►
From YouTube: January 4, 2022 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
january
4th
2022
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
madeline
sunberg
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
may
verify
the
presence
of
a
quorum.
A
B
B
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
and
what
items
will
be
put
on
the
consent
agenda
to
be
approved,
as
recommended
by
staff
without
further
discussion?
B
B
B
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
this
time.
Item
number
five
is
614
to
626
9th
street
south
ward
7.
This
is
the
designation
for
a
historic
landmark,
we'll
be
on
consent.
Unless
someone
wishes
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
the
staff
recommendations
again.
Is
there
anyone
from
the
commission
or
from
the
public
who
wishes
to
speak
against
item
number
five.
B
Don't
see
any
iron
number
six,
which
is
110
bank
street
ward
3
certificate
of
appropriateness?
This
item
will
be
on
consent.
Unless
someone
wants
to
speak
in
opposition
to
or
modify
staff
recommendations
again.
Are
there
any
commissioners
or
members
of
public
who
wish
to
speak
against
item
number
six.
B
I
don't
see
any
item
number
seven,
which
is
4736
dupont,
avenue,
south
ward,
13
certificate
of
appropriateness
will
be
discussed
so
the
proposed
agenda.
The
consent
agenda
will
include
the
following
items:
item
number
4,
which
is
500
506,
528
washington,
avenue,
north
item
number
5,
which
is
9th
street
south
and
item
number
6,
which
is
110
bank
street
again.
Is
there
any
opposition
to
staff
recommendation
for
these
items
or
anyone
from
the
public
that
wishes
to
speak
in
opposition
to
these
items?
Please
press
star
six,
and
let
me
know
that
you
are
there.
B
B
B
C
Chair
sunburg,
yes,
I
apologize
for
the
confusion.
I
mean
we
can
certainly
run
it
as
a
separate
motion,
but
considering
it's
pretty
straightforward,
I
was
just
clarifying
because
we
almost
missed
it
last
night
that
it
could
be
part
of
the
consensus
gender
if
the
mission
feels
that
way.
Thank
you
so
much.
Okay,.
F
C
B
F
C
B
You
the
minutes,
are
approved
before
I
open
the
hearing
to
public
comments.
Let
me
summarize
the
process
for
conducting
the
public
hearing
in
this
virtual
format.
It
will
be
as
follows.
Once
the
item
first
will
act
in
the
consent
agenda
we
just
set
once
the
items
in
the
consent
agenda
are
approved.
The
commission
is
done
with
those
items.
Applicants
may
contact
planning
staff
tomorrow
about
next
steps.
B
After
the
consent
agenda
items
are
approved,
we'll
take
each
remaining
item
in
order
planning
staff
will
first
present
its
report.
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
we'll
take
the
speakers
in
the
order
they
pre-registered.
If
there
are,
any
speakers
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes.
B
We
ask
that,
after
your
name
is
called
you
state,
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
then
proceed
to
your
comments
after
you've
completed
the
list
of
any
pre-registered
speakers.
I'll
see,
if
there's
any
other
speakers
in
the
queue
who
may
have
called
in
in
order
to
activate
your
microphone,
you'll
need
to
press
star
six
on
your
phone
and
wait
to
hear
the
pre-recorded
message
before
we
can
hear
you
so
again
I'll.
B
Take
the
pre-registered
speakers
in
order
and
then
open
the
floor
to
any
other
speakers
who
may
be
in
the
queue
remember
to
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record,
and
please
keep
your
comments
specific
to
the
application
before
us
today.
After
the
public
comments
are
complete,
I
will
close
the
hearing.
Commissioners
will
deliberate
and
act
on
the
applications
before
us.
B
So
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
on
the
consent
agenda
items
which
again
is
item
4,
5
and
6,
and
the
hpc
2022
calendar,
which
is
available
online
on
the
agenda
for
commissioners,
who
may
not
have
seen
it
so
again.
Is
there
any
opposition
to
staff
recommendations
on
these
items
from
commissioners
or
the
public
press
star
six,
and
let
me
know
that
you
wish
to
speak
on
one
of
these.
B
G
C
B
Thank
you
items
four,
which
is
500
506
528,
washington,
avenue,
north
ward,
13.
item
number
five,
which
is
614
to
626,
9th
street,
south
ward,
7
and
item
number
6
110
bank
street
ward,
3
and
the
2022
calendar
are
approved,
as
recommended
by
staff
on
the
agenda.
Applicants
for
those
items
may
contact
planning
staff
tomorrow
about
next
steps.
B
I
Chair
sonnenberg
and
good
afternoon,
I
should
say
good
evening:
commissioners,
my
name
is
rob
skelecki
city
planner
in
the
historic
preservation
section
of
cpad,
and
today
I'm
presenting
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
application
for
the
property
located
at
4736
dupont,
avenue
south
in
the
linhurst
residential
historic
district.
Next
slide,
please,
the
subject.
Property
is
a
contributing
resource
in
the
lender's
residential,
historic
district.
I
I
I
The
linhurst
residential
historic
district
design
guidelines
were
drafted
following
the
approval
of
the
replacement
windows
at
the
dwelling
in
2020..
Community
engagement
and
review
was
completed
at
this
time
of
the
drafting
which
thoroughly
considered
property
owners
concerns
specific
to
window
replacement.
In
a
way
that
more
openly
considers
changes
to
windows,
most
notably
in
instances
to
allow
for
sound
mitigation,
the
guidelines
were
approved
in
august
of
2021,
as
I'm
sure
many
of
you
remember,
with
specific
attention
paid
to
property
owner
input
regarding
windows.
I
I
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
replace
a
total
of
nine
historic
windows
and
associated
storm
windows,
which
include
the
following
three
historic.
Eight
over
eight
double
hung:
wood
sash
windows
at
the
attic
level
dormers
on
the
front,
which
is
the
east
elevation,
will
be
replaced
with
casement
windows
of
martin's
ultimate
wood
product,
and
those
are
shown
here
in
the
photograph
a
palladian
window
configuration
on
the
south.
I
Although
one
is
shown
removed
in
the
applicant's
interior
photos
which
we'll
come
across
here
in
a
few
slides,
one
double
hung
wood
sash
with
six
over
one
light.
Configuration
at
the
second
story
on
the
north
elevation
will
be
replaced
as
well.
This
is
with
martin's
infinity,
fiberglass
product
and
a
pair
of
six
light.
