►
From YouTube: December 14, 2021 Heritage Preservation Commission
Description
Additional information at https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
Good
afternoon
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
of
the
december
14
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
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
role,
so
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
a
quorum.
D
E
F
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
will
go
through
the
agenda
and
sort
out
what
items
will
be
continued
to
a
future
meeting.
What
items
will
be
discussed,
what
items
we
put
on
a
consent
agenda
to
be
approved,
as
recommended
by
staff
without
further
discussion?
B
So
item
number
four,
which
is
four
five:
zero
one
hiawatha
avenue:
ward
12,
the
designation
for
a
historic,
landmark
status.
That
item
will
be
discussed.
Item
number
five,
which
is
five
524
hennepin
avenue
board
3.
This
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
has
been
recommended
for
consent
unless
someone
wishes
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendations.
B
B
First
street
north
2
and
51
36th
ave,
north
51
34th
ave,
north
and
3639
3648,
373701,
washington,
avenue,
north
ward,
4
adjacent
to
ward
1,
also
known
as
the
upper
harbor
terminal
project,
demolition
of
historic
resources
will
be
discussed
so
again,
the
proposed
agenda.
The
consent
agenda
will
include
item
number
5,
which
is
524
hennepin
avenue
again.
Is
there
any
opposition
to
staff
recommendations
for
this
item
or
any
member
of
the
public?
Who
wishes
to
speak
in
opposition
to
this
item?
524
hennepin
avenue?
B
H
B
I
B
B
D
I
E
E
C
B
B
B
I'm
not
sure
what
that
was
well
once
the
consent's
agenda
is
approved,
the
commission
is
done
with
those
items.
The
applicants
may
contact
planning
staff
tomorrow
about
next
steps.
After
consent,
agenda
items
are
approved,
we'll
take
each
remaining
agenda
item
in
order.
First
planning
staff
will
present
its
report
and
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
staff.
Then
you'll
hear
from
the
applicant.
The
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
applicant
after
that
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
and
invite
public
comment
we'll
take
speakers
in
the
order
they
pre-registered.
B
If
there
are,
any
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.
Once
you've
completed
the
list
of
pre-registered
speakers
I'll
check
to
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
6
on
your
phone
and
wait
to
hear
the
pre-recorded
message
before
we
can
hear
you
so
again
I'll.
B
B
After
the
public
comments
are
complete,
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
that
item.
Commissioners
will
deliberate
and
then
act
on
the
application
before
us,
so
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda
items
which,
again
this
is
524
hennepin
avenue
board.
Three.
So
again,
is
there
any
opposition
to
staff
recommendations
for
this
item?
B
I
B
B
B
L
L
As
you
may
remember,
the
hpc
heard
the
application
at
its
meeting
of
february
16th
of
2021
and
unanimously
voted
to
approve
the
nomination
of
fire
station
number
24
located
at
4501
hiawatha
avenue.
Interim
protection
was
established
and
the
hpc
directed
the
planning
director
to
prepare
a
cause
to
be
prepared.
Designation
study,
the
city
of
minneapolis
received
legacy,
grant
funding
to
hire
a
consultant
to
draft
the
designation
study.
L
A
final
draft
of
the
designation
study
was
submitted
by
staff
in
september,
was
submitted
to
by
the
consultants
to
staff
in
september
2021
and
subsequently
sent
to
the
minnesota
state,
historic
preservation,
office
and
minneapolis
city
planning
commission
to
begin
their
respective
review
periods.
Both
shippo
and
the
planning
commission
concurred
with
the
designation
findings.
L
L
Staff
is
recommending
that
the
fire
station
number
24
building
be
designated
as
a
local
historic
landmark
staff
finds
the
property
exhibits,
sufficient
historic
integrity
and
relevant
significance
to
be
considered
for
local,
landmark,
designation
under
criterion
one
and
two,
the
designation
study
states.
The
subject
property
was
constructed
in
1907
to
serve
as
fire
station
number
24..
L
fire
chief
canterbury's
decision
to
staff.
The
station
in
this
way
was
an
attempt
to
evade
existing
civil
rights
laws
and
effectively
segregate
the
minneapolis
fire
department.
Doing
this
led
to
a
discriminatory
work
environment
that
characterized
the
department
for
decades
to
come
discouraged
black
employment
and
resulted
in
an
entirely
white
workforce
by
the
late
1940s.
L
Next
slide,
please,
the
following
policies
in
minneapolis
2040
would
apply
to
the
designation
of
fire
station
number
24
for
policy
60
of
intrinsic
value
of
properties.
Fire
station
24
is
a
significant
property
that
is
important
to
the
city's
heritage.
Landmark
designation
will
protect
the
building
for
years
to
come.
L
Designation
will
allow
the
increased
awareness,
understanding
and
the
appreciation
of
intrinsic
and
potential
economic
value
of
this
important
piece
of
the
city's
cultural
and
social
history
under
policy
92.
For
identifying
and
evaluating
historical
resources,
sites
of
african
american
history
have
been
traditionally
underrepresented
in
the
body
of
the
city's
landmark
properties.
L
Historic
preservation
regulations
that
come
with
historic
designation
would,
of
course,
encourage
the
retention
of
this
important
community
resource.
So
local
landmark
designation
ensures
the
protection
of
the
significant
piece
of
the
city's
history
through
the
consideration
of
changes
to
the
property
through
review
processes,
while
understanding
the
significance
of
the
property's
social
and
cultural
history.
L
With
that,
the
department
of
community
planning
and
economic
development
recommends
that
the
heritage,
preservation,
commission
and
city
council
adopt
staff
findings
for
the
local
designation
of
fire
station
number
24
located
at
4501
hiawatha
avenue
and
recommend
the
motion
that
the
heritage,
preservation,
commission
and
city
council
approve
the
local
designation
of
fire
station
number
24
located
at
4501
hiawatha
avenue
and
with
that
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
But
I
do
understand.
That's
a
member
of
the
consulting
team
who
drafted
the
studies
here
as
well.
Thank
you.
B
I
B
Anyone
else
here
to
speak
on
it:
okay,
seeing
none.
I
will
close
the
public
hearing.
Commissioners,
let's
discuss
this
item.
I
was
excited
to
see
this
come
forward
again.
As
an
inhabitant
of
this
ward,
I
guess
I
feel
like
it's
a
really
important
and
often
overlooked
portion
of
our
history
and
that
this
brings
some
really
underrepresented
aspects
of
the
city
of
minneapolis's
history
to
light,
so
I
am
excited
to
see
this
move
forward
with
the
landmark
designation,
but
I
am
hoping
to
hear
some
some
thoughts
from
other
commissioners.
H
Yep
I'll
just
echo
what
you
said,
I
was
involved
in
the
the
first
time
that
this
property
came
before
us
and
it
was
exciting
to
talk
about
and
vote
on.
So
I'm
excited
that
this
more
bipac
landmarks
are
being
nominated
and
we're
seeing
seeing
the
city
and
the
residents
are
seeing
the
historical
significance
of
of
these
buildings
in
the
community
so
really
glad
to
see
this
move
forward.
H
F
F
So
I'm
glad
to
see
this
coming
through
and
I'm
also
glad
to
see
this
particular
building
being
designated,
and
I
hope
that
going
forward,
the
that
it
has
to
go
through
our
process
will
help
retain
this
building
and
also
help
bring
back
some
of
the
character
that,
I
think,
is
right
now
being
a
little
overshadowed
by
those
giant
builder
billboards.
So
hopefully,
hopefully,
this
kind
of
helps
give
give
some
reasoning
behind
some
of
the
future
developments
that
happened
to
the
building.
B
I
H
C
B
L
L
L
The
property
was
also
identified
eligible
for
designation
in
the
2013
historic
resources
inventory
capstone
by
stark
preservation
planning
a
historic
review
letter
for
the
property
was
completed
by
cped's
staff
in
june
of
2021,
which
concluded
that
the
property
appeared
to
meet
local
designation
criteria
for
landmark
consideration
and
the
site
was
deemed
a
potential
historic
resource
next
slide.
Please.
L
The
subject
building
was
designed
in
an
eclectic
manner,
employing
elements
of
the
american
craftsman
movement
with
substantial
influence
from
european
cottage
or
country
house
revival.
Styles,
william
grey
door
was
a
prominent
architect
who
practiced
with
door
and
door.
