1
00:00:11,090 --> 00:00:27,410
Chair Bimers, Commissioner Clark, Commissioner Jarman, Commissioner Hatcha Chonka, Commissioner Stangler, Vice Chair Street, and Commissioner Tully. Thank you.

2
00:00:35,890 --> 00:00:36,770
Sorry good.

3
00:00:57,860 --> 00:00:59,960
Do we need to approve the agenda first?

4
00:01:00,260 --> 00:01:01,400
Didn't we just do that?

5
00:01:01,740 --> 00:01:02,700
We just made the motion.

6
00:01:02,820 --> 00:01:03,380
We will.

7
00:01:03,820 --> 00:01:03,940
Second.

8
00:01:08,290 --> 00:01:08,610
All right.

9
00:01:15,470 --> 00:01:15,950
Hi.

10
00:01:16,210 --> 00:01:17,210
And one of those.

11
00:01:21,040 --> 00:01:22,560
That's where you coach here.

12
00:01:22,860 --> 00:01:23,640
Thank you.

13
00:01:23,780 --> 00:01:24,340
Thanks a lot.

14
00:01:24,960 --> 00:01:25,840
Thank you.

15
00:01:29,990 --> 00:01:30,050
Thank you.

16
00:01:30,050 --> 00:01:30,650
Motion two.

17
00:01:31,310 --> 00:01:32,050
And yes.

18
00:01:33,390 --> 00:01:34,750
Some of them.

19
00:03:10,320 --> 00:03:11,200
Yes,

20
00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:26,080
thank you chair. I do have a presentation prepared but just a quick recap on what is being asked of the

21
00:03:28,140 --> 00:03:40,640
So section 3.2 of the land development code that's chapter 34 in our city code establishes that the HPC is to be asked for comment on any type of development proposal, etc.

22
00:03:41,540 --> 00:03:54,760
For buildings adjacent to the historic district, the HPC does not have any type of decision making authority in regarding those buildings but does have the opportunity to provide comment.

23
00:03:54,760 --> 00:04:04,720
on that, and generally, the land development code establishes guidelines for adjacent buildings

24
00:04:04,720 --> 00:04:10,360
that are intended to ensure they, while are not held to necessarily the same standard,

25
00:04:11,920 --> 00:04:19,820
as historic buildings within the historic district are sort of reflective of a similar,

26
00:04:19,820 --> 00:04:21,340
you know, aesthetic and quality, et cetera.

27
00:04:21,340 --> 00:04:25,580
So that is what we're doing here.

28
00:04:25,720 --> 00:04:27,740
108 fifth street is the building in question.

29
00:04:28,500 --> 00:04:29,800
It's not within the district.

30
00:04:30,860 --> 00:04:34,440
And based on the 2016 survey or reservate

31
00:04:34,440 --> 00:04:38,280
that was done is considered ineligible for listing

32
00:04:38,280 --> 00:04:41,340
due to significant loss of integrity.

33
00:04:43,100 --> 00:04:46,400
And I did a search of city records, which usually

34
00:04:46,400 --> 00:04:50,040
are mostly limited to building permits.

35
00:04:51,460 --> 00:04:59,960
handwritten note, sometimes in there. The ground floor front facade was likely to have been constructed.

36
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:06,060
That are reconstructed in the 70s. And the upper story was added in approximately 1990.

37
00:05:08,060 --> 00:05:18,520
It's kind of hard to tell us some of those things because you get the permit. You might have a copy of the application and then inspections and dates are hand scribbled in there and they'll make notes about a window or this, that or the other thing.

38
00:05:18,520 --> 00:05:23,380
So, but, yeah, there's no clear rule for pink colors

39
00:05:23,380 --> 00:05:25,820
in a stylistically mixed group of buildings

40
00:05:25,820 --> 00:05:28,140
like those in the district, other than two avoid

41
00:05:28,140 --> 00:05:30,200
bright or unusual colors.

42
00:05:31,840 --> 00:05:34,020
This idea of Northfield strongly recommends property owners

43
00:05:34,020 --> 00:05:35,820
keep their buildings regularly painted

44
00:05:35,820 --> 00:05:37,680
and follow these guidelines in selecting

45
00:05:37,680 --> 00:05:39,360
the type and color of paint.

46
00:05:40,240 --> 00:05:42,720
Mostly that was, if oil paint has been used,

47
00:05:42,800 --> 00:05:45,040
oil-based paint, continue using oil-based paint,

48
00:05:45,100 --> 00:05:48,240
that's just sort of a practical piece of advice.

49
00:05:48,240 --> 00:05:54,360
don't switch over to latex, but if latex has been used or a latex-based paint, then continue

50
00:05:54,360 --> 00:06:02,900
using that, and trim elements that have the same function should be the same color, and

51
00:06:03,540 --> 00:06:11,180
color should be consistent, you know, generally across the, across the building, but a

52
00:06:11,180 --> 00:06:15,780
avoid painting masonry that is not painted, that generally applies to historic brick, because

53
00:06:15,780 --> 00:06:23,900
paint can deteriorate it and by trapping moisture within the brick. And so that's just again more

54
00:06:23,900 --> 00:06:32,460
of a practical preservation piece of guidance there. So then I will pull up the presentation I

55
00:06:32,460 --> 00:06:33,120
prepared.

56
00:06:35,510 --> 00:06:38,250
Oh yeah. Jump to this one.

57
00:06:40,590 --> 00:06:45,150
Perfect. And so the building. This is one

58
00:06:45,150 --> 00:06:46,670
of eight fifth street east.

