►
From YouTube: November 30, 2021 Heritage Preservation Commission
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
Afternoon,
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
of
the
november
30th
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.
A
B
C
B
B
Our
first
order
of
business
is
to
adopt
the
agenda
for
this
meeting,
we'll
work
on
the
agendas
that
are
available
online.
I
will
go
through
the
agenda
and
sort
out
what
items
we
continue
to
a
future
meeting.
What
items
will
be
discussed
and
what
items
we
put
on
a
consent
agenda
to
be
approved,
as
recommended
by
staff
and
without
further
discussion.
B
Item
number
four
is
202nd
street
north
ward
3.
This
is
a
certificate
of
appropriateness.
This
item
will
be
discussed.
That
is
our
only
agenda
item
tonight.
So
again,
the
proposed
agenda
is
item
4
202nd
street
north
have
a
staff
presentation,
public
comment
and
commission
discussion
and
action.
Commissioners
may
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
proposed
agenda.
D
B
B
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
sandal.
This
very
second.
A
E
B
Thank
you.
The
minutes
are
approved
before
I
open
the
hearing
to
public
comments.
Let
me
summarize
the
process
for
conducting
the
public
hearing
this
virtual
format.
We
will
take
the
agenda
items
in
order.
First,
planning
staff
will
present
its
report
and
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
staff.
Then
we'll
hear
from
the
applicant
and
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
applicant
after
that
I'll
open
the
public
hearing
and
invite
public
comment.
B
Are
any
speakers
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes?
We
ask
that
after
your
name
is
called
you
state
in
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
then
proceed
to
your
comments
after
you'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.
B
B
G
G
G
The
second
section
depicted
on
your
screen
with
a
green
parapet
cap
is
the
subject
of
this
application.
This
building
lies
in
the
19th
century.
Warehouse
portion
of
the
minneapolis
warehouse,
historic
district
on
the
corner
of
two
commercial
streets,
and
it
also
lies
in
the
warehouse,
historic
district
character
area
of
the
san
antonio
falls
historic
district
next
slide.
Please.
G
G
G
Since
the
end
of
the
period
of
significance,
relatively
few
changes
have
been
made
to
the
building's
window
and
door
openings.
Here
you
can
see
the
property
circa
1930
on
the
left
and
at
present
on
the
right,
the
storefront
on
the
second
street
north
side
of
the
building
has
been
partially
infilled.
G
The
proposal
meets
most
findings
required
by
the
heritage
preservation
regulations.
I
will
highlight
notable
exceptions
and
the
conditions
of
approval
that
staff
recommends
to
ensure
this
project
does
meet
those
findings
in
terms
of
compliance
with
design
guidelines.
I'll
begin
by
pointing
out
that
the
subject
property
lies
in
the
warehouse
district
character
area
of
the
saint
anthony
falls,
historic
district
and
the
san
antonio
falls
historic
district
guidelines
for
that
character,
area
state
that
in
areas
that
overlap
the
warehouse,
historic
district,
the
adopted,
minneapolis
warehouse,
historic
district
design
guidelines
apply.
G
G
G
If
an
original
storefront
has
been
altered,
the
preferred
treatment
is
to
restore
them
to
their
original
condition,
based
on
historic
photos.
For
other
evidence,
staff
would
note
that
original
storefronts
on
both
facades
were
infilled
with
brick,
but
the
east
facade
storefront
was
infilled
in
1924
during
the
periods
of
significance
for
both
districts,
and
you
can
see
that
east
storefront
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
both
photos.
G
The
applicant
also
proposes
to
replace
that
historic,
1924
brick
on
the
east
side
of
the
building,
with
two
storefront
openings.
You
can
see
the
proposed
changes
in
set
in
blue
or
inset
the
architectural
plans
in
set
above
the
historic
and
existing
photo
contemporary
photo
and
I've
highlighted
in
blue
or
outlined
in
blue.
The
openings
that
are
proposed
to
be
opened.
The
the
portions
of
the
storefronts
that
are
proposed
to
be
opened.
G
G
G
This
storefront
on
the
east.
The
right
of
both
the
right-hand
side
of
both
photos
is
a
historic
condition
that
should
be
retained.
The
staff
recommends
the
project
be
conditioned
to
ensure
the
historical
masonry
remaining
in
the
historic
east
side.
Storefront
is
retained
with
no
additional
storefront
openings
next
slide.
Please.
G
The
proposal
also
calls
for
the
replacement
of
the
historic
wood
door
and
side
lights
on
the
second
street
north
or
front
side
of
the
building,
but
the
applicant
has
submitted
evidence
that
these
features
are
severely
deteriorated
and
the
architectural
plans
indicate
that
the
design
of
the
replacement
feature
in
this
location
will
match
the
design
of
these
historic
features.
The
staff
recommends
approval
of
this
portion
of
the
project
next
slide.
Please,
the
warehouse
district
design
guidelines
discuss
rooftop
alterations
and
additions.
G
In
particular,
they
state
a
new
rooftop
addition
shall
be
set
back
a
minimum
of
one
structural
bay
or
15
feet.
Whichever
is
greater
from
all
sides
of
the
building.
This
setback
does
not
constitute
a
standard
right,
but
a
baseline
additional
setbacks
may
be
required
to
meet
the
intent
of
the
guidelines.
G
The
height
of
the
rooftop
edition
shall
be
limited
to
one
story
and
shall
not
exceed
14
feet
in
height,
measured
from
the
structural
roof
deck
of
the
existing
building,
the
height
includes
stair
and
elevator
penthouses
and
rooftop
mechanical
equipment
proposed
on
top
of
the
addition-
and
I
would
underline
if
I
could
highlight
if
I
could,
that
clause
about
rooftop
mechanical
equipment
being
included
in
these
sorts
of
height
calculations
I'll
get
to
that.
In
just
a
moment.
G
The
guidelines
go
on
to
state
that
the
design
of
the
rooftop
edition
shall
be
clearly
differentiated
from
the
historic
building
in
a
way
that
does
not
detract
from
the
character
of
the
historic
building
or
the
district
and
rooftop
additions
to
contributing
buildings
are
rarely
appropriate.
A
rooftop
edition
will
be
considered
if
visibility
and
sight
line
studies
indicate
that
the
addition
is
minimally
visible
from
any
public
right-of-way.
