►
From YouTube: March 14, 2023 Heritage Preservation Commission
Description
Additional information at:
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
Submit written comments about agenda items to: councilcomment@minneapolismn.gov or https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/meetings/public-comment/online-comment
A
Turn
my
mic
on
good
afternoon:
everyone
I
call
to
order
the
March
14
2023
regular
meeting
of
the
Minneapolis
Heritage
preservation
commission.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
Claire
Vander,
Ike
and
I
serve
as
Secretary
of
the
commission.
This
is
my
first
time
chairing
this
meeting,
so
please
be
patient
with
me
as
I
move
my
way
through
the
process,
just
a
reminder
to
the
audience
and
my
Commissioners
to
silence
your
cell
phones
and
electronic
devices
and
speak
clearly
into
the
microphone
when
speaking
at
the
diocese
or
giving
testimony.
C
B
A
A
Members
present
great
let
the
record
reflect
that
we
do
have
a
quorum
and
that
commissioner
is
Howard.
Sandable,
bjornberg
and
Nystrom
provided
proper
notice
and
their
absences
are
excused.
Our
first
order
of
business
is
to
adopt
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
We
will
work
from
the
agendas
that
are
available
by
the
clerk.
A
I
will
go
through
the
agenda
and
sort
out
which
items
are
to
be
withdrawn,
which
items
will
be
continued
for
a
future
meeting
which
items
will
be
discussed
and
which
items
will
be
put
on
the
consent
agenda
to
be
approved,
as
recommended
by
staff
without
further
discussion.
Item
number
four
is
1022
University
Avenue
Southeast
in
ward
3.
This
is
a
certificate
of
approach.
Appropriateness.
Item
number
four
will
be
discussed.
Item
number
five
is
515
Washington
Avenue
North
in
Ward
3..
A
A
A
D
A
E
A
A
Now
we
will
move
on
to
our
public
hearing
before
I
open
the
hearing
to
public
comments.
Let
me
summarize
the
process
for
conducting
the
public
hearing.
We
will
take
each
agenda
item
in
order
as
I
modif
as
the
modified
agenda
dictates,
planning
staff
will
present
its
report
and
Commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
staff.
I
will
then
open
a
public
hearing
and
we
will
hear
from
the
applicant
and
Commissioners
and
may
ask
at
questions
of
the
applicant
after
that.
We
will
invite
the
public
for
comment.
A
If
you
wish
to
speak,
we
need
you
to
do
two
things,
please
be
sure
to
sign
up
on
the
sheet
over
by
the
clerk.
If
you
haven't
done
this
already,
you
can
do
so
afterwards.
When
you
come
up
to
testify,
you
must
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
and
please
keep
your
comments
specific
to
the
application
before
us
today.
A
If
you
have
any
materials
to
handle,
please
give
them
to
the
committee
clerk
so
that
they
can
be
distributed
to
the
commission
and
entered
into
the
record.
Do
not
do
not
approach
the
Commissioners
on
the
diocese
after
public
comments
are
complete,
I
will
close.
The
hearing
and
Commissioners
will
deliberate
and
act
on
the
applications
before
us.
A
F
Commissioner
of
ederick
good
afternoon
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Rob
scalecki
senior
city
planner
in
the
historic
preservation
section
of
the
community
planning
and
Economic
Development
Department.
Today,
I'm
presenting
a
landmark
designation
for
the
property
located
at
316
4th
Avenue
Southeast,
historically
known
as
the
Holy
Trinity
Episcopal
Church.
F
F
The
study
recorded
significance
worthy
of
designation
under
multiple
criteria,
but
no
conclusion
was
offered
at
that
time,
but
this
was
common
among
Minneapolis,
historic
preservation,
documents
of
that
era
and
the
property
did
not
continue
through
the
formal
designation
process
at
that
time.
For
reasons
unknown
to
staff
in
April
2022,
the
Heritage
preservation
commission
heard
the
demolition
of
historic
resource
application
and
voted
to
deny
the
demolition
for
the
subject
property.
F
Historic
preservation
staff
chose
to
issue
a
request
for
proposals
to
hire
a
qualified,
local
historian
and
historical
consultant
to
draft
the
designation
study
and,
after
the
request
for
proposals,
was
put
out,
staff
retained,
Hess,
Royce
and
Company
to
research
and
write.
This
study
staff
is
recommending
the
holy
trendy
Episcopal
Church,
be
designated
as
a
local.
Landmark
staff
concurs
with
the
consultant's
recommendation
in
the
designation
study
and
find
that
the
property
has
significance
under
Criterion
one,
which
is
for
its
association
with
significant
events
and
patterns
of
development
and
Criterion.
F
4
embodies
distinctive
characteristics
of
an
architectural
or
engineering
type
or
style,
or
method
of
construction
staff
did
receive
two
public
comments
and
those
were
relayed
in
a
memo
that
was
dated
to
Commissioners
today,
which
you
should
have
currently.
Staff
received
a
phone
message
in
support
of
the
landmark
designation
and
then
staff
also
received
written
comment
from
the
property
Representatives,
noting
their
opposition
to
designation
and
the
property
representative
is
here
as
well
and
will
speak.
F
The
building
will
remain
at
the
South
or
Southeast
corner
of
the
intersection
of
4th
Street
Southeast
and
4th
Avenue
Southeast,
where
it
was
originally
built
to
serve
the
growing
community.
The
designation
of
the
church
will
allow
for
it
to
remain
as
a
significant
piece
of
the
diverse
architectural
fabric
of
the
Marcy
homes,
neighborhood.
F
The
preservation
chapter
of
the
Minneapolis
Court
of
ordinances,
chapter
599,
requires
that
the
designation
be
submitted
to
the
Minnesota
state,
historic
preservation,
office
and
City
Planning
Commission
for
review
and
comment.
The
state,
historic
preservation
office
concurred
with
staff's
recommendation
and
agreed
that
the
property
appeared
eligible
under
criteria.
One
and
four
and
their
response
is
included
in
appendix
e
of
the
staff
report
attachments
cped
staff
presented
the
designation
to
Planning
Commission
at
their
March
9
2023
Planning
Commission
Committee
of
the
whole
meeting.
F
The
majority
of
Commissioners,
who
commented
agreed
with
the
recommendation
made
in
the
study
and
staff
findings
for
designation,
and
one
commissioner
commented
that
the
report
was
well
written.
Another
commissioner
was
critical
of
the
designation
or
and
or
Landmark
protections,
because
Minneapolis
2040
policies
allow
for
greater
density
and
opportunity
for
housing.
At
the
subject,
parcel.
F
The
Minneapolis
code
of
ordinances
lists
seven
criteria,
which
shall
be
considered
in
determining
whether
a
property
is
worthy
of
local
designation
as
a
landmark
because
of
its
historical,
cultural,
architectural,
archaeological
or
engineering
significance.
