
also
subject
to
this
condition,
which
don't
have
anything
to
do
with
accessibility
to
the
building,
in
the
same
way
that
we
think
of
mobility
into
the
building.
So
we're
we're
talking
about
not
just
that
one
storefront,
but
those
other
two
storefront
systems.
B
Yes,
I
I've
also
been
thinking
about
it
kind
of
divided
like
that,
and
I
guess
the
the
the
thought
I
have
bouncing
around
in
my
head
is
whether
or
not
we
allow
the
more
significant
alteration
to
that.
The
specific.
B
But
then
preserve
the
the
storefront
system
in
the
two
other
locations
as
sort
of
a
you
know,
keep
some
for
preservation
but
allow
the
the
one
that
impacts.
The
the
building
use
more
significantly
has
a
possibility
that
has
kind
of
been
floating
around
my
head,
but
I'm
hoping
other
commissioners
would
like
to
speak
to.
B
B
Silence,
commissioner,.
P
Steady
well,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
recognize
that
these
these
folks
are,
you
know,
working
to
live
their
faith
in
their
building
with
environmental
stewardship
and
the
respect
for
human
dignity
that
that
happens
with
these
alterations
to
the
building.
B
I'm
now
trying
to
flip
through
and
see
exactly
what
year
these
windows
we're
talking
about
are
from.
K
Certainly,
commissioner
stadiu
chair
sunberg,
yes,
some
do
date
to
1970
the
applicant
notes
that
in
their
scope
of
work,
I
would
point
out
too
that
the
period
of
significance
goes
all
the
way
through
1997.
K
I
would
also
note
too,
in
answer
to
commissioner
johnson's
question.
The
designation
study
only
refers
to
the
synagogue
doors,
the
designation
study
and
the
design
guidelines
were
adopted
concurrently
by
the
minneapolis
city
council.
So
the
design
guideline
provision
strictly
relates
to
the
synagogue
doors
not
to
the
other
doors
on
the
building.
B
John
as
a
follow-up
question,
it
is
unusual
to
see
the
period
of
significance
that
long
do
we
have
any
discussion
from
the
commission
at
that
time
when
they
designated
the
property
on
why
they
kept
the
period
of
significance
that
long.
K
You
know
we
talked
about
that
at
the
staff
level
and
we
did
wish
we
were
flies
on
the
wall
at
that
time.
We
don't
know
that
we
do
know
that
you
know
based
on
the
period
of
significance.
These
features
are
historic.
Certainly
they
don't
date
back
to
the
you
know,
synagogue
itself,
but
they
do
certainly
date
back
to
you
know
the
adapt
gesturing
synagogue.
You
know
congregations
tenure
on
site
and
I
should
point
out
as
well
to
the
applicants.
The
applicants
are
absolutely
right.
K
They
did
not
come
forward
with
strictly
a
cost
factor
being
their
primary
reason.
For
wanting
to
replace
these
features,
I
mean
obviously
they're
doing
a
lot
of
other
work
on
the
building
as
well
work.
That
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
work
that
you
know
will
serve
the
long-term
interests
of
the
building,
the
landmark
itself,
as
well
as
the
congregation.
Well,
it's
just
challenging
to
objectively
analyze.
Applications
like
this
without
getting
into
things
like
cost.
K
You
know
I
contemplated
getting
into
r
values
and
u
factors
as
well.
The
specifications-
and
I
did-
I
requested,
cost
estimates
from
the
applicant.
This
is
not
something
they
put
forward
immediately.
That
was
something
specifically
that
staff
requested
for
this
purpose
of
trying
to
analyze
these.
You
know
analyze
this
as
objectively
as
possible,
the
for
what
it's
worth
the
specifications
that
they
provided,
which
also
I
did
request,
indicated
that
the
storefront
system
would
boast
a?
K
U
value
or
u
factor
of
0.35,
which
equates
to
roughly
you
know,
just
under
a
three
an
r
value
of
just
under
three.
I
think
it's
a
two
point,
eight
five.
So
the
improvement
you
know
looking
at
it
from
another
objective.
You
know
energy
efficiency,
standpoint.
The
improvement
will
help
combat
climate
change.