59
00:06:48,930 --> 00:06:51,190
It's currently home to Mercado Locale and I believe

60
00:06:51,190 --> 00:06:55,710
some apartments at least one apartment above. I don't have a unit count there.

61
00:06:56,950 --> 00:07:02,830
But you can see that brick facade on the front. And then that second story, despite

62
00:07:02,830 --> 00:07:09,730
that sort of faux boomtown block, kind of styling, and the wood siding that does kind of mimic

63
00:07:09,730 --> 00:07:16,970
a historic wood siding is in fact added much later. And then you can see that cinderbuck

64
00:07:16,970 --> 00:07:25,310
siding exposed there. The patio for reunion is kind of what you're seeing that stairway on

65
00:07:25,310 --> 00:07:30,110
the far right of that. So that is what's adjacent to this.

66
00:07:31,950 --> 00:07:36,610
Again, I kind of reviewed this, but comment is asked to comment.

67
00:07:39,550 --> 00:07:44,730
And so here's the existing building, and it's current color scheme, featuring sort of a

68
00:07:44,730 --> 00:07:51,770
tan gray and sort of a darker neutral, kind of a muted red brown color.

69
00:07:52,650 --> 00:07:58,690
And the proposal is to go with more of a slate, and then kind of a similar gray tan color.

70
00:07:58,690 --> 00:08:10,550
There's also a proposal to add a mural here on the sort of alley wayside that's adjacent to that patio space on the center block there.

71
00:08:11,410 --> 00:08:19,290
I have not received clarification if this the mural depicted here is in fact the the final proposal for the mural.

72
00:08:19,970 --> 00:08:25,970
Or if this is sort of an artist's representation of what you might include as the mural there.

73
00:08:28,530 --> 00:08:32,370
the public our process is slightly different here.

74
00:08:33,670 --> 00:08:35,870
Or is subject to a different review process?

75
00:08:37,960 --> 00:08:43,540
So, and then again, not eligible due to a very poor integrity,

76
00:08:43,940 --> 00:08:45,700
but was built in 1900.

77
00:08:47,140 --> 00:08:52,860
No additional info was included in the 2016 survey and the second story was added in 1990.

78
00:08:54,500 --> 00:08:56,660
That's essentially the end of my presentation.

79
00:08:58,340 --> 00:09:06,080
All right. Thank you. So I had a question. You mentioned that this is going through the public

80
00:09:06,080 --> 00:09:13,020
art review process for the city. Yeah, I would imagine. I would imagine. So getting funding

81
00:09:13,020 --> 00:09:19,160
for the public art is that why are it just? Yeah, generally they would apply for funding from the

82
00:09:19,760 --> 00:09:25,540
the 1% for the arts fund. And so that is funded several other murals like the one on Domino's

83
00:09:25,540 --> 00:09:27,540
What's paid for through that?

84
00:09:28,580 --> 00:09:30,700
And the one in Lune, or you know?

85
00:09:30,980 --> 00:09:33,540
Yes, that would have also been funded through that 1%.

86
00:09:34,260 --> 00:09:36,100
Funding and then some of the other murals downtown,

87
00:09:36,340 --> 00:09:40,840
like the pedestrian bridge that's down there in some of those as well.

88
00:09:41,500 --> 00:09:44,540
And the storm drains, and I don't know if you've seen some of the paintings on the storm drains,

89
00:09:44,540 --> 00:09:46,880
or any of them, those were I believe funded through that as well.

90
00:09:47,220 --> 00:09:47,560
So thanks.

91
00:09:49,000 --> 00:09:52,120
So yeah, we don't have a certificate of appropriateness for this.

92
00:09:52,120 --> 00:09:59,980
This is just a courtesy review, because it's directly adjacent to the historic district, which ends right at the back of the reunion bit.

93
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:13,280
Building any comments? I think it looks really good. I really like the color change, and I love that. I mean, even if it's not that mural, if it's in that color scheme, I think it looks awesome.

94
00:10:14,820 --> 00:10:24,300
I like it too. I kind of look at what it's positioned between two buildings that are the same color texture, it fits right in. So it's not.

95
00:10:25,040 --> 00:10:31,380
You look right up the street scape, and it's not an eye catcher, or a juxtaposition, or anything

96
00:10:31,380 --> 00:10:32,180
to close.

97
00:10:33,660 --> 00:10:37,680
The mirror, I think, is really an added feature, just because if you're sitting at two

98
00:10:37,680 --> 00:10:41,980
things, one, it kind of blends the dumpsters in a little bit better than the bread, the red

99
00:10:41,980 --> 00:10:47,400
brick, which I really like, because I don't want to see somebody's trash, but if you're sitting

100
00:10:47,400 --> 00:10:51,460
out in the patio, you have something interesting to look at instead of just a red wall

101
00:10:51,460 --> 00:10:52,200
with a dumpster.

102
00:10:52,200 --> 00:11:01,520
So I think it compliments just, you know, a visual, street scape and everything, great color scheme, so that's my skin.

103
00:11:03,340 --> 00:11:17,520
Thanks for your comments. Over here, I think the one I agree to, I think the color of the building overall colors are complementary, I don't think the mural.

104
00:11:18,600 --> 00:11:21,220
adversely impacts the historic district.

105
00:11:21,720 --> 00:11:27,100
I guess I would say I think it's important to stay just on that first level.

106
00:11:27,600 --> 00:11:35,520
I couldn't or do you foresee the mural getting larger and taking over the entire side of the building?

107
00:11:36,600 --> 00:11:40,140
This is all that I've received so far as the proposal.

108
00:11:40,140 --> 00:11:47,820
Yeah, I haven't seen anything else that would indicate that it would be expanding beyond this.