A
partnership
formed
with
his
father,
adam
lansingdore,
around
1911.,
the
subject
building
was
completed
for
william
doerr
in
1917,
and
he
lived
at
this
location
until
at
least
1950
at
least
that's.
What's.
L
According
to
minneapolis
city
directories,
permit
and
historic
newspaper
articles
for
the
dwellings
suggest
that
dorr
was
the
architect
and
because
the
dwelling
was
built
for
him
and
no
other
architect
is
credited.
It
appears
almost
certain
that
dorr
was
responsible
for
the
design.
However,
this
could
not
be
confirmed
by
preservation
staff
with
currently
available
evidence.
L
The
building
appears
common
of
doors
designs
using
various
revival:
styles,
a
comparable
english
inspired
or
tudor
revival.
Dwelling
at
2409,
22nd
street
west
nearby
was
completed
by
door
indoor
in
1929,
and
it
consists
of
similar
design
motifs
showing
the
subject
property
during
the
time
door
lived
at
the
subject.
Building
it
appears
that
he
had
a
significant
architectural
career.
At
least
four
single-family
dwellings
designed
by
dorne
door
are
already
designated
by
the
city
as
contributing
resources
in
the
linhurst
residential
historic
district
door
door.
L
L
It
significantly
increased
the
massing
and
character
of
the
building.
The
subject
parcel
was
also
historically
larger
than
it
is
present
day.
Historic
photographs,
which
you
just
saw
in
past,
slides
that
were
submitted
by
the
applicant,
confirmed
that
the
dwelling
previously
retained
a
more
apparent
association
of
the
surrounding
landscape,
including
the
creek,
and
this
association
has
been
considerably
considerably
impacted
with
later
construction
of
neighboring
dwellings
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
demolish
the
subject.
Dwelling
and
the
applicants
did
not
submit
any
potential
future
plans
for
the
site
with
their
application.
L
Under
the
demolition
of
historic
resource
application
analysis
for
significance
in
cped's
review,
the
subject-
property
does
not
appear
eligible
for
local
designation
and
I'll
highlight
a
few
of
the
more
relevant
criterion.
Evaluations
in
the
historic
review
letter
cpad
previously
determined
that
the
property
may
be
eligible
for
local
designation
under
criterion
2
for
the
properties
association
to
william
great
door,
since
the
building
was
his
home
during
much
of
his
prolific
architectural
career
with
door
and
door.
L
The
property
no
longer
appears
to
be
an
intact
representation
of
william
gray.
Door's
dwelling
since
the
addition
was
completed
in
an
incompatible
manner
affecting
the
scale
of
the
building.
Cpet
staff
no
longer
believes
that
the
property
retains
sufficient
integrity
to
be
considered
for
landmark,
designation
under
criterion
2.
L
under
criterion
4.
The
subject.
Property
is
a
notable
eclectic
example
of
european
revival
influences
in
american
architecture
in
the
first
half
of
the
20th
century.
The
original
design
for
the
property
appears
to
have
mixed
popular
craftsmen
and
bungalow
forms
of
the
time
with
english
and
french
country
house
or
cottage
motifs,
to
create
a
noteworthy
design.
L
However,
as
mentioned
the
one
and
a
half
story,
double
bay
garage
edition
built
nearly
80
years
following
the
building's
original
construction
removed,
the
full
west
elevation.
The
addition
was
completed
in
an
incompatible
and
highly
noticeable
way
that
does
not
meet
the
secretary
of
the
interior
standards
for
rehabilitation
for
additions.
L
L
It's
association
of
master
architects,
as
I
mentioned
before,
staff
has
not
been
able
to
confirm
that
door
was
the
architect
who
designed
the
home
since
an
architect
is
emitted
from
the
original
building
permits
and
records
of
the
home's
construction
staff
finds
that
there's
not
enough
evidence
to
confirm
that
the
dwelling
would
exemplify
william
gray
door's
work
to
meet
designation
criterion.
Six
and
other
properties
designed
by
door
are
either
already
designated
by
the
city
or
known
by
staff
to
be
more
intact
and
emblematic
examples
of
doors
work.
L
As
I've
mentioned
a
few
times
here,
staff
believes
the
subject:
property
does
not
retain
the
integrity
required
to
be
considered
for
landmark,
designation.
The
garage
edition
is
incompatible
in
placement
and
scale
to
an
extent
that
negatively
affects
the
building
the
integrity
of
the
building's
original
design.
This
also
affects
the
material
integrity
of
the
building.
L
L
However,
the
neighborhood
generally
retains
integrity
of
setting,
but,
as
mentioned
before,
this
also
affects
the
the
feeling
and
the
affects
the
integrity
of
feeling
of
the
property
for
evaluation
of
unsafe
or
dangerous
conditions,
reasonable
alternatives
to
demolition
and
economic
value
or
usefulness
of
the
existing
structure
in
cpes
review.
The
the
property
does
not
appear
eligible
for
landmark
designation.
L
With
this
considered,
the
department
of
community
community
planning
and
economic
development
recommends
that
the
heritage
preservation
commission,
adopt
staff
findings
for
the
application
and
the
property
located
at
2111
52nd
street
west
and
recommend
the
heritage.
Preservation.
Commission
approves
the
demolition
of
historic
resource
application
and
with
that
again,
I'm
available
for
any
questions,
but
I
do
see
that
the
property
owners
and
applicants
are
signed
up
to
speak
as
well.
B
I
don't
see
any
at
this
time
with
that
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
for
this
item.
It
appears
that
both
of
the
owners
are
signed
up,
I'm
not
sure
which
order
you
would
like
to
go
in,
but
maggie
and
steve.
If
you
could
press
star
six,
wait
to
hear
the
pre-recorded
message
to
activate
your
microphone
and
then
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
M
M
B
B
B
I
guess
I
also
felt
like
if
this
was
being
considered
as
part
of
a
larger
district.
I
would
have
different
feelings
about
this,
but
because
it's
coming
forward
and
would
have
to
be
an
individual
designation,
I
guess
I
I
was
feeling
like
this.
This
means
this
application
made
sense
to
me.
I
would
like
to
recommend,
though,
that
the
applicants
the
owners,
consider
using
deconstruction
as
part
of
their
demolition
process.
B
Hennepin
county
has
somewhat
little
known
grants
that
give
homeowners
funding
to
use
deconstruction
of
homes,
specifically
in
this
type
of
scenario,
where
you
have
a
home
with
some
beautiful
historic
items
that
could
be
salvaged
and
used
in
a
different
building.
So
I
would
really
promote
looking
into
the
deconstruction
grants.
Olivia
cashman
runs
that
program
for
hennepin
county,
and
I
think
it
that
she
would
be
very
receptive
to
this
project.
I
could
see.
B
F
So
I
would
be
in
in
support
of
approving
this.
I
totally
agree
chair
sunberg,
with
your
recommendation.
There's
a
lot
of
material
here
that
would
be
wonderfully
put
to
use
preserving
some
of
the
other
homes
that
and
buildings
that
are
designated
that
that
might
need
the
parts
and
pieces
that
could
be
found
here.
Some
of
the
masonry,
the
hardwood
floors,
those
kinds
of
things,
so
it
would
be
a
an
excellent.
J
J
An
edition
will
never
be
big
enough
to
be
something
that
will
take
away
from
the
the
the
story
of
the
property.
This
edition
is
a
big
addition
and
it's
very
visible
from
the
front,
and
it's
not
differentiated
at
all.
It's
not
it's
compatible,
but
only
because
it's
trying
to
mimic
the
original
design-
and
I
I
agree
it
helps
to
know
that
there
are
other
door
properties
in
minneapolis.
J
O
I
I
C
B
P
Thank
you
good
evening,
madam
chair
and
commissioners.
My
name
is
andrea
burke
and
I
am
the
supervisor
for
the
historic
preservation
team
in
cpet.
I
am
presenting
tonight
a
demolition
of
historic
resource
application
for
the
potential
upper
harbor
terminal,
historic
district
and
three
monolithic,
concrete
domes
next
slide.
Please
change.
P
Cped,
a
larger
cped
owns
the
upper
harbor
terminal
property
located
on
nine
parcels
along
the
mississippi
river
in
north
minneapolis,
comprising
53
acres
and
37
buildings
and
structures.