K
To
you
know
a
a
an
extent,
certainly
not
as
much
as
you
know,
say
the
r
value
that
comes
from
say,
insulating
your
roof
as
fully
as
possible
in
those
instances,
instead
of
like
an
r
3
r
value
of
3,
we're
talking
more
like
an
r
value
of
30
and
upwards,
so
replacement
of
windows,
just
in
general,
as
you
all
know,
it's
a
tough
sell
when
it
comes
to
historic
properties,
replacement
of
serviceable
historic
windows.
K
B
Thank
you,
john
commissioner.
J
All
right,
so
I
I'll
be
honest.
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
strong
feelings
about
this,
and
so
usually
when
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
strong
feelings,
I
defer
to
staff
and
that's
generally,
what
I'm
feeling
right
now
I
do.
I
do
get
where
the
applicant
is
coming
from,
but
you
know
I've
gone
back
to
this
before
on
our
previous
meetings.
J
We
have
to
make
sure
that
our
rulings
are
defensible
and
it
sounds
like
maybe
it
might
make
sense
to
to-
and
this
is
a
question,
maybe
for
the
staff,
but
to
reevaluate
this
period
of
significance
that
might
make
more
sense
to
kind
of
cut
it
off
a
little
earlier.
J
For
these
exact
reasons,
if
the
period
of
significance
is
what's
driving
the
the
windows
and
the
and
the
what
feels
like
feels
like,
we
should
be
able
to
work
with
the
applicant
here,
so
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
like,
I
don't
know
one
way
or
the
other.
This
doesn't
doesn't
sway
me
that
either
direction.
J
I
think
what
I
would
like
out
of
my
fellow
commissioners
is
to
talk
me
through
if
we
were
to
to
go
against
staff
findings
in
this
scenario
specific
to
these
windows
in
this
configuration
storefront
configuration,
you
know
what
what
are
we
saying
like?
What?
J
What
does
that
mean
for
our
findings
and
and
maybe
give
me
something
more
to
latch
on
to
that
is
in
line
with
the
design
guidelines,
and
then
maybe
I
can
have
a
stronger
feeling
or
opinion
one
way
or
the
other,
but
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
standing,
and
I
don't
know
how
how
we
make
a
finding
other
than
that.
But
I
that's
why
our
discussions
are
always
so
good
and
so
interesting,
because
you
guys
helped
me
along
in
that
path.
J
But
if
we
don't
find
that,
then
I
think
we
have
to
go
with
staff
recommendations
would
be
my
thoughts
on
that.
So
look
forward
to
hearing
some
other
commissioner's
thoughts.
Thank.
P
Well,
I
think
if
we
consider
the
comments
we've
heard
from
the
applicant
and
the
folks
that
spoke,
I
think
we
should
be
anticipating
a
first
amendment
argument
for
the
reason
they
want
these
changes.
They
the
respect
for
human
dignity
or
allowing
folks
with
different
abilities,
better
access
to
their
their
place
of
worship.
And
then
you
know
the
respect
for
the
environmental
stewardship
that
comes
with
a
more
energy
efficient
building,
my
own
faith
community.
P
Those
are
strong
parts
of
our
beliefs
and
we
don't
have
a
historic
building
so
when
we
renovated
our
lobby
added
more
space
accessibility,
front
doors,
that
was
a
big
part
of
our
renovation
and
we
did
not
work
with
the
hpc.
But
I
I
would,
I
think,
that
respecting
first
amendment
worship
rights
are
probably
more
important
than
defending
keeping
windows.
I
I
B
Andrea,
it
looks
like
claire
is
wondering,
as
it
has
a
question
in
the
chat
on
whether
or
not
the
period
of
significance
was
discussed
as
a
staff
level
and
whether
or
not
it
could
be
altered,
which
I
don't
think
we
can
do
during
one
of
these
types
of
reviews.
I
We
did
talk
about
it
quite
a
bit.
I
was
surprised
by
it,
but
no
it's
not
something
that
we
can
do
during
a
meeting.
We'd
have
to
look
further
into
a
study.
We'd
have
to
look
into
it.
We'd
have
to
analyze
and
come
up
with
a
more
appropriate
period
of
significance
based
on
evidence
and
research,
but
it
is
not
something
we
can
address
at
this
point
in
time.