Staff
concurs
with
the
Holy
Trinity
Episcopal
Church.
F
F
F
The
first
phase
of
church
construction
in
Minneapolis
and
Saint
Anthony
largely
comprised
wood
frame
buildings,
and
none
of
those
have
survived.
The
earliest
churches
were
often
destroyed
or
replaced
as
congregations
grew.
These
late
19th
century
churches
were
more
likely,
Mason
reconstruction
and
architect
design.
Like
the
subject
property,
Holy
Trinity
was
constructed
in
1873,
with
additions
made
in
1890,
1893
and
1923..
F
The
Holy
Trinity
Episcopal
Church
is
a
good
representative
of
the
ruskinian
gothic
style
applied
at
the
local
level.
The
subject
property
includes.
Excuse
me
when
it
was
originally
designed.
The
church
expressed
several
of
the
Styles
core
tenets,
excluding
the
poly,
including
the
polychromatic
facade,
strong
Gables
and
repeated
forms.
F
The
Department
of
Community
planning
and
economic
development
recommends
that
the
Heritage
preservation,
commission
and
city
council
adopt
staff
findings
for
the
local
designation
of
the
Holy
Trinity
Episcopal
church,
located
at
316
4th
Avenue
Southeast,
and
recommend
the
motion
that
the
Heritage
preservation
commission
recommends
the
city
council
to
approve
the
local
designation
of
the
Holy
Trinity
Episcopal
church,
located
at
316
4th
Avenue,
Southeast
and
I'm
available
as
staff
for
any
questions.
Thank
you.
Wonderful.
A
H
H
G
H
G
G
H
There
will
be
something
that
I
would
like
to
note.
If
the
city
have
decided
to
grant
this
to
us,
we
will
be
very
happy
because
we
have
never
have
any
problems
with
the
community.
H
We
love
the
community
that
we
are
in
I
would
like
to
put
on
the
table
that
if
the
come
I'm
sorry,
if
the
city
decides
not
to
Grant
this
to
us,
we
will
also
be
happy
either
way.
H
We
have
been
having
some
troubles
like
finding
parking
for
the
area
and
also
we
don't
have
a
dining
room.
That
is
big
enough,
so
we
will
be
happy
with
either
decision.
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
table,
and
it
will
be
easier
to
sell
it
as
well
in
case
that
this
is
not
granted.
G
G
H
Will
be
all
thank
you
very
much
for
the
time
that
you
have
granted
me
thank.
A
A
I
Not
a
concern
really
I,
just
I
I
thought.
The
report
was
well
written
and
supported
what
our
earlier
concerns
were
when
we
were
considering
demolition.
So
I
was
glad
to
see
it
come
through
with
so
much
information
and
I
personally
am
in
support
of
marking
it
as
a
Landmark
property.
A
J
Is
Andrea
Burke
supervisor
for
the
historic
preservation
team
in
cped,
I'd,
say
it's?
It
varies
depending
on
the
property.
Often
it's
not
uncommon
when
there
is
this
comes
before
you
as
a
demolition
and
the
commission
votes
not
to
permit
the
Demolition
and
then
that
it
gets
goes
to
a
designation
study
in
those
cases,
it's
not
uncommon
that
the
property
owner
is
not
in
support.
J
This
is
on
a
bit
of
an
unusual
situation
that
the
property
did
change
hands
after
that
application
went
through,
but
in
other
cases
we
do
have
applications
where
it's
in
support,
so
I
I
don't
want
to
give
a
percentage,
because
I
really
can't
say
that
with
complete
accuracy,
but
it
is
not
uncommon
for
a
property
to
not
have
owner
support
when
it
comes
through
for
designation.
Thank
you.
K
Make
the
motion
that
the
heritage
preservation
commission
approved
the
local
designation
of
the
Holy
Trinity
Episcopal
church,
located
at
316
4th
Avenue
Southeast,
as
recommended
by
the
staff
report?
Wonderful.
A
B
C
B
A
L
Good
afternoon
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
Lee
and
I'm
pleased
to
be
before
you
this
afternoon
to
discuss
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
515,
Washington,
Avenue
North,
in
particular,
an
amendment
to
an
application
you
saw
one
year
ago
tomorrow
and
that
application
was
to
expand
the
roof
deck
and
construct
a
rooftop
Edition
at
515,
Washington
Avenue
North,
which
you
see
here
historically
and
last
year.
L
The
building
was
rehabilitated
in
2016
and
2017,
as
approved
by
Heritage
preservation,
commission
reviews
and
state
and
federal
reviewers
as
part
of
their
tax
credit
application,
which
the
current
applicant
worked
on.
The
current
applicant
also
processed
the
certificate
of
appropriateness.
One
year
ago
tomorrow,
that
I
mentioned
that
particular
application
called
for
again
expanding
the
roof,
deck
and.
L
Place
in
a
small
addition,
Atop
The
Building
at
that
time.
The
addition
which
you
see
here,
which
was
approved,
was
nine
feet
six
and
three-eighths
inches
high.
It
was
proposed
to
consist
of
an
enclosed
bar
area
and
bathroom
facilities,
equidistant
from
the
North
and
South
Side
elevations.
Those
are
the
two
side
elevations
and
over
one
and
a
half
structural
Bays
from
the
primary
or
Washington
Avenue
elevation,
which
you
can
see
on
the
right
side
of
the
slide
primary
materials
for
this
31
foot,
long
by
21,
foot,
1
and
1
8
inch
wide.
L
The
applicant
requests,
the
design
of
the
rooftop
Edition,
be
amended
to
permit
three
shipping
containers,
corrugated
metal
on
a
steel
frame,
permit
those
be
used
in
lieu
of
the
approved
stucco
Cloud
Edition,
the
addition
setbacks
from
the
front
and
side
roof
edges
have
been
extended,
but
only
by
one
foot.
Each
and
the
square
footage
is
quite
similar.
The
addition
now
includes
a
roof
deck
over
the
bar
area
and
it
extends
further
toward
the
rear
of
the
building
itself.
L
L
Both
the
addition
and
roof
deck
remain
below
the
14
foot
height
maximum
for
rooftop
Edition
stipulated
by
the
Minneapolis
Warehouse
historic
district
design
guidelines.
The
applicant
proposes
to
limit
all
future
deck
furniture
to
remain
at
or
below
the
height
of
the
proposed
rooftop
deck
and
guard
rail.
L
Staff
is
recommending
denial
of
this
request
for
two
primary
reasons:
visibility
and
compatibility
in
terms
of
visibility.
The
proposed
rooftop
deck
atop,
the
proposed
Edition,
will
will
be
set
back
at
least
one
structural
Bay
from
all
sides
of
the
building,
but
the
height
of
14
feet
and
the
lack
of
taller
buildings
immediately
around
the
subject.