109
00:11:48,300 --> 00:11:56,140
Would you come back to us for comment if this scope changes significantly or no?

110
00:11:59,560 --> 00:12:05,480
We certainly could bring it back for comment on it.

111
00:12:06,000 --> 00:12:23,880
I mean, mostly we're looking at I was looking at the painting of the building itself, you know, with the potential addition of this mural and like I indicated that we don't have quite the, I don't have word that this is the final mural and I know the artistic process can sometimes you come up with a sketch and, you know, things might get changed around.

112
00:12:23,880 --> 00:12:31,400
But public art process is subject to review by the public art review committee so they'll set up a committee.

113
00:12:33,100 --> 00:12:44,900
And I don't know where that is at, but I can touch base with the staff who run that and usually for something within the district at the very least they'll include a member of the HPC on that committee.

114
00:12:46,020 --> 00:12:49,980
But adjacent to I can also verify if they'll be looking for somebody to serve on that.

115
00:12:49,980 --> 00:12:56,300
Committee as well, but I don't know that. Yeah, well, I was going to do a way that we could at least make a recommendation

116
00:12:57,340 --> 00:13:03,900
With that sort of being not a stipulation, but a concern so that they have that address to them when they can be

117
00:13:04,580 --> 00:13:08,380
preference. We could certainly yeah, so the HPC does provide comment and

118
00:13:08,380 --> 00:13:15,520
This would be an avenue to say, yeah, you know, if we would prefer the HPC as a group and if that's the case

119
00:13:16,580 --> 00:13:18,480
Then we would just ask that like

120
00:13:18,480 --> 00:13:22,440
You know, any comment be kind of voted on to represent,

121
00:13:22,500 --> 00:13:26,380
ensure that it represents the sentiment of the commission as a whole.

122
00:13:26,740 --> 00:13:29,220
Yeah, so if it's, we would like to see it on that first level,

123
00:13:29,380 --> 00:13:31,680
and not really get up into the second level too far.

124
00:13:31,880 --> 00:13:33,700
I think it, this go, I mean, it does sort of,

125
00:13:33,900 --> 00:13:37,460
it's part of it, part of the leaves and petals are going onto the,

126
00:13:37,520 --> 00:13:41,640
but I think anything higher is going to have more of a visual impact

127
00:13:41,640 --> 00:13:42,660
in the historic district.

128
00:13:42,680 --> 00:13:48,100
So I think the way it's proposed now is appropriate to the adjacent

129
00:13:48,100 --> 00:13:54,480
district, but I think anything larger than that could potentially tip it in the other direction.

130
00:13:56,340 --> 00:14:01,980
I would say if the scope of the mural changes so that it's going to be above

131
00:14:02,740 --> 00:14:10,380
where it is now or larger, then we probably would have additional comment on that or in another

132
00:14:10,380 --> 00:14:17,440
way of saying the scope of what it is right now is appropriate. I hate to sort of draw a line on it,

133
00:14:17,440 --> 00:14:23,560
But I think any major change would need additional consideration.

134
00:14:26,730 --> 00:14:30,650
So you would ask that if the mural, whatever the proposal is,

135
00:14:30,770 --> 00:14:34,530
if it's differ significantly from this, either in size or...

136
00:14:34,530 --> 00:14:37,790
Colors, colors, design, design, et cetera,

137
00:14:38,710 --> 00:14:40,190
that it come back to the additional comment.

138
00:14:40,210 --> 00:14:42,510
That would be my recommendation, yeah.

139
00:14:42,650 --> 00:14:44,790
Yeah, I'd like to restrict it just to the kind of queued block,

140
00:14:44,910 --> 00:14:48,230
and not the sighting, the cloudward sighting.

141
00:14:48,230 --> 00:14:52,170
is some encroachment on the siding at all or at least a place.

142
00:14:52,310 --> 00:14:54,070
Yeah, what's shown here, I think is appropriate.

143
00:14:55,370 --> 00:14:56,270
That's that first level.

144
00:14:57,150 --> 00:14:57,390
OK.

145
00:14:57,890 --> 00:14:58,930
And so would we want a motion.

146
00:14:59,470 --> 00:14:59,970
Is there any other...

147
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:13,860
Other comments that, you know, anybody would have that would like to be, you know, as a sort of a formal comment to be submitted along with any type of public art review process, this is what the HPC would like to see in a final product.

148
00:15:15,720 --> 00:15:23,240
We can do, we can do individual motions on each comment, or we can kind of have a group of comments, sort of.

149
00:15:23,940 --> 00:15:27,600
So the motion could be something like

150
00:15:27,600 --> 00:15:30,240
would we need to make a motion even if we're not?

151
00:15:31,000 --> 00:15:34,640
Even if it's just informal comment from the HPC?

152
00:15:35,520 --> 00:15:37,540
Yeah, I think it would be advisable

153
00:15:37,540 --> 00:15:41,260
if any comments are going to go forward to the public art review commission, et cetera,

154
00:15:41,460 --> 00:15:46,040
that we wouldn't want to ensure that they reflect the sentiments of the HPC generally

155
00:15:46,040 --> 00:15:48,240
as opposed to

156
00:15:48,240 --> 00:15:53,940
the you know one commissioners opinion or you know whatever. And I think we could probably

157
00:15:53,940 --> 00:15:59,940
wrap it into one single motion that would. And so I mean I could move that we recommend

158
00:16:01,020 --> 00:16:10,980
that the painting the color, the scheme and all that is acceptable and that mural is fascinating

159
00:16:10,980 --> 00:16:17,400
and we approve of it so long as it maintains the integrity of the lower half of the building

160
00:16:17,400 --> 00:16:26,160
on the concrete block. It can't extend, perhaps, if there's a pedal or two, but the way it is here,

161
00:16:26,280 --> 00:16:28,540
but I think they can restrict it to that.

