►
From YouTube: January 19, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Good
afternoon
and
welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting
of
the
january
19
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.
E
B
B
So
our
first
order
of
business
is
to
adopt
the
agenda
for
this
meeting,
we'll
work
from
the
agendas
that
are
available
online
I'll,
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
the
consent
agenda
and
approved,
as
recommended
by
staff
without
discussion?
B
So
item
number
four
is
408:
first
street
north
ward,
3
it's
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
application
and
that
item
will
be
discussed.
That
is
our
only
item
tonight.
So
again,
the
proposed
agenda
is
item
4,
which
is
408
first
street
north
we'll
have
a
staff
presentation,
public
comment
and
commission
discussion
and
action.
B
C
B
G
B
Thank
you
for
that
correction.
Has
that
been
recorded,
I
think,
by
the
clerk
right
rachel.
Are
you
the
one
who
record
that.
H
Yes,
I
will.
I
will
make
that
correction
if
it's
so
crazy,
we
can
approve
them
as
a
mentor
with
the
proposed
amendment.
Yes,
okay,.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Sandbolt.
Are
you
okay,
with
with
moving
to
approve
them
with
that
change?
Yes,.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
commissioner
sandoval.
Is
there
a
second
howard
seconds?
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Howard.
Any
further
discussion.
I
D
B
Thank
you.
The
minutes
are
approved,
as
noted
before
I
open
the
hearing
to
public
comments.
Let
me
summarize
the
process
for
conducting
the
public
hearing
in
this
virtual
format,
so
we
will
take
each
agenda
item
in
order.
First,
the
planning
staff
will
present
its
report
and
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
staff.
Then
we
will
hear
from
the
applicant
and
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
applicant.
After
that
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
and
we
will
invite
public
comment.
We
will
take
speakers
in
the
order
they
are
pre-registered.
B
B
B
J
Good
afternoon
commissioners,
I'm
rob
scalecki
city
planner
in
the
historic
preservation
section
of
cped.
Today,
I'm
presenting
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
application
for
a
replacement
of
two
garage
doors
on
the
front
elevation
of
the
property
located
at
408
first
street
north
in
the
warehouse
historic
district.
Next
slide.
Please.
J
J
The
current
tandoors
are
original
to
the
2001
design
and
they've
functioned
as
such
for
20
years,
they're
highly
visible
from
the
first
street
north
public
right-of-way,
as
seen
here
through
the
view
and
the
photos
next
slide.
Please,
the
applicant
states
that
the
high
speed
springless
function
of
the
proposed
rubber
doors
will
be
more
resilient
to
wear
than
the
current
existing
system.
The
current
traditional
track
configuration
of
a
near
two-story
rise
to
lift
the
doors,
has
posed
operability
problems
at
the
property.
According
to
the
submitted
application
materials.
J
The
applicant
cites
concerns
for
safety
regarding
the
current
system,
but
has
not
presented
information
that
clearly
details
that
a
proposed
replacement
will
increase.
These
perceive
increase
these
perceived
safety
measures
at
the
property,
also
other
potential
safety
or
operability
measures
that
could
retain
the
original
door
system
have
not
been
explored
or
submitted
by
the
applicant.
J
The
department
of
community
planning
and
economic
development
has
analyzed
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
replace
garage
doors
at
the
property
located
at
408
first
street
north
based
on
the
following
findings.
Staff
pharmacy
alteration
is
not
compatible
with
the
character
of
the
historic
district,
which
includes
the
period
and
criteria
of
significance,
the
subject
property.
It
is
a
non-contributing
resource
in
the
warehouse,
historic
district.
The
district
is
significant
in
itself
for
the
architecture
and
association
to
the
built
and
cultural
patterns
and
its
connection
to
industry
and
warehouse
use
in
the
city.
J
The
proposed
new
rubber
doors
are
not
compatible
with
the
historic
character
of
the
warehouse.
Historic
district
overhead
doors
are
traditionally
made
of
metal
or
wood.
The
overall
integrity
of
the
warehouse,
historic
district
is
not
changed
by
the
proposed
project.
However,
the
introduction
of
a
rubberized
material
for
garage
doors
on
a
highly
visible
primary
elevation
is
not
an
appropriate
material
replacement
for
the
district,
which
has
a
period
of
significance
from
1865
to
1930.
J
Even
if,
even
though
the
building
is
a
non-contributing
building,
stefan
the
alteration
does
not
meet
the
minneapolis
warehouse,
historic
district
design
guidelines,
the
guidelines
for
entryways
and
new
buildings
on
infill
sites
govern
changes
to
existing
buildings
that
were
constructed
outside
the
period
of
significance
for
the
district,
the
design
of
the
2001
building.
It
was
approved
by
the
heritage,
preservation
commission
and
included
vehicular
access
from
the
commercial
or
mixed
first
street
north.