The
upper
harbor
terminal
was
developed
as
an
intermodal
barge
shipping
terminal
in
1968
near
the
head
of
commercial
navigation
on
the
river
and
remained
in
operation
until
late
2014.
P
P
These
earlier
studies
informed
the
alternative
urban
area-wide
review
for
the
proposed
redevelopment
of
the
site
called
an
aur.
For
short,
the
aur
process
is
a
hybrid
of
the
environmental
assessment
worksheet
in
eaw
and
the
environmental
impact
statement
and
eis
review
processes
and
is
a
planning
tool
to
understand
how
different
development
scenarios
will
affect
the
environment
of
a
community
before
development
occurs.
P
As
non-contributing
for
a
total
of
37
resources,
the
three
remaining
monolithic,
concrete
domes
were
also
re-surveyed
as
part
of
the
district
and
as
individual
resources.
The
fourth
dome
collapsed
in
2018
and
I'll
explain
a
little
later.
Why
we
commissioned
this
study
or
sepia
did
not
cped
history
preservation
section,
because
all
the
previous
studies
had
all
recommended
this
site
as
eligible
for
local
designation
and
in
advance
of
a
official
action
wanted
to
present
as
much
information
before
you.
P
Following
the
opening
of
the
upper
saint
anthony
block
and
dam
in
1963.,
the
potential
upper
harbor
terminal,
historic
district
is
recommended
eligible
for
local
designation
under
criteria
1
3,
4
and
potentially
7..
The
period
of
significance
recommended
for
the
district
is
1968
when
construction
began
on
the
upper
harbor
terminal
to
1976,
when
the
upper
harbor
terminal
helped
minneapolis
achieve
the
greatest
shipping
tonnage
through
the
saint
anthony
falls,
locks
and
dams.
Next
slide,
please,
within
the
boundaries
of
the
potential
district,
there
are
three
monolithic,
concrete
domes
that
fall
outside
the
period
of
significance
recommended.
P
The
four
dorms
were
constructed
between
1982
and
1987.,
and
engineered
by
the
south
brothers
who
received
a
patent
in
1979
for
their
design
and
construction
method.
The
three
domes
are
each
recommended,
as
individually
eligible
under
criteria
3
and
4,
with
a
recommended
period
of
significance
of
1984
and
1987
the
years
the
respective
domes
were
constructed
next
slide.
P
But
demolition
for
the
entire
site
is
sought
to
allow
maximum
redevelopment
potential
site.
Work
right
now
is
expected
to
begin
in
2022
next
slide,
please,
as
part
of
the
auar.
A
mitigation
plan
is
proposed
to
offset
the
environmental
impacts
of
the
redevelopment,
including
a
proposed,
including
the
proposed
demolitions
of
historic
resources.
P
Three
and
four,
both
the
district
and
the
domes
retain
their
integrity
enough
to
convey
their
significance
according
to
chapter
599
in
the
minneapolis
code
of
ordinances.
If
the
commission
determines
that
a
property
is
a
historic
resource,
they
shall
deny
the
demolition
permit
unless
the
applicant
meets
their
burden
of
proof
with
respect
to
an
unsafe
or
dangerous
condition,
or
whether
there
are
no
reasonable
alternatives
to
demolition.
Considering
the
significance,
the
integrity
or
the
economic
value
or
usefulness
of
the
existing
structure,
including
its
current
use,
cost
of
renovation
and
feasible
alternative
uses
next
slide.
P
Additionally,
as
a
nearly
vacant
industrial
site
along
the
river,
preventing
access
to
the
public
is
crucial
to
prevent
injuries,
as
many
of
the
structures
are
not
safe
for
the
public
and
staff's
opinion.
This
is
not
the
strongest
finding
for
demolition,
though
it
holds
merit
next
slide.
Please,
a
stronger
finding
for
demolition
of
this
site
is
whether
reasonable
alternatives
to
demolition
exist.
P
P
The
cost
for
mothballing
each
of
the
buildings
alone
is
substantial,
as
identified
in
the
2015
report
by
sch
should
a
different
use
be
identified,
the
scale
of
modification
needed
would
be
difficult
to
achieve
meeting
the
secretary
of
the
interior
standards
in
this
regard,
given
the
available
reuse
options
for
the
specialized
resources
on
the
site,
combined
with
the
costs
to
mothball
or
alter
them,
there
are
very
few
reasonable
alternatives
to
demolition
next
slide.
Please,
the
site
offers
a
wide
area
of
options
for
redevelopment,
including
new
public
infrastructure,
private
development
and
park
related
improvements.
P
P
B
P
We
did
provide
comment
on
some
of
the
mitigation
options.
You
know
some
of
this
points
that
I
stressed
as
part
of
it
was.
You
know,
a
preservation,
positive
type
outcome,
something
that
doesn't
necessarily
shed
on
a
sit
on
the
shelf,
but
that
also,
you
know,
has
an
opportunity
to
provide
a
learning
experience
and
to
continue
interpretive
options
for
this.
So
there
was
actually
quite
a
large
there
were
a
number
of
options
considered
for
the
for
the
mitigation
plan.
In
this
respect,.
G
G
However,
demolition
approval
for
all
buildings,
site
structures
and
objects
being
sought
by
cped
and
the
mprb
to
allow
maximum
flexibility
with
the
site.
But
then
I'm
sorry,
I
forgot
my
camera.
You
can
hear
me,
I
hope
now.
Maybe
you
can
see
me
too
okay,
but
on
page
11,
it
says
in
citing
the
minneapolis
code
of
ordinances,
title
23,
chapter
599.
G
The
destruction
is
either
necessary
to
correct
an
unsafe
or
dangerous
condition
on
the
property
or
no
reasonable
alternatives
to
the
to
the
destruction,
and
I'm
confused
about
what
I
see
on
page
9.
What
I
see
on
page
11.
and
then
on
page
15.
It
says,
given
the
available
reuse
options
for
the
specialized
resources
on
the
site,
combined
with
the
cost
to
mothball
or
alter
them.
G
There
are
quote
very
few
alternatives
to
demolition
again,
no
statement
about
no
alternatives
or
about
the
unsafe
situation,
and
then
the
findings
on
page
17
now
contradict
that
and
say
there
are
no
reasonable
alternatives
to
destruction
and
demolition
initially
proposed
for
the
remaining
20
resources.
And
so
you
know,
I
think
there
are
some
that
are
contributing.
Some
are
not,
and
I'm
just
really
confused.
P
P
From
my
understanding
and
I'll,
let
the
applicants
speak
with
their
presentation.
Is
that
a
redevelopment
proposal
hasn't
been
finalized
but
they're
still
in
the
planning
stages
of
it.
But
there
is
an
initial
phase
right
now
that
is
being
sought
off
to
start
some
of
this
redevelopment,
and
in
order
to
do
that,
that
is
where
these
17
resources
are
coming
from.
P
That
says
this
is
a
historic
resource
as
a
district.
It
meets
the
criteria,
it
has
integrity
and
the
only
way
to
make
the
findings
in
order
to
approve
the
demolition
of
historic
resource
for
the
commission.
Is
you
know
it's
got
to
meet
their
burden
of
proof,
burden
of
proof,
which
is
one
either
it's
an
unsafe
or
dangerous
condition.
P
In
my
analysis
of
the
applicant's
application,
there
is
some
findings
for
some
of
the
buildings,
but
I
guess
I
felt
for
the
initial
17
that
showed
which
ones
were
structurally
unsafe
versus
the
others
that
weren't
you
know
6
to
11..
I
didn't
feel
it
was
the
strongest
fighting
to
meet
that
burden
of
proof,
but
that
the
stronger
finding
in
staff's
opinion
was
really
under
the
reasonable
alternatives
to
demolition
and
my
wording.
P
I
can
see
your
point
I
was
making
the
case
and
that
there's
so
much
literature
on
this
and
there's
been
so
many
evaluations
and
studies
and
engagement,
reuse,
studies
in
2015
that
looked
into
what
could
be
done
with
this
site
and
what
was
put
forth
by
the
applicant
in
staff's
opinion
showed
that
there
were
really
no
reasonable
alternatives
to
demolition,
and
I
clarified
that
in
the
findings.
But
I
think
to
your
credit.