Property
will
make
the
decks
guard
rails
and
Furniture
somewhat
visible
from
portions
of
Washington
Avenue,
where
the
view
shed
is
fairly
extensive
in
terms
of
compatibility.
L
The
addition
will
consist
of
three
shipping
containers
which
are
comprised
of
corrugated
metal
attached
to
a
steel
frame,
while
this
is
clearly
differentiated,
differentiated
from
the
historic
building.
These
industrial
features
detract
from
the
character
of
the
historic
building
having
been
unavailable
during
the
district's
period
of
significance
and
not
placed
the
top
Warehouse
historic
district
buildings
during
that
same
time
period
as
well.
K
Only
I
know
the
applicant
is
here
and
we'll
hear
from
them,
but
what's
the
rationale
for
the
change
from
stucco
to
the
corrugated
Metals
do.
I
E
L
Madam
chair,
commissioner
melbaum.
That's
correct.
L
L
So
this
is
sort
of
a
a
good
gives
you
a
good
idea
of
what
you
would
see
if
you
were
at
you
know
a
bird's
eye
level
of
the
proposed
Edition
from
Washington
Avenue
on
the
lower
left
and
then
from
the
parking
lot.
Next
to
this,
stair
Tower
Edition
approved
in
2016
and
2017.
L
you'll,
see
a
bit
more
than
you
would
and
now
I'll
scroll
back
to
what
was
previously
approved
by
you
all
one
year
ago
tomorrow.
So
if
you
pay
attention
here,
you'll
see
in
particular
the
addition
has
expanded
a
bit,
but
it's
more
of
the
deck
itself,
the
deck
area
that
has
expanded
the
addition
itself
remains
about
the
same
size.
A
A
Please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
good.
M
Evening
well,
I
didn't
know:
I
had
a
frog
in
my
throat.
M
Hecker
12
East
25th
Street
Minneapolis
55404.
First,
thank
you,
Dr
Smalley,
for
all
your
help
over
the
years
on
this
project,
it's
been
a
long
one.
This
is
the
crowning
Jewel
for
us
on
this
project.
Quite
literally,
I
would
like,
if
possible,
before
I,
make
my
counter
argument
to
have
the
owner
speak
and
I
think
there's
a
guest
as
well
great,
so
good.
Thank
you.
N
Brett
Johnson
the
address
is
the
address
of
the
business
or
the
address
of
the
myself,
whichever
yeah
515
Washington
Avenue
North
I
am
one
of
the
owners
for
nolo's
kitchen,
the
basement
bar
and
the
rooftop
I'll.
Let
Alex
give
you
the
the
details
of
the
exact
project.
I
guess
I
just
want
to
say
we're
five
years
into
this
project,
we
love
the
North
Loop.
We
love
the
area,
we're
extremely
grateful
to
be
there.
N
N
So
yeah
I'll,
let
Alex
kind
of
go
into
the
the
details
of
the
project,
but
we're
we
are
willing
to
kind
of
comply
with
whatever
kind
of
needs
to
be
done.
Obviously
time
is
the
snow,
will
melt
I
think
soon
enough
and
we
will
be
wanting
to
be
outside
and
dining
outside
as
minnesotans,
but
yeah
super
grateful
to
be
in
the
neighborhood
and,
of
course
we
are
willing
to
comply
with
whatever
needs
to
get
done.
N
This
piece
really
feels
good
to
us
and
I
really
feel
like
it's
a
good
fit
for
the
neighborhood,
so
thanks
for
having
us
and
I'll
be
open,
also
as
well
for
questions
if
after
Alex
is
done
great.
Thank
you.
O
Good
evening
good
evening,
I'm
Scott
irrell
I
live
at
401,
North,
2nd,
Street,
55401,
literally
I
can
see
their
building
from
my
apartment,
or
my
condo
I
have
to
say
I
personally,
think
Knowles
is
a
cultural
asset
and
a
Community
Asset
and
the
scary
part
is
that
every
time
I
go
in
there
I'm
the
oldest
person
in
the
building.
O
M
All
right,
so
you
got
my
name
and
address
just
wanted
to
point
out.
Oh
boy,.
M
There
we
go
a
few
things
that
Dr
Smalley
went
over,
but
just
to
make
light
of
it.
You
know
it's,
it's
largely
the
same
footprint
we've
made.
We
did
acquiesce
and
didn't
take
the
pavers
all
the
way
to
the
Washington,
Ave,
Edge
and.
M
So
it
made
that
concession
from
the
last
one
and
I
guess
you
know.
If
any
of
you
are
in
the
business,
you
probably
have
realized
the
budget.
Crunching
that's
been
going
on
lately,
so
we
got
that
approved,
got
it
priced
and
we're
like.
Oh,
my
like
that,
doesn't
seem
so
then
we've
done
some
prefabricated
structures
and
started
looking
into
that
and
thought
that
that
this
could
be
a
good
value
for
them.
M
So
working
with
a
company,
and
that
kind
of
does
this
they
do
they
do
this
conversion
of
shipping
containers
to
bars
you've
probably
heard
of
them
I
mean
there's
a
number
of
outfits,
but
so
really
looked
at
that.
As
you
know,
a
way
to
meet
the
budget
as
it
were,
and
you
know
you
give
a
designer
more
time
to
work
on
something
or
like
hey
what
about
a
roof
deck
on
top
of
a
roof
deck
I
mean
it's
within
the
guidelines.
As
commissioner
melbaum
pointed
out,
you
know
the
visibility
issue.
M
M
Circumstantial
situation
I
mean
we're
we're
meeting
the
guidelines
there
and
you
know
I
guess
you
know.
The
concession
we
made
was
like
all
right.
Well,
let's
stay
within
the
guidelines,
but
we
know
if
we
put
a
little
more
height
because
the
previous
one
was
like
10
or
11
feet,
you
know
sort
of
get
the
guard
rail
up
in
the
on
the
roof
deck
on
the
roof
deck.
You
know
needed
to
be
a
little
bit
higher
so
but
thought
like
you
know.
We
know
this.
You
know
this
give
and
take
situation.
M
I
was
a
commissioner
for
many
years,
so
I
kind
of
know
the
drill,
but
then
I
guess
the
biggest
other.
The
other
thing,
obviously,
is
the
the
materiality
of
the
compatibility
which
you
know
haven't
been
in
the
business
for
30
years
and
done
a
lot
of
historic
work
all
over
the
country
with
the
Park
Service
guidelines
and
the
standards,
and
all
that
I
mean
it's.
You.
F
M
I
find
it
very
subjective.
That's
that
statement
that
you
know
what's
what's
compatible.
What's
not
you
know,
this
is
corrugated
metal
or
stucco
or
glazed,
brick
or
I
mean
just
depends
on
what
donut
you
had
in
the
morning.