I
The
applicant
states
that
the
existing
front
elevation
dormer
windows
would
not
meet
building
code
for
a
bedroom,
emergency
escape
and
rescue
opening
to
allow
for
egress
in
their
current
state
and
that
no
other
options
are
possible
to
change
windows
at
either
side
elevation.
Given
the
size
and
design
of
the
windows
at
the
attic
level.
I
Next
slide,
please
existing
window
dimensions
and
types
as
well
as
existing
and
proposed
floor
plans
suggest
that
the
applicant's
statement
is
accurate
and
that
the
existing
openings
are
too
small
to
be
able
to
provide
adequate
opening
size
for
the
proposed
third
story
bedroom
to
meet
building
code
specifications.
The
applicant
did
not
submit
materials
to
suggest
any
other.
Alternatives
were
considered
to
create
adequate
new
openings
at
side
or
rear
elevations,
or
that
other
other
floor
plans
or
alterations
were
considered
next
slide.
Please.
I
The
guidelines
allow
for
replacement
windows
to
address
livability
concerns,
including
sound
reduction,
as
mentioned
before,
although
options
other
than
replacement
such
as
acoustic
storm
windows
or
standard
cord
and
pulley
repair
weather
stripping,
insulation
should
be
considered.
First,
the
guidelines
state
that
historic
windows
on
the
primary
facade
should
be
retained.
I
12
windows
again
are
proposed
for
replacement
at
the
subject.
Property,
I
should
say,
were
proposed
for
replacement
at
the
sublux
sub
property
in
2020
to
address
livability
issues
and
sound
attenuation,
and
the
nine
windows
proposed
for
replacements
in
this
application
were
not
included
in
the
previous
application.
I
While
this
is
not
on
a
primary
elevation,
inadequate
materials
were
submitted
to
suggest
these
windows
require
replacement
for
replacement
window
designs.
The
guidelines
state
replacement
window
should
also
match
the
style
and
original
windows
of
the
original
windows.
For
example,
if
a
window
is
double
hung
proposed
replacement
if
needed
in
any
given
situation,
would
be
a
double
hung
window
and
that's
the
same
for
casements
and
fixed
sashes
as
well.
I
Exceptions
may
be
made
for
windows
required
to
meet
egress
requirements
for
the
guidelines
and
openings
that
are
least
visible
from
the
public
right
away
and,
as
previously
noted,
the
proposed
front
elevation
double
hung.
Windows
in
the
dormers
are
not
large
enough
to
allow
for
the
bedroom
egress
required
for
the
desired
bedrooms
in
the
attic
space.
I
However,
the
guidelines
are
specific
to
state
that,
in
this
situation,
the
proposed
changes
should
be
accommodated
at
openings
least
visible
from
the
public
right-of-way
and
the
subject.
Dormers
on
the
front,
elevation
are
highly
visible
character,
defining
features
of
the
property,
so
staff
believes
the
proposed
change
does
not
meet
the
guidelines
for
the
replacement
windows.
Even
considering
this
egress.
I
I
I
And
lastly,
the
guidelines
specific
to
dormer
windows
state
that
dormer
windows
should
be
retained
and
the
shape
and
size
of
the
dormer
windows
and
their
sashes
should
not
be
changed.
Historic
armor
windows
should
be
preserved
instead
of
replaced
unless
significantly
deteriorated.
According
to
the
guidelines,
storm
windows
jam,
liners
weather
stripping
other
minimally
invasive
alterations
will
also
be
considered
for
dormer
windows
in
given
select
situations.
I
I
The
proposed
change
to
the
casement
windows
appears
to
be
an
option
to
allow
for
egress
required
for
the
additional
bedrooms,
whereas
the
current
windows,
as
noted
before,
do
not
allow
for
a
large
enough
opening
and
the
proposed
replacement
does
not
meet
the
guidelines
for
dormer
windows
and
the
staff
is
not
able
to
recommend
approval
of
this
change
to
facilitate
the
applicant's
desire
to
create
two
bedrooms
in
the
attic.
According
to
the
design
guidelines
and
I'll
know
too.
I
I
The
building's
original
windows,
and
especially
the
dormer
windows,
are
distinctive
features
of
the
property
which
are
not
proposed
to
be
retained,
and
thus
the
project
also
does
not
meet
standard
five
based
on
the
applicant
submitted
materials.
The
windows
are
not
deteriorated
to
a
point
that
replacements
can
be
considered
and
repair
has
not
been
proposed,
which
does
not
meet
standard.
Six
with
that.
I
The
department
of
community
planning
and
economic
development
recommends
that
the
heritage
preservation
commission
adopt
staff
findings
for
the
application
by
joe
gennetka
for
the
property
located
at
4736
dupont,
avenue
south
in
the
lyndhurst
residential
historic
district,
and
recommend
that
the
heritage
preservation
commission
denies
the
certificate
of
appropriate
appropriateness
to
allow
for
the
replacement
of
nine
windows
at
4736
dupont,
avenue
south
in
the
leonardo's
residential
historic
district,
and
with
that
I'm
available
as
staff
for
any
questions.
But
I
do
understand
the
property
owner
and
the
applicant
are
here
to
speak
as
well.
Thank
you.
B
J
B
I
don't
see
any
so.
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
and
it
sounds
like
the
applicant
team
is
here
and
would
like
to
speak.
I
don't
know
what
order
you
would
like
to
go
in
the
name
order.
I
have
is
liz
and
then
joe,
but
if
you
want
to
reverse
that
order,
that
is
fine.
Just
let
me
know
who's
speaking.
K
Okay,
so
my
name
is
liz
smith,
I'm
a
property
owner
at
4736,
dupont,
avenue
south
just
to
respond
to
a
couple
things
that
rob
just
said.
First
of
all,
it
is
currently
a
bedroom.
We
were
going
to
make
it
into
two
bedrooms,
but
it
currently
is
a
bedroom.
So
now
that
we
know
it
is
not
of
the
fire
code,
this
really
has
nothing
to
do
with
what
our
plans
were
as
far
as
the
three
front
facing
windows
go.
K
K
Joe
can
probably
speak
more
deep,
more
detailed
about
that,
but
this
was
not
included
in
the
last
round
of
windows,
because
that
was
a
part
of
a
map
grant.
Had
I
known
that
it
was
going
to
be
this
difficult,
I
would
have
tried
to
include
all
of
these.
At
the
same
time,
let's
see
the
suggestion
that
I
believe
he
just
said
was
to
add
additional
windows
onto
the
side
of
the
house.