P
Yes,
it
could
have
maybe
been
made
a
little
more
clear
in
that
one
sentence
that
you
referenced,
but
the
way
as
I
was
putting
together
was
that
it
was
leading
up
to
this
is
everything
that
had
been
looked
at
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
given
the
specialized
nature
of
this
site,
there
weren't
any
reasonable
alternatives
to
demolition.
Given
the
you
know,
costs
for
repair
and
renovation,
alternative
uses,
reuse
options
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
I
hope
that
helps.
G
I
mean
when
I
go
back
and
look
at
what's
on
page
nine.
At
this
time,
demolition
for
all
building
site
structures
is
being
sought
by
cped
and
the
mprb
to
allow
maximum
flexibility
with
the
site,
and
I
guess
I'm
wondering
it's
kind
of
an
awkward
situation
where
the
cped
is
an
owner
in
the
park
board.
Would
we
agree
to
this
for
any
other
applicant?
That's
that's
my
question
as
a
relatively
new
commissioner.
I
don't
know
what's
come
before
you
before,
but
my
question
is
in
this
sort
of
potential
conflict
of
interest
situation.
P
That's
a
good
question
and
a
good
comment.
It
is
unusual
and
this
is
a
a
complicated
and
unusual
project
that
has
been
going
on
for
many
years
and
yes,
I
I
did
note
that
I
in
our
entity
we
are,
I
am
cped,
although
I'm
in
the
historic
preservation
section,
but
it's
ultimately
cpa
that
owns
the
property.
There
are
not
many
properties
in
the
city
where
this
is
the
situation
and
I
think
to
be
as
objective
as
possible.
P
That's
why
cped
and
economic
development
did
hire
a
third
party
consultant
to
conduct
a
designation
study
ahead
of
official
ahead
of
an
official
action
to
try
and
keep
it
as
objective
as
possible.
So
it's
not
it
wasn't
me
myself
reviewing
this
information
and
making
that
it
was.
You
know
the
evaluation
of
the
significance,
integrity.
It
was
the
the
consultant
now
when
it
comes
to
evaluating
the
findings.
P
K
Yeah,
hey,
I'm
I'm
thinking
of
another
situation
where
this
would
have
happened.
I
think
some
of
the
commissioners
on
the
commission
may
have
been
on
at
the
time.
I
I
wasn't,
but
pb
plaza
would
have
been
a
situation
where
cped
was
applying
to
cpad
for
for
some
changes
to
a
historic
resource.
So
that's
a
situation
where
this
has
happened
before
so
it's
not
completely
outside
the
realm
of
possibility.
Cped
is
also
a
landowner
at
times.
K
K
If
there's
been
discussion
and
discussion
of
archaeological
resources,
things
like
that
that
go
beyond
just
the
expand
resources
that
we're
talking
about.
That's
not
not
necessarily
important
for
the
discussion
today,
but
I
am
just
interested
to
hear
about
other
public
policy
bodies
that
have
oversight
on
this
and
where
they're
at
in
any
review
process,
so
andrea.
To
the
extent
that
you
have
information
on
that,
or
perhaps
the
applicant
can
provide
some
color
on
that
as
well.
P
Thank
you,
commissioner,
vander
ike.
I
can
answer
part
of
that
and
then
the
other
part
I
will
direct
to
the
applicant
when
it's
their
turn
to
present
section
106
has
been
volleyed
around
for
this
many
times
as
part
of
the
auar
process.
We
have
been
consulting
with
the
state
historic
preservation
office
and
that's
where
a
lot
of
this
discussion
about
the
larger
upper
harbor
district,
the
the
one
along
the
mississippi
river,
with
the
multiple
sites
and
how
the
upper
harbor
fits
into
it.
P
There
have
been
some
back
and
forth
over
whether
or
not
some
of
the
work
along
the
river
will
trigger
section
106
to
date.
That
has
not
happened.
I
can
let
the
applicant
speak
a
little
bit
more
to
that,
but
that
is
something
that
has
been
looked
into
and
as
this
point
there
has
been
no
section
106
triggering
event
picked
up.
P
K
P
I'm
glad
actually
you
mention
it
because
I
I
would
like
to
touch
on
it
a
bit
because
it
has
been
touched
on
for
this
as
part
of
the
aoar.
As
part
of
that
there
was
an
archaeological
consultant
that
went
out.
They
started
off
with
a
phase
1a,
which
is
essentially
a
literature
search
of
the
site
that
picked
up
a
few
hits.
Obviously
it's
along
the
river,
that's
usually
a
very
hot
bed
for
potential
archaeological
resources.
P
P
So
it's
possible.
We
may
have
some
resources
there.
You
know
possibly
some
eligible
resources,
that's
discovered
as
part
of
a
phase
two
in
in
archaeology,
but
that's
why
I
also
included
as
potentially
eligible
under
criterion
seven,
because
at
the
time
the
designation
study
was
written.
The
phase
one
was
not
complete
that
had
those
results
from
that,
so
it
actually
does
all
roll
in
together
and
this
project
is
so
complicated
and
that
we
have
these
local
reviews.
We
have
state
reviews
and
then
may
or
may
not
have
federal
results
coming
into
it.
J
Lots
of
questions
for
staff
tonight,
so
my
question
is
related
to
the
partially
the
106
review,
but
also
the
mitigation
plan,
and
it
it
ties
into
this
notion
that
you
know
pb
plaza
came
up
and
the
commission
was
part
of
that
consultation
process
on
pb
plaza.
It
doesn't
appear
to
have
any
role
for
the
commission
in
the
consultation
as
part
of
the
mitigation
plan
and-
and
frankly,
I
think
the
mitigation
plan
is
very
loosey-goosey.
J
The
interpretive
work
could
incorporate
the
history,
use
documentation
of
historic
resources
to
inform
interpretive
planning,
but
there's
no
definitive.
There
will
be
interpretive
planning
and
an
interpretive
plan
for
the
site
and
it
will
be
executed
as
part
of
the
development
and
so
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
the
way
the
mitigation
is
set
up.
J
P
P
P
I
could
also
be
thinking
about
another
project,
but
because
at
this
point
I
think
the
the
redevelopment
potential
is
still
very
much
up
in
the
air
given
about
you
know
in
in
this
meeting
and
and
what
this
commission
decides
plays
a
very
real
part
into
what
happens
with
the
redevelopment
potential
in
terms
of
whether
or
not
the
commission
decides
to
deny
the
demolition
and
move
forward,
because
that
ends
up
changing
timelines.
It
changes,
process
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
O
Yeah
and
I'm
super
glad,
commissioner
howard
asked
a
question
that
I
was
absolutely
thinking
about,
but
hearing
that
you
have
said
that
there
was
a
phase
two
survey
recommended
for
archaeology,
but
that
hasn't
necessarily
moved
forward.
If
there
are
resources
found
during
phase
two
work.
Is
that
something
that
would
come
to
this
commission
or
is
that
the
like
mitigation
plan?
That
would
happen
as
a
result
of
that,
or
would
we
not
really
have
a
chance
to
review
that
or
speak
to
it?.
P
Thank
you,
commissioner,
biernberg
for
your
question
that
I,
in
my
opinion,
that
gets
rolled
into
kind
of
what's
decided
here
today.
It's
something
this
commission
hasn't
handled
too
much
the
below
grade
resources,
and
this
is
an
unusual
site
where
we
have
resource
layered
upon
resource
and
that
we
have
the
foundations
that
were
found
were
from.
I
think,
what
like
late
1800s
and
then
we
have
a
1960s
site
that
was
built
on
top.
P
It
is
something
that
has
been
addressed
as
part
of
the
mitigation
plan
as
part
of
the
aur,
and
I
know
you
know
it
is
something
that
is
still
a
moving
target
because
the
phase
two
for
an
archaeological
survey.
Really,
you
know
the
shovel
test
pit
identifies
a
positive,
and
in
this
case
it
was
a
foundations
and
then
the
phase
two
would
really
look
at
you
know.
What
are
we
dealing
with
here?
P
Is
it
eligible
and
then,
if
you
get
to
the
phase
three,
it
would
be
data
recovery,
I'm
touching
on
some
very
old
archaeological
knowledge
here.
So
if
jeremy
nino,
who
is
the
consultant,
hears
me
and
I'm
wrong,
I
apologize,
but
I
I
don't
think
it
would
come
before
you
if
it.
The
decision
today
is
approval
of
the
demolition.