G
Whichever
is
greater,
and
so
I
would
just
take
a
moment
to
point
out
the
size
of
the
structural
bays
as
they
appear
from
the
plants.
They
appear
to
be
14
to
15
feet
in
depth
on
the
corner
and
interior
sides
of
this
five-story
building
and
10
to
11
feet,
depth
on
the
front
and
rear
sides
of
the
building
this
pet
house.
The
proposed
rooftop
edition
is
proposed
to
be
placed
13
feet,
half
inches
from
the
front
or
south
or
second
street
north
side
of
the
building.
G
On
the
left
hand,
side
of
the
rendering
21
feet
from
the
east
or
corner
side
of
the
building
in
the
lower
right
hand,
corner
1.5
feet
from
the
interior
or
west
side
of
the
building.
That
would
be
the
upper
left-hand
corner
of
this
rendering
and
nine
feet
from
the
north
or
rear
side
of
the
building,
which
you
can
see
in
the
upper
right
hand
corner.
G
The
applicant
is
also
proposing
to
replace
a
rooftop
deck
nine
feet,
six
inches
from
the
south
parapet
and
seven
feet
from
the
east
parapet.
The
deck
will
have
metal,
framing
or
adjustable
pedestals,
with
decking
of
porcelain,
planks,
pavers
or
wood,
along
with
steps
to
access.
The
small
pool
that
you
can
see
in
the
rendering
before
you
and
there's
a
railing,
that's
outlined
faintly
in
the
rendering
that
will
be
installed
around
the
deck
to
restrict
access
to
other
roof
areas.
G
No
railing
specifications
have
been
provided.
The
staff
recommends
the
project
be
conditioned
to
ensure
the
proposed
railing
does
not
exceed
42
inches
in
height,
as
measured
from
the
roof
deck
to
comply
with,
but
not
exceed
building
code
standards
and
be
comprised
of
glass
or
steel
cables
to
minimize
views
of
the
railing
from
the
public
right-of-way.
G
I
should
also
take
this
moment
to
just
note
that
that's
a
fairly
standard
condition
requiring
compliance
with
building
code,
even
if
we
don't
require
that
sort
of
compliance.
Buildings
still
have
to
follow
the
building
code.
You'll
note,
in
the
conditions
of
approval,
a
number
of
other
conditions
that
I'm
not
going
over
right.
Now,
though,
I
certainly
can't
if
the
commission
would
like
to
discuss
them
and
they
are
fairly
standard
conditions
of
approval
related
to
staff
inspecting
proposed
lighting
proposed
mortar
joints
proposed
replacement,
brick
and
those
sorts
of
things.
G
Details
that
aren't
very
specifically
specified
right
now,
but
are
very
commonly
reviewed
after
heritage
preservation.
Commission,
the
heritage
preservation
commission
approves
applications.
There's
other
standards
in
there
related
to
the
sign
design
guidelines
that
I'll
talk
about
in
a
moment,
but
they're
very
pro-forma,
related
to
attaching
signs
to
mortar
joints,
and
things
like
that.
G
This
is
another
example
that
42
inch
railing
height
features
like
a
small
pool
and
spa
are
proposed
to
be
positioned
as
close
as
4
feet.
Four
inches
from
the
east
or
second
avenue
north
side
of
the
building
and
rooftop
mechanical
equipment
is
depicted
as
being
one
foot
from
the
rear
edge
of
the
building.
G
G
The
second
biggest
deviation
to
these
setback
standards
in
the
warehouse,
historic
district
design
guidelines
is
created
by
the
rooftop
mechanical
equipment,
but
this
equipment
will
be
screened
with
five
foot:
five
and
a
half
foot
high
aluminum
panels
with
a
matte
black
floral
polymer
finish
and
placed
at
the
rear
of
the
building's
roof
edge
and
I'll.
Try
and
highlight
those
with
my
mouse
right
here,
my
pointer,
so
that
you
can
see
exactly
where
that
mechanical
equipment
and
screening
is
proposed
to
go.
G
G
G
I
staff,
really
does
not
believe
that,
even
though
things
like
the
handrail
will
be
as
close
as
four
feet,
four
inches
from
the
edge
of
the
roof
of
the
building
staff
really
doesn't
feel
that
highly
transparent
feature
and
very
low
feature
will
be
visible
from
the
street,
as
opposed
to
the
nine
foot
edition
that
you
can
see
right
here
or
the
the
outline
of
the
nine
foot
edition
again.
This
is
just
a
visibility
study.
G
If
the
our
information
technology
team
would
not
mind
going
back
to
slide
nine,
please
one
slide
before
this.
Thank
you.
G
I'd
like
to
talk
for
a
moment
about
mechanical
equipment.
All
too
often
buildings
are
rehabilitated
with
little
thought
of
future
tenants.
Mechanical
equipment
needs,
and
over
time
this
unfortunately
results
in
through
wall
vents
and
intakes
on
all
floors
of
buildings
placed
in
these
locations
really
is
cost
saving
measures,
because
once
structures
are
built
out
and
have
tenants
occupying
them,
it's
really
costly
to
penetrate
floors
through
fire.
G
Staff
really
appreciates
that
sort
of
planning,
but
would
point
out
that
this
location
will
require
rooftop
mechanical
mechanical
equipment
to
be
positioned,
atop
the
one
story,
elevator
penthouse
on
the
roof,
which
is
positioned
against
the
rear
wall,
so
mechanical
equipment
in
this
location
will
require
further
screening
and
fall
protection.
Increasing
the
height
and
visibility
of
these
features.
Far
beyond
the
guidelines,
14
foot
height,
maximum
rooftop
editions
and
that
area
is
sort
of
back
here,
I'm
highlighting
it
with
my
pointer.
If
you
can
hopefully
see
that
now,.
G
This
location
would
offer
future
tenants
and
owners
more
flexibility,
since
it
would
require
shorter,
horizontal
runs
of
ductwork,
since
increased
setbacks
of
rooftop
mechanical
equipment
in
a
central
location
will
prevent
almost
all
mechanical
equipment
from
being
visible
on
adjacent
public
rights
of
way
and
sends
penetrations
through
two
sides
of
this
fire
rated
stairwell,
immediately
adjacent
to
the
planned
vertical
chase
or
through
the
fire
rated
stair.