162
00:16:31,340 --> 00:16:34,300
And that blends in very well with the street scape.

163
00:16:34,980 --> 00:16:42,140
Let's count them in to each of it. So I think that probably gets to it if

164
00:16:42,140 --> 00:16:50,640
something that Matt was y'all are for our consideration. Okay. And any second on that motion?

165
00:16:53,850 --> 00:16:59,510
How second it? Any discussion? That motion?

166
00:16:59,950 --> 00:17:03,490
They're the awfully we can write down in the comments. If there's, if there's a

167
00:17:03,490 --> 00:17:07,530
alley wall that needs a meal, that's certainly the one in town that needs it.

168
00:17:09,130 --> 00:17:14,490
Just to be clear on the motion, is there a request that if it changes it comes back to the

169
00:17:14,490 --> 00:17:20,170
That would be the sort of the gist of that or that as I think it's significantly changes

170
00:17:20,890 --> 00:17:22,530
That is the

171
00:17:22,530 --> 00:17:28,410
Maybe the color scheme of the mural and the size of the mural if it's larger than the scope of our recommendation

172
00:17:28,410 --> 00:17:31,370
What we're seeing today? Yeah, yeah

173
00:17:32,990 --> 00:17:34,810
And I'd like to see it again

174
00:17:36,350 --> 00:17:37,750
I think that would justify

175
00:17:37,750 --> 00:17:39,830
sub-squared you.

176
00:17:43,250 --> 00:17:46,670
All right, so we have that motion. Is it clear to everybody?

177
00:17:49,620 --> 00:17:52,620
All in favor of of the motion, please say aye.

178
00:17:53,740 --> 00:17:59,340
Hi. Any opposed? I need to recuse myself on this. And one recusel.

179
00:18:02,200 --> 00:18:03,120
All right, thank you everybody.

180
00:18:07,080 --> 00:18:07,960
All right.

181
00:18:10,480 --> 00:18:13,280
It looks like we have a couple topics to discuss

182
00:18:15,520 --> 00:18:20,960
amendments to historic. Though they're presented a little bit in a little bit different order.

183
00:18:20,960 --> 00:18:25,660
even though you have discussion of historic variances and amendments to local historic

184
00:18:25,660 --> 00:18:34,000
state designations. So I guess if you would summarize for us. Yeah, I'll give you the sort

185
00:18:34,000 --> 00:18:41,100
of high-level overview. As many of you are aware, we are in the process of rewriting the land

186
00:18:41,100 --> 00:18:49,600
development code. And so as part of that, we have discussed a variety of historic preservation,

187
00:18:49,600 --> 00:18:53,400
historic district standards that we might revise and change.

188
00:18:54,140 --> 00:18:57,640
I think generally we did signs recently, we didn't overhaul of that,

189
00:18:57,720 --> 00:19:00,040
and so I think we're really looking at changing a lot with signs,

190
00:19:00,820 --> 00:19:03,060
but the discussions about some of the more controversial things,

191
00:19:03,420 --> 00:19:06,640
balconies, for instance, or the visibility of solar panels, et cetera.

192
00:19:08,780 --> 00:19:11,520
So, in kind of following along a couple of trends,

193
00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:16,220
more recently, in preservation a couple of other things that have been discussed,

194
00:19:17,260 --> 00:19:24,160
And I will just go in order that they're in the staff report here is the Heritage Site Designation Amendment Process.

195
00:19:24,520 --> 00:19:45,860
And so, this has come up. Our code and our guidelines do include an existing provision whereby features that have sort of developed their own significance that are a later modification on a building.

196
00:19:45,860 --> 00:19:52,200
are supposed to be retained, and so there's a little bit of a nebulous thing where you

197
00:19:52,200 --> 00:19:55,760
may have a building that's been modified, but it was modified so long ago that now that

198
00:19:55,760 --> 00:19:59,960
new features historic, and then there's the question.

199
00:20:00,000 --> 00:20:05,740
Well, should it go back further from that or should it stay at that point?

200
00:20:07,880 --> 00:20:14,400
And in order to provide clarity around that, we can have an amendment process in our code.

201
00:20:14,720 --> 00:20:24,340
That would provide an opportunity to acknowledge a new and amended designation. That would accept a later modification as being historic,

202
00:20:29,240 --> 00:20:29,260
right?

203
00:20:29,260 --> 00:20:36,920
started in 1981, and so, you know, we're just about five years out from the district of

204
00:20:36,920 --> 00:20:42,960
South being, being 50 years old, which means things that were new construction at the time,

205
00:20:43,180 --> 00:20:47,460
were things that were potentially spurring the, you know, the preservationist movement,

206
00:20:47,920 --> 00:20:52,440
and kind of a reaction to some redevelopment that was undesirable, considered undesirable.

207
00:20:52,440 --> 00:20:57,480
Some of those elements may meet the criteria

208
00:20:57,480 --> 00:21:01,360
for being historic now, and so having some oversight

209
00:21:01,360 --> 00:21:04,140
about what those things might be is good.

210
00:21:04,180 --> 00:21:07,820
But then also there's an element of when

211
00:21:07,820 --> 00:21:10,500
the preservation movement was happening in the late 70s

212
00:21:10,500 --> 00:21:12,920
and early 80s.