At
this
meeting.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Howard
has
a
question.
O
Just
a
quick
question:
it's
my
understanding
that
this
is
listed.
This
is
designated
sorry
under
historical
associations
or
is
it
for
the
architecture
or
combination
of
the
two
I'm
trying
to
quickly
scan
through
the
report
quickly.
But
perhaps
dr
smiley
could
remind
us
the
criteria
that
were
used
for
its
designation.
K
Certainly
chair
sunburn,
commissioner
howard,
this
property
was
designated
under
some
older
heritage
preservation
criteria,
but
essentially
it's
events
and
people,
not
architecture
that
are
the
significant
aspects
of
this
property.
B
I
think
that
that
point,
commissioner,
howard
about
what
criteria
is
kind
of
important
in
my
mind,
because
it
being
for
events
and
people-
I
guess
speaking
to
commissioner
vanderek.
That
would
be
part
of
my
logic
for
why
we
might
allow
specifically
the
the
doors
and
the
storefront
that
atrium
to
to
be
altered,
because
since
it
was
for
events
and
people
and
not
the
architecture,
I
don't
feel
like
the
original
intent
of
the
nomination
was
to
lock
in
those
1950s
doors.
D
I
just
wanted
to
chime
in
with
a
few
of
my
comments,
sorry
to
kind
of
interrupt.
I
know
commissioner
vandereck
also
wants
to
speak
here
and
might
be
able
to
go
first
if
you
were
just
responding
to
her,
but
I
I'm
happy
to
wait
for
my
comments
too
they're,
more
general
and
kind
of
where
I'm
leaning
so.
J
Yeah,
hey!
Well,
I
you
know.
If
we
were
on
the
dice,
you
would
have
seen
me
nodding
and
agreeing
with
exactly
what
you
were
just
saying,
cheersnberg.
I
think
I
think
you're
exactly
right.
I
mean
I
and
I
would
you
know
I
so
thank
you
to
staff
member
andrea
burke
for
for
clarifying
that
piece
on
the
period
of
significance.
J
Question.
I
think
that's
another
item.
You
know
we've
got
our
retreat
coming
up
here.
These
are
the
types
of
things
I'd
like
I
like
to
get
some
better
understanding
on
in
a
when
we're,
not
talking
about
agenda
items,
you
know
like
how
do
we
request
these
things?
These
things
come
up.
You
know
we
we
may
probably
would
have
never
even
known
that
there
was
a
property
out
there
with
this
long
of
a
period
of
significance,
but
for
the
fact
that
they
they
applied
for
this
certificate
of
appropriateness.
J
So
when
these
things
come
up,
what
I'd
like
us
to
do
as
a
commission
is
acknowledge
that
we
have
to
make
a
decision
based
on
the
applications
in
front
of
us,
but
also
acknowledge
that
we
can
collectively
use
our
authority
to
make
changes
and
tweaks
that'll
help
these
conversations
in
the
future
and
not
just
be
like
right.
J
That
decision
is
made
set
that
aside,
let's
go
on
to
the
next
application,
so
you
know
just
put
that
as
a
bookmark
for
for
our
discussion
on
thursday
about
how
do
we
make
sure
that
we
have
to
come
to
a
decision
on
the
applications
that
are
before
us,
but
if
they
rise
up
other
issues
or
thoughts
that
we
should
talk
about
that
those
don't
we
don't
lose
those
in
in
the
in
the
discussion
because,
like
for
instance,
I
don't
think
that
having
a
perfect
period
of
significance
that
this
is
that's
as
long
as
appropriate,
and
so
I
think
it
would
make
sense
for
us
to
take
another
look
at
that.
J
But
yeah.
I
100
agree
that
referencing
what
what
was
originally
used
in
in
what
made
this
particular
building
eligible
for
designation,
isn't
architecture
specific,
isn't
to
the
orientation
of
this
door
and
entry
layout
really
feels
to
me
like
a
strong
reason
as
to
why
it
would
be
okay
to
move
forward
with
it
referencing
back
to
what
we
believe
the
original
intent
of
the
designation
is.