While
it's
immediately
adjacent
to
the
planned
vertical
chase
on
the
upper
right
hand,
corner
of
the
rendering.
G
Penetrations
of
that,
every
time
a
new
horizontal
mechanical
line
is
installed
that
would
become
unnecessary,
even
positioned,
atop,
the
14
foot
proposed
edition.
Such
equipment
would
remain
very
difficult
to
see
from
the
street
because
it
will
be
positioned
near
the
center
of
the
building.
Next
slide,
please
and
one
more
slide.
Please.
G
Non-Historic,
concrete
cells
and
damaged
historic
brownstone
cells
with
concrete
patching
on
the
building
currently
are
proposed
to
be
replaced
with
either
artificial
stone
or
brown
stone.
Sills
that
match
the
color
appearance
and
profile
of
the
historic
brownstone
cells
remain
another
building.
While
this
is
in
compliance
with
the
district
guidelines
design
guideline
2.19
requires
replacement.
Masonry
match
historic
masonry
in
material
as
well
as
color,
appearance,
profile
and
other
characteristics.
G
G
This
will
exceed
the
maximum
number
of
signs
allowed
by
the
heritage,
preservation
commission's
design
guidelines
for
on-premise
signs
and
audience
it
will
exceed
these
standards
in
terms
of
the
maximum
number
of
signs
allowed.
The
maximum
number
of
illuminated
signs
and
the
types
of
signs
allowed
canopy
signs
in
particular.
Nevertheless,
staff
recommends
approval
of
the
master
sign
plan.
G
I
point
out
that
this
corner
building
is
planned
to
possess
six
first
floor
entrances,
three
per
elevation,
which
would
permit
12
signs
by
right,
and
I
do
realize
that
if
the
heritage
preservation
commission
adopts
staff's
conditions,
then
there
would
be
fewer
entrances
here.
But
I'm
evaluating
this
based
upon
what
the
applicant
has
proposed
now
historically,
as
you
can
see
in
the
rendering
before
you,
data
should
be
dated
in
1950
and
again,
my
apologies
for
that
incorrect
date
in
the
bottom
of
the
slide.
G
They've,
certainly
provided
here
as
evidence,
this
rendering
demonstrating
a
precedent
for
very
high
and
large
signs,
but
staff
does
believe
that
a
variety
of
smaller
signs
attached
to
non-historic
features
is
better
for
the
building's
overall
preservation
and
reuse.
Ensuring
that
viable,
you
know,
viable
uses
remain
inside
the
building
in
perpetuity.
G
E
Hi
john,
thank
you
for
that
presentation.
My
question,
or
maybe
I'm
just
seeking
some
clarity-
is
on
condition
number
one
about
the
additional
storefronts
on
second
avenue
it
looked
like
in
1915
there
were
some
significant
storefronts
along
there
and
sometime
between
1915
and
1930.
It
all
got
in
filled
with
brick.
For
the
most
part,
the
applicant's
proposal
shows
them.
Putting
some
storefronts
in
and
we're
saying
no
additional
storefronts
are
permitted.
E
Would
is
that
because
the
storefronts
that
they
are
proposing
to
put
in
don't
match
the
storefronts
that
were
there
in
1915
or
we
just
don't
want
them
to
get
rid
of
any
of
that
historic
brick
from
1930..
I
guess
what.
G
Madam
chair,
commissioner
johnson,
it's
the
latter
staff
would
note.
You
know
that
the
warehouse,
historic
district
design
guidelines
state
that
historic
materials
should
be
retained
and
those
historic
storefront
materials
that
brick
on
the
east
side
of
the
building
from
1924.
G
That
is
a
historic
feature.
It
is
unusual
we're
used
to
seeing
that
much
later
in
the
20th
century,
not
quite
so
early
in
the
20th
century,
but
it
is
indeed
a
historic
feature,
and
so
that's
why
staff
is
recommending
approval.
You
note
an
opportunity
for
restoration.
G
G
Thank
you
so
here
again
is
that
1915
image
and
that
you
know
restoration
is
certainly
an
option.
This
is
one
that
staff
did
discuss
with
the
applicants
themselves
and
they
were
a
bit
reluctant
to
go
back
to
something
like
this.
But
if
our
information
technology
team
could
move
forward,
another
slide
and
one
more.
G
That
is
not
what
the
applicant
is
proposing,
and
for
that
reason,
although
staff
finds
the
storefront
on
the
south
or
front
side
of
the
building
to
be
compatible
with
the
character
of
the
building
and
and
not
involving
the
removal
of
any
historic
brick,
we
do
recommend
retention
of
the
historic
brick
on
the
east
or
second
street
north.
Sorry,
second
avenue
north
side
of
the
building.
E
B
I
don't
see
any
at
this
time.
Thank
you,
john
okay.
So
with
that,
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
for
this
item.
I
believe
the
applicant
is
here
to
speak.
If
you
could
press
star
6
on
your
phone
and
wait
to
hear
the
pre-recorded
message
to
activate
your
microphone,
so
we
can
hear
you
and
then
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
B
H
Great
yes,
I
will
be
going
first,
one
of
the
owners
will
davis
did
submit
a
presentation
that
the
three
of
us
tonight
are
are
going
to
all
go
through
together.
So
if
I
don't
know
if,
if
that
is
up
on
commissioner's
screens
at
this
time,
but
if
the
technology
team
could
please
cue
that
up?
That
would
be
great.
H
Super
so
good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
elizabeth
gales
from
hester
royce
and
company.
I
am
the
historical
consultant
assisting
the
owners
with
this
project.
H
I
would
like
to
introduce
the
owners
right
now
and
we
are
going
to
strive
to
sort
of
work
with
each
other
on
the
slide
presentation,
and
hopefully
technology
will
work
with
us.
So
with
me
tonight
are
will
davis
and
eric
brown
and
they
have
been
very
hands-on
with
this
process.
This
is
their
first
historic
building
and
they
have
bravely
taken
on
not
only
locally
designated
property,
but
they
are
also
pursuing
historic
tax
credits
with
both
the
minnesota
state
program
and
the
federal
program
will
and
eric.
If
you'd
like
to
introduce
yourselves,
please.