Really
in
my
opinion,
but
there's
you
know,
as
you
can
tell
the
I
mean
we
did
the
previous
historic
tax
credit
project
of
this
and
the
addition
here.
M
You
know
we
did
all
in
Stucco
because
you
know
that's
what
certain
folks
wanted,
but
we
felt
that
this
is
really
not
you
know
from
the
street.
This
is
not
very
visible
from
I
mean
you're,
not
you're,
going
to
experience
it
when
you're
on
the
roof,
and
it's
very
new
which
is
you
know,
I
feel
in
line
with
the
guidelines
and
differentiated
from
the
historic
but
you're.
M
Not
you
know
the
general
public
walking
up
and
down
the
street
again,
except
if
you're
on
the
railroad
bridge,
you're,
really
not
going
to
see
it
or
experience
it
so
that
combined
with
you
know
how
do
we
meet
this?
The
constraints
of
the
cost
we
felt
like
this
was
the
appropriate,
appropriate
response.
So,
just
you
know,
I'm
sure,
you've
all
seen
shipping
containers,
but
just
to
sort
of
end.
On
that
note,
I
mean
this
is
the
basic
color
palette,
railing
stairs
and
the
corrugated
that
we're
we're
thinking.
M
So
why
don't
I
leave
it
at
that
see
if
there's
questions
or
or
further
things
that
I
can
clarify
great.
A
A
I
have
some
so
I
think
that
one
of
the
concerns
that
jumps
out
to
me
is
the
materiality
more
than
anything
else.
I
think
there's,
there's
some
benefit,
I
go
back
and
forth.
There's
some
benefit
to
it
being
distinctly
different.
A
I,
think
that
makes
it
obvious
that
it's
an
addition
which
I
think
is
generally
a
good
practice
on
historic
buildings,
but
I
wonder
if
there's
ways
that
maybe
you've
thought
of
that
could
soften
it
a
bit
it's
just
very
industrial
for
a
you
know:
19
teens,
1920s,
historic
district
that
wouldn't
have
industrial
design.
That
way
so
I
wonder
you
know,
especially
in
the
primary
facade
areas,
if
there's
ways
to
soften
that
kind
of
more
metal
exterior.
If
you've
thought
about
that
or
priced
that
at
all.
A
P
M
That
materiality
sure
no
I'm
freaking
chair,
Woman
Van
Der
rice,
looking.
M
Yes,
there's
certainly
ways
that
we
could
look
at.
That
I
mean
one
thing
that
would
you
know
we
could
use
like
a
pebbled
finish
paint.
You
know
like
a
it's
got.
A
little
like,
dare
I,
say,
knock
down,
that's
more
of
an
interior
application
so
that
that
could
certainly
do
it
that
you
know
you'd
still
obviously
read
it
as
corrugated
metal,
but
then
it
would.
M
It
might
just
look
like
you
know
like
what
we
did
at
the
human
hotel
where
it's
just
you
know
it's
just
a
century
of
product
and
it's
got
a
certain
color
to
it,
but
it's
maybe
not
as
contrasting
I
have
to
apologize.
Actually
I
think
we
are
proposing
it
are
we
the
project?
Architect,
that's
working
on
this
under
for,
for
my
firm,
is
on
vacation
right
now,
so
I
don't
know
the
detail
of
what
color
we're
proposing
to
the
container.
Is
it
just,
as
is
to.
M
Oh
right,
right:
okay,
that's
what
I
thought
the
Navajo
white
here
so
I
mean
commissioner
or
chairwoman
van
right.
The
we
are
proposing
to
paint
at
Navajo
white,
which
I
now
remember.
That's
the
case.
Not
the
lower
right
hand
are
the
shipping
containers
without
obviously
that
color
painted
on
there,
so
that
would
I
think
that
could
soften
it
quite
a
bit
and
blend
in
it
certainly
would
blend
in
the
the
stucco
egress
Edition
would
be
right
there.
M
So
I
think
that
would
be
a
I
mean,
obviously
that
we
feel
like
that.
That's
the
right
approach
and.
A
M
Yeah,
the
egress
chairwoman-
yes,
that's
right,
it
would
be
in
a
couple.
I
mean
the
form
it
is
because
it's
you
know
it's
a
square
form,
a
flat,
pear
pit.
I
actually
think
the
egress
Tower
would
be
slightly
higher.
Maybe
at
least
it's
I
can't
remember
how
high
it
goes.
That
was
too
many
years
ago,
but
so
in
the
form
and
then
also
the
color,
but
probably
not
quite
the
texture.
But
again
we
could.
We
could
look
at
adding
a
texture
to
the
paint.
M
A
And
then
one
other
question
I
had-
and
this
is
more
for
the
applicant
I-
think
and
also
not
necessarily
under
our
purview
but
I'm
just
interested
is.
It
is
the
expectation
on
this
deck
that
people
will
be
seated
I,
think
so
I've
been
to
Europe
top
deck
and
it
gets
crowded,
which
I
imagine
is
a
is
part
of
why
you
think
that
the
additional
seating
or
space
would
be
beneficial.
A
My
concern
is:
is
that
the
crowdedness
of
that
deck
sometimes
pushes
people
up
against
the
railings,
but
the
railings
are
set
back
where
the
way
they
are
from
the
parapet.
This
would
put
people
right
at
a
space.
You
know,
and
of
course
we
have
railings
to
certain
Heights
to
keep
anybody's
ever
keep
everybody
safe
and
all
of
that,
but
just
out
of
curiosity,
how
do
you
anticipate
programming
that
space
and
what
that'll
look
like
and
that
also
impacts
view
shed
as
well
so.
N
Yeah,
thank
you.
Chairman
bandarek.
We've
spent
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
the
concept
as
a
whole.
Yeah
the
last
couple
years
years
it's
been
I
mean
post
covered.
It
was
kind
of
like
a
makeshift.
Oh,
we
get
to
use
this
space,
we'll
throw
some.
You
know
we
had
the
permits
to
to
do
and
it
was
kind
of
like
I.
Don't
want
to
call
it
last
second,
but
it
was
kind
of
last
second
operations.
N
N
There
might
be
a
point
you
know,
maybe
after
like
let's
say,
proper
dinner
service
at
you
know:
7
30
or
8
P.M,
where
you
know
there
might
be
a
little
more
like
walking
around
or
whatever
like
just
like
a
normal
yeah.
Our
restaurant
would
be
but
yeah.
We
definitely
anticipate
way
more
structure
from
a
service
standpoint,
I
mean
in
the
last
past
couple
years.
We've
had
a
couple
bartenders
up
there
and
it's
been
like
kind
of
help
yourself,
whereas
this
would
be
staffed.
C
N
And
then
it
kind
of
gets
into
like
the
time
frame
right
because
there's
noise
ordinances
and
all
this
stuff-
and
it's
again
that's
where
I
like
I
stated
before
when
it
comes
to,
like
all
the
rules
and
the
guidelines,
I
mean
we're,
definitely
going
to
comply
with
whatever
needs
to
get
done,
but
we
definitely
want
it
to
be
something.