J
J
Additionally,
rubber
is
not
a
material
outlined
in
the
guidelines
for
windows,
doors
and
entryways
to
be
appropriate
for
door
replacement.
Appropriate
materials
include
painted
metal,
wood
and
glass.
The
applicant
has
not
submitted
information
to
show
replacement.
Doors
of
any
of
these
appropriate
materials
have
been
explored,
submitted
application
materials
did
not
suggest
that
the
current
system
is
beyond
reasonable
repair
next
slide.
Please.
J
J
It's
not
original
to
the
building.
It's
not
a
compatible
replacement
for
a
primary
elevation
of
a
property
in
the
warehouse,
historic
district.
The
building
will
be
noticeably
altered
at
this
primary
elevation,
deteriorated
and
or
damaged,
features
are
not
proposed
for
repair
and
evidence
has
been
presented
that
the
door
system
is
beyond
repair
or
that
the
operability
could
not
be
altered
at
the
interior
to
mitigate
problems
within
the
current
system.
J
J
J
B
B
Don't
see
any
questions
at
this
time,
thank
you
rob
with
that.
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
for
this
item.
I
believe
the
applicant
is
here
and
would
like
to
speak.
If
so,
could
you
please
press
star
six
on
your
phone
and
then
wait
to
hear
the
recorded
message
to
activate
your
microphone,
so
we
can
hear
you
and
then
just
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
B
K
K
I'm
joining
this
meeting
as
the
applicant
on
behalf
of
the
hoa
at
408
north
1st
street
lindsey
lost
building
hoa
as
part
of
the
door
replacement
project.
So
as
part
of
this
meeting,
I
was
hoping
to
provide
some
additional
information
regarding
the
application
and
regarding
the
summary
report,
to
provide
a
little
more
background
and
any
infor
additional
information
for
the
the
reason
for
replacement.
K
I
have
submitted
a
few
four
documents
for
the
meeting.
I
don't
know
if
those
can
be
pulled
up.
It's
a
couple
of
photos.
B
Yes,
if
you
just
ask
tell
us
which
one
you
want
to
see,
I
think
we
can
pull
them
up.
K
Okay,
we
can
just
start
there.
I
have
the
list
here
in
my
email,
so
to
provide
a
little
more
information.
I
believe.
K
K
Okay
and
I
apologize
I'm
watching
the
live
feed,
but
I
believe
there
is
a
delay
so
yeah,
just
let
me
know
when
it
pops
up
okay,
so
that
should
be
the
the
just,
the
street
side,
image
that
south
elevation
of
the
408
building
with
the
existing
doors,
which
are
metal,
as
everyone
has
outlined
here,
so
that
the
next
image
I
have
three
zero.
Three
five.
Sorry,
three,
zero.
K
K
Okay,
so
that
is
just
an
example
photo
of
the
tan
colored
doors
which
wasn't
shown
in
the
renderings
for
the
application
package
for
our
requests
and
our
application.
We
were
pursuing
either
black
or
tan
doors.
K
It's
two
different
options
that
were
offered
by
the
suppliers
and
the
the
ownership
group
is
open
to
either
color
the
tan
color,
obviously
being
very
close
to
matching
the
existing
color.
So
that's
just
an
example
of
this
door
at
a
different
building.
Obviously,
if,
if
we're
able
to
pull
up
the
the
fourth
attachment,
which
is
image
3536,.
K
Okay,
so
assuming
you're,
seeing
what
I'm
seeing
so
this
is
a
photo
of
the
existing
door,
the
existing
door
in
the
background
with
a
sample
of
the
new
door
material,
which
is
that
rubber
material.
K
K
So
we've
just
submitted
that,
as
I
guess,
the
clarification
or
some
additional
information.
Okay.
So
then.
Lastly,
my
last
attachment
is
a
pdf
file,
titled
mpls
warehouse
district
hpd
locations.
K
If
we
could
pull
that
up
just
a
one
sheet,
pdf
I've
submitted
that
just
to
provide
some
additional
information
about
the
use
of
this
door
and
this
door
type
this
door
product
and
speaking
with
the
manufacturer
and
suppliers,
they've
installed
this
door
at
various
locations
around
downtown
minneapolis
and
through
you
know,
inputting
all
the
addresses.
K
This
is
just
a
map
that
shows
a
few
buildings
within
the
warehouse
district
that
we're
in
here
that
that
have
used
this
door,
and
I
wanted
to
provide
this
because
I
believe
there
was
a
comment
in
the
report
about
using
you
know
a
rubber
door
material
in
historic
district,
and
I
just
wanted
to
provide
an
example
where
a
few
of
these
have
been
used
at
various
buildings.
K
And
I
think
there's
one
as
it
pops
up
here
yeah.