P
B
B
Q
Good
evening
my
name
is
hillary
holmes
and
I
am
a
senior
project
coordinator
for
the
city
of
minneapolis
and
cpen
good
evening,
sundberg
and
commissioners.
I'm
here
tonight
representing
the
city
as
a
co-applicant
for
the
demolition
of
historic
resource
application
for
upper
harbor
terminal.
For
your
consideration.
Q
The
city
is
a
joint
applicant
with
the
minneapolis
park
and
recreation
board
on
this
application.
The
city
will
be
transferring
the
future
park
land
on
the
upper
harbor
terminal
site
to
mprv,
which
would
contain
the
majority
of
the
existing
structures
identified
for
removal.
At
this
time.
There
are
two
representatives
from
the
mprv
project
team
joining
me
as
part
of
this
presentation:
julie,
aldrich,
mprb
project
manager
for
the
upper
harbor
regional
park,
project
and
john
slack
landscape
architect
and
associate
principal
with
perkins,
and
will
the
lead
consultant
on
the
park
design.
Q
Could
I
have
the
next
slide?
Please
redevelopment
planning
process
began
in
2015,
as
you
know,
when
the
federal
government
announced
closure
of
the
saint
anthony
locke
to
upriver
navigation,
which
eliminated
the
barge
shipping
traffic,
that
the
terminal
supported
the
city
and
fprv
have
been
working
in
partnership
on
the
redevelopment
of
the
uht
since
2015
and
were
joined
in
the
partnership
in
2017
by
development
team
led
by
united
properties.
Q
This
planning
process
resulted
in
the
coordinated
plan
for
redevelopment
previously
referenced,
and
that
plan
was
approved
by
the
city
council
on
october
14th
or
say
the
city
on
october
14th
of
this
year.
It
also
has
resulted
in
the
regional
park
concept
plan,
which
was
approved
by
the
nprb
on
december,
2nd
of
this
year.
Q
Regarding
that,
could
I
have
the
next
slide
please
in
order
to
support
the
transition
of
the
upper
harbor
site
from
its
original
function
as
the
bar
shipping
terminal
to
a
mixed-use
development,
public
realm
and
infrastructure
improvements
are
needed
to
support
the
access
and
connectivity
to
the
site
and
new
utilities
that
includes
a
system
of
bike
trails,
sidewalks
streets,
new
utilities
to
support
drinking
water,
sanitary
waste
removal
and
overhead
transmission
power
line.
Relocation.
Q
The
city
has
worked
closely
with
community
stakeholders,
residents,
mprb,
hennepin,
county
mndot
and
the
mississippi
watershed
management
organization
to
develop
design
concepts
that
provide
a
connected
system
of
sidewalks
trails.
Neighborhoods.
I'm
sorry,
sidewalks
trails
and
streets
to
support
the
greater
connectivity
and
access
between
nearby
neighborhoods
and
the
upper
harbour
site
can
have
the
next
slide
please.
Q
N
Thank
you,
hillary
and
good
evening,
commissioner.
This
project
will
preserve
and
interpret
aspects
of
the
industry.
However,
the
overall
interpretive
message
will
emphasize
the
reclamation
of
this
space
by
people
and
nature.
There
are
five
north
side
storylines
that
were
developed
with
local
designers
and
artists,
historic
histories
of
ecological
harm
and
disconnection
from
this
place,
environmental
justice
work
and
vision,
appropriation
and
reappropriation
of
this
place:
settlement,
history
of
the
north
side
and
food
sovereignty
in
black
native
and
poc
communities.
N
N
During
community
engagement,
it
has
been
clear
that
there
are
many
ways
to
send
messages
about
who
space
is
for
and
who
is
welcomed
and
celebrated.
The
project
will
balance
industrial
history
and
relevance
with
indigenous
and
community
culture
and
history.
Community
members
have
expressed
a
desire
for
an
honest
examination
of
what
industry
on
the
river
has
meant
to
this
area
and
how
the
related
development,
infrastructure,
trade
and
pollution
have
impacted
people
and
the
land.
The
project
will
provide
places
for
the
language,
history,
culture
and
environmental
education
and
learning
next
slide.
Please.
N
Community
engagement
assessed
how
key
categories
of
park
users,
including
children,
teens,
seniors,
individual
users,
people
in
groups
and
organizations
might
interact
with
the
park.
The
resulting
list
of
10
key
experiences
includes
information
on
how
the
physical
park
features
can
be
tailored
to
support
north
side.
Community
needs
and
desires,
desired
activities
and
experiences
for
the
park
are
organized
into
categories
that
inform
the
physical
spaces.
N
N
The
19.5
acre
park
spans
the
entire
length
of
the
uht
property
along
the
river
front
to
the
east
and
the
development
parcels
to
the
west.
Much
of
the
park
is
linear
with
a
five
acre
central
park.
Space
linear
park
areas
feature
the
parkway
road
with
parking
which
will
also
serve
as
a
city
street,
with
separated
bike
and
pedestrian
trails,
vegetative
buffers
a
gently
sloped,
vegetated
shoreline
and
storm
water
treatment
areas.
N
N
N
Amenities
are
grouped
to
limit
site
footprints
and
enhanced
user
convenience.
Core
park
elements
include
circulation
pathways,
flexible,
plaza,
space,
flexible
alarm
and
picnic
area,
a
play
area,
ada
water
access,
temporary
mobile
buildings
with
restrooms
and
shelter,
a
green
infrastructure,
training
center
and
gardens
and
natural
areas
next
slide.
Please.
N
Reasons
for
demolition
include
to
advance
the
city
council
approved
coordinated
plan
for
redevelopment
and
mprb
approved
regional
park
concept.
Plan
redevelopment
is
needed
due
to
closure
of
the
lock
and
upper
river
navigation,
ending
and
without
economically
feasible
use
or
reuse
of
the
structures.
Demolition
of
the
structures
noted
is
needed
to
prevent
further
deterioration
and
unsafe
conditions
on
site
to
advance
the
overall
redevelopment
of
the
site
and
to
realize
the
community
benefits
delivered
through
the
public
infrastructure
park
and
development
projects
next
slide.
Please.
N
Reasons
for
removal
of
the
existing
structures
include
structures,
have
no
long-term
economic
value,
cost
prohibitive
to
implement
safety
and
security
strategies
with
existing
structures
that
are
proposed
for
demo
and
removal.
Due
to
numerous
public
health
safety
and
welfare
concerns,
it
is
cost
prohibitive
to
restore
condition
and
design
these
structures
for
another
use.
There
is
no
desired
park.
Programming
that
aligns
with
preservation
and
restoration
of
these
structures
and
desired
park.
Programming
cannot
be
implemented
because
of
current
space
restrictions
with
the
location
and
size
of
the
existing
buildings.
N
A
majority
of
the
existing
structures
are
located
on
future
public
park
land
in
order
to
provide
adequate
space
for
public
use
and
allow
for
views
through
the
park
into
the
river.
Many
of
the
existing
structures
may
be
partially
or
entirely
removed.
A
small
number
of
structures
are
located
on
a
development
parcel
plan
for
a
mixed-use
building
with
affordable
housing
and
commercial
space
focused
on
the
local
northside
community.
N
Specific
retention,
adaptive,
reuse
or
interpretation
of
industrial
structures
is
most
likely
to
include
showing
the
outlines
of
dome,
65
and
66,
and
possibly
retaining
some
lower
portions
of
the
walls
or
to
interpret
the
location
of
the
wall.
We
may
keep
some
remnants
of
dome
64
outline
in
suitable
locations,
reuse,
some
of
the
smaller
steel
structural
elements
and
concrete
pieces
on
site
for
bollards
bike,
racks,
public
art,
site,
furnishings,
etc.
N
In
the
short
time,
stabilization
reuse
of
the
four
green
elevators
for
outdoor
storage,
we'll
keep
one
or
two
green
elevators
to
house
a
water
reuse
cistern
for
other
storage,
maintain
portions
of
the
red
grain
elevator
at
a
minimum,
maintain
some
of
the
steel
posts
and
structures
in
place
as
a
vertical
presence
on
the
site
stabilize
and
repurpose.
Some
of
the
overhead
conveyors
repurposing
will
likely
involve
hanging,
shaped
structures,
lights,
security
cameras,
swings,
hammocks
or
other
public
amenities
from
them.