213
00:21:12,980 --> 00:21:14,040
And currently,

214
00:21:16,060 --> 00:21:20,120
historic sites often reflect a very patriarchal

215
00:21:20,120 --> 00:21:27,240
white male, society where individuals who had power back then were very influential and then

216
00:21:27,240 --> 00:21:31,660
that has shown kind of through the stories that we tell them what gets designated and then

217
00:21:31,660 --> 00:21:36,520
what's actually contained within that designation, which is the justification for why something

218
00:21:36,520 --> 00:21:38,740
should be considered significant historically.

219
00:21:40,620 --> 00:21:47,300
And so being able to modify those or amend those as kind of more research is done to get a

220
00:21:47,300 --> 00:21:54,400
of the story that can be told about the history of our city or of a historic site or a heritage preservation site.

221
00:21:55,000 --> 00:22:02,260
Having a clear process that allows for that amendment to be put into place and expand that as something that,

222
00:22:02,260 --> 00:22:04,640
you know, I think there's benefit too.

223
00:22:05,080 --> 00:22:15,960
And so what I've done at this point is just kind of grab the designation amendments piece from Minneapolis as a city.

224
00:22:16,900 --> 00:22:19,680
and so provide that language as an example.

225
00:22:22,060 --> 00:22:27,160
And kind of how that goes, it's very similar to a normal designation.

226
00:22:29,680 --> 00:22:31,900
And in that there has to be some research done,

227
00:22:32,200 --> 00:22:35,000
there's basically a than a case made for, you know,

228
00:22:35,160 --> 00:22:36,560
amending that designation.

229
00:22:38,320 --> 00:22:41,380
And then it goes through a process of some kind of voting

230
00:22:41,380 --> 00:22:44,900
with our heritage preservation designation process.

231
00:22:44,900 --> 00:22:51,440
We get a recommendation from the HPC and then that goes to City Council for a final

232
00:22:51,440 --> 00:22:55,260
final vote and I would imagine this would be a very similar kind of process.

233
00:22:55,900 --> 00:23:01,800
HPC would make a recommendation to amend that now on the as far as a national designation

234
00:23:01,800 --> 00:23:06,500
goes or amending the national level that I think that local support can help

235
00:23:06,500 --> 00:23:10,740
permending a national designation, but it may not necessarily

236
00:23:12,780 --> 00:23:18,140
that the acceptance of that amendment would have to be is done at the federal level

237
00:23:18,780 --> 00:23:22,480
and done by the national park server. So that's something that else that we would be looking

238
00:23:22,480 --> 00:23:28,700
not necessarily here to incorporate, but would be sort of the role of like community partners,

239
00:23:29,580 --> 00:23:34,280
you know, the historical society, et cetera, it might be an as an example of an entity that

240
00:23:34,280 --> 00:23:35,880
can kind of move some of those things forward,

241
00:23:36,020 --> 00:23:38,840
or we can look at grant funding to move some of those forward,

242
00:23:39,040 --> 00:23:40,900
if there was interest there.

243
00:23:42,340 --> 00:23:44,400
And then it also allows us to remove a landmark

244
00:23:44,400 --> 00:23:46,640
from designation, would be another key piece of this.

245
00:23:47,380 --> 00:23:53,240
So in the event that something is a site is lost

246
00:23:53,900 --> 00:23:55,740
through demolition or other means,

247
00:23:57,960 --> 00:24:02,220
it can be removed from the designation.

248
00:24:02,220 --> 00:24:12,400
So it's no longer a contributing feature or of a district or the building itself is gone and so it's no longer considered a heritage preservation site.

249
00:24:12,440 --> 00:24:19,920
That allows for redevelopment without being subject to those criteria, right?

250
00:24:20,480 --> 00:24:31,300
And so we don't have a lot of heritage sites outside of our district. There are a couple, notably the depot and I believe we have one home, that's also designated, but that would be it.

251
00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:38,000
So, it's a couple of key questions, whether additional criteria for local significance should

252
00:24:38,000 --> 00:24:45,220
be considered or added and then does the text from Minneapolis seem appropriate.

253
00:24:46,800 --> 00:24:52,640
So, in considering how we assess local designations, are there any additional criteria we

254
00:24:52,640 --> 00:24:59,960
should be considering that might help us amend some of these.

255
00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:06,320
To tell a story of what's been significant in the history of Northfield, you know, that aren't currently there.

256
00:25:08,880 --> 00:25:18,640
Thank you, Matthias, I think. So our just to clarify the current land development code doesn't, it just has, it's been a while since I've read it.

257
00:25:19,440 --> 00:25:31,580
It just has designation, it doesn't have any provisions for changing, or it doesn't at all, or even removing properties after they've been demolished, none of that's okay.

258
00:25:31,580 --> 00:25:37,820
I think it's good. This is a good idea just working in the field for as long as I have

259
00:25:38,920 --> 00:25:47,340
old even though our local designation was updated in 2016. It's now 10 years old and new

260
00:25:47,340 --> 00:25:51,820
information is sometimes garnered about historic properties. Some that may be considered

261
00:25:52,580 --> 00:25:59,320
non-contributing. If new information comes about about an area of significance that wasn't looked at

262
00:25:59,320 --> 00:26:05,360
before it may be actually contributing, building to the district, and then I think also considering

263
00:26:06,520 --> 00:26:13,480
boundaries, so here in the Minneapolis example, it says that the boundary can be expanded

264
00:26:14,000 --> 00:26:19,220
through an amendment, but not reduced. I think that's kind of interesting that that's in there.

265
00:26:21,280 --> 00:26:25,800
Anyway, we don't need to get into that right now, but I don't know.