So
I've
highlighted
three
within
the
warehouse
district
there's
there
are
various
other
ones
that
aren't
within
the
warehouse
districts.
I
I
didn't
show
those
and
feel
that
they
were
applicable
for
this
conversation.
Obviously
those
are
the
three
buildings
within
that
district
that
have
used
the
rubber
door,
the
hpd
high
performance
door,
so
I'm
presenting
that
just
an
example
of
different
buildings
that
have
utilized
the
store.
K
Okay,
so
that
kind
of
gets
us
through
the
document,
additional
documents
that
I
wanted
to
present
to
the
group
here
in
the
meeting.
K
So
as
part
of
our
submission
and
as
part
of
the
report
there's
some
discussion
about
repair
and
as
to
why
this
door
has
been
used
and
not
offering
any
alternatives.
I
guess
so.
The
concern
here
is
that
the
the
hoa
wanted
to
approve
the
safety
of
the
building
and
the
function
of
the
door,
and
they
found
this
product
which
satisfies
those
needs.
K
Repairing
the
door
was
not
considered
because
the
door
that's
in
place
does
not
meet
the
needs
or
the
functions
of
the
ownership
group.
At
this
point,
the
door
has
presented
various
safety
concerns
and
I
will
go
over
some
of
those
examples
of
those
at
the
building
just
here
to
close
out
I'll
try
to
wrap
it
up.
I
know
everybody
wants
to
have
their
chance
here
so,
but
as
far
as
repairing
or
reusing
the
door
that
was
not
considered
because
the
door
is
considered
unacceptable
as
far
as
the
function
of
the
door.
K
Certainly,
the
aluminum
door
from
2001
is
not
a
historic
element.
K
K
The
the
primary
concern
here
to
to
switch
out
the
door
is
for
safety,
the
the
hoa
and
the
owners
of
the
building
want
to
feel
as
safe
as
they
can,
and
they
feel
that
this
door
offers
them
the
best
chance
at
that,
and
the
the
the
reason
to
upgrade
this
door
is
not
to
change
the
look
of
anything.
The
reason
is
to
to
feel
secure
and
to
provide
the
most
safe
option
for
this
door,
given
that
it
is
right
on
the
kind
of
the
main
drag
on
first
street
there,
it's
a
highly
visible
area.
K
It's
a
it's,
an
area
where
a
lot
of
people
can
access
a
lot
of
the
the
concerns
with
safety
are
the
speed
of
the
existing
door.
It
doesn't
close
fast
enough
and
the
fact
this
door
has
been
improperly
functioning
at
times
to
where
the
door
will
stay
open.
K
This
door
takes
a
takes
a
beating
because
there's
a
lot
of
traffic
in
and
out
of
it
and
switching
to
a
high
performance
door
would
allow
for
improved
function
and
the
high
performance
door
also
operates
quicker
to
prevent
people
from
being
able
to
access
the
door
behind
people
driving
in
so
just
to
reiterate,
the
primary
concern
here
is
is
to
install
a
safer
door
to
allow
the
residents
to
feel
comfortable
because
of
recent
incidents
and
and
history
with
the
door.
K
So
to
close
out,
I'm
just
going
to
read
a
few
submissions
from
owners
of
experiences
that
they
had
so
from
one
owner,
they've
they've,
provided
this
response,
I'm
a
resident
at
the
lindsey
lofts
building
and
have
reviewed
the
application
in
response
to
our
proposed
installation
of
new
garage
doors.
One
of
the
major
reasons
we
need
new
and
improved
garage
doors
is
for
our
safety.
Now
more
than
ever,
there's
been
a
major
increase
in
crime
and
a
decrease
in
the
police
force,
resulting
in
decreased
policing
and
presence.
K
If
you
look
at
the
facts
in
the
crime
map,
you
will
see
that
the
majority
of
the
crimes
happen
when
there's
an
increase
in
opportunity
having
old
garage
doors
that
are
slow
to
close
greatly
increases
the
opportunity
for
criminals
and
assailants
to
enter
our
building
simply
by
following
in
or
piggybacking
cars
on
the
ingress
or
egress,
with
the
amount
of
car
theft
and
armed
carjackings.
We
are
completely
vulnerable
to
these
types
of
crime.
We
have
had
a
history
of
bike,
thefts
and
incidents
where
cars
are
broken
into
once
a
perpetrator
has
entered
into
the
garage.
K
That
was
the
first
response
from
a
resident
of
the
building.
I
just
have
a
couple
more
another
from
the
board
member
s4
security.
We've
had
numerous
bike
thefts
over
the
years.
The
most
recent
situations
include
someone
attempting
to
access
vehicles.
Additionally,
I
do,
I
don't
think
we
come
from
a
position
of
what
has
happened,
but
what
could
happen?
Minneapolis
residents
do
not
feel
safe
and
any
improvements
we
can
make
to
safety
is
paramount
to
historical
preservation.