N
J
N
As
we
mentioned,
a
single
grain
elevator
is
currently
planned
to
be
utilized
for
a
cistern
for
water
reuse
as
part
of
the
district's
stormwater
management
system
long
term.
The
master
plan
for
the
site
does
indicate
that
those
structures
may
be
removed
in
the
future,
but
at
this
point
in
time
they
would
be
retained.
J
The
other
question
I
had
was
a
lot
of
the
community
engagement,
slides
that
you
showed
related
to
interpretive
themes,
and
things
like
that.
I
didn't
see
any
mention
of
the
the
historic
nature
of
the
structures
themselves.
Was
that
part
of
any
of
the
conversations
when
talking
with
the
community
or
was
it
just
about
the
use
of
the
site
and
connections
to
the
river
in
the
neighborhood.
N
J
N
P
Q
B
Q
Q
My
predecessor,
ann
calvert,
worked
for
the
city
of
minneapolis
for
decades
and
on
this
project
for
many
years,
and
I
wanted
to
note
for
commissioner
howard's
questions
regarding
how
how
these
potential
resources
were
discussed
on
the
community
that
I'm.
I
know
that
anne
certainly
addressed
that
during
engagement.
So
ann
was
very
involved
in
community
engagement
prior
to
my
involvement
with
the
project,
so
I
can't
speak
more
specifically
to
it
other
than
I.
B
Okay,
don't
see
anyone
waving
about
okay,
so
again
anyone
wishing
to
speak
for
or
against
this
application
we'll
take
the
list
of
pre-registered
speakers
in
order
and
then
open
the
floor
to
any
other
speakers
who
may
be
in
the
queue.
If
you
could,
please
provide
your
name
and
address
before
making
your
comments
and
press
star
six
on
your
phone.
B
Wait
to
hear
the
pre-recorded
message
to
activate
your
microphone
so
that
we
can
hear
you
so
the
only
other
people
I
have
listed
here
on
my
list
may
be
on
the
applicant
team,
I'm
not
sure,
and
so,
if,
if
you
are
just
let
me
know,
you
don't
want
to
say
anything,
that's
fine!
I
have
john
slack
here
on
the
list.
J
B
N
B
B
B
Just
based
off
of
the
questions
and
my
own
thoughts
on
the
application-
and
I
guess
where
I'm
at
is
whether
or
not
these
can
be
addressed
through
conditions
or
whether
there
are
stronger
concerns
than
that.
I'm
wondering
about
additional
mitigation
potentially
being
in
the
conditions,
something
maybe
about
the
archaeology
comes
to
mind.
B
O
I
also
sort
of
am
I'm
having
a
lot
of
hesitation
about
sort
of
approving
so
much
demolition
for
something
that
feels
like
a
plan
that
is
changing,
especially
if
you
know
hearing
the
presentation
about
the
project
and
how
you
know
we
might
try
to
save
part
of
this
building
or
we
might
try
to
save
this.
You
know
I.
I
have
a
lot
of
hesitation
about
saying,
go
ahead
and
demolish
these
things.
When
there's
actually
talk
of
well,
maybe
they
can
be
preserved
or
retained
in
some
way.
O
You
know
the
presentation
that
talked
about
the
sort
of
10
interpretive
goals,
and
you
know,
heritage
preservation
or
talking
about
the
history
of
that
didn't
even
seem
like
that
was
really
included,
especially
if
you
know
you
heard
from
community
engagement
that
you
know
there
is
an
association
with
the
neighborhood
and
what
had
happened
here
and
so
it
sort
of
feels
like
okay.
Well,
we
should
just
demolish
these
resources
because
it
isn't
it
isn't
valued
by
the
neighborhood,
but
you
know.
I
think
that
that
is
also
part
of
that
story.
O
J
J
I
do
think
that,
if
it,
if
we
were
to
approve
it,
I
would
like
to
see
some
additional
involvement
of
the
hpc
in
the
mitigation
measures,
something
specifically
stated
and
and
possibly
some
conditions
that
would
allow
it
to
be
a
little
bit
less
loose
on.
The
could
do
this
and
might
do
that
type
of
thing,
but
I'd
be
I'm
interested
to
see
what
the
other
commission
members
have
to
say.
P
I
did
thank
you.
I
wanted
to
respond
to
some
of
the
comments
that
I've
been
hearing
that
as
part
of
the
auar,
the
mitigation
plan
must
be
abided
by.
It's
not
kind
of
a
if
this
or
that
it
they
have
to
do
what
is
is
adopted
in
this,
and
I
think
it
is
relatively
loose
in
that.
I
think
you
know
due
to
sort
of
the
evolving
nature
of
the
site.
P
I
don't
know
if
the
team
was
ready
to
completely
come
up
with
a
full-blown
interpretive
plan,
but
you
know
the
fact
that
the
mitigation
plan
does
say
you
know
explore
interpretive
planning.
They
need
to
export.
I
see
your
point
in
that.
That
is
not
a
do
interpretive
planning,
but
I
feel
like
not
only
the
applicants
but
given
just
the
microscope.
That's
been
on
the
site
and
the
studies
that
have
been
done
a
lot
of
people.
You
know
a
lot
of
the
the
work
that's
gone
into.
P
P
Those
are
some
of
the
findings
for
demo,
but
then
you
know
really
going
through.
Is
there
an
unsafe
condition
that
would
warrant
demolition?
Has
that
burden
of
proof
been
met?
Should
you
go
in
that
direction
or
has
the
burden
of
approved
relative
to
reasonable
alternatives?
Are
there
no
reasonable
alternatives?
Given
the
documents-
and
I
know
there
was
a
lot
of
them-
there
was
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
pages
sent
to
you.
P
Has
that
been
met
and
if
yes,
then
I
think
yes,
you
know
explore
whether
or
not
you
know
you
want
to
add
some
additional
conditions
on
to
not
proving
this
demolition.
I
know
it's
a
lot.
It's
an
unusual
situation,
but
I
think
keeping
those
ideas
in
mind,
as
you
evaluate
this
would
be,
would
be
helpful
thanks.
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
am
I'm
concerned
because
I
don't
think
we
have
that
information.
I
mean
I
I
when
I
look
at
the
report
that
was
provided
to
us.
I
really
can't
see
where
specifically
specific
resources
are
either
they
don't
meet
either
of
the
requirements
that
are
in
this
that
are
in
the
regulations.
So
at
this
point
I
just
feel
like
I'm
probably
gonna
have
to
vote.
No,
unless
we
come
up
with
some
more
limited
kind
of
motion.
F
Yeah
I'd
agree
that
this
is
it's
a
it's
a
big
package
to
kind
of
process
all
at
once,
and
I
appreciate
the
presentation
that
was
given
by
staff
tonight.
It
kind
of
helped
set
the
stage
to
understand
and
to
start
to
process
the
600
pages
that
was
in
the
report,
I'm
kind
of
getting
that
big
picture
kind
of
overview
can
help
kind
of
narrow
in
and
understand
and
process.
F
F
I
would
possibly
support
demolishing
some
of
the
structures,
but
not
all
of
them
and
in
all
reality,
I
believe
that
that
should
be
kind
of
up
to
the
the
team
that
has
been
doing
the
design
and
the
work
and
the
planning
thus
far
to
determine
which
structures
might
offer
the
best
interpretive
and
also
also
offer
the
best
opportunity
for
use
going
forward.
And
so
I
would
like
to
see
an
application
that
is
more
strategic
about
what
what
is
going
to
be
demolished
and
what
is
going
to
be
saved.
F
I
can
fully
kind
of
empathize
with
the
fact
that
that
not
all
histories
are
histories
we
enjoyed
and
all
some
histories
are,
are
a
painful
situation.
But
I
I
do
also
believe
that
you
know
we
need
to
save
or
or
recognize
very
carefully
those
kinds
of
things,
because
saving
that
information
and
remembering
the
damage
that
we've
done
to
ourselves
is
is
something
that's
important
and
it's
an
important
part
of
of
writing
history
is
to
include
the
negative
effects.
F
I
agree
that
I
understand
that
the
a
uar
process
has
some
mitigation
in
it,
and
I
and
I
I
would
say
that
in
reality
it
would
be
nice
to
have
some
input
from
our
board,
because,
if
section
106
isn't
isn't
triggered,
then
the
ao,
a
uar,
I
guess,
is
the
is
the
requirement
for
that
mitigation
and
that
the
the
mitigation
then
is
required
to
be
done
and
that
you
know
some.