That's
there
for
a
long
time
right.
We
don't
want
this
to
be
a
short-lived
thing,
which
is
why
we're
looking
at
doing
a
potential.
N
What
we
think
is
a
large
investment
right,
so
yeah
we
definitely
see.
I
did
I
answer
your.
A
Question:
okay,
absolutely
yeah
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you
any
other
questions
for
the
applicant
from
the
commissioners.
Okay!
Well,
thank
you
both!
Thank
you.
So
much
are
there
any
other
members
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
speak
for
or
against
this
application?
A
E
Thank
you,
so
I
have
a
couple
comments.
E
One
I
think
once
cousins
gets
knocked
down
at
some
point
in
the
future,
which
will
be
because
the
value
of
that
property
is
going
to
be
more
than
the
value
of
that
restaurant
is
at
probably
a
reasonable
size.
Building
will
be
built
there
and
I.
Don't
think
you're
going
to
see
the
addition
as
much
right
now.
You
see
it
because
that's
a
one-story
building
next
to
it
from
the
other
direction,
I
realize
you
can
see
it.
I
I,
don't
have
an
issue
with
that
because
it
is
below
the
14
foot
height.
E
So
I
think
we
need
to
respect
if
it's
within
the
realm
of
what's
allowable.
We
should
allow
it
as
far
as
the
citing
I
know
that
at
least
when
we
designed
801
Washington,
we
did
the
corrugated
sheet
metal
and
I.
Don't
think
that
that's
going
to
look
substantial,
this
is
going
to
look
substantially
different
from
that.
E
So
I
have
a
I,
don't
think
having
the
shipping
containers
is
in
certainly
an
issue
to
me,
plus
it's
a
warehouse
District
that
was
an
industrial
and
commercial
industrial
use
and
a
shipping
container
is
an
industrial
commercial
industrial
use.
So
I
think
that
it
is
in
keeping
with
the
tenor
and
tone
of
of
what
the
warehouse
district
is
and
I
would
say.
The
last
issue
would
be
that
the
deck
is
that
the
addition
is
larger
just
by
the
in
plan
and
a
person.
I
don't
perceive
that
to
be
a
specific
issue.
E
I
appreciate
that
the
that
the
role
of
staff
is
to
call
out
any
thing
that
is
not
compliant
and
be
kind
of
draw
drug,
clear
lines
around
those
things.
That's
the
role,
I
think
it's
our
role
as
Commissioners
to
look
at
the
issues
and
really
look
at
try
to
understand
the
spirit
of
which
the
rules
and
regulations
were
written,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
that
larger
footprint
is
not
going
to
violate
the
sensibilities
of
the
of
the
aesthetic
and
the
experience
of
being
in
the
warehouse
District.
E
So
I
am
in
support
of
the
the
design,
as
proposed.
A
So
I
will
say
that
I
am
in
agreement
as
well.
I
think
they're,
with
the
with
what
the
Commissioners
have
stated
so
far,
I
think
it's
I
certainly
understand
where
there
are
areas
where
this
conflicts.
A
With
the
you
know,
potential
letter
of
of
the
guidelines
but
I
I,
agree,
I,
think
it's
a
fairly
minor
addition
that
is
reversible
and
I
think
it
can
add
a
lot
of
value
to
what
has
become
a
really
important
Watering
Hole
in
the
north
loop,
so
I
I,
agree,
I,
think
that's
that's
a
benefit
and,
as
commissioner
malbum
I
think
you
stated
this
really
well.
A
You
know
I
think
our
our
duty
on
the
commission
is
to
interpret
and
honor
the
the
understanding
of
what
our
district
guidelines
are,
but
allow
flexibility
in
that.
So
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
opportunity
for
us
to
do
that
in
some
of
these
types
of
decisions,
so
I'm
I'm
in
agreement.
So
and
with
that,
is
there
anybody
who
would
like
to
make
a
motion.
A
E
I'll
make
a
motion
that
we
approve
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
as
proposed
and
that
we
have
the
I
think
there's
the
two
standard
caveats
that
always
seem
to
accompany
any
of
these
and
that
we
tack
those
on
and
that's
the
one
is.
The
approvals
are
valid
for
two
years
and
the
other
one
is.
The
approvals
are
granted
in
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
shall
remain
in
effect,
as
long
as
the
conditions
and
guarantees
and
such
approvals
are
observed,.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
melbaum,
and
since
we
are
going
against
the
staff's
recommendation,
we
do
need
to
have
findings
so
to
attach
to
your
fight.
And
what
are
your
findings
for
your
motion.
A
J
Andrea
Burke
supervisor,
so
in
order
to
overturn
staff
recommendation
I'm
going
to
dial,
the
commission
needs
to
make
legal
findings.
I
would
make
a
suggestion
to
follow
as
a
guideline
or
as
a
a
path
the
findings
that
are
outlined
in
the
staff
report.
Those
are
the
findings
that
staff
pre-mix
and
does
the
research
for
the
Commission
in
order
to
go
with
staff
recommendation,
but
in
order
to
overturn
the
commission
must
make
their
own
legal
findings.
J
J
E
J
E
To
anybody,
the
suggestion
making
suggestions
on
the
findings
I'm,
assuming
on
page
four
of
the
report,
it
talks
about
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
based
on
the
following
findings:
one
the
alteration
is
compatible
with
the
designation
of
landmark
historic
district,
including
the
period
of
that
period
and
criteria
of
significance.
I
would
think
that
it
is
the
alteration
will
ensure
the
continent.
The
continued
Integrity
of
the
landmark
or
historic
district
I
think
it
is,
and
the
alteration
is
consistent
with
the
applicable
design
guidelines
adopted
by
the
by
the
commission
and
I.
E
J
I
would
what
I
would
suggest
is
I
would
make
it
very
clear,
because
we
are
going
to
take
notes
on
the
findings
and
transcribe
them
directly
as
worded
I.
Would
you
know,
discuss
among
the
Commissioners
exactly
what
your
wording
is
for
the
findings?
How
many
they're
going
to
be?
What
they're
going
to
say?
What
arguments
are
you
going
to
make
in
order
to
overturn,
because
staff
is
made
laid
out
their
arguments
for
why
we
believe
the
application
should
be
denied?
A
Great
so
I
think
with
with
that.
Why
don't
we
have
a
little
bit
more
discussion,
but
since
we
have
a
motion,
I
would
like
to
see
if
we
can
get
a
second
so
that
we
can
discuss
the
and
before
we
call
the
roll
anybody
want
a
second
commissioner
Mobile
Mass
10
seconds,
great
wonderful.