K
No
one
can
argue
safety,
another
submission
from
a
board
member.
In
october
november
2019
we
had
at
least
one
incident
where
the
level
two
garage
door
stayed
open
overnight.
Possibly
more.
The
doors
were
also
open
for
large
parts
of
multiple
days
over
a
two
to
three
week
period
after
repeated
fails
to
resolve
the
issue.
I
don't
recall
any
specific
incidents
involving
personal
property,
but
a
lot
of
people
were
quite
worried
and
upset
and
obviously
building
security
was
compromised
with
potential
outside
access
to
stair.
K
Walls
and
I
have
one
final
submission
from
one
of
the
owners:
I'm
a
resident
on
the
lindsay
loss
and
I've
taken
a
look
at
the
application
in
response
to
the
new
garage
doors
I
feel
as
a
resident.
We
are
in
dire
need
of
new
garage
doors
many
times
over.
K
I
sit
on
the
ramp
when
entering
making
sure
I'm
not
followed
into
the
building
and
to
ensure
the
door
closes,
as
we've
had
issues
in
the
past,
with
a
stuck
door
or
passers
password
by
walking
into
the
garage
behind
car
from
the
emails
and
reports
sent.
I
also
understand
that
we
have
issues
issues
with
theft
in
the
past,
from
our
garage
with
the
disappearance
of
bikes,
equipment,
etc.
Now,
more
than
ever,
our
safety
is
of
the
utmost
importance
with
this.
K
K
Of
course,
preserving
the
historic
aspects
of
our
building
are
important,
but
not
when
it
comes
to
the
safety
of
my
family
and
my
neighbors.
Please
allow
these
doors
to
be
installed
and
that
wraps
up
the
last
comment,
or
example
of
some
of
the
safety
concerns
by
the
some
of
the
residents
in
the
building,
so
that
that
essentially
concludes
the
additional
information.
K
I
want
to
present
as
the
applicant
for
the
preservation
committee
to
consider
again
that
the
doors
are
are
installed
or
requested
to
be
installed
and
approved
as
a
safety
measure
to
extend
the
life
of
the
building,
improve
the
security
of
the
building
and
to
fit
within
the
neighborhood
and
historic
guidelines
as
much
as
possible.
So
I
thank
everybody
for
your
time.
B
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
I
think
we
have
a
few
commissioner
questions
for
you
sure,
commissioner,
sand.
G
Yes,
I
actually
have
two
questions.
The
first
one
is
in
the
packet
of
information
that
we
received.
There
were
some
imminent
images
with
like
a
silver
bar
kind
of
a
horizontal
silver
element
in
the
middle
of
the
door,
and
I
was
wondering
if
that
would
be
there,
even
if
they
were
tan.
K
G
Okay
and
then
my
second
question
is
there
are
metal
high
speed
doors
available?
Is
there
a
reason
that
metal,
high
speed
overhead
door
wasn't
considered.
K
So
the
rubber
doors
were
considered
after
just
the
fast
experience,
with
the
current
doors,
the
in
speaking
with
the
door
installers
and
supplier.
There
essentially
was
two
options
that
they
can
use,
given
the
the
geometry
and
physical
elements
of
that
garage
and
it's
the
door
that
they
had
or
the
rubber
door
and
that
that's
our
understanding
for
this
application.
B
Thank
you.
I
have
a
question
also.
I
was
looking
a
little
bit
more
into
these
doors,
just
because
I'm
not
super
familiar
with
rubber
doors,
and
it
sounds
like
one
of
the
kind
of
key
features.
B
Is
this
breakaway
function
to
stop
damage
to
cars
if
you
accidentally
hit
the
garage
door,
but
I
was
wondering,
since
this
is
for
security
purposes,
what
the
discussion
around
that
was,
I
I
guess
my
concern
being:
could
somebody
drive
their
car
intentionally
into
one
of
these
rubber
doors
and
then
get
into
your
garage,
which
would
then
defeat
the
purpose
right.
K
Understood
yeah,
the
the
the
door
is
certainly
not
car
proof
similar
to
a
metal
door.
If
somebody
wants
to
barricade
in
with
with
that
kind
of
force,
then
this
door
will
not
stop
them
very.
L
B
I
don't
see
any
thank
you
for
speaking
with
us.
B
So
with
that,
I
will
continue
with
the
public
hearing.
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
other
pre-registered
speakers,
but
I
wanted
to
check
if
there
are
any
other
speakers
in
the
queue,
if
you
could
press
star
6
on
your
phone
and
wait
to
hear
the
recorded
message
to
activate
your
microphone,
so
we
can
hear
you
just
to.
Let
me
know
if
there's
anybody
else
here
wishing
to
speak
for
or
against
this.