K
Instead
of
changing
the
dormers
on
the
front,
when
he's
recommending
that
we
can't
even
change
the
windows,
I
believe
he
just
recommended
that
we
consider
blasting
a
hole
in
the
wall,
so
that
makes
no
sense.
Some
of
these
are
on
the
back
of
the
house.
So
those
are
my
responses
to
what
rob
just
said,
and
then
I
had
a
few
things
I
wanted
to
talk
about
before.
Listening
to
him.
K
We
are
just
so
confused
by
this
recommendation
to
deny
the
application,
and
the
first
thing
which
rob
touched
on
is
that
the
three
front-facing
windows
on
the
third
floor
are
now
a
safety
issue
for
our
house.
It
started
that
we
were
looking
at
noise
mitigation
and
once
we
looked
into
this,
they
are
not
up
to
fire
code,
there's
no
way
to
bring
them
up
to
code
without
replacing
them
again
because
of
the
middle
sash.
K
It
doesn't
leave
room
if
that's
in
there
for
a
firefighter
to
have
access.
That
is
quick
and
easy.
We've
suggested
designs
that
are
as
close
to
the
current
windows
as
possible,
even
including
a
faux
sash,
so
that
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
tell
the
difference
from
the
street
from
the
current
windows,
and
that
would
make
us
safe
in
our
house
if
this
is
denied
you'll,
be
putting
my
family
and
guests
in
our
house
in
danger
and
there's
no
amount
of
historical
significance
that
I
think,
is
more
important
than
that.
K
K
K
Since
this
has
been
a
part
of
the
historical
designation
and
there's
no
difference
between
the
city
city
council's
last
ruling
and
with
this
application,
all
of
the
windows
other
than
the
three
in
the
front
are
farther
back
off
this
off
the
streets
than
the
ones
that
have
already
been
replaced
and
approved.
So
there's
no
reason
that
this
should
be
rejected.
K
So
if
this
is
denied
and
we're
forced
to
appeal
to
the
city
council
we'll
be
less
safe
in
the
interim,
it
already
took
us
months
to
get
the
approval
to
present
in
front
of
you.
So
you
know,
given
everything
that
I've
talked
about,
we
are
just
perplexed
at
just
completely
across
the
board.
Denying
everything
we
ask
that
you
don't
don't
go
by
the
recommendation
and
you
approve
these.
So
if
you
have
any
questions,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
them
or
joe
can
probably
jump
in
and
answer
some
too.
B
L
Actually,
it's
it's
throughout
the
entire
report.
It
keeps
saying
the
applicant
did
not
provide
information
about
this,
that
or
the
other
thing,
and
so
my
overall
sense
after
reviewing
the
staff
report,
was
that
there
was
a
lot
of
information
that
didn't
get
communicated
between
the
applicant
and
the
staff.
K
K
K
Had
I
not
had
to
go
through
this
committee,
I
mean
there
will
be
no
visual
difference
in
the
type
that
the
window
will
look
from
the
street.
It
just
will
open
out
instead
of
having
the
sash
in
the
middle
and
all
the
other
windows
will
look
exactly
like
the
ones
that
were
already
approved
to
be
replaced
and
they
are
farther
from
the
street.
K
So
I
mean
this
is
just
I
I'm
happy
to
give
you
whatever
additional
information
that
we
can,
but
we
really
went
back
and
forth
and
gave
rob
every
single
thing
he
asked
for
more
than
he
asked
for
and
on
certain
things
we
felt
like
we.
We
should
have
reigned
it
back
that
we
gave
him
too
much.
I
mean
this
is
so
confusing
to
me.
J
G
J
Shocked
by
that,
given
the
back
and
forth
that
we
had
with
rob
on
this
as
far
as
information
wasn't
included
from
the
original
approval,
none
of
that
was
stated
in
the
information
that
we
got
and
if
that
is
something
that
would
have
helped
him
along,
I
would
have
loved
to
know
that,
because
we
could
certainly
put
it
in,
I
assume
giving
his
position.
He
pulled
it
up
online,
which
apparently
he
did
to
look
at
it,
but
it
was
not
actually
included
in
the
application
again.
J
J
The
manufacturer
that
made
the
windows
for
the
remainder
of
the
home
does
not
make
custom
windows.
They
have
their
standard
sizes
which
fit
in
many
differently
applications,
but
not
when
we
start
getting
into
arch
tops
or
what
have
you
again?
If
that
was
information
that
someone
would
have
liked
to
see,
I
would
have
been
happy
to
give
that.
J
J
J
If
there's
any
questions
on
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
on
as
far
as
no
other
options
were
shown
for
places
to
put
bedrooms
in
the
house,
there
is
no
other
area
of
that
house
without
opening
up
exterior
walls
which
we
are
trying
to
avoid.
That
would
accept
an
egress
sized
window.
So
there's
nothing
in
the
back
of
the
home.
The
sides
of
the
home.
The
only
option,
would
be
dead
center
in
those
walls
where
to
me,
there's
already
gorgeous
windows
that
we're
spending
a
lot
of
money
to
have
custom
made
to
match.
B
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
at
the
moment.
I
would
like
to
check
to
see
if
there
is
anyone
else
who
has
called
in
to
speak
on
this
item,
if
there's
anyone
else
in
the
queue
that
was
our
our
list
of
pre-registered
speakers.
But
if
you
could
press
star
6-
and
let
me
know,
if
there's
anyone
else
who
wish
to
speak
for
or
against
this
item,.
D
I
think
so,
yes
yeah,
so
I
had
a
quick
question
for
the
applicant.
I'm
sorry
if
I
didn't
catch
this,
but
as
I
understand
it,
the
first
set
of
windows
were
mac.
That
was
a
mac
driven
renovation.
Is
that
correct,
yeah
for
no
noise
mitigation
are?
Are
these
windows
being
put
in,
for
is
noise
mitigation,
one
of
the
reasons
you're
putting
these
windows
in
absolutely.
K
B
M
G
I
don't
have
a
lot
more
to
add,
because
I
feel
that
the
same
way
you
do
I
was
reading
through
this
as
a
star,
preservationist
and
kind
of
aligning
with
staff
and
understanding
that
the
windows
are
historic,
but
I
also
understand
the
egress
and
fire
code
issues.
So
I
would
love
to
know
what
other
people
are
thinking
too,
because
I'm
really
torn
on
kind
of
where
to
go
on
this,
because
I
I
completely
understand
the
applicant
side,
but
I
also
understand
the
city
side.
So
I
would
love
to
hear
other
people's
thoughts.