You
know
some
involvement
from
the
staff
will
happen
to
make
sure
that
that
mitigation
is
appropriate
and
and
adhered
to.
F
That
being
said,
I
think
you
know
we
as
as
a
committee
might
want
to
have
somebody
involved
in
that
process.
So
I
guess
my
my
kind
of
bottom
line
tonight
is
that
I
I
would.
I
would
like
to
potentially
not
approve
so
deny
this
request
and
and
recommend
that
a
new
request
would
come
back
in
front
of
us.
That
would
be
a
little
more
targeted
about
what
they
want
to
demolish
now.
F
Obviously,
that
doesn't
preclude
a
demolition
permit
come
from
coming
through.
You
know,
three
years,
five
years
from
now,
if
they
wanted.
If,
if
at
that
point
you
know,
all
of
the
structures
are
looked
at
for
demolition,
so
that
would
be
kind
of
my
thoughts
on
this
for
tonight,
but
interested
to
see
yeah
andrea
already-
and
I
know
ethan-
has
some
comments
as
well
so
interested
to
hear
other
commissioner's
thoughts.
P
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
addressing
everything
as
we
go
through
them,
so
we
don't
get
so.
Thank
you,
commissioner,
booty
for
being
patient
for
a
moment.
One
thing
to
think
about.
So
if
this
was
denied-
and
this
is
just
to
make
it
completely
clear-
you
would
commence
a
designation
study
that
is
pretty
much
the.
If
then
situation
in
this
case,
you
know
the
the
applicant
wanted
to
put
the
designation
study
before
you.
P
You
know
in
as
a
precursor
to
the
official
action
to
try
to
be
able
to
make
to
put
as
much
information
before
you.
You
know,
which
is
really
this
commission's
responsibility,
is
to
make
a
dis
decision
on
you
know.
Yes,
it
is
the
demolition,
but
also
then,
but
if
you
deny
the
demolition,
you
have
to
commence
a
designation
study,
and
so
essentially
what
would
be
happening
is.
P
It
would
be
probably
a
couple
months
and
then
I
would
come
right
back
before
you
with
the
same
designation
study
and
the
same
information
and
whether
or
not
you
would
want
to
move
forward
with
the
designation
study.
So
that's
kind
of
you
know
the
other
option.
Is
you
know,
should
you
decide
to,
you
know,
approve
the
demolition
and
you
can
add
conditions.
That's
you
know
fully
within
your
right.
You
know
think
about
some
options
that
are,
if
you
wanted
some
other
types
of
mitigation.
P
Let's
say
you
know,
there's
a
slide
in
there
that
talks
about
at
least
put
forth
by
the
applicant.
That
shows
some
green
and
grey
ideas
for
maybe
certain
buildings
to
to
keep,
and
you
know
possibly
that
is
a
potential
idea
as
well.
Let's
say
there
are
certain
buildings
that
you
do
want
to
I'm
kind
of
just
brainstorming
ideas
as
some
potential
options,
but
just
to
reiterate
to
deny
is
to
commence
a
designation
study
and
that's
kind
of
the
only
option
in
this
case
for
this
type
of
application
before
you.
Thank
you.
D
D
I
think
would
be
shared
by
this
commission
in
terms
of
historic
interpretation
and
some
of
the
the
features
of
of
the
overall
park
development
and
I'm
really
excited
to
see.
You
know
what
comes
out
of
this
development
and
I'm
excited
to
see
what
can
be
programmed
here.
You
know
demolishing
resources
is
definitely
a
tough
decision
on
our
part,
and
I
think
I
share
a
lot
of
the
same
concerns
as
the
same
the
commissioners.
I've
spoken
before
me
in
terms
of
you
know
it's.
D
D
Maybe
we
have
a
lot
of
different
options,
but
in
terms
of
like
a
mitigation,
you
know
some
sort
of
clear
path
for
us
to
be
involved
in
either
the
historic
interpretation
of
the
site
going
forward
with
whatever
plan
is
approved,
as
well
as
any
documentation
of
demolished
buildings.
That
might
be.
You
know,
part
of
that
plan.
E
Well,
I
yeah
it
sounds
like
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
feelings
about
all
these
concrete
structures
and
recent
history.
I
wonder
if
we
should
vote
on
the
demolition
and
see
where
we're
at
if
we
got
enough
votes
to
do
it
and
we
could
add
some
language
about
mitigation,
that's
just
kind
of
what
I'm
thinking.
H
Yeah,
I
guess
my
question
is
I'm
not
sure
why,
if
we
deny
this
that
it
would
automatically
trigger
a
designation
study,
I
mean
I
would
be
in
favor
for
just
getting
having
the
applicant
hone
down
their
plan
a
little
bit
and
just
submit
a
instead
of
like
30
plan.
I
would
like
to
see
maybe
65
or
95
something
a
little
further
along.
I'm
just
unclear.
Why?
Why
that,
if
than
exists,
the
way
it's
being
described
to
us
as
as
as
our
option.
B
P
So
to
answer
commissioners
johnson
question:
it's
in
the
ordinance
so
to
deny
then
commence
a
designation
study
and
that's
purely
where
that
comes
from,
and
that's
largely
how
demo
of
historic
resources
are
handled,
as
dictated
in
the
in
ordinance
in
chapter
599..
I
think
it
might
be
prudent
to
ask
the
applicant
again.
P
Is
that
something
you
know
we
could
turn
to
the
applicant
and
have
them
restate
for
you
to
kind
of
help
clarify
some
of
the
the
questions
and
I
don't.
I
don't
intend
to
clarify
the
hesitation
demolishing
a
historic
resource,
it's
never
an
easy
decision,
but
can
we
divert
for
a
moment
to
let
them
state
that.
B
Andrea,
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
idea
I'd
also
if
the
applicant
could
clarify
if
the
green
and
gray
picture
we
see
with
the
green
buildings
as
potential
preservation.
Does
that
mean
those
gray
ones
we're
seeing?
Are
those
17
to
be
removed?
Does
that
correlate
with
your
list,
because
the
graphic
is
kind
of
helps
visually.
Q
Hi
everybody-
this
is
hilary
holmes
again
with
cped,
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
it
to
clarify
the
demo.
Application
that
was
submitted
was
indeed
limited
to
the
17
structures
that
would
be
needed
to
make
way
for
the
parkway
project,
as
well
as
the
park
itself
and
then
also
inclusive
of
those
four
structures.
Q
The
future
development
parcel
referred
to
as
6a
and
those
are
not
planned
to
be
all
demolished
at
this
time,
meaning
the
four
structures
on
6a,
but
some
of
them
are
in
the
envelope
we'll
say
of
the
parkway
project,
I'm
sorry
the
dowling
avenue
reconstruction
project.
So
there
would
be
improvements
to
dowling
on
the
north,
improvements
to
33rd
avenue
on
the
south
of
the
site,
33rd
avenue
north
and
then
the
construction
of
the
new
parkway
through
the
site
running
north
south.
And
so
some
structures
are
in
the
alignment
of
the
new
parkway.
Q
Some
are
in
the
envelope
of
the
reconstruction
of
dowling
and
the
majority
are
on
the
future
park
parcel
site
and
together
that
those
are
the
17
that
are
included
in
the
demo
application
and
then
the
the
preservation,
as
noted
by
the
park
board.
In
that
graphic
with
the
green
items
and
those
are
not
included-
I'm
not
certain
if
this
so
that
I
just
want
to
also
note
that,
as
listed
in
the
demo
application,
the
structures
requested
for
demolition
are
numbered
1
through
17.
However,
that
does
not
correspond.
Q
You
know
necessarily
to
the
other
categorization
of
the
structures,
the
number
categorization
of
them
and
the
existing
structures
report
and
then
also
with
their
other.
I'm
sorry,
I'm
not
gonna
have
the
right
phrase,
but
the
kind
of
historic
categorization
of
them,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
was
clear
as
well
and
just
to
reconfirm
and,
if
possible,
to
allow
julie
to
speak
from
the
park
as
well.
To
this
question,
thank
you.
N
Sure,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
hillary
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
again
and
yes,
I
would
just
like
to
echo
hillary's
clarification
that
the
the
graphic
you're
seeing
with
the
gray
and
the
items
highlighted
in
green
do
indicate
clearly
the
structures
that
are
being
proposed
for
demolition
versus
structures
that
are
intended
to
be
preserved.