B
G
There
you
are,
let's
just
get
really
simple-
I
I
guess
looking
at
the
what
was
submitted,
you
know
aesthetically.
I
don't
think
that
this
would
have
a
dramatic
impact
on
the
appearance
of
the
building.
G
I
am
concerned
because
you
know
our
our
guidelines
pretty
specifically
call
out
materials,
I'm
concerned
that
maybe
we
need
to
edit
the
guidelines
so
that
we
make
this
clear
and
consistent
throughout
if
we
are
going
to
consider
this
application.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
sandbolt.
Yes,
I
agree
that
I
don't
think
aesthetically.
This
would
make
a
large
impact,
so
I'm
I'm
a
little.
I
don't
know
back
and
forth
on
this
one.
Commissioner
vanderheike.
M
Thanks
so
a
couple
of
thoughts
that
I
have
off
the
cuff,
I
it
work
my
employers
based
out
of
north
loop.
We
own
developments
in
the
north
loop,
I'm
familiar
with
the
struggles
of
not
of
underground
parking
and
these
issues
relative
to
security
and
intimately
familiar.
So
I
definitely
understand
where
the
applicant
is
coming
from
on
that
and
sympathize
with
that
issue
and
and
would
for
that
reason
would
lean
towards
approval.
M
Because,
again,
like
commissioner
sample
and
chair
sunburst
said
you
know,
aesthetically,
I'm
not
I'm
not
put
off
by
these
doors
by
any
means
the
word,
but
the
the.
What
would
stop
me
from
doing.
That
is
that
I
do
think
that
there's
a
reasonable
alternative
that
you
know
that
they
don't
meet
or
get
the
guidelines,
it's
clear
to
me
that
they
don't
and
so
from
my
loose
understanding
of
how
we
can
make
these
approvals
that
go
against
staff
recommendations.
M
We
need
to
have
a
clear
reason
as
to
why
and
I'm
not
sure
that
I
can
find
that
path.
So
so
I
guess
from
my
perspective,
you
know
if,
if
somebody
one
of
my
fellow
commissioners
has
some
type
of
reason
as
to
why
this
would
make
sense
for
us
to
approve
and
go
against
staff
recommendations,
I
probably
would
be
willing
to
agree.
But
I
don't
really.
I
can't
grasp
what
that
might
be
at
this
point.
So
so
that's
my
standpoint.
M
I'm
I'm
sympathetic
to
the
security
issue
believe
that
that
is
true
know
that
the
issues
with
the
high
speed
doors
I
mean
I'm
putting
them
on
all
my
projects
now,
because
this
is
just
becoming
such
a
major
issue
of
people
like
quickly
following
behind
residents
into
these
garages
and
causing
problems.
M
So
definitely
think
that's
a
that's
a
thing,
but,
like
commissioner
sam
bolt
said,
there
are
alternate
options
that
meet
our
guidelines
that
could
be
installed
instead,
and
I
didn't
hear
anything
that
told
me
that
there
was
a
reason
why
that
couldn't
happen.
So
that's
my
two
cents.
B
Thank
you
for
your
comments,
commissioner.
Vander
ike.
I
guess
in
my
mind
the
the
reason
for
doing
something
like
this
would
be
looking
at
the
applicant's
packet
of
information,
I'm
guessing
the
issue
they're
running
into
is
because
it's
a
two-story
height
garage
with
windows,
directly
above
the
garage
door,
which
I
know
I
have
run
into
issues
before
with
the
windows
above
the
garage
door.
Because
then
the
way
it
winds
up
like
a
lot
of
them,
have
to
be
directly
on
the
ceiling
and
it
can
be
kind
of
a
mess.
B
So
I
would
guess
that
that's
part
of
the
reason
they're
leaning
towards
the
rubber,
although
maybe
that
wasn't
made
super
clear
in
the
packet
other
than
it
looked
like
it
in
the
drawings
to
me,
but
I
am
not
particularly
familiar
with
rubber
doors,
so
I
guess
I
don't
know
if
there
would
be
a
high
speed
metal
door
that
could
have
been
used
with
the
with
the
windows
where
they're
located.
B
So
I
don't
know
I
I
guess.
Maybe
I
don't
have
a
great
answer
for
that
other
than
I
get.
That
would
be.
The
justification
I
would
use
would
be
that
this
is
sort
of
a
unique
situation
with
the
layout
of
the
garage
doors
with
the
windows.
B
For
me,
I
also
think
because
this
is
a
non-contributing
resource
in
a
historic
district.
I
know
in
a
historic
district,
we
still
hold
the
designs
to
a
certain
standard,
but
I
guess
I
feel
like
allowing
a
slightly
more
modern
material
that
keeps
the
aesthetic
nature
of
the
original
design
intent,
especially
on
a
non-contributing
building,
seems
like
an
acceptable
location
to
me,
but
yeah.