D
Well,
one
of
my
reservations
in
approving
this
historic
district
in
the
first
place
is
that
it's
in
a
mac
area,
so
they
I
live
in
a
mac
area
too.
I
know
what
what
the
needs
are
with
noise
mitigation
and
there's
a
carve
out
in
our
guidelines
for
noise
mitigation.
So
I
have
no
problem
improving
this
certificate
of
appropriateness
because
it
fits
our
guidelines.
There
is
a
carve
out
for
noise
mitigation
and
modern
windows
mitigate
noise
better
than
you
know,
fixing
pulleys.
So
that's
my
opinion.
Thanks.
L
But
if
there's
a
possibility
that
we
could
send
this
back
and
ask
staff
and
the
applicant
to
work
through
this
again
and
try
to
figure
out
what
really
would
be
the
best
way
of
complying
with
the
lynhurst
guidelines,
with
whatever
information
was
not
available
to
the
staff
when
they
wrote.
This
report.
K
B
No,
I'm
sorry.
The
public
comments
are
done.
I'm
sorry
you've
been
commissioner
strother.
I
think
the
issue.
I
think
there
would
be
that
we
would
be
further
delaying
their
timetable
and
I
would
imagine
that
the
applicant,
oh
as
it
is
that
health
safety
issue
wouldn't
wouldn't
want
a
further
delay
with
a
continuance
of
the
item.
N
N
The
hpc
can
either
agree
and
take
staff's
findings
and
recommendation
or
hpc
can
make
fight
their
own
findings
to
overturn
staff
recommendation
and
choose
to
approve,
but
generally,
in
this
case,
the
whole
reason
we
are
bringing
it
to.
It
is
because
it
didn't
meet
the
design
guidelines
and
staff
evaluated
it
as
such
and
therefore
they're
bringing
it
to
the
hpc
for
a
final
decision
either
for
or
against.
D
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
just
and
I'm
sure
we'll
debate
more,
but
the
the
motion
would
be
the
heritage
preservation.
Commission
approves
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
allow
the
replacement
of
nine
windows
at
four
seven.
Three
six
dupont
avenue
cell
in
the
lyndhurst
residential
historic
district.
D
D
A
N
O
Right
there
I
think
the
the
problem
with
the
guidelines
is
that
they
say
you
can
replace
the
windows
for
sound
reduction,
but
you
have
to
provide
other
options
than
replacement
right
and
I
think
that's
the
hold
up
is
that
staff
is
saying
that
they
haven't
seen
those
or
they
haven't,
seen
evidence
to
support
that
this
quality
of
life
is
is
affected
by
the
sound.
Is
that
kind
of
where
I
think
the
holdup
is
generally
with
the
sound.
B
I
Yeah,
commissioner,
johnson
thanks
it's
specific
to
materials
submitted
what
is
shown
in
the
materials
submitted
to
you,
for
your
evaluation
is
what
was
submitted
to
staff.
So
staff
was
not
able
to.
You
know,
get
further
description
on
kind
of
the
who.
What
why,
where,
when
of
the
project,
what
routes
were
considered,
how
this
would
have
been
evaluated
under
the
guidelines
that
was
not
included
for
staff
to
consider
and
submitted
materials?
I
O
I
I
It
was
mentioned,
as
you
know,
one
of
the
reasons
why
this
is
being
considered,
but
once
staff
is
evaluating
the
project,
we
evaluate
it
by
the
guidelines,
and
there
was
no
effort
made
to
show
that
you
know
any
type
of
noise
exists
that
wasn't
already.
You
know.
Mitigation
wasn't
already
achieved
thoroughly
enough
with
the
most
recent
approval,
the
most
recent
application
that
was
approved
for
this
issue.
So
there
wasn't
much
mentioned
about
that
being
the
route.
I
D
D
Replacement
windows
may
also
be
approved
to
address
livability
concerns,
including
sound
reduction
options.
Other
than
replacement
should
be
considered
first,
that
does
not
say
must
I'm
no
lawyer,
but
it
doesn't
say
must,
and
it
also
says
more
historic
windows
on
the
primary
facade
should
be
retained.
Not
must-
and
this
includes
windows
on
the
side
facing
the
corner
lot.
D
So
that's
that's
where
I'm
coming
from
here
and
I'll
find
the
guidelines
too,
but
we
know
there's,
we
know,
there's
noise.
This
is
the
the
planes
fly
over
my
house,
they
fly
over
their
house,
I
live
on
glendale,
I
mean
we
know
the
noise
is
there,
it
hasn't
disappeared,
so
okay
yeah
some
of
the
windows
that
replaced
I'm
sure
that's
helped
with
their
sound.
But
you
need
to
fix
all
your
windows
or
you're
gonna
hear
the
sound
or
you
need
to
insulate
your
walls.
You
can
just
insulate
your
attic.
D
B
N
In
the
comment
to
sound
reduction
and
noise
mitigation,
I
mean
yes,
there
are
materials
that
could
have
been
submitted
with
regard
to.
You
know
some
of
the
standard
mac
material,
mac,
documentation
that
goes
with
it,
but
I
don't
think,
as
you
know,
staff
pointed
out
rob.
I
don't
think
that
was
the
point
of
this
application.
N
The
other
thing
relative
to
sound
mitigation
was
a
point
made
up
at
the
previous
hearing,
for
this
particular
project
is
that
mac
also
does
and
just
a
point
I
want
to
make
and
just
for
the
record
mac
also
does
noise
mitigation
that
doesn't
involve
window
replacement.
They
do
jam
liners,
they
do
insulation,
they
do.
You
know
storm
windows,
many
houses
that
mac
has
improved
for
noise
mitigation
has
done
you
know,
replacement
of
storms
jam
liners
other
types
of
weather,
stripping
additional
insulation.
N
Now
does
it
always
maybe
account
for
the
same
decibel
reduction
that
a
replacement
window?
Does
you
know,
speaking
to
mac
themselves
and
their
representatives?
No,
it
doesn't,
but
it
is
another
method
to
reach
achieve
closer
compliance
with
sound
reduction,
so
it
doesn't
always
have
to
be
a
replacement,
that's
just
a
standard
not
to
to
give
preference,
but
that's
just
what
comes
what
mac
offers
when
they
when
they
offer
their
their
services?
N
B
Thank
you,
andrea.
I
guess
thinking
further
about
the
noise
mitigation
and
your
comments,
commissioner,
stating
I'm
wondering
if
we
could
consider
the
application
a
more
of
a
window
by
window
basis.