So
I
would
agree
with
that
be
interested
to
hear
what
the
other
commissioners
have
to
say.
B
D
Yes,
thank
you,
commissioner.
Chair
sunberg,
I
had
some
more
general
comments
of
some
of
my
thoughts
of
the
application.
My
initial
reaction
to
the
replacement
of
the
what
the
storefront
systems
was
not
necessarily
the
same
as
the
cities.
D
I
think
I
generally
agree
more
with
the
architect's
analysis
of
it
with
the
idea
that
historic
preservation
with
windows,
the
intent
around
the
you
know
more
serviceable
type
windows
from
the
earliest
earlier
20th
century
late,
19th
century
buildings
makes
sense
for
why
we
wouldn't
want
to
rip
those
out
and
replace
them,
but
speaking
about
these
windows
that
were
mass-produced
and
the
significance
of
their
effect
seems
to
be
preserved
with
this
application,
and
given
that
it's
a
church
that
has
to
you
know,
raise
money
to
do
their
own
work
to
the
church,
wrapping
in
energy
efficiency
and
their
environmental
stewardship
values
into
this
overall
larger
project
makes
sense
to
me,
and
I
think
that's
that's
that's
kind
of
where
my
thoughts
are
just
overall
of
the
the
the
replacement
discussion.
D
The
door
design
does
not
also
does
not.
I
don't
have
any
issues
with
that,
especially
as
we're
giving
or
talking
more
about
what
the
building
was
actually
listed
and
designated
for
it's
it's
association
with
people
rather
than
architecture.
I
would
be
in
support
of
what
we
were
just
what
commissioner
van
der
ich
had
just
been
discussing
with
opposing
the
staff
findings
with
that,
as
our
reasoning.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
booty.
It
does
sound
like
we're
getting
some
strong
feelings
about,
maybe
maybe
striking
condition.
One
completely
is
kind
of
what
I'm
hearing
commissioner
johnson.
H
Yeah
I
mean
just
I
won't
echo,
I
mean
I'm
just.
I
agree
with
what
everybody's
been
saying.
It
seems
like
we're
trending
in
a
direction
now
that
I'm
hitching
my
trailer
to
I,
you
know,
knowing
that
the
designation
is
based
on
architecture
and
these
windows
are
from
almost
the
1980s.
I
guess
I
guess
I'm
looking
for
a
something
in
our
toolbox
to
allow
us
to
go
against
staff
recommendations.
H
I
know
that
we
usually
need
to
cite
something
very
specific
and
that's
definitely
not
as
much
my
area
of
expertise,
so
I
guess
I'm
I'm
looking
for.
Maybe
somebody
else
on
the
commission
to
kind
of
lead
that
or
find
that
tool
something
we
can
hang
our
hat
on
to
to
rule
that
way
or
to
make
a
motion.
I
just
I
just
don't
know
what
that
is
so.
I
In
this
particular
case,
responding
to
your
question,
commissioner
johnson,
since
staff
has
recommended
approval
and
has
just
put
conditions
on
it,
findings
aren't
required
to
overturn
unless
you
want
to
overturn
it
and
deny
it.
But
I
don't
think
that's
what
commissioners
are
leaning
towards.
It
sounds
like
you're,
more
leaning
towards
striking
a
condition,
and
I
think
this
has
been
a
great
discussion
thinking
going
over
your
thought
process
about
it,
which
is
very
helpful
to
staff,
but
you
can
make
a
motion
to
strike
the
condition
without
a
finding.
I
No,
if
you
want
to
give
a
strong
reason,
why
that's?
Okay,
I'm
I'm
more
than
welcome
and
happy
to
hear
that,
but
it
is
not
required
in
assistance,
since
staff
is
recommending
approval.
B
Thank
you,
andrea,
commissioner
johnson.
That's
what
I
was
gonna
say
is
to
to
change
conditions.
We
don't
need
findings,
so,
commissioner,
stadi.
P
I
I
was
just
reminded
of
so
one
of
the
churches
we've
recently
designated
was
the
saint
james
church
and
that
we
I
do
remember
now
we
set
the
period
of
significance
to
be
really
kind
of
the
life
of
this
the
congregation,
so
it
starts
in
1863,
even
though
the
building
was
not
built
until
1959.