I
Wonderful
hello,
this
is,
will
davis
and
I
am
a
long
time
resident
of
the
north
loop
in
the
warehouse
district
since
2008
I've
lived
and
worked
in
the
district
and
now
own
a
small
business
on
700,
north
washington
and
a
condo
in
the
in
the
neighborhood
as
well-
and
you
know
this
is
a
very
personal
project
for
me
and
I
you
know,
I
think,
I'm
here
as
much
as
a
resident
as
anything
else,
and
you
know
it's
also
one
project
that
eric
and
I
have
been
dreaming
of
for
many
years
now
with
our
eye
on
this
particular
building.
I
J
J
In
fact,
we
live
in
the
sister
building
to
the
project
property
at
210,
north
2nd
street,
at
the
whitney
square
lofts,
my
wife
and
I
have
been
active
in
the
north
loop
neighborhood
doing
what
we
can
to
improve
the
warehouse
district
participating
in
the
northwest
neighborhood
association,
and
it's
a
real
honor
to
be
before
you
this
evening
and
having
the
opportunity
to
present
with
will
and
liz
something
that
will-
and
I
have
dreamt
about
doing
for
for
many
years,
and
we
feel
very
fortunate
to
be
able
to
take
this
building
from
the
owners
who
have
had
it
for
the
longest
period
of
time
since
it
was
built
from
1968
until
this
year
and
to
get
that
hand
off
and
then
be
able
to
to
turn
this
building
into
a
project
to
contribute
to
the
19th
century.
J
District
is,
is
something
that's
very
exciting
for
me.
So,
thank
you
all
for
for
being
here
and
I
look
forward
to
presenting
this
with
that
liz.
I
will
turn
it
back
over
to
you
for
slide
two.
If
we
could
advance
the
slides.
H
Thank
you
eric.
So
commissioners,
as
staff
described
for
you,
this
building
was
constructed
in
1897
as
an
addition
to
the
larger
building
to
the
west,
as
staff
may
have
also
mentioned.
The
infill
occurred
to
the
first
stories.
There
was
a
fire
in
december
of
1923
on
the
upper
floors
of
the
building
that
destroyed
the
timber
structure
inside.
H
Fortunately,
even
though
the
fire
damage
was
was
very
devastating
to
the
interior
structure.
The
steel
that
was
part
of
the
store
front
system
supporting
the
perimeter
walls
survived,
and
that
is
why
the
perimeter
walls
did
not
collapse.
The
fire
was
so
hot
that
it
burned,
caused
smoke,
damage
and
fire
damage
to
buildings
across
second
street,
so
pretty
pretty
serious.
H
Just
a
brief
update
to
the
commission
on
where
we
are
in
the
historic
tax
credit
process.
So
the
application,
the
part
two
applica
application
describing
the
scope
of
work,
was
submitted
to
the
shippo
and
then
forwarded
to
the
national
park
service.
In
the
spring,
it
was
approved
by
the
national
park
service
with
conditions
on
june
8th
of
this
year.
H
The
owners
had
originally
proposed
to
include
reconstructed
storefronts,
similar
to
the
rendering
that
you
see
on
this
slide
and
the
national
park
service
resoundly
denied
that
treatment.
We
did
discuss
reopening
the
windows
on
the
second
story
and
that
was
also
denied
the
national
park
service
uses.
H
Of
course,
the
secretary
of
the
interior
standards
and
standard
number
four
notes
that
properties
change
over
time
and
that
those
changes
that
have
acquired
historic
significance
and
their
own
rights
shall
be
retained
and
preserved,
and
so
the
national
park
service
in
explaining
their
and
why
they
didn't
want
to
see
the
1915
storefronts
brought
back
said
that
the
fire
and
the
reconstruction
that
had
occurred,
you
know
were
clearly
part
of
the
history
of
the
building
and
that's
why
they
didn't
want
to
see
an
earlier
version.
H
So
that
said,
we
did
file
a
part,
two
amendment
and
we
will
be
talking
about
some
the
changes
in
how
we
came
to
the
design
that
we've
proposed
to
you
tonight
for
the
storefronts
we
filed
a
part
to
amendment
with
shippo
earlier
this
fall
and
we
actually
got
approval
from
shippo
to
forward
the
that
document
to
the
national
park
service.
H
It
was
logged
in
on
november
22nd,
so
just
a
little
over
a
week
ago,
and
the
shippo
had
recommended
approval
of
the
part
two
amendment
which
includes
the
storefronts
that
we've
proposed
to
you,
the
rooftop
edition
and
the
signage
had
two
conditions
which
were
related
to
interior
finishes
within
the
building.
H
H
We
are
going
to
be
requesting
modifications
to
condition
number
five
regarding
the
duct
work
chase
and
then
also
to
condition
number
one
regarding
the
storefronts.
Could
you
please
advance
to
slide
to
three?
Thank
you.
I
Wonderful,
so
I
think
you
know
in
all
of
these
projects
related
to
buildings,
on
the
historic
registry
and
within
the
purview
of
bhpc.
I
think
the
the
hardest
needle
to
thread
is
how
do
you
bring
this
building
back
to
life
with
a
viable
new
use,
while
preserving
those
aspects
that
are
most
critical
to
its
history?
I
And
so
I
think,
as
we
thought
about
this
project,
you
know
the
the
district
has
changed
so
much
in
you
know,
even
even
the
ownership
lives
of
this
building,
you
know
from
the
iron
store
to
a
bakery
supply
company
to
industrial
lighting.
And
now,
if
you
look
around
the
neighborhood,
it's
residence,
retail,
smaller
footprints,
boutique
shopping,
it's
very
pedestrian
focused
which
in
our
minds,
is
actually
very
consistent
with
what
the
neighborhood
originally
was.
And
so
you
know,
as
we
tackled
this
project,
we
were
very
excited
about
the
concept
of
you
know
three:
four
commercial
spaces.
I
In
the
main
floor,
we
ultimately
landed
on
three
in
order
to
accommodate
the
iron
store,
lost
lobby,
the
preserve
and
retain
the
existing
emergency
exit
and
door,
but
then
to
also
add
an
entrance
on
the
street
to
a
really
unique
basement
space
that
is
full
of
amazing,
original
limestone
columns
and
archways,
a
space
that
had
no
functional
use
in
any
of
the
buildings
previous
iterations,
but
we're
really
excited
to
bring
back
to
life
and
in
order
in
order
to
get
to
you,
know
four
commercial
spaces
that
we
believe
would
be
viable
based
on
where
the
market
is
in
the
neighborhood.