266
00:26:25,800 --> 00:26:28,940
fair point for discussion as well, cherry, and I'm sorry to interrupt.

267
00:26:29,060 --> 00:26:33,880
Yeah, no, I think, I mean, I think really boundary should look, be looked at for both expansion

268
00:26:33,880 --> 00:26:46,110
or reduction. Again, if a property is lost or mostly demolished or is removed from a district,

269
00:26:46,730 --> 00:26:52,390
a boundary may need to be modified. So, and then the removal from designation, which makes sense

270
00:26:52,390 --> 00:27:00,830
just to sort of keep the record clean buildings that do and may be lost and removing them

271
00:27:00,830 --> 00:27:04,850
from the official designation. So I think all those categories make sense to me and all

272
00:27:04,850 --> 00:27:05,790
of other people out here.

273
00:27:08,220 --> 00:27:14,340
The Minneapolis example uses the term the planning director shall make

274
00:27:14,340 --> 00:27:22,020
decision, is do we have a planning director of different type of

275
00:27:22,020 --> 00:27:22,440
equivalent?

276
00:27:23,440 --> 00:27:23,480
Yeah.

277
00:27:25,540 --> 00:27:29,420
In a city with multiple planners or many multiple planners, I should say

278
00:27:29,420 --> 00:27:33,680
usually varying fields of expertise, often a city of size of manyapolis

279
00:27:33,680 --> 00:27:38,160
will have preservation planners on staff. Yeah,

280
00:27:38,180 --> 00:27:39,220
no, we don't. That would

281
00:27:39,220 --> 00:27:41,700
be essentially the city planner in our field. It would

282
00:27:41,700 --> 00:27:43,060
be the equivalent.

283
00:27:43,060 --> 00:27:48,140
So it would be listed as city planners, I'd be Michaela, I mean at this time you.

284
00:27:48,680 --> 00:27:55,460
So whatever the equivalent city title is for Northfield, it would be there.

285
00:27:55,960 --> 00:28:02,060
What how do people think about these types of instances where an amendment would be appropriate?

286
00:28:05,260 --> 00:28:13,900
I think it looks, I mean I've read through them and I thought it feels like it's less vague and more specific.

287
00:28:13,900 --> 00:28:18,760
And I think we would benefit with more specificity in that way.

288
00:28:19,300 --> 00:28:19,860
Yeah.

289
00:28:20,500 --> 00:28:29,020
What would the scenario be where absent the property being destroyed by fire

290
00:28:29,020 --> 00:28:30,340
or other peril?

291
00:28:30,980 --> 00:28:37,700
And a men would be made to remove a property that had otherwise previously been approved

292
00:28:37,700 --> 00:28:40,760
as contributing to a historic district?

293
00:28:41,500 --> 00:28:43,240
Or designated as a historic site?

294
00:28:43,240 --> 00:28:53,910
Yeah. And I guess further, how if we wanted to allow such a thing, how could we create a very strong

295
00:28:53,910 --> 00:28:59,530
dissent political disincentive for such a thing being allowed unless there were some sort of

296
00:28:59,530 --> 00:29:06,670
extreme rationale for it. But detriment of a four person vote removing historic designation

297
00:29:06,670 --> 00:29:14,570
for something seems really dangerous to me. That I get. But if we vote that we don't

298
00:29:14,570 --> 00:29:16,530
like the story behind this building.

299
00:29:16,570 --> 00:29:20,990
So now it's out this week seems really dangerous to me.

300
00:29:23,190 --> 00:29:25,350
The fire, the fire I don't have a quibble with.

301
00:29:25,350 --> 00:29:28,050
You think that would be the voting to remove.

302
00:29:28,170 --> 00:29:30,650
Because of a lack of historic significance.

303
00:29:31,050 --> 00:29:35,210
Because of a lack of historic significance.

304
00:29:36,250 --> 00:29:41,670
After property had already been applied and approved through the normal approval process

305
00:29:41,670 --> 00:29:44,890
for it to be removed for any reason other than its destruction.

306
00:29:44,890 --> 00:29:50,010
I didn't really think of that scenario. I think more of things being added.

307
00:29:51,550 --> 00:29:54,890
Right. I mean, we're able to contemplate here that unless it's destroyed,

308
00:29:55,130 --> 00:29:59,970
you can only add. But we were discussing the possibility of the amendment, including room.

309
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:02,520
Two, full four regions other than destruction.

310
00:30:03,200 --> 00:30:10,660
The yes. Yeah, and I think that is a very good question and potentially point of discussion.

311
00:30:13,120 --> 00:30:19,940
So, in my limited experience, I could imagine somebody might buy a historic property,

312
00:30:20,060 --> 00:30:25,500
purchase one that is for sale on an open market. Now, in our district, we don't have a lot

313
00:30:25,500 --> 00:30:30,000
single family home. Some districts will incorporate adjacent historic neighborhoods. We don't

314
00:30:30,000 --> 00:30:35,280
currently have a residential neighborhood designated as historic or anything like that. As I mentioned,

315
00:30:35,360 --> 00:30:40,020
we have a couple of one offs here and there. Hypothetically, somebody could buy one of those purchased

316
00:30:40,020 --> 00:30:50,540
one and find that they were in their mind unreasonably restrained in the use of their property

317
00:30:50,540 --> 00:30:56,920
because of that designation, and they may request that they were no longer designated historic.