For
example,
there
are
windows
in
the
bedrooms
in
the
third
floor
and
I
could
see
an
argument
for
sound
mitigation
in
those
windows
which
would
be
the
two
dormer
windows
that
are
in
bedrooms.
B
It
looks
like
the
third
one's
in
a
closet,
which
seems
a
little
less
concerning
to
me
and
then
the
three
the
palladian
window
set
looks
like
it's
also
in
a
bedroom,
whereas
the
lower
windows
are
in
a
laundry
room,
a
bathroom
in
the
kitchen.
I
also
live
in
south
minneapolis
with
the
planes
I
get
it,
but
I
guess
the
ones
that
are
in
bedrooms
seem
like
a
different
consideration
in
my
mind
than
the
ones
that
are
in
more
of
the
louder
spaces
in
the
house.
B
You
know
like
just
I
don't
know
if
the
window
in
the
bathroom
was
instead
used
jam
liners
or
something
which
had
a
slightly
less
sound,
mitigating
effect,
but
you're
not
trying
to
sleep
in
the
bathroom.
I
don't
know
I.
I
guess
food
for
thought
that
maybe
we
could
look
at
this
on
a
narrower
window
by
window
analysis.
E
Well,
that's
not
fair!
No,
I
was
I
would
had
pulled
up
the
guidelines
and
I
was
going
to
read
that
paragraph
that
the
commissioner
said
he
read.
So
that's
why
I
was
gonna
bring
that
up.
I.
This
is
a
tough
one
for
me.
I
I
did
want
to
say
that
although
the
applicant
continues
to
say
that
the
other
windows
were
approved,
we
didn't
approve
them.
City
council
approved
them.
E
So,
although
that
they
they
have
had
those
replacements
done,
we
had
conditioned
approval
of
their
previous
application
to
limit
the
number
of
windows
that
were
actually
being
replaced.
So
the
front
windows
would
have
been
retained
under
what
this
commission
approved
and
I
believe
the
side
windows
as
well.
E
Looking
back
at
our
our
notes
from
that
so
yeah,
this
is
a
tough
one.
I
I
wish
that
we
had
the
information
that
we
needed
to
be
able
to
approve
it
under
the
guidelines.
I
I
rereading
that
that
paragraph
I
I
feel
a
little
bit
stronger
about
shoulds
than
commissioner
stadi
does,
and
these
are
pretty
some
of
these
are
pretty
significant
windows.
So
I'm
having
a
tough
time
with
it.
B
B
N
I
wanted
to
ask
a
question
to
see
if
it
would
help.
I
won't
say:
jog
memory
is
not
what
I'm
trying
to
say,
but
to
incite
further
discussion
and
to
to
lead
to
a
decision.
You
know
either
for
or
against
staff
recommendation.
You
know
reading
this,
and
I
can
just
read
what
it
says
again.
Here
too,
it
says
replacing
historic
windows
window
replacement
projects
will
be
considered
for
approval
if
the
historic
windows
are
deteriorated
or
damaged
beyond
all
reasonable
repair.
N
N
Replacements
may
also
be
approved
to
address
livability
concerns,
including
sound
reduction,
not
only
sound
reduction
but
including
them
does.
You
know
fire
code
safety
on
the
front
fall
into
that
options.
Other
than
replacement
such
as
acoustic
storm
windows,
standard
cord
and
fully
repair
with
weather,
stripping
jam,
liners
and
insulation
should
be
considered
first
and
I
think,
there's
a
difference
of
opinion.
What
I'm
hearing
as
as
how
strong
the
commissioners
feel
about
should
historic
windows
on
the
primary
facade
should
be
retained.
N
This
includes
windows
on
the
side
facing
a
corner,
a
lot
more
flexibility
for
replacement
will
be
given
on
rear
and
side
walls,
and
it
doesn't
say
that
it
will
be
given,
but
it
it
will
be
considered
earlier
in
there.
So
I
would
think
about
that.
Think
about
you
know
what
what
we're
dealing
with
it
sounds
like
the
applicant
is
proposing
sound
mitigation
as
a
reason
for
replacement,
not
deterioration.
N
I
don't
want
to
quote
them.
That's
what
I'm
hearing
and
then
also
fire
code
safety
on
the
front,
I
think
maybe
staff
could
provide
a
quick
recap
of
the
analysis
done
with
regards
to
the
fire
code.
Safety
on
the
front
based
on
what
staff
was
able
to
find
out
on
the
needs
of
that
and
their
analysis,
and
I
will
turn
it
to
rob
skelecki
for
that.
I
Sure
and
I'll
address
one
point
made
by
the
property
owner
earlier,
and
this
is
a
clarification
I'll
make
it
they're
correct
that
the
the
window
openings
themselves
are
large
enough.
It's
just
the
type
of
window,
which
is
a
historic
window,
does
not
allow
for
the
opening
required
the
eero
opening
required
for
that
which
is
emergency
escape
and
rescue
opening.
I
So
a
way
what
would
be
required
in
this
situation
is
seven
or
sorry
5.7
square
feet
of
opening
for
a
window.
So
when
you
have
a
double
hung
of
this
size,
which
I
showed
the
dimensions
previously
in
a
slide,
it
does
not
allow
for
that
opening
with
the
size
of
these.
So
in
order
to
achieve
that,
you
would
have
to
in
this
situation,
replace
it
with
a
different
type
that
does
allow
for
a
full
opening
opening
which
of
a
casement
is
one
of
them.
I
B
I
guess
where
I'm
sitting
with
this
is
that
I
think
in
terms
there's
like
a
few
different
components
here.
The
fire
safety
component
is
something
that
I
have
more
familiarity
with
as
an
architect,
and
so
I
can
understand
the
applicant's
reasoning
for
those
the
two
end
dormers
the
one,
because
one
is
in
each
bedroom.
You
need
a
fire
safety
window
in
each
bedroom
because
in
the
one
bedroom,
the
only
other
windows
are
those
two
little
kind
of
like
quarter.
Curvy
windows.
B
Those
would
not
work
in
the
other
window,
it's
the
palladian
window,
which
is
even
more
ornamental
than
the
front
windows.
So
I
guess
I
would
consider
approving
replacement
of
the
two
end
dormers
with
casement
style
windows
on
the
basis
of
the
life
safety
issues
and
needing
an
egress
window
in
each
of
the
proposed
bedrooms.