I
What
rents
look
like
it's
a
challenging
environment
right
now
to
try
to
go
after
large-scale
tenants.
We
believe
this
is
the
best
kind
of
minimum
new
use
for
the
building,
and
it
also
you
know,
I
think,
aligns
us
well
with
where
the
north
loop
is
headed,
sort
of
the
primary
cultural,
cultural
characteristics
and
the
pedestrian
focus
not
pictured
here
in
this
rendering
is,
you
know
the
greeting
plan
on
the
sidewalk
and
other
things,
but
this
just
does
give
you.
I
So
with
that
I'm
going
to
turn
it
back
to
eric
and
if
you
could
advance
the
slide
to
slide
four
we're
going
to
first
start
with
condition.
Five.
We
think
this
one
is
a
little
bit.
We
hope
a
little
bit
easier
to
discuss
and
can
get
some
momentum
going
before
we
tackle
issue
number
one
condition.
One.
J
Thank
you.
Will
commissioners
we're
now
looking
at
slide
four
of
our
presentation
to
address
the
condition,
five
related
to
the
planned
interior
duct
work,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
slide
in
front
of
you,
we've
highlighted
in
green
the
area
that
we
have
proposed
to
place
a
mechanical
chase
and
the
reason
that
we've
placed
it
there.
J
It
is
a
freight
elevator
that
will
not
meet
code
for
the
future
use
and
we
are
required
to
change
that
to
a
passenger
elevator
and
as
part
of
that
change,
we
will
have
a
fairly
reasonable,
a
fairly
large
space
behind
that
new
elevator
that
we
could
use
for
a
vertical
chase
and
working
with
the
national
park
service,
chippo
and
and
john
at
the
hpc,
trying
to
figure
out
the
way
to
best
put
this
building
into
its
future
use.
J
This
is
the
solution
that
I'm
I'm
proud
of
because
it
avoids
having
to
make
cuts
and
additional
vertical
chases
to
the
existing
historic,
concrete
floors.
The
way
these
floors
were
made
after
the
fire
in
1924
would
require
a
additional
steel
beams
and
things
added
to
provide
structural
support
to
those
openings
and
having
that
plus
the
coverage
of
a
historic
feature
such
as
the
brick
wall
and
those
back
hallways.
J
We
decided
that
the
back
of
the
elevator
shaft
would
allow
us
to
have
the
best
options
for
the
future,
as
well
as
for
the
planned
present
use,
and
I
think
that
I
have
a
little
bit
better
handle
listening
to
john's
presentation
tonight
about
some
of
his
concerns
that
I
maybe
didn't
understand
fully
prior
to
this
evening
and
just
to
address
those
the
idea
of
future
use
of
the
space
and
allowing
something
to
be
able
to
evolve
with
time.
I
couldn't
agree
with
more
and
in
this
building.
J
We
are
planning
on
using
floors
two
through
five
for
apartments,
and
it's
unlikely
that
that
would
change
in
any
dramatic
way,
probably
over
the
next
50
to
100
years.
It
is
the
first
floor
in
the
basement
that
is
most
likely
to
potentially
see
a
change
with
an
ownership
change
20
years
from
now,
and
we
have
the
option
with
this
building
because
of
the
way
the
back
garage
was
built
in
the
1960s
that
all
mechanicals
that
feed
the
first
floor
and
the
basement
are
able
to
go
out
a
non-historic
material.
J
They
are
able
to
go
out
of
that
loading
dock
space
and
do
not
have
to
go
vertically
through
the
building
and
make
any
impact
on
those
residential
floors
above
and
the
second
concern
was
about
total
hike.
We
are
not
intending
to
put
any
mechanical
equipment
on
top
of
that
elevator
penthouse.
We
have
designated
the
roof
deck
just
east
of
the
elevator
penthouse.
J
The
mechanical
screen
to
keep
pedestrians
from
being
able
to
see
those
mechanical
things
as
someone
who
lives
in
the
district
and
has
a
an
interest
in
architecture,
I
find
any
type
of
poorly
designed
mechanical
equipment
visible
to
the
public
to
be
a
bit
of
a
nuisance,
and
so
I
think
john
and
I
are
aligned
on
the
purpose
of
his
of
his
condition
number
five.
But
I
would
like
to
request
the
commissioners
this
evening
consider
removing
condition
five
to
allow
us
to
use
the
space
vacated
behind
the
elevator
for
our
vertical
mechanical
chase.
I
Wonderful,
so,
as
eric
mentioned,
we
wanted
to
discuss
two
conditions
at
the
condition:
five
and
then
condition
one
which
is
the
the
two
openings
we
requested
on
the
east
facade.
I
think
the
good
news
before
I
dive
in
on
condition
number
one
is
that
we're
very
aligned
with
the
staff
recommendations
almost
up
and
down
again.
We
just
have
two
on
condition:
five
and
then
condition
one
which
I
think
is
the
most
contentious
from
staff's
perspective.
I
We
did
want
to
bring
the
commissioners
in
on
just
some
of
the
plans
as
we've
constructed
them
and
then
just
what
the
building
is
as
it
currently
exists,
and
you
can
see
in
the
photographs
on
the
left.
You
know
nothing
is
open
at
this
point
on
the
south
or
east
facade.
It
looks
particularly
dark.
These
photographs
are
obviously
quite
dramatic,
but
it's
critical
that
you
also
consider
you
know
the
planned
interior
walls.
If
you
agree
with
our
new
use
case
of
trying
to
separate
out
smaller
commercial
spaces
to
kind
of
meet
the
market.
I
The
light
from
the
south
opening
only
gives
us
so
much
help
right.
So
we're
still
going
to
need
openings
and
minimum
light
for
any
other
commercial
spaces
to
be
successful
and
so
on
the
left.
You
can
see
the
photographs
what
it
looks
like
inside
the
building.
Today
on
the
right,
you
can
see
sort
of
planned
interior
walls
which
again
create
the
reasoning
behind
our
request
for
the
two
new
openings.
I
So
as
we
kind
of
move
through
on
condition,
one
I'm
gonna
have
elizabeth
kind
of
run
through
some
of
what's
been
going
on
with
our
conversations
with
chippo
and
the
nps,
which
have
been
ongoing,
very
productive
at
times
frustrating.