B
I
guess
that's
my
two
cents
on
on
why
I
would
say
this:
this
is
sort
of
a
unique
situation,
but
I'm
wondering
if
anybody
else
has
some
thoughts,
one
way
or
the
other
on
why
we
would
or
would
not
want
to
allow
these
doors.
B
M
I
agree
with
everything
you
just
said:
chair
sunberg,
I'm
wondering
if
maybe
we
can
ask
a
staff
member
burke
to
weigh
in
on
on
those
items
that
you
mentioned,
given
that
the
staff
are
the
ones
that
ultimately
have
to
kind
of
make
the
case
and
and
say,
and
let
us
know
if
that's
if
that
seems
like
that
or
or
robert.
M
B
Okay,
so
yeah,
if
the
staff
could
weigh
in
if
that's
sufficient
justification
for
contradicting
staff
findings.
B
Yes,
so
the
justification
would
be
that
it
is
a
non-contributing
building
within
the
historic
district
and
that
it
is
in
a
unique
design
orientation
with
the
windows
as
they
are
located
above
the
garage
doors.
Let's
put
a
design
constraint
that
would
better
be
suited
to
these
rubber
doors.
J
N
Yeah
so
the
thing
to
keep
in
mind:
hey
sorry,
andrea
burke,
supervisor,
for
the
team,
the
thing
to
keep
in
mind
these
have
to
be
legal
findings,
so
they
have
to
be
short
to
the
point
sound.
I
think
you
could
have
some
standing
on
the
non-contributing
argument.
The
design
consideration
you
need
to
beef
up.
In
my
opinion,
okay,
I
mean
staff
at
this
point
and
it's
not.
You
know,
you're
welcome
to
make
your
points
as
the
commission,
but
staff
had
the
reason
to
deny
it.
N
In
this
respect
and
yeah
I
mean
we,
we
looked
at
it
multiple
different
ways
to
see.
If
you
know
there
wasn't
a
an
approved
recommendation
that
we
could
make
even
with
conditions
and
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
weren't
able
to
make
it.
So
that
is
my
guidance
in
that
respect.
B
G
N
This
one
is
in
this
is
in
st
anthony
falls.
Wait
no
rob
I'm
sorry.
Forgive
me
rob
is
the
expert
on
this.
N
Sorry
wrong
one,
but
there
are
two
different
categories,
so
the
historic
rehab
part
of
the
warehouse
design
guidelines
deal
with
just
the
contributing
buildings
up
to.
I
think
it
was
1930
and
then
the
infill
guidelines
only
deal
with
infill
construction.
Considering
this
so
in
the
staff
reports
rob
only
identified
and
evaluated
the
design
guidelines
under
the
infill
and
not
the
earlier
part
that
actually
gets
a
little
bit
more
into
the
weeds
in
terms
of
materials.
G
B
Does
anybody
else
have
some
thoughts
on
either
justification
for
why
we
might
allow
these
rubber
doors
or
maybe
a
reason?
Why
not.
E
This
is
commissioner,
johnson.
I
I
I
do
I'm
leaning
towards
everything
that
is
being
stated
so
far,
trying
to
find
a
reason
to
deny
or
to
go
against
the
staff
recommendation.
So
I'm
going
I'm
clicking
through
the
report
also,
but
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
leaving.
B
Okay,
commissioner
vander
ike.
M
Yeah,
I
don't
know
I'm
just
struggling,
you
know
I
just
I'd
really.
My
my
gut
wants
to
wants
to
to
approve
this
and
allow
it,
but
I
I'm
particularly
would
be
interested
in
what
commissioner
howard
might
think
about
this
and
she
hasn't
spoken
up.
So
I'm
wondering,
but
maybe
she
doesn't
have
strong
feelings
about
it,
but
I
guess
I
you
know
until
I
have
something
that
I
feel
like
is
is
defensible.
M
I
I'm
I'm
leaning
towards
approving
the
staff
findings
as
they
are
because
of
because
I
don't
feel
like
we
have
something
meaty
to
grab
onto
so
but
looks
like.
We
finally
have
some
other
commissioners
who
want
to
win
so
yeah.
L
Hi,
I
would
like
to
make
the
motion
to
approve
to
not
deny
the
the
stat
this
and
to
approve
it
on
the
basis
of
the
design
needs
for
the
two-story
building
situation
with
the
door,
and
that
is
a
non-contributing
building
and
also
the
current
public.
Safety
needs
for
the
building.
B
B
I
can
continue
the
discussion.
Okay,
let's
see
so
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
skip
around
a
little
in
the
order.
Andrea
burke,
could
you
clarify
the
staff
items.
N
Yeah
just
to
say
to
to
we'll
have
to
loop
back
in
and
close
out
the
motion.