I
realized
that
they're
proposing
the
two
bedrooms,
but
if
it
is
currently
already
an
existing
bedroom
there,
then
one
or
the
other
of
those
probably
already
needs
to
become
that
type
of
window.
B
And
so
I
guess
I
would
think
about-
maybe
a
motion
in
approving
at
least
those
two
windows
to
become
casement
style
windows,
and
if
commissioners
have
concerns
about
the
other
windows,
we
could
condition
the
approval
to
only
be
those
two
windows
which
would
give
the
applicant
the
immediate
need
of
the
replacement
of
those
for
life
safety
issues.
I
think,
is
it's
an
option.
We
could
look
at
commissioner
howard.
E
The
I
I
appreciate
that
that
thought
as
well.
I
worry
about
what
it
would
look
like
with
two
replacements
on
either
end
and
not
doing
the
middle,
but
anyway
the
the
guidelines
also
say
that
there's
more
flexibility
for
replacement
given
on
the
rear
and
side
walls
taking
the
palladian
window
out
of
consideration.
E
There
are
other
windows
that
are
proposed
for
replacement
on
this
project,
right
that
are
rare
inside
walls.
So,
if,
if
we
were
looking
at
that,
I
would
I
would
just
remind
everyone
that
the
the
guidelines
do
say
more
flexibility
can
be
given
for
review
or
rear
end
sidewalls
sorry
will
be
given
for
rear
inside
walls.
B
Yeah,
I
really
wish
there
were
dormers
on
the
back.
That's
I
think
the
big
issue
here,
because
there
are
no
windows
on
the
back
side
on
that
third
floor,
which
I
think
is
what,
where
they're
running
well,
okay,
there's
the
one
in
the
bathroom
and
one
in
the
stairwell
which
I'm
guessing.
If
I
go
to
a
elevation
photo,
they
normally
end
up
being
at
a
slightly
different
height.
B
Looking
at
stairwell,
let's
see
I'm
trying
to
find
a
back
photo
here.
Oh
yes,
then
they're
up
above
the
little
roof
thing.
I
suppose
you
know
if
we,
if
we
wanted
them
to
really
have
the
back,
be
where
these
windows
they'd
either
have
to
add
dormers
or
change
the
layout.
So
the
bathroom
became
part
of
one
of
the.
I
know
it
gets
very
complicated.
I
think
that's
the
problem.
B
Yeah,
I
I
agree,
I
think
it's
just
it's
like.
I
don't
know,
architecturally
frustrating
to
me
that
the
rear
windows
happen
to
be
like
in
the
kitchen
and
in
the
laundry
room,
because
in
some
ways,
although
those
are
the
ones
we
give
the
most
flexibility
for
I'm
guessing,
they
have
like
the
most
minimal
impact
on
the
daily
lives
of
the
the
occupants.
So
it's
always
just
you
know
frustrating
when
I
can
see
the
problems
that
they're
running
into
here.
H
F
Yeah,
I
I'm
gonna
echo
that,
because
I've
been
having
like
the
same
thoughts,
kind
of
going
back
and
forth
of
like
like
hearing
everyone
talk
about
this.
So
I
appreciate
all
the
commissioner's
thoughts
that
have
gone
before
me,
as
well
as
the
applicants
to
to
state
their
case
here
and
staff
for
preparing
the
report
but
yeah.
F
I
think
that
I'm
kind
of
leaning
towards
this
you
know
approving
the
or
denying
or
reversing
the
denial
for
the
first,
the
the
front
three
windows
based
on
egress
issues
and
safety
concerns-
and
I
am
am
more
partial-
to
being
also
reversing
the
denial
for
the
the
side
and
rear
windows
as
well.
Just
because
I
know
that
there
is
more
flexibility
there
and
it's
not
a
corner
lot.
B
B
D
B
N
N
Also
think
more
about
adding
more
bulk
to
your
findings?
Think
of
them
findings
effect.
What
do
you
have
a
fact
in
front
of
you
either
in
the
staff
report
or
the
application
provided
to
you
by
the
applicant?
Not
on
assumption,
but
have
it
hasn't
been
demonstrated
that
you
know
what
are
the
life
safety
issues?
I
would
clarify
that
more
applicant
has
provided
such
that's
a
finding.
You
know
regarding
noise
mitigation,
I
would
say
you
know
it
has
been
demonstrated
stuff
like
that
think
more
about
like
what
is
before
you.
N
B
Thank
you,
andrea,
commissioner
stadi.
If
I
could
do
a
friendly
amendment
to
a
finding
of
fact
here,
I
think,
on
the
safety
issue
with
the
front
windows,
I
would
say
that
the
application
packet
shows
that
the
existing
square
footage
of
the
egress
area
in
the
two
sash
double
hung
format
does
not
meet
a
fire
code,
whereas
transitioning
these
windows
to
a
casement
style
opening
without
having
to
make
any
additional
changes
to
the
front
facade,
would
allow
this
to
be
a
fire
egress
window.
E
I
just
wanted
to
note
that
if,
if
we
are
going
to
be
changing
the
or
putting
together
a
new
motion,
we
probably
need
to
include
those
two
standard
conditions
that
are
in
all
of
the
approvals
which
are
the
by
ordinance.
Approvals
are
valid
for
a
period
of
two
years,
et
cetera,
et
cetera
and
by
ordinance
all
approvals
granted
in
this
certificate
of
appropriateness
shall
remain
in
effect
as
long
as
blah
blah
blah.
E
B
B
That
one,
I'm
not
quite
as
sure
on
the
fact
that
this
property
had
a
mac
project
completed,
indicates
that
it
is
in
the
back
zone
that
requires
sound
mitigation
and
that
these
windows
were
not
done
at
that
time.
Although
I
feel
like
that
also
makes
me
question
why
these
windows
weren't
done
at
that
time.
So.
D
D
B
N
On
the
finding,
in
terms
of
that,
you
can
also
use
applicant
testimony
if
you
are
in
agreement
with
the
applicant's
testimony
and
their
statement
regarding
the
math
program
and
the
need
for
this,
you
can
use
that
as
a
finding.
Should
you
choose
to
accept
it,
and
I
accept
it.
You
know
what
I
mean,
but
that
is
another
piece
of
information
you
can
use
to
to
make
a
finding.
B
B
So
I
think
that
that
does
make
sense
additional
conditions.
I
don't
know
if
any
other
commissioners
or
mr
stady,
if
you
had
any
thoughts
on
that,
because
it
is
an
interesting
combination
of
wood
and
fiberglass
windows
that
they
are
looking
to
utilize.