But
we've
made
lots
of
progress
with
them
and
we're
feeling
very
aligned
with
chippo.
I
At
this
point
and
pending
mps
approval
both
ship
on
the
nps
on
the
plan
that
we
have
to
move
forward
so
I'll,
let
elizabeth
kind
of
dive
in
a
little
bit
more
on
the
architectural
detailing
and
the
historical
sort
of
significant
elements
that
we're
working
really
hard
to
keep
on
slide.
Six.
If
you
could
advance
that.
H
H
So,
as
john
pointed
out
earlier,
and
I'm
just
going
to
re-point
out
again
for
commission.
So
after
the
fire,
you
can
see
the
lovely
efflorescence
of
salt
coming
through
the
brick
on
the
upper
floors.
Thanks
to
all
the
water
they
kept
or
rebuilt
the
store
fronts
on
the
south
facade,
which
is
the
skinnier
facade
on
the
building.
Looking
at
2nd
street,
they
did
in
fill
the
west
side
with
that
metal,
cornice
and
an
interesting
little
transom
window
above,
and
we
are
proposing
to
retain
that
and
put
back
the
storefronts
on
the
south.
H
The
that
large
kind
of
full
height
storefront
window
is
going
to
go
back
in
the
non-historic.
Aluminum
frame
doors
are
going
to
be
removed,
part
of
the
detail
of
this
brick
wall.
It's
not
just
a
brick
wall.
It
has
an
interesting
little
dental
detail
running
along
the
top
along
the
cornice,
and
it
also
has
at
the
near
the
bottom,
a
brick
course
that
sort
of
defines
what
could
be
considered
a
potential
knee
wall,
and
I
I
don't.
H
I
can
only
make
supposition
as
to
what
the
architect,
who
happened,
to
be
perry,
crozier,
who
did
this
infill
by
the
way,
a
lovely
minneapolis
architect
what
he
was
thinking
when
he
did
that
detail?
H
Maybe
they
thought
they
would
eventually
put
in
storefront
windows,
who
knows
but
the
national
park
service,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
and
the
shippo
have
agreed
with
staff
findings
that
the
brick
wall
is
a
contributing
part
of
the
story
of
the
the
building,
and
they
have
asked
us
to
maintain
as
much
of
the
brick
wall
as
possible
in
discussion
with
them.
H
We
did
work
out
the
design
that
we
presented
today.
Could
we
please
go
to
slide
number
seven,
so
I've
highlighted
we've
highlighted
on
the
slides
of
the
the
east
elevation
in
green.
How
much
is
historic
that
is
going
to
be
maintained
and
how
minimal
the
two
new
openings
are,
that
we
are
requesting
permission
to
to
do
so.
We
are
going
to
be
keeping
the
historic.
H
H
The
owners
worked
very
hard
and
were
very
conscientious,
that
these
these
openings
are
small
enough.
I
know
that
they
may
seem
large,
but
they
are
leading
in
natural
light,
as
well
as
providing
a
door
for
the
two
commercial
spaces
that
are
going
to
be
accessed
from
this
facade.
H
H
H
We
do
have
shippo
support
on
this
and
they
have
recommended
approval.
We
are
waiting
for
the
national
park
services
review
to
be
completed
on
this
this
project,
so
I
don't
want
to
overstate
and
claim
that
they
have
agreed
to
this,
but
we
do
feel
very
confident
knowing
that
shippo
helped
us
come
to
this
design
and
have
supported
it
in
their
recommendations.
H
H
I
Wonderful,
so,
first
of
all,
I
think,
on
behalf
of
eric
elizabeth
everybody
on
our
team,
and
in
addition
you
know
my
wife,
eric's
wife.
I
A
lot
of
people
have
been
very
involved
in
that
we
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
to
all
of
you,
commissioners,
to
the
staff
john
for
all
the
work
you've
put
in
and
continue
to
put
in,
not
just
on
this
project,
but
all
projects,
keeping
the
neighborhood
historic
and
sort
of
staying
on
top
of
these
things,
as
it
evolves
as
quickly
as
it
does
we're
asking
for
two
things
from
the
commission
today,
as
eric
mentioned
we're
asking
to
remove
condition
number
five,
given
we
have
the
part
two
approval
from
the
nps
and
shippo,
as
well
as
its
potential
impact
to
much
more
negative,
visible
ductwork
in
our
minds.
I
The
complications
to
our
overall
plan
would
also
be
significant
and
then
critically
we're
asking
to
amend
condition
one
to
allow
for
the
two
additional
openings
is
currently
proposed
to
you
today
and
supported
by
shippo.
Again
we
are
pending
nps
approval.
We
don't
want
to
misrepresent
that,
but
this
condition,
in
particular,
is
is
very
critical
to
accessing
the
plant
commercial
spaces,
making
this
project
successful
in
our
minds
sort
of
starts
with
the
commercial
footprint
and
how
we
interact
with
the
street
and
reengage
with
that
pedestrian
character
in
the
neighborhood.
I
So
these
are
the
two
conditions
that
we
wanted
to
flag
for
the
commissioners
today.
Those
are
our
two
requests
and
again
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
staff
to
the
to
all
the
commissioners
present
today
and
with
that,
I
think
we
can
pause
and
just
ask
if
there
are
any
questions.
D
Good
evening
elizabeth
will
eric
thank
you
for
the
wonderful
presentation
and
also
to
john
for
his
earlier
one.
Obviously,
you
all
know
walking
into
this
that
the
biggest
question
was
going
to
be
the
storefront,
so
I
just
want
to
dig
a
little
bit
deeper
on
the
windows
or
the
storefronts
on
the
east
facade
and
what
your
inspiration
was
with
the
way
that
they're
configured
and
my
concern
is.
I
understand
completely
the
need
to
add
additional
storefronts
on
that
side
for
your
commercial
space,
but
I'm
having
concerns
about
whether
or
not
they
truly
are
complementary.
D
If
you
look
at
the
the
far
right
entryway,
you
have
a
door,
that's
centered
directly
below
the
the
windows
above
it.
If
you
look
at
the
storefronts
on
the
on
the
shorter
side
of
the
building
the
south
side,
I
guess
that
is
you
have
a
central
door
on
that
easternmost
storefront
and
actually
you're
showing
a
central
door
on
the
western
most
storefront,
even
though
the
1930s
building
didn't
seem
to
have
a
pedestrian
door
there.