A
So
what
are
our
findings
so
I
think
that
what
we,
what
we
would
need
to
do
is
with
those
items
that
you
just
outlined,
commissioner,
malbum
I
would
expand
upon
why
you
feel
that
we
that
the
application
does
fit
within
those
findings.
So
if
the
alteration
is
compatible
for
the
designation
for
a
landmark
in
a
historic
district,
including
the
period
of
significance,
why
is
it
that
you
feel
that
it
it
is
compatible
like
that
and
so
on?
E
Sure
so,
because
the
addition
does
not
exceed
the
14
foot
height
I
think
that
it
it
still
stays
within
the
spirit
of
well.
E
It
stays
within
the
letter
of
the
of
the
regulations,
because
there
are
precedents
already
for
using
corrugated
metal,
siding
in
the
warehouse,
District
I
think
the
use
of
the
shipping
containers
is
not
out
of
line
for
at
least
that
I
know
of
a
sighting
that's
used
on
three
buildings
already
and
the
larger
footprint
that
would
be
more
visible,
I,
don't
think
that
is
a
detriment
to
the
quality
of
life
or
to
the
or
to
the
sensibility
of
the
warehouse
District.
E
A
Any
other
additional
comments
to
add
to
findings
for
the
motion
as
the
secondary
commissioner
Mastin.
J
No
okay,
so
I'm
gonna
make
a
comment.
Reversibility
falls
under
standards,
use
that
as
guide
okay
standards
fall
under
finding
number
four,
so
I
think
what
we're
looking
for
and
I
I
don't
want
to
tweak
this
to
Oblivion,
because
staff
stands
by
their
recommendation,
but
I
would
think
of.
You
know
one
two,
possibly
three
points
that
are
very
pointed
in
terms
of
your
language
to
overturn.
So
what
I'm
hearing
is
the
alteration
is
compatible
with
the
designation
and
the
period
of
significance.
J
You
know
think
think
about
that
in
some
of
your
language-
and
you
know
perhaps
meeting
the
standards,
because
because
staff
in
their
argument
is
arguing
against
compatibility
in
in
terms
of
what
particularly
standard
number
nine
so
think
about
that,
and
then
you
know
in
terms
of
the
height
I,
wouldn't
say
that
necessarily
falls
under
in
terms
of
compatibility
with
the
designation,
since
that's
dealing
more
with
significance,
but
a
stated
staff
can
write
them,
but
I'm
trying
to
I'm
going
to
try
to
provide
some
boundaries
here,
but
but
think
of
some
very
pointed
language
and
a
short
statement.
E
It
does
so
I'm.
Looking
on
page
five
of
the
staff
report
and
I
think
we
all
agree
that
requirements,
2.68,
2.69
and
2.70
are
supported
by
the
proposed
I.
Think
the
other
consideration
that
the
staff
is
finding
objectionable
to
is
the
rooftop
additions
to
the
contributing
building.
Sorry,
this
is
2.71
I,
rarely
appropriate.
A
rooftop
Edition
will
be
considered
a
visibility
in
sight
line.
Studies
indicate
that
the
addition
is
minimally
visible
from
the
public
right
away
and
I
would
submit
I
think
this
Edition
is
going
to
be
minimally
visible
from
the
public
right-of-way
I.
A
So
staff
member
Burke,
if
we
were
to
craft
the
motion,
so
that
it
were
to
say
that,
notwithstanding
staff
findings,
we
looked
seek
to
approve
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
because
the
addition
meets
the
height
requirements
in
in
the
historic
guidelines
it
is
reversible
and
that
the
metal
material
has
some.
A
There
are
examples
of
metal
material
in
the
in
the
historic
district
being
used
as
exterior
siding.
That
feel
like
a
good
place,
closer.
J
Yes,
so
I'm
hearing
reversibility
I
would
include
you
know
your
statement
about
reversibility
in
terms
of
it
meeting
the
standards.
Okay,
I
would
also
I'm
hearing
from
commissioner
melbloom
addition
is
minimally
visible
from
the
public
right-of-way
I
would
also
you
could
perhaps
craft
that
revelant
to
the
standards
or
to
the
guidelines.
Guidelines
is
finding
number
three
that's
kind
of
our
standard
ones.
That
is
also
something
to
maneuver
I'm,
not
going
to
comment
on
the
metal.
J
One
I,
don't
I
think
that
falls
more
under
guidelines,
but
I'm
hearing
like
I,
said
I'm
hearing
some
comments
relative
to
you
know
addition
being
minimally
visible
from
the
public
right
away.
Reversibility
in
terms
of
it
meeting
the
standards.
I
would
focus
my
efforts
there
and
just
ensure,
and
then
your
emotion
that
you
are
notwithstanding
staff
recommendation
that
you
are
recommending
approval
of
the
application
with
these
findings
and
any
relevant
conditions,
you
would
like
to
add
to
the
application.
A
So
I
think,
commissioner
Melbourne
what
we
need
as
the
motioner
is
kind
of
a
succinct
motion
that
says
you
know
states
that,
notwithstanding
staff
findings,
we
seek
to
approve
the
stripping
appropriate
appropriateness
and
here's
the
you
know,
two
three
reasons
why,
based
on
the
guidance
provided
by
staff
member,
it.
D
A
Any
other
any
Commissioners
have
any
specific
wording.
I
think
you
know
we
can
make
note
that
the
Edition
is
reversible
and
to
and
to
meet
the
guidelines.
A
E
E
Not
with
standings
that
we
approve
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
based
on
these
three
items.
J
D
J
E
A
All
right
staff
member
do:
are
we
good?
You
need
it
stated
again
for
the
record
or
it.
J
E
E
A
E
A
A
Wonderful
that
motion
passes.
Thank
you
all
for
being
here
today
for
that
all
right
on
to
our
now,
I
have
to
find
my
place
on
my
agenda.
One
moment
all
right
on
to
item
number:
six
1022
University
Avenue
Southeast
in
Ward
3..
This
application
is
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
the
staff
report
will
be
presented
by
Rob
scalecki.
F
Thank
you,
chair,
vanderreich
and
good
afternoon
again
any
questioners
I'm
Rob
scalecki
senior
city
planner
in
the
historic
preservation
section
of
cped.
This
is
an
application,
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
the
property
located
at
1022,
University,
Avenue,
Southeast,
historically
known
as
Florence
Court.
F
The
subject
property
is
a
two
and
a
half
story:
masonry
row
house
development
that
began
Construction
in
1885..
The
work
was
completed
in
1886
by
and
for
developer
and
owner
Jeremiah
Speer.
The
project
was
designed
by
the
newly
formed
at
the
time.
Architectural
firm
of
long
and
keys
Florence
court
is
recognized
as
an
excellent
example
of
early
urban
planning
in
Minneapolis
planned
around
an
interior
Courtyard
that
was
described
in
Star
Tribune
archive
sources
as
having
ornament
and
appearance
of
a
small
Park.