But
it's
my
understanding
that
the
ones
that
they
have
replaced,
the
other
rear
windows
with-
are
these
fiberglass
ones,
so
that
which
maybe
I
guess,
maybe
I'll
bounce-
that
to
staff,
make
sure
I'm
correct
on
this.
B
I
B
Because
then,
normally,
I
think
we
would
want
them
to
all
be
wood,
but
it
does
make
sense
to
me
that
the
rare
ones
would
be
fiberglass
as
the
other
new
ones
are
fiberglass,
because
then
you
get
the
consistency
and
in
the
aesthetic,
whereas
I
appreciate
the
more
ornamental
ones
and
specialty
ones
that
they
are
looking
at
the
the
wood
windows.
Instead
that
that
is,
you
know
more
in
keeping.
So
I
guess
I'm
not
seeing
a
need
for
additional
conditions
there,
but
I
I
don't
know
if
any
other
commissioners
might
feel
differently
about
that.
B
L
My
comment
is
not
a
condition
on
this
particular
motion,
but
it
strikes
me
that,
if
we're
expanding
what
the
lender's
guidelines
say,
we
ought
to
go
back
and
do
that,
and
so,
if
it's
possible
to
send
that
back
to
the
working
group
or
a
working
group
that
did
this.
That
would
be
helpful.
I
think,
because
otherwise
we're
going
to
be
fighting
a
one-off
here
and
a
one-off
there,
and
everyone
is
not
necessarily
going
to
be
treated
the
same.
L
B
N
N
That
is,
that
is
what
you
have,
and
so
keep
in
mind
that
if
we
change
something
in
one
just
for
this,
then
we
kind
of
have
to
go
through
all
of
them
and
that's
why
we
have
them
and
that's
why
they've
been
adopted
and
formalized
and
every
time,
and
commissioner
starters
has
a
point
in
that.
If
once
we
start
allowing
do
you,
you
know,
keep
it
in
context
of
other
projects.
N
Which
is
why
so
much
work
went
into
developing
them
and
that's
why
they
are
there
as
the
measure
of
the
bar
to
which
the
projects
have
to
meet,
and
then
this
commission
can
go
in
and
decide
whether
or
not
there
is
a
special
case
of
circumstances
for
this
particular
project
where
they,
maybe
the
guidelines,
don't
quite
fit,
or
maybe
this
project
has
a
certain
set
of
conditions
that
you
know.
Maybe
it's
approvable
in
this
case,
but
that's
why
staff
bring
some
of
these
to
you
and
we
don't
approve
them.
N
Administratively
is
because
they
don't
meet
the
guidelines,
but
I
I
I
I
just
get
concerned
that
it's
a
slippery
slope
that
we
open
the
guidelines
for
each
project
that
comes
through,
because
then
there
will
be
an
ever-evolving
document
that
is
constantly
trying
to
catch
up
to
an
applicant's
new
request
or
or
something
else,
and
it's
not
to
discredit
any
comments
that
were
made
here
tonight.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
there
was
a
lot
of
thought
and
and
planning
that
went
into
it.
N
I
know
there's
been
other
comments
on
other
projects,
hey,
maybe
we
should
update.
You
know
warehouse
to
accommodate
this,
and
it
is
you
know
it's
my
goal
to
eventually
update
all
of
these
guidelines
to
to
bring
them
up
to
speed
with
what's
happening
and
now
in
2022,
but
it
just
keep
in
mind.
It
can
get
to
be
a
slippery
slope
if,
if
with
each
project
that
oh
well,
maybe
we
should
include
this
or
we
can.
You
know
include
this.
N
I
will
I
will
stop
there
and
I
did
have
something
to
say
speak
one
more
time
regarding
something
that
was
oh,
that
was
sorry
while
I'm
on
camera,
I
wanted
to,
they
just
make
sure
to
repeat
the
full
motion
and
any
conditions
you
add
with
findings
at
the
end,
once
the
discussion
is
closed
before
you
go
to
vote
so
that
we
get
it
for
the
clerks
to
record.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
andrea.
I
think
to
to
commissioner
strother's
comment
and
that's
kind
of
what
the
findings
are.
Is
the
fact
that
we're
saying
that
they
are
a
sort
of
exempt,
in
this
case,
from
whatever
part
of
the
guidelines,
not
so
much
that
we're
changing
the
guidelines,
but
it
is
kind
of
a
strange
process.
P
Well,
I
wanted
to
thank
my
fellow
commissioners
and
and
the
cped
staff,
as
well
as
the
applicant
for
this
discussion
and
for
all
the
thought
and
the
work
that's
put
into
it
yeah
I
haven't
spoken
yet
because
I
honestly
didn't
have
much
to
add,
because
the
discussion
has
been
so
in
depth
from
the
rest
of
the
players.
So
thanks
for
that,
I
guess
my
in
response
to
commissioner
soto's
comments.
You
know
every
time
we
review
one
of
these.
P
P
So
if
we
feel
collectively
as
a
commission
that
the
facts
threshold
has
been
met
for
us
to
reach
a
decision
different
than
where
the
staff
came,
then
I
think
we
can
feel
comfortable
in
doing
so
and
for
me
personally,
in
this
case,
I
think,
based
on
the
conversation
that
we
got
to
from
a
legality
standpoint.
I
feel
comfortable
that
we
got
there
guidelines-
and
I
know
commissioner
howard
has
said
this
many
times
on
on
previous
meetings.
P
So
that
being
said,
I
do
think
that
we
have
sets
of
guidelines
that
we
should
revisit,
but
those
are
probably
sets
that
were
put
together
and
adopted
by
hpcs
of
20
20
plus
years
ago,
and
I've
been
a
a
very
strong
advocate
in
us,
reassessing
those
particularly
the
warehouse
district.
Being
one
of
my
favorite
that
I'd
like
for
us
to
take
another
look
at,
but
you
know
this
is
a
fresh
new
set
of
guidelines.
It's
gonna
come
up.
P
So
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
put
my
thoughts
out
there
and
thank
everybody
for
the
discussion
today
and
really
to
thank
the
the
staff,
the
hp
state.
You
see,
staff
for
putting
a
lot
of
effort,
putting
a
lot
of
thought
into
this
stuff.
I
know
these
types
of
things
are
really
difficult.
There's
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
as
well
as
the
applicant
and
everything
going
through
these
processes
is
never
easy.
So
I
appreciate
that
a
lot.