So
I
guess
I'm
wondering
what
the
the
inspiration
is
for
the
configuration
of
those
storefronts.
D
They
seem
a
bit
awkward
to
me
in
in
whether
or
not
they're
actually
complementary
to
to
the
other
storefronts
that
are
there.
J
Sure,
commissioner,
howard,
thank
you.
This
is
eric.
I
will
respond
to
that
question
and
if
we
could
advance
to
slide
10
to
show
the
rendering
image,
I
think
that
will
help
us
as
we
discuss
this.
J
We
had
originally
designed
a
system
for
these
openings
that
would
match,
and
that
would
go
with
the
center
doors,
as
you
mentioned,
and
shippo's
opinion
was
that
it
would
be
better
to
have
the
doors
offset
and
allow
for
people
to
understand
that
these
are
new
openings.
These
are
openings
that
are
designed
to
be.
J
J
I
think
that
it
is
a
challenge
to
keep
brick
above
and
below
a
window
when
that
does
not
match
the
historical
pattern,
but
we
have
gone
through
many
iterations
of
this
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
keep
the
history
as
a
single
narrative,
and
this
is
the
the
option
that
we
came
to
to
best
tell
that
story.
Liz
I'll
hand
it
to
you.
If
you
have
anything
to
add
to
that.
Unless,
commissioner
howard,
you
have
anything
more
immediately.
H
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
point
out
a
detail.
I
forgot
to
mention
earlier
to
the
commissioners
and
as
part
of
this
and
eric
did
a
very
good
job
of
describing.
I
think
that
by
the
end,
this
might
have
been
the
alpha
alpha
design.
They
went
through
that
many
iterations
of
different
storefronts.
To
get
to
this
point.
H
One
thing
I
had
mentioned
before
was
the
steel
that
supported
the
perimeter.
Walls
was
intact
and
that's
why
the
building
didn't
collapse.
They
actually
kept
that
steel
and
embedded
the
concrete
posts
behind
it,
and
so
we
had
this
interesting
discussion
with
the
shippo,
particularly
about
the
kind
of
wider
opening
that
middle
column
that
you
see
in
the
wider
opening,
which
has
a
sort
of
bent
over
figure
standing
in
front
of
it
in
the
elevation,
is
actually
a
historic
steel
post
that
will
be
exposed
as
part
of
the
storefront
system
and
shippo.
H
You
know,
as
eric
said,
it's
sort
of
I
guess
the
best
way
to
describe
it
is
a
punched
opening
for
a
storefront.
H
So
I
I
do
appreciate
air
consternation,
commissioner
howard
yeah
we've.
We
also
this
was.
This
was
a
very
hard,
hard-fought
design
decision
that
we
we
came
to
with
you
know,
with
a
lot
of
feedback
from
the
shippo
reviewer.
So.
F
D
Don't
know
if
that
answers
your
questions,
it
does.
It
helps
quite
a
bit
liz
and
especially
knowing
that
that's
a
historic
column
that's
being
exposed
in
that
larger
opening,
because
that
is
the
one
that
I'm
most
concerned
about
design
wise
in
complementary
wise.
This
is
this
is
the
danger
of
the
standards.
You
know
we
have
to
be
complementary
but
differentiated,
and
we
struggle
with
it
every
day
and
all
of
us
who
work
in
in
the
design
field.
D
B
B
Okay
doesn't
seem
like
there's
anyone
there
so
seeing
none.
I
would
close
the
public
hearing.
Commissioners
let's
discuss
are
there
concerns
comments
about
this
application,
especially
on
those
two
items
that
the
applicant
has
called
out,
because
maybe
I'll
jumpstart
stuff
with
the
discussion
on
condition
five,
the
vertical
chase.
B
I
can
see
both
staff's
point
as
well
as
the
applicant's
point
for
where
the
vertical
chase
has
ended
up,
because
next
to
the
elevator
shaft
does
make
a
lot
of
sense
in
terms
of
spatial
planning,
and
I
guess
to
me
the
fact
that
it's
sort
of
a
a
benefit
and
an
unusual
benefit
that
the
app
can
just
thinking
ahead
and
trying
to
plan
in
this
vertical
chase
for
future
alterations
that
I
don't
really
want
to
feel
like
I'm
penalizing
them
for
doing
that
and,
if
they're
thinking
that
that
chase
would
then
come
up
and
be
used
for
mechanical
equipment
on
the
lower
loose
roof
level,
not
the
upper
roof
level,
and
we
can't
stop
a
future
owner
from
trying
to
propose
something
different.
B
But
I
guess
I
would
be
okay
striking
condition
five.
So
I'm
curious
what
other
commissioners
think
about
that?
B
I
can
also
for
condition
one
see
you
know
in
terms
of
the
first
floor
plan
why
additional
openings
would
be
desired.
Commissioner,
howard,
you
voiced
my
concerns
with
the
what
I
thought
was
a
slightly
strange
asymmetric
design,
but
I
can
see
in
the
differentiation
why
schiphol
would
have
maybe
pushed
that
direction.
E
Yeah,
no
for
condition
five.
I
I
definitely
can
see
both
sides
of
the
argument
for
sure
I
think
you
know
I'm
leaning
towards
deferring
to
the
applicant
on
that
one.
I
just
from
an
engineering
standpoint.
I
think
it
makes
the
most
sense
to
utilize
the
space
there
behind
the
elevator
shaft
condition
one
definitely
struggling
a
little
bit.
E
I
think
if
the
if
there
weren't
storefronts
on
that
second
avenue
in
1915,
I
would
feel
differently,
but
knowing
that
they
were
there
at
some
point
kind
of
makes
me
want
to
strike
condition
one.
I
I
think
the
applicant
did
a
great
job
in
maintaining
as
much
of
that
historic
brick
as
possible,
but
I
understand
their
need
to
make
the
space
marketable
for
commercial
space
and
I
think
one
of
the
ways
to
do
that
is
to
bring
in
in
daylight.
E
And
you
know,
I
think,
if
you
look
at
some
of
the
other
buildings
in
the
area,
the
entire
first
floor
is
storefront,
so
they
you
know,
I
think,
did
a
good
job
in
trying
to
balance
preserving
that
historic
brick
with
trying
to
make
their
first
floor
space
as
marketable
as
possible.