P
So
I
wonder
if
that
was
the
intent
with
that
other
historic
period
of
significance,
but
I
also
wondered:
does
shippo
approve
the
period
of
significance?
That
was
my
other
question.
Thanks.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
stadi.
I
was
also
thinking
about
st
james,
as
we
were
having
this
discussion
on
period
of
significance,
because
I
remember
we
had
quite
a
discussion
at
the
time
of
that
nomination
about
it.
But
in
that
case
I
believe
the
congregation
had
requested
that
period
of
significance,
and
so
it's
a
slightly
different
thing.
Commissioner,
howard.
O
I
think
all
of
this
really
goes
to
show
how
important
that
period
of
significance
is
in
designations
and
and
andrea.
I
disagree.
I
think
you
probably
can
respond
just
fine,
but
I
I
we
had
these
conversations
before.
I
think
that
periods
of
significance
are
critical
and
we
find
you
know
my
experience.
Putting
on
past
hats
at
chippo.
O
O
You
find
I
have
found
with
with
churches
and
other
social,
social
associated
historic
properties.
O
There
tends
to
be
a
very
long
period
of
significance
because
it
has
to
do
with
the
events
and
trends
and
the
people
that
are
there
more
so
than
the
architecture,
and
so
I
obviously
wasn't
on
the
commission
when
this
was
designated,
and
I
haven't
read
the
full
designation
report,
but
I
suspect
it
was
trying
to
recognize
that
long,
jewish
association
with
this
this
property
and
and
and
give
that
history,
the
props
it
deserved
at
the
time
it
was
being
designated
and
making
sure
that
that
jewish
connection
would
still
show
through
down
the
line.
O
In
this
case,
I
think
it
was
probably
a
bit
too
long
to
be
considered
significant.
But
again
I
haven't
read
the
full
designation
study.
So
I
can't
speak
to
that.
B
H
Yes,
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
replace
the
storefront
style,
openings,
replace
the
roof
segments,
add
signage,
add
lighting,
add
solar
panels,
add
retaining
walls,
add
fencing
and
make
related
improvements
without
the
without
condition.
One
applied
is
that.
H
B
A
C
B
B
I
Annika
yeah.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
think
everybody's
well
aware,
but
yes,
we
have
our
retreat
this
thursday,
starting
at
three.
We
have
a
full
agenda
of
topics.
So
thank
you
to
everyone
who
submitted
topics.
I
appreciate
it.
I
had
more
than
I
could
include
on
the
agenda
that
will
happen.
I
have
sent
that
out.
So
everybody
who's
kind
of
requested.
I
I've
essentially
kind
of
have
asked
that
you
kind
of
helped
me
tee
off
the
discussion
for
those
particular
items
and
one
other
point
to
mention
as
things
in
I
don't
have
full
info
on
this
yet,
but
as
things
in
the
world
are
changing
and
moving,
the
city
is
reevaluating
right
now
kind
of
the
work
from
home
orders.
I
At
this
point
there
has
been
a
date
set
of
september
7th
to
go
back
into
the
office,
there's
also
not
a
firm
direction,
but
there
is
talk
about
when
the
emergency
regulation
will
expire,
which
then
ends
our
requirement
to
meet
or
allows
us
to
meet
virtually
such
as
we
are
right
now
that
is
still
up
in
the
air.
I
There
have
been
no
firm
decorations,
but
just
to
give
every
commissioner
a
heads
up
that
those
are
being
discussed
and
there
appears
to
be
a
time
in
the
foreseeable
short
future
that
we
may
not
be
meeting
virtually
again
and
probably
in
person.
But
I
don't
know
when
that
is
so.
I
just
wanted
to
make
an
announcement
sort
of
a
vague
announcement
that
that
is,
that
is
on
the
horizon,
and
I
do
believe
that
is
all
I
have
thanks.
B
Thank
you,
andrea
for
our
new
commissioners
for
the
retreat
normally
we'd
like
have
tasty
food
and
stuff
available,
while
we're
discussing
things,
so
I
don't
know
bring
your
own
tasty,
treats
to
our
virtual
meeting
any
other
announcements
or
commission.