F
F
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
remove
all
of
the
existing
non-historic
decks
and
stair
structures
present
at
the
landmark's
rear
elevations,
which
are
the
South
and
the
West.
The
applicant
has
submitted
a
structural
evaluation
that
shows
stability
concerns
with
the
existing
system,
and
that
report
recommends
significant
temporary
stabilization
until
replacement
of
the
existing
systems
can
be
undertaken.
F
F
As
far
as
work
going
on
on
the
west
elevation,
which
you
can
see
here
in
the
drawing
and
the
photo,
the
three
the
FL
three
Floor
Designs
will
follow
very
similar
layout
to
before.
As
you
can
see
in
the
drawing.
F
The
only
difference
here
is
that
a
three-story
staircase
is
actually
going
to
face
North
instead
of
the
stairs
that
exist.
That
face
South,
but
otherwise
it's
the
same
general
layout
of
deck
structures.
On
that
elevation.
F
The
new
deck
on
the
south
elevation
will
be
slightly
smaller
in
foot
in
footprint
to
the
West.
On
the
first
story,
however,
the
applicant
is
planning
to
construct
a
new
structure
on
the
second
and
third
levels
to
include
a
single
staircase
accessing
all
floors,
as
well
as
a
new
section
of
decking
on
the
third
story
level,
where
there
had
been
none
before
so.
Currently,
there
are
two-story.
F
F
The
new
deck
connection
extends
to
link
the
two
third
story:
door,
openings
and,
as
mentioned
before,
it
will
be
accessed
by
a
single
staircase
at
this
elevation.
That
expands
extends
all
floors
here
as
part
of
the
project
as
well.
There
will
be
non-historic
steel
fire
escape
stairs
that
are
removed
on
both
elevations.
F
The
Department
of
Community
planning
and
economic
development
has
analyzed
the
application
to
replace
exterior
stairs
and
decks
at
the
property
located
at
1022
University
Avenue
Southeast,
based
on
the
five
findings
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
but
I
will
focus
on
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior
standards
so
as
conditioned
by
staff.
The
proposed
alterations
are
consistent
with
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior
standards.
The
project
will
meet
standard
two,
since
historic
materials
will
not
be
removed
for
the
project
and
compatible
new
stare
and
deck
structures
will
be
installed
to
limit
their
effect
on
the
properties.
Character-Defining
Masonry.
F
F
The
new
stair
structures
follow
a
similar
proposal
that
will
that
had
been
approved
previously
at
the
property
in
2009
as
conditioned
by
staff.
The
planned
installation
of
the
new
systems
will
be
very
close
in
design
to
the
existing
compatible
systems
using
wood
and
metal
materials,
while
limiting
visual
obstruction
of
Highly,
visible
historic
masonry
at
the
South
elevation
and
the
speed
standard.
Nine.
F
Elevation
shall
follow
the
same
configuration
as
the
existing
structure
that
was
approved
in
2009
to
limit
the
visual
obstruction
to
Historic
masonry
at
the
third
story,
and
the
remaining
two
conditions
of
approval
are
standard
conditions
of
approval
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
so
I'm
available
as
staff
to
take
any
questions
that
you
have
but
I
do
understand.
The
applicant
is
here
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
Great,
thank
you
rob
any
questions
for
staff
from
the
commissioners.
A
All
right,
thank
you
with
that.
I
will
now
open
the
public
hearing
for
this
item
is
the
applicant
here,
and
would
you
like
to
speak?
Wonderful,
come
to
the
microphone
state,
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
Q
How
do
I
get
it
full
screen
around
this
one,
all
right,
hi
everyone?
My
name
is
Rachel
Peters
and
I'm,
with
Hess,
rice
and
Company.
Our
address
is
100
North
1st
Street
here
in
Minneapolis,
I
am
representing
the
owner
today
for
the
Florence
Court
Decor
Rehabilitation
a
replacement
project,
and
our
team
is
largely
in
agreement
with
staff.
Q
We've
just
wanted
to
to
present
an
alternate
case
for
the
suggested
condition
regarding
the
third
story:
deck
on
the
south
facade,
so
I
have
just
a
couple
of
slides
to
talk
through
here
and
I'm
available
to
answer
any
questions.
After
so
as
staff
mentioned,
the
existing
decks
on
the
south
facade
are
not
historic
and
they
also
are
not
based
on
a
historic
design.
Q
As
staff
mentioned,
there
were
very
limited
decks
on
the
south
facade
in
the
During,
the
period
of
significance
and
actually
the
building
permit
for
the
1955
decks.
Note
that
it
was
at
the
request
of
the
fire
department.
They
got
in
a
little
bit
of
trouble
for
not
providing
adequate
egress
from
this
building.
Q
The
rear
decks
were
not
a
focus,
and
this
design
was
really
designed
to
incorporate
as
much
existing
material
as
possible
so
that
they
could
save
a
little
bit
of
money
and
I
also
wanted
to
note
while
we're
looking
at
this
picture.
The
the
steepness
of
the
existing
stairs
does
not
meet
current
code.
So
when
we
do
replace
the
Decks,
that
geometry
is
going
to
need
to
change
a
little
bit.
Q
So,
as
staff
mentioned,
our
proposed
design
uses
the
same
materials
that
are
present
at
the
existing
decks.
The
configuration
does
change
some
with
that
continuous
deck
across
the
third
floor
that
allows
us
to
go
down
to
one
stair
running
between
the
third
floor
and
the
first
floor,
deck
that
simplifies
the
path
of
egress
and
also,
in
my
opinion,
really
simplifies
this
design
and
limits
the
visual
clutter
on
the
south
facade
of
the
building
meeting,
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior
standards.
Q
And
after
reading
the
staff
report,
our
team
did
put
our
heads
together
and
think
through
what
this
proposed
change
would
look
like.
So
we
can
see
that
here
the
existing
steer
that
runs
between
the
third
and
first
floor
shifts
to
the
West
End
to
allow
for
that
Gap
in
the
middle
and
the
decking
in
the
and
railing
in
the
center
of
the
third
floor
would
be
removed.
Q
There's
not
a
total
reduction
in
the
amount
of
material
with
this
condition.
This
proposed
revision
because
additional
you
know
Steer
and
railing
for
that
stair
needs
to
be
added
to
the
alt,
the
other
side,
the
east
side
of
the
deck
system.
For
that
second
stair
also
significantly.
This
adds
another
kind
of
competing
diagonal
to
the
design
to
the
visual
impact
of
this
decking
system.
Q
That
does
increase
the
visual
density
of
the
decks,
which
I
think
detracts
more
from
the
the
historic
South
facade,
and
it
also
perpetuates
a
rather
confusing
routing
system
for
residents
and
potentially
for
emergency
services.