But
you
know
I
would
like
love
to
hear
what
some
of
the
other
commissioners
think
about
that.
So.
F
So
this
one's
an
interesting
one.
Obviously
it's
there's
enough
gray
area
in
the
guidelines
that
and
why
they're
called
guidelines.
F
You
know
that
all
of
the
different
entities
along
the
way
interpret
things
differently
and
it's
it's
always
interesting
to
me
when
we
start
talking
about
what's
historic
and
trying
to
pin
a
period
of
significance,
that's
pretty
wide
onto
a
building
like
this,
and
so
I
really
appreciate
the
flexibility
of
of
the
owner
and
the
design
team
on
this
project,
because
I
can,
I
can
sincerely
appreciate
the
walking
the
gray
line
of
the
standards
and
trying
to
appease
all
of
the
different
review
boards
that
you
have
to
jump
through
the
hoops
for
I
do
think
at
first
blush.
F
Anybody
would
look
at
this
building
and
go
wait
that
you
want
to
save
that
brick
too,
and
so
you
know
looking
back
at
historic
photos.
I
think
I
would
have
interpreted
this
a
little
bit
differently
and
would
be
very
lenient
on
the
storefronts,
knowing
that
there
were
some
in
that
vicinity
originally.
F
So
you
know,
I'm
I'm
in
full
support
of
of
modifying
the
language
to
item
number
one
and
kind
of
have
some
ideas
on
how
we
could
do
that.
So
I'll
read
that
off
in
a
in
in
in
a
motion
in
just
a
moment
and
then,
as
far
as
item
number
five,
I
I
understand
staff's
concerns,
and
I
I
think
it
shows
a
lot
of
forethought
to
be
thinking
about
it
that
way.
F
If
that
does
happen
at
some
point
in
time
in
the
future,
we
have
regulation
in
order
to
kind
of
guide
the
development
of
that.
So
I'm
not
as
concerned
about
striking
number
five
personally.
D
I
concur
wholeheartedly
with
commissioner
johnson
and
commissioner
stanbolt.
I
would
hesitate
to
strike
condition
one.
So
I'm
curious
to
know
how
commissioner
sandbolt
will
propose
modifying
it,
because
there
were
some
plans
that
showed
the
removal
of
all
of
that
brick,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
as
much
of
that
historic
brick
on
the
east,
facade
that
can
be
retained
is
retained.
So
I
would
I
would
be
supportive
of
that.
D
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
howard.
I'm
wondering
if
any
other
commissioners
would
like
to
weigh
in
while
commissioner
sandoval
works
on
drafting
her
text.
Commissioner
nystrom,
I.
A
Basically
agree
with
all
of
that
what's
been
said,
I
agreed
it.
Oh
well
looks
like
samwell
already
has
hers
mr
sample
has
it
written
out,
but
I
would
love
to
see
how
she
has
that
written
on
that
motion,
but
I
agree.
I
think
there
should
be
some
storefronts
they've
done
a
great
job
in
explaining
it.
So
I
will
defer
now
to
commissioner
samuel.
It
looks
like
she
has
her
motion
ready,
so
I'm
likely
going
to
agree
with
it,
but
let's.
F
So
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
certificate
of
appropriateness,
to
rehabilitate
the
building
and
establish
a
master
sign
plan
subject
to
the
conditions
as
outlined
in
our
agenda
with
the
following
edits.
I
would
strike
item
number
five
condition:
number
five
and
then
I
would
edit
item
number
one
striking
all
the
language
that
is
in
item
number,
one
as
it
is,
and
replacing
with
historic
masonry
in
the
historic
east
side.
F
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
sample
staff.
Would
you,
like
commissioner
sample
to
type
that
into
the
chat?
C
B
A
B
K
I
do
madam
chair,
thank
you
very
much
for
welcoming
me
back.
It's
good
to
see
everyone
again
I'll
just
make
a
few
short
announcements
here.
I
wanted
to
mention
that
we
have
concluded
the
community
engagement
portion
of
the
african
american
cultural
heritage.
Action
fund
grant
that
concluded
last
week,
and
now
the
consultants
will
be
moving
forward
with
preparing
the
summer
report
of
the
findings
from
that
engagement.
K
I
also
wanted
to
mention
that
the
commission,
the
opening
for
commissioner
applications
for
the
next
calendar
year,
is
closing
today,
and
so
then
we
will
be
interviewing
those
applicants
and
for
those
commissioners,
I
think
there
is
only
one
who
will
not
be
coming
back
or
has
not
applied
to
come
back
next
year.
You
know
who
you
are.
K
I
will
talk
to
you
separately
and
privately
just
about
kind
of
transition
which
we
usually
do
in
january
when,
before
we
have
the
new
commissioners
on
board
and
then
also
just
a
mention
that
we
have
also
yesterday
closed
an
opening
for
adding
back
a
senior
planner
to
this
subsection
of
the
land,
use,
design
and
preservation
team.
So
we
will
be
starting
interviews
for
those
this
month
and
then,
hopefully
we'll
be
back
to
being
fully
staffed,
hopefully
early
next
year.
K
B
F
I'm
just
going
to
interview
one
more
plea
for
volunteers
to
help
with
the
minneapolis
preservation
awards
planning
committee.
I
would
really
like
it
if
somebody
would
be
willing
to
kind
of
take
over
that
responsibility
that
I've
been
carrying
for
a
couple
years.
It's
really
it's
not
a
ton.
It's
a
monthly
meeting
leading
up.
We
hire
a
professional
party
planner,
so
she
takes
care
of
all
the
really
hard
details.
F
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Sam
vault.
I
would
like
to
encourage
some
of
our
new
commissioners
to
consider
helping
commissioner
sampled,
because
I
think
it's
a
good
way
to
delve
a
bit
more
into
what
the
commission
does
by
joining
one
of
our
sort
of
subgroups
that
we
have
going
on
any
other
business
or
announcements.
B
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
so
with
that.
We've
completed
all
items
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting
I'll
again
ask
members
and
staff
if
there
are
any
other
matters
to
come
before
this
meeting
there
being
no
other
businesses
meeting,
if
not
without
objection.
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
The
next
regular
meeting
of
the
hpc
is
december:
14
2021..