Whichever
way
it
goes,
but
we
can
continue
the
station
in
between
before
a
second
so
yeah
just
to
clarify
that
at
this
point
I
think
on
that
particular
I
will
offer
and
I'm
not
an
attorney,
but
I
from
experience
doing
this
that
needs
more
to
be
able
to
overturn
in
terms
of
legal
finding.
I
think
the
non-contributing
argument
was
probably
the
strongest
I'm
just
giving
my
opinion
here,
but
also
you
know.
N
If
you
want
to
continue
on
some
of
commissioner
stadi's
comments,
I
would
tweak
that
okay.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Sandbolt.
G
They
block
the
windows
anyway,
existing
and
there's
also
kind
of
a
beam
right
above
those
doors
where
I
would
think
that,
yes,
if
we,
if,
if
there
was
a
metal
coiling
door,
the
coil
would
probably
be
bigger-
and
it
would
probably
you
know,
maybe
be
bigger
than
that
beam
is,
and
it
might
impede
on
some
of
the
windows.
But
in
all
reality
I.
I
don't
think
that
the
installation
would
be
so
problematic
here
that
we
couldn't
consider
a
metal
door
and
that
a
roll-up
metal
door
wouldn't
be
an
option.
I
G
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
B
D
Yes,
should
I
unmute
myself?
Yes,
yes
yeah,
I
was
gonna
just
verify
with
staff.
Do
the
warehouse
design
guidelines
sort
of
trump,
the
secretary
of
the
interior
standards?
As
far
as
I
was
trying
to
think
about
different
arguments
that
could
be
made
and
wondering
if
sort
of
falling
back
on
the
standards
say
nine
or
ten
is
an
option
or
if
that's
not
solid
enough
justification.
N
You
have
an
answer,
this
is
steph,
so
the
the
standards
and
the
guidelines
are
weighed
pretty
equally
in
the
way
the
findings
are
crafted,
so
I
think
either
could
work
and
you
could
possibly
make
an
argument
under
the
standards,
but
I
think
I
would
also
in
your
reasoning,
somehow
refer
back
to
the
guidelines
in
some
fashion
and
but
yes,
essentially,
they
are
sort
of
weighed
equally
in
terms
of
the
analysis.
O
O
If
we
were
looking
at
this
as
brand
new
construction
in
the
district,
we
would
be
saying
no
rubber
based
on
the
district
guidelines,
and
so
I
wish
that
we
had
some
better
indication
as
to
whether
or
not
metal
would
work
here,
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
just
a
matter
of
getting
additional
information
from
from
suppliers
or
things
like
that.
But
I
looked
at
the
same
pictures
and
I
think
that
a
metal
door
should
work,
I'm
not
seeing
what
the
design
issue
is.
O
B
B
I
think
that
does
I
mean
we
do
have,
I
suppose,
the
third
option
of
continuing
this
item
and
asking
them
to
come
back
with
more
information,
if
that's
something,
although
I
think
that
holds
up
the
process
typically
and
that
they
may
rather
just
have
a
yes
or
no.
At
this
point,
commissioner,
sandbolt.
G
B
I
think
I'm
being
told
I
need
to
close
out
the
first
motion
first,
so
I'm
going
to
say
the
first
motion
failed.
Commissioner
sandbolt,
can
you
say
your
emotion
again.
M
B
B
A
sufficient
justification,
the
other
direction,
even
though
most
of
us
feel
like
maybe
the
gut
instinct-
is
that
it
should
be,
and
maybe
we
might
want
to
look
at
that
part
of
our
guidelines
in
the
future.
B
But
with
that,
I
guess
any
further
discussion.
Final
thoughts.
F
D
H
B
That
motion
passes.
Okay.
That
concludes
our
public
hearing
items
for
tonight.
Are
there
any
announcements
from
staff?
I
think
there
are.
N
Thank
you,
andrea
burke,
supervisor,
for
the
team
heritage
preservation
team.
Let's
see,
I
should
have
written
these
down
earlier,
but
this
will
be
commissioner
fritz's
last
meeting
she,
I
will
let
our
clerk
read
the
resolution
here
once
I'm
done
with
the
other
announcements,
but
before
I
do
that,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
her
for
all
of
her
service
and
for
sitting
on
this,
especially
with
a
new
child
too.
N
I
really
can't
even
imagine
doing
that,
but
I
think
the
virtual
setting
probably
helped
in
that
respect,
but
thank
you
again
for
all
of
your
showing
up
and
your
comments
and
your
participation.
We
we
very
much
appreciate
it,
but
I
will
let
our
clerk
handle
the
resolution
for
that
shortly.
N
N
I
don't
even
know
if
I
should
say
it.
I
may
just
have
them
introduce
themselves
when
we
bring
them
on,
but
we
have
a
resident
from
ward
13
who
actually
lives
in
the
lyndhurst
district.