Q
It's
to
get
from
the
first
floor
up
to
the
the
East
End
of
the
third
floor
is
really
confusing
right
now,
with
this
two-sair
system,
which
is
what
we
were
hoping
to
clear
up
with
the
revised
one
stair
design
so
just
a
little
bit
of
a
different
view
showing
these
decking
systems
kind
of
in
the
entire
context,
with
the
roof
line.
To
give
you
that
side-by-side
comparison
of
our
preferred
one
Seer
alternative
compared
to
the
suggested
stair
revision,
so
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
If
you
have
any.
E
Q
E
A
Other
questions:
wonderful!
Thank
you!
So
much
all
right!
So
with
that
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
close,
the
public
hearing
wait
I'm
going
to
see
if
anybody
in
this
massive
audience
wants
to
speak
for
against
the
application,
seeing
none
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
hearing
and
let's
discuss
any
reactions
or
comments
from
commissioners.
C
F
C
The
the
differences
there-
and
that
was
one
of
the
things
I-
was
curious
about
kind
of
the
reasoning
behind
the
one
stair
versus
the
two
stair
proposal
and
I
I,
fully
support
striking
the
first
condition
for
approving
the
certificate
of
appropriateness.
E
The
chatty
one
just
I'm,
just
wondering
if
any
one
of
the
other
Commissioners
finds
the
as
proposed
in
the
in
the
history
proposal,
not
the
proposed
that
Rachel
just
mocked
up
for
us
to
be
more
visually
elegant,
it
seems
like
having
the
two
stairs
is
actually
more
discordant
with
the
nature
of
the
building
and
I
agree
like
having
that
additional
diagonal.
If
that's
just
cleaned
up
it
just
makes
the
building
feel
to
much
more
visually.
E
I,
don't
know
visually
appealing,
which
would
have
been
part
of
the
I.
Think
part
of
the
aim
of
that
building,
given
all
the
fussiness
with
which
the
original
building
was
designed.
So
I
just
became
inclined
to
go
along
with
the
proposal
rather
than
make
the
the
new
deck
comply
with
what
the
existing
deck
is.
A
So
I
mean
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that,
while
that
rendering
I
think,
is
really
helpful
and
illustrative
one
of
the
things
that
did
lack
is
kind
of
showing
the
materiality
of
the
facade
it
just
eliminated
where
those
decks
were
with
kind
of
a
white
box.
But
we
would
be
able
to
see
more
of
the
brick
facade,
which
I
believe
is
part
of
the
the
goal
in
trying
to
reduce
the
deck
material
that
you
see
visually
first
and
see
more
of
the
building
material
I
mean
I.
A
Think
that
the
offside
of
that,
then
is
then
we
end
up
with
a
more
visually
cluttered
decking
system
with
more
stairways,
and
so
you
know
it's
not
perfect
in
either
direction.
I
guess,
I,
think
that
the
point
about
the
First
Responders
is
is
a
good
one.
I
think
that
it's
really
important
the
First
Responders
don't
have
to
navigate
complicated
staircases
to
to
get
to
Upper
floors
of
of
old
buildings.
A
A
So
to
be
honest
with
you,
I
don't
know
that
I
have
a
strong
opinion
either
direction
so
would
be
interested
to
hear
more
from
other
Commissioners
thoughts,
because
as
a
reminder,
if
we
do
go
against
a
finding
on
the
on
the
staff
report,
we
need
to
have
some
additional
legal
findings
to
do
so,
as
we
just
shown
yeah
for
the
condition,
maybe
not
condition
yeah.
J
Alexandria
Andrea
Burke
supervisor
no
to
strike
a
condition.
You
do
not
just
findings,
you
are
welcome
to
strike,
got
it
freely.
Thank
you
great.
D
F
A
C
A
Okay,
wonderful!
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Booty.
Do
you
have
a
second?
Second?
All
right,
wonderful
will
the
any
other
further
discussion
from
the
commission,
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
C
C
A
J
Thank
you,
Andrea
Burke
supervisor,
for
the
historic
preservation
team,
a
reminder.
The
preservation
awards
are
tomorrow
night
at
the
Capri
theater
starting
at
five.
J
Is
that
right,
Rob?
Five?
Thank
you.
We
all
intend
to
be
there,
so
we
hope
to
see
you
as
well
attendance.
There
is
no
fee
for
attendance,
but
you
you
are
supposed
to
register
in
advance.
Forgive
me,
though,
I'm
not
sure
if
that
registration
is
closed,
but
also
wanted.
Excuse
me
one
moment:
I'm
gonna
cough.
J
Thank
you
also
wanted
to
update
the
commission,
so
staff
did
apply
for
another
grand
from
the
African-American
cultural
heritage
action
fund
to
fulfill
the
second
phase
of
the
project
that
we
started
with
the
community
engagement.
We
were
not
awarded
an
opportunity
to
submit
a
Grant
application.
They
did
I
won't,
say
I
would
say
they
declined
our
letter
of
intent.
So
that
is
that
we
are
looking
into
other
options
for
other
grant
opportunities
to
fulfill
that
second
phase
of
work,
and
we
have
a
few
ideas,
but
none
that
I
will
list.
At
this
moment.
J
We
also
did
have
our
second
Community
engagement
and
meeting
with
institutions
for
the
Washburn
for
Oaks
design
guidelines
that
was
last
night
over
at
the
Waldorf
School
in
the
district,
and
we
are
continuing
with
the
five
engagement
meetings.
The
next
one
will
be
on
March
25th
and
that
is
an
in-person
event,
location
TBD.
J
But
for
anybody
that
is
interested,
I,
think
I
know
we
are
communicating
with
several
of
the
two
Commissioners
on
some
of
this
engagement.
But
if
anybody
is
interested,
please
let
me
know
on
the
details
and
that
and
I
can
provide
it
and
then
also
just
a
reminder.
Retreat
topics,
please
have
those
to
me
by
March
21st,
no
further
updates.
Thank.
A
You
great
yeah,
please
do
get
Retreat
topics
into
Andrea.
I
always
really
enjoy
our
discussion
it
during
the
Retreats
and
I.
Think
we've
got
a
couple
of
folks
that
haven't
been
to
a
retreat
before
so
I
think
look
forward
to
it.
It'll
be
a
really
interesting
few
hours
of
us.
Can
you
learn
more
about
this
awesome
role?
We
have
here
on
the
HPC.
A
Any
other
comments,
questions
concerns
the
Commissioners
would
like
to
bring
up
to
the
commission
Okay
so
seeing
none
and
with
no
other
items
before
us
with
that
we
have
completed
all
of
our
items
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting
and
I
will
ask
members
and
staff
once
more
if
there
are
any
other
matters
to
come
before
this
meeting
there
being
no
other
business
to
come
before
this
meeting
and
without
objection,
I
will
declare
this
meeting
adjourned.