I
would
add
that
the
design
process
to
date
has
operated
on
the
premise
of
this
approach
and
we
are
approaching
60
percent
design
documents
at
this
point
in
our
process.
N
So
we
are
ahead
of
kind
of
the
conceptual
design
points
in
the
process
and
at
this
point
in
time,
the
work
that's
being
done
is
being
centered
around
these
structures
and
these
elements
remaining
on
the
site
versus
those
that
are
that
are
being
removed,
and
I
think,
just
to
also
direct
everyone
back
to
some
of
the
design
principles
for
the
project.
For
those
structures
that
are,
you,
know,
structurally
unsound
or
have
you
know,
potential
hazard
issues
or
economic
reuse
issues?
N
We
do
intend,
from
a
design
perspective,
to
be
very
thoughtful
about
encouraging
interpretation
of
those
structures,
so
one
example
I
would
present
would
be
to
share
that.
We
plan
to
have
an
area
of
the
site
used
for
green
infrastructure,
jobs
and
training,
to
really
build
capacity
for
community
members
and
northside
residents
to
participate
in
programming
and
maintaining
the
site
long
term
and
that
we
are
working
within
the
boundaries
and
the
forms
of
the
the
domes,
for
example,
that
that
would
be
coming
out.
N
And
so
we
are
really
being
trying
to
be
thoughtful
about
ways
that
we
can
incorporate
those
forms
and
and
that
history
in
this
site.
But
I
I
would
just
also
want
to
emphasize
that
that
a
key
component
that
came
out
of
a
very
extensive
community
engagement
process
is
that
there
is
an
opportunity,
as
well
as
a
strong
need
to
really
focus
on
healing
and
restoration
here,
both
with
the
physical
site
and
and
the
larger
community.
N
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
go
back
to
the
question
of
why
not
have
a
continuance
of
this
matter
that
would
allow
the
staff
to
come
back
with
more
information
about
the
17
that
are
listed
on
page
9
and
how
they
do
or
don't
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
city
regulation,
and
I
guess
the
second
question
the
one
that's
bothering
me
the
most
is:
would
the
hpc
approve
this
application
from
any
other
applicant
other
than
the
city
because
of
the
potential
conflict
we
all
have
as
a
board,
that's
appointed
by
the
city.
P
Thank
you
I
want
I
can.
Actually.
My
comment
was
is
kind
of
coincides
perfectly
with
commissioner
strother's
comment
is
that
you
know:
should
there
be
reservations
about
the
large
ass
tonight?
You
know.
Yes,
it
is
appropriate
to
continue
this
item
and
to
request
the
applicant
to
modify
their
ask
and
to
come
back.
I
mean
if,
if,
if
there
is
a
not
enough,
if
there
isn't
enough
here
to
make
the
the
commission
comfortable
with
to
sway
one
way,
the
other,
I
think
it's
reasonable
to
continue.
P
P
You
know,
and
in
this
case
where
we
have
a
potential
historic
resource,
there's
going
to
be
a
situation
where
cped
does
have
to
eat
at
cped,
but
I
guess
the
the
other
side
to
that
is
there
isn't
really
another
way
around
it,
and
that's
where
you
know
we
try
to
put
measures
in
place
to
to
keep
it
as
separate,
so
that
you
know
certain
staff.
Members
are
objectively
looking
at
it
that
you
know,
and
and
this
as
a
citizen
appointed
body
can
make
their
own
decision
on
it.
P
B
But
it's
shown
in
green.
So
just
a
little
clarity,
I
think,
would
be
helpful
because
I
think
I
would
be
much
more
open
to
a
demo
of
a
select
number
to
facilitate
phase
one
with
the
understanding
that
then,
when
the
next
phase
came,
we
would
be
seeing
it
again
and
it
would
give
us
an
additional
opportunity
to
speak
and
to
weigh
in
on
what's
happening
when
more
partners
are
on
board
and
the
development
is
further
underway.
So
I
guess
I'm
leaving
to
a
continuance.
Commissioner
statey.
E
P
So
the
next
meeting,
if
we
continue
to
the
january
4th
meeting
the
first
meeting
in
2022
reports,
are
due
next
week,
which
I
confess
is
probably
not
a
whole
lot
of
time
to
put
something
for
the
applicant
to
put
something
together
back
to
me,
digest
it
put
together
a
report
and
get
it
out.
That's
where
I
usually
like
to
continue
two
cycles,
and
if
that
is
the
case
where
the
applicant
has
to
put
more
information
together
for
staff
to
analyze,
that
would
push
it
back
to
january.
E
R
I
hate
to
interrupt
this
is
kimberly
hollen,
yes,
my
camera's
off!
So
sorry,
we
have
not
set
your
2022
calendar,
yet
we
know
when
our
first
meeting
in
january
is
going
to
be,
but
because
you
have
not
adopted
your
2022
calendar,
I
think
it
would
be
more
appropriate
to
just
say
that
we're
continuing
it
for
two
cycles
and
to
not
specify
a
date.
I
B
P
Yeah,
I
can
sorry
let
me
grab
my
notes
here,
the
as
kimberly
sandbolt.
Sorry,
forgive
me,
commissioner.
Sandvolt
has
mentioned
in
previous
meetings.
The
planning
for
the
2022
preservation
awards
has
begun.
I
think
the
first
kickoff
meeting
was
today
this
afternoon,
and
I
forgive
me
I
don't
know.
I
know
the
other
staff
rob
scholacki
is:
is
the
representative
staff
person
sitting
on
that,
but
would
really
encourage
a
commissioner
to
take
commissioner
sambol's
place
on
this?
P
It's
like
an
hour
once
a
month
until
leading
up
to
the
awards,
which
is
in
february
or
march.
It
would
be
helpful
to
have
some
participation
and
I
think
meetings
will
be
virtual
right
now,
so
you
can
sit
in
your
home
and
and
participate
that
way.
It's
very
helpful
to
have
a
commissioner
participate
in
these
meetings
to
help
you
know
show
our
you
know,
support
for
this
and
also
kind
of
help
gain
public
attention
for
this
program
that
we
all
have
have
spent
our
time
in.
So
there
is
that.
P
I
also
wanted
to
mention
that
at
this
point
in
time
there
will
be
the
meetings.
Public
meetings
will
be
held
remotely
until
the
middle
of
february.
At
this
point,
that
is
what
I
am
hearing
and
then
also
we,
unfortunately
were
not
able
to
be
able
to.
What
do.
I
want
to
say,
we
need
to
recruit
more
commissioners
to
fill
our
vacancy.
That's
going
to
be
left
by
our
departing
commissioner
in
2022.
P
We
did
not
get
enough
applicants
our,
I
guess
interviews,
let's
put
it
that
way.
So,
if
anybody
I
know,
last
year
we
had
a
fairly
robust
recruiting
effort.
I
was
also
not
gone
for
three
months
at
that
point
in
time,
but
if
you
have
any
ideas
of
who
to
call
or
who
to
recruit,
please
ask
them
to
reply
or
to
apply.
We've
opened
the
posting
again
for
commissioners
for
the
next
year
and
I
would
appreciate
your
efforts
in
that
respect,
and
that
is
all
I
have
thank
you.
B
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
I
haven't
missed
anything
here.
Yeah
I've
been
trying
to
recruit
and
I
would
really
love
it
to
hear
that
our
other
commissioners
have
been
trying
to
recruit
as
well.
I
guess
I'll
be
honest
here,
I'm
the
commissioner
stepping
off
after
five
years,
so
if
it
could
be
an
architect
that
would
be
in
my
mind
excellent.
So
we
can
keep
the
same
ratio
of
architects,
so
I've
been
trying
to
pressure
other
architects.
If
you
know
any
other
architects
try
to
get
them
to
apply.
B
B
P
I
think
I
do
have
one
more
question
and
forgive
me
this
is
before
we
close
the
meeting
relative
to
the
previous
item,
but
I
know
we
closed
the
item,
but
on
agenda
item
7
for
upper
harbor
terminal.
I
think
the
applicant
is
wishing
to
know
what
specifically
the
commission
wants
them
to
come
back
with
with
it
being
continued.
I
guess
what
is
your
primary
request
in
that
matter?.