So,
with
that
I'll
hand
it
over,
I
think
commissioner
howard
would
like
to
speak.
E
Howard,
well,
I
was
going
to
withdraw
my
thing
again,
but
then
I
figured
I'd
just
be
put
on
on
notice
that
I
have
to
speak
anyway.
So
I
I
agree
with
everything
that
commissioner
vander
vanderheik
said,
and
I
also
wanted
to
thank
staff.
I
think
they
reviewed
this
appropriately.
They
brought
it
to
us.
You
know
appropriately.
E
I
do
feel
that
livability
concerns,
although
it's
it's
pretty
squishy
as
it's
written
in
the
guidelines
that
includes
egress,
and
so
my
biggest
concerns
on
this
were
the
replacement
windows
on
the
front
of
the
building.
If
we,
if
we
include
the
egress
under
livability,
I
think
that's
a
that's
a
sound
finding
and
we
do
have
the
the
flexibility
on
the
side
in
the
rear
so
yeah.
I
agree
with
everything
commissioner
vander
egg
said.
B
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
I'm,
commissioner
stadium,
I'm
gonna
read
your
motion
again
and
then
just
tell
me
if
this
is
correct.
So
the
motion
on
the
table
is
that
the
heritage
preservation
commission
approves
such
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
allow
the
replacement
of
nine
windows
at
4736
dupont,
avenue
south
in
the
lindhurst
residential
historic
district.
B
With
the
conditions,
the
number
one
being
by
ordinance
approvals
are
valid
for
a
period
of
two
years
from
the
date
of
the
decision
unless
required
permits
are
obtained
and
the
action
approved
is
substantially
begun
and
proceeds
in
a
continuous
basis
towards
completion
upon
written
request
and
for
good
cause.
The
planning
director
may
grant
up
to
a
one
year
extension
if
the
request
is
made
in
writing
no
later
than
january,
4th
2024
and
number
two
by
ordinance.
All
approvals
granted
in
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
shall
remain
in
effect.
B
And
then
the
findings
were
number
one
that
the
windows,
the
three
dormer
windows
on
the
front
of
the
building
represent,
as
commissioner
howard
said,
a
livability
issue,
because
they
are
not
meeting
egress
requirements
and
that
in
the
application
it
is
shown
that
the
square
footage
of
the
existing
opening
is
a
double
hung.
Window
does
not
meet
egress,
but
as
a
casement
style
will
meet
egress
without
any
additional
alterations
required
to
the
front
of
the
building
and
then
number
two
finding
is
that
the
side
and
rear
windows.
B
B
F
A
B
N
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
You
can
probably
usually
turn
to
me
most
of
the
time
because
I'll
have
something
to
say.
I
wanted
to
say
that
you've
probably
already
seen,
but
that
the
local
public
health
emergency
was
extended
by
the
mayor
until
february
13th,
which
allows
us
to
meet
remotely
until
that
time.
N
N
N
N
That
was
really
fast,
614,
east
15th
street.
So
what
happened?
The
applicant
decided
to
pursue
litigation
against
the
city.
They
did
one
win
by
the
courts.
It
is
a
non-uh
presidential
decision,
so
it
does
not
set
precedent
for
others,
but
essentially
they
made
the
case
that
the
city
acted
arbitrary
and
capricious
in
that
decision,
and
the
city's
decision
was
not
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
N
N
B
N
Last
I
heard
and
checked
which
may
have
been
last
week.
I
believe
no
we
still
had
not
so
if
there
is
anyone
you
can
think
of
to
help
recruit
for
this
small
commission
at
the
city
of
minneapolis,
please
encourage
them.
I'd
be
happy
to
send
out
the
link.
It
is
the
same
link
that
was
used
before.
Please
tell
any
applicants
to
disregard
the
closing
date.
It
is
still
open.
E
Hey,
I
was
just
looking
at
the
calendar
again
and
I'm
just
curious.
I
noticed
that
some
of
our
meetings
have
moved
to
wednesdays.
I
noticed
that
too,
and
I
I
find
that
a
bit
odd,
and
so
I'm
curious
as
to
why
that
happened,
and
I
just
am
giving
you
a
heads
up
that
my
entire
work
calendar
is
built
around
the
hpc
calendars
being
on
tuesdays.
So
I
might
have
some
conflicts
going
forward.
N
The
reason
for
that
and
I
may
return
to
our
clerk
rachel
blanford
on
this,
but
I
will
try
to
answer
it
to
the
best
of
my
ability.
Is
that
these
hpc
meetings
or
ken
thank
you
fall
on
dates?
Where
there
are,
I
think
it's
a
state
law
can
that
there
be
no
city
meetings,
it's
usually
elections
or
holidays.
M
Sure
happy
to
answer
that,
I'm
ken
taylor
from
the
clerk's
office-
yes,
there's
the
we
did-
we
did
work
with
cped
staff
to
identify
a
couple
dates
that
were
issued.
So
all
of
the
dates
are
all
of
the
meetings
that
were
rescheduled
to
wednesday
are,
for
various
reasons,
the
tuesday
february,
first
one
since
that
was
the
first
one
that
was
mentioned,
that
one
is
actually
because
it's
the
night
of
party
caucuses
that
evening.
M
So
we
we
are
not
able
to
hold
any
public-facing
meetings
that
evening
the
other
ones
I
I
don't
have
them
all
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
we
do
have
several
identified
nights
that
are
unavailable
for
meetings
due
to
either
jewish
or
islamic
holidays,
and
the
council
has
instructed
us
to
keep
those
as
no
meeting
dates.
September
5th.
M
M
E
Yeah,
thank
you.
That
makes
complete
sense.
I
I
notice
in
the
calendar,
the
jewish
holidays
and
the
islamic
holidays
are
not
actually
on
the
calendar,
there's
a
little
box
for
them,
but
they're
not
showing
up
on
the
calendar
below.
So
I
was
assuming
that
that
was
perhaps
part
of
the
reason.
So
thank
you
that
that
helps
a
lot.
I
still
might
have
some
issues
schedule
wise,
but
I'll
I'll
check
my
calendar
tomorrow
and
see
and.
N
I
fully
understand
that
that
may
cause
some
hiccups
with
schedules.
Since
I
know
many
of
you
have
planned
many
of
your
schedules
around
tuesday
nights
and
and
the
calendar,
so
please
just
reach
out
we'll
try
to
you
know,
make
sure
we
have
quorum
for
those
particular
days
where
we
meet
on
a
wednesday
and
we'll
go
from
there.