318
00:30:57,060 --> 00:31:01,440
They would have to make the argument that, or presumably they would have to make an argument

319
00:31:01,440 --> 00:31:06,380
that it was, I would imagine, designated an error or something, or that the significance wasn't,

320
00:31:07,120 --> 00:31:14,820
it was unduly recommended or something like that. That's kind of odd, but that would be a scenario

321
00:31:14,820 --> 00:31:19,320
where I think somebody would be requesting that. It's like, oh, I bought this historic house,

322
00:31:19,320 --> 00:31:22,900
actually want to turn it into something else, or do you know?

323
00:31:22,900 --> 00:31:27,440
It's not my concern is there's no process laid out in these amendments. It just defines

324
00:31:27,440 --> 00:31:33,920
that there are rights, but doesn't say how those would be applied, and I think my concern for

325
00:31:33,920 --> 00:31:41,820
that particular scenario is does it like addition's process just require a vote of four here in a

326
00:31:41,820 --> 00:31:47,620
vote of four in the council, or is there a more strenuous process to remove something that a

327
00:31:47,620 --> 00:31:53,960
or body did deem significant just because times have changed or someone like something or doesn't

328
00:31:53,960 --> 00:31:54,920
like something.

329
00:31:55,660 --> 00:31:59,880
Well, to take it like the National Register example, similar to what you mean when I was

330
00:31:59,880 --> 00:32:06,080
with the state, we get inquiries like, oh, my properties listed in the National Register,

331
00:32:06,260 --> 00:32:07,800
I don't want it to be listed anymore.

332
00:32:08,720 --> 00:32:14,880
And there are criteria for removing properties in the federal code and it's, yes, usually

333
00:32:14,880 --> 00:32:28,220
There was a mistake was made either in the process of notifying the original owner when it was listed or there was a mistake made when it was evaluated and the wrong documentation was looked at.

334
00:32:28,760 --> 00:32:31,900
So it has to be something pretty fairly objective.

335
00:32:31,960 --> 00:32:37,640
It can't just be because we don't want it to be significant anymore because that just doesn't go away.

336
00:32:37,640 --> 00:32:47,780
So maybe that's why Minneapolis limited to destroyed by fire or other peril in order to avoid getting into the...

337
00:32:47,780 --> 00:32:53,500
I'm intrigued by the approved in error as an exception, but that would be very specific.

338
00:32:53,620 --> 00:33:03,780
And that was usually because in the National Register, like with the city, you have to notify the owner that your property is going to be designated and you can approve it or not.

339
00:33:03,780 --> 00:33:06,700
unless you're a public entity, you can't just be that.

340
00:33:07,780 --> 00:33:12,320
But that, I mean, that could be added to if somebody

341
00:33:12,320 --> 00:33:14,300
uncovered something at some point that said,

342
00:33:14,420 --> 00:33:16,720
oh, you never notified me, City of Northfield,

343
00:33:16,860 --> 00:33:20,940
that my property is designated as a local landmark.

344
00:33:22,240 --> 00:33:26,920
So I would see that as the only other fairly objective example

345
00:33:26,920 --> 00:33:29,580
to put in that removal section.

346
00:33:31,040 --> 00:33:33,240
I wonder if any other cities have examples

347
00:33:33,240 --> 00:33:38,020
like that, like, a mistake was made, a legal mistake in the process.

348
00:33:38,580 --> 00:33:40,460
Are we voting on anything, or are we just-

349
00:33:40,460 --> 00:33:44,120
No, no, this is just a discussion, you know, and so looking forward.

350
00:33:44,900 --> 00:33:49,140
Additional considerations is, it sounds, you know, like, is there a general sort of, like,

351
00:33:49,200 --> 00:33:50,960
we think in a amendment process is a good idea.

352
00:33:51,340 --> 00:33:52,660
I think so, yeah.

353
00:33:52,660 --> 00:33:52,920
I think so.

354
00:33:52,920 --> 00:33:55,260
Seems like that's kind of the gist, I'm getting, and we're seeing that.

355
00:33:55,260 --> 00:34:00,020
Maybe removal would be okay, but like Minneapolis, we want it limited.

356
00:34:01,100 --> 00:34:01,400
Yes.

357
00:34:01,400 --> 00:34:11,920
Yeah, um, if we collectively think this is a good idea, does the, does it, would we see some draft language next?

358
00:34:12,480 --> 00:34:12,900
Oh, yeah.

359
00:34:13,000 --> 00:34:13,320
Oh, yeah.

360
00:34:13,720 --> 00:34:14,160
Yeah.

361
00:34:15,460 --> 00:34:15,620
Yeah.

362
00:34:15,860 --> 00:34:16,680
That would be, yeah.

363
00:34:16,840 --> 00:34:20,500
We would, we would bring, I would develop some draft language that would be sort of like,

364
00:34:20,540 --> 00:34:22,520
this is what we're thinking for an amendment process.

365
00:34:23,220 --> 00:34:25,800
And this is sort of to provide a broad overview.

366
00:34:26,740 --> 00:34:30,060
Um, and so I like the, you know, I can't think of everything.

367
00:34:30,060 --> 00:34:44,240
And I like the note that like something designated in error, you know, might be an appropriate way to remove something, and the note that, you know, in changing social times, something might have been

368
00:34:44,240 --> 00:34:50,240
thought more appropriate than others and does that actually swing the significance of a property.

369
00:34:50,620 --> 00:34:53,400
It's such that it might be un-designated or re-mannered.

370
00:34:53,400 --> 00:34:54,920
That's actually my concern.

371
00:34:55,680 --> 00:34:59,960
Is that changing cultural norms, have us just wipe the whole slick?

372
00:35:00,000 --> 00:35:03,480
We don't, we don't like the 1870s anymore, or something.