We
have
a
person
from
the
rethos
who
works
there,
who
will
be
coming
on.
I
think
they
are
the
real
estate
manager,
and
then
we
have
another
person
that
works
for
claire.
I'm
a
commissioner
vanderek,
I'm
going
to
butcher
the
name
here,
but
dominion
domini
domini.
I
keep
dominion.
I
think
it's
a
minion
dominion.
N
Okay,
forgive
me,
I'm
confusing
it
with
power
lines
in
the
state
of
virginia,
but
we
have
somebody
who
works
from
there
coming
on
too.
So
it
will
be
a
good
group.
We
will
be
fully
seated,
which
is
great,
it's
been
a
while,
but
they
will
start
on
february
2nd
a
cup
day.
A
couple
updates
on
appeals
are
the
appeal
for
the
first
church
of
christ.
Scientists
at
the
business
inspections,
housing
and
zoning
committee
was
denied,
so
the
demolition
was
denied
and
the
decision
of
the
hpc
was
upheld.
N
N
Yes,
okay,
I
can
say
this
notice
has
gone
out
to
the
residents
now,
so
I
can
make
a
little
bit
more
public.
We
have
hired
a
consultant
to
write
the
lynnhurst
historic
district
design
guidelines
and
I
am
thrilled
about
it
and
they
are.
N
It
is
house
horizon
company
and
we
are
doing
a
series
of
community
engagement
meetings
over
february
and
march
to
engage
the
residents
as
well
as
a
small
working
group,
to
work
on
the
design
guidelines,
and
I
think
I
still
but
I
can
reach
out
to
both
of
you,
commissioners,
statey
and
sunburg.
If
you
are
still
interested
in
sitting
in
on
some
of
those
meetings,
just
to
kind
of
listen
but
hoping
to
get
some
input
on
their
feedback
of
what
they
want
to
see
in
the
guidelines
as
well
as
what
they
find.
N
Know
what
they
should
feature
in
in
the
district
and
so
on,
so
we're
kind
of
trying
on
a
new
hat,
for
I
don't
say
new,
trying
on
a
hat
for
how
to
handle
some
of
these
design
guidelines.
The
timeline
I've
worked
out
has
them
completed
by
the
end
of
may,
going
down
for
their
60
day
review
to
shippo
over
the
summer
and
then
ideally
coming
before
the
hpc
in
early
fall
sometime
august
or
september.
N
We
also
were
able
to
hire
a
consultant
for
the
como
avenue
study
that
is
going
on.
We
are
also
very
happy
about
that,
and
that
is
getting
started
very
soon
here.
So
that
is
also,
I
think,
to
be
completed
this
spring,
and
I
think
that
is
all
the
announcements
off
the
top
of
my
head.
B
Thank
you,
andrea
rachel.
Can
you
read.
H
What
they're
called?
I
will
be
happy
to
remember
the
resolution
of
appreciation
so
with
that
resolution
of
appreciation
for
laurel
fritz
for
her
dedicated
service
to
the
minneapolis
heritage,
preservation
commission,
whereas
the
minneapolis
heritage
preservation.
H
Oh,
I
missed
a
line
here,
whereas
the
laurel
has
generously
shared
her
expertise
as
an
award-winning
architectural
historian
and
whereas
the
minneapolis
heritage
preservation
commission
wishes
to
formally
recognize
laurel's
dedicated
service
to
the
minneapolis
heritage.
Preservation,
commission
and
city
now,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
by
the
minneapolis
heritage,
preservation,
commission
and
the
staff
to
the
minneapolis
heritage
preservation,
commission
of
the
city
of
minneapolis,
that
we
thank
laurel
fritz
for
her
faithful
and
constructive
service
and
extending
the
progress
of
the
city
and
in
promoting
the
welfare
of
its
people
that
we
extend
her.
H
Our
best
wishes
for
good
health
and
happiness
in
all
of
life's
endeavors.
Trusting
that
the
friendships
and
understanding
built
and
our
mutual
undertakings
will
be
with
us
always
approved
by
the
minneapolis
heritage.
Preservation
commission
on
this
day,
19th
day
of
january
2021
and
I'll
get
it
out
for
signatures
as
soon
as
possible.
B
Thank
you
and
thank
you
laurel.
I
know
that
I
have
really.
We
came
on
the
commission
at
the
same
time,
so
I've
very
much
enjoyed
serving
together
and
we
will
certainly
miss
you,
but
you
know
well
well
wishes
as
you
move
forward.
B
B
B
B
There
being
no
other
businesses
meeting,
if
not
and
without
objection,
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.
The
next
regular
meeting
of
the
hpc
is
february
2nd
2021,
and
I
believe
we
have
a
reminder
that
there
is
a
cow
meeting
coming
up
on
january
28th,
so
there
you
go.
Thank
you.