373
00:35:04,940 --> 00:35:17,920
I'm going to say in line, where you see this happening is on collegiate buildings named after a donor

374
00:35:17,920 --> 00:35:29,140
or say in Northfield on the public school and suddenly the donor, if it's John C. Calhoun or

375
00:35:29,140 --> 00:35:33,060
or civil, civil, civil, civil,

376
00:35:33,580 --> 00:35:41,420
suddenly is now looked as not a great ideal to put forward.

377
00:35:42,640 --> 00:35:47,500
Then, we're likely, I'm my concern as long as

378
00:35:47,500 --> 00:35:50,440
the streets with that.

379
00:35:50,580 --> 00:35:53,880
We live in a very contentious time,

380
00:35:54,780 --> 00:35:58,160
and part of that contentious contentious

381
00:35:58,160 --> 00:36:01,960
is taking away historic names,

382
00:36:04,600 --> 00:36:15,160
and that gets into a really contentious kind of debate, and

383
00:36:15,160 --> 00:36:23,720
the Northwestern University wanted to remove the name of one of the founders because

384
00:36:23,720 --> 00:36:42,160
He was associated with a Native American massacre because he was a doctor and was advising the Indians, but they had a terrible fight over that, and this is a road we don't want to go down, I think.

385
00:36:44,780 --> 00:36:52,300
naming of properties gets complicated thankfully. The name is usually not going to

386
00:36:52,300 --> 00:36:57,120
physically alter. It's sort of chiseled into building.

387
00:36:58,660 --> 00:37:04,540
Well, the Kennedy Center might be an example of, yeah, that's a historic. That's a

388
00:37:04,540 --> 00:37:12,120
building, actually. So we want to avoid as much as possible. The way this can become

389
00:37:12,120 --> 00:37:21,080
political issue. I think I think it would be good to see I'm a very visual learner, so to

390
00:37:21,080 --> 00:37:27,140
see the Northfield version of what this might look like. I don't have the opportunity to

391
00:37:27,140 --> 00:37:35,480
review that. I was just curious too about the procedural aspect of this because so many things

392
00:37:35,480 --> 00:37:43,580
LDC related don't go to the city council to go to the planning commission. So is that going to be a

393
00:37:43,580 --> 00:37:48,920
sub step before our recommendations move forward? Does it have to go to the planning commission?

394
00:37:49,680 --> 00:37:52,940
Do I know what all these? I think what is that a type three procedure or something that

395
00:37:53,900 --> 00:37:58,860
the recommendation it splits and says goes to the council or goes to the planning commission?

396
00:37:59,340 --> 00:38:01,480
What determines where it goes?

397
00:38:01,480 --> 00:38:05,400
Yeah, that was after we, after we would review an amendment,

398
00:38:05,400 --> 00:38:06,800
what happens to it.

399
00:38:07,340 --> 00:38:12,460
Yeah, I mean, there's so many times that we went through this with all these projects we did in the past and say,

400
00:38:12,640 --> 00:38:14,320
well, that's going to go to the planning commission,

401
00:38:14,720 --> 00:38:18,700
or that's going right to the city council in the diagrams,

402
00:38:19,380 --> 00:38:22,880
and right in the ordinances,

403
00:38:24,040 --> 00:38:26,740
it's not 100% clear which way it's going to go.

404
00:38:26,920 --> 00:38:28,960
It says either or.

405
00:38:28,960 --> 00:38:36,380
and so I always want a little before I make a decision on LDC or recommendation on the LDC.

406
00:38:36,560 --> 00:38:43,100
How much is going to channel up? Yeah, absolutely. Do you have any thoughts on that? So with our

407
00:38:43,100 --> 00:38:49,500
designation process, I had the, I had the language pulled up here.

408
00:38:52,990 --> 00:38:54,710
Let's see,

409
00:39:03,350 --> 00:39:05,750
let's

410
00:39:08,980 --> 00:39:09,380
see, review

411
00:39:09,380 --> 00:39:16,320
decision by city council, I'm trying to see what the planning commission was, they can

412
00:39:16,320 --> 00:39:23,900
so city council normally would make the decision and they can request recommendation from the

413
00:39:23,900 --> 00:39:27,260
planning commission, yes.

414
00:39:30,090 --> 00:39:33,510
So it had to go to the city first in council first and then they could

415
00:39:33,510 --> 00:39:37,130
after, for the time, send it down to the point of communication.

416
00:39:37,590 --> 00:39:39,070
Yeah, I just forgot what we would see.

417
00:39:39,070 --> 00:39:40,470
Well, we would see, of course.

418
00:39:41,310 --> 00:39:44,690
And he's asking what would happen after we saw him.

419
00:39:44,890 --> 00:39:45,610
He's not what you're asking.

420
00:39:45,830 --> 00:39:46,750
We would see an amendment.

421
00:39:47,130 --> 00:39:50,010
Well, right here, it says, you know, we would make recommendations

422
00:39:50,010 --> 00:39:51,590
to the city council.

423
00:39:52,690 --> 00:39:54,010
Not to the point of communication.

424
00:39:54,290 --> 00:39:56,750
I mean, this is the Minneapolis language.

425
00:39:57,370 --> 00:39:57,790
Yes.

426
00:39:58,330 --> 00:39:59,090
Oh, what it's like.

427
00:39:59,670 --> 00:39:59,970
That's what I wanted to do.

428
00:40:00,000 --> 00:40:29,980
The final of the same procedure. I just recall a time where we were discussing collars and had a big discussion about collars and we decided to make a recommendation, but we didn't really know what direction it was going to go. I didn't end up on agenda of the planning commission and then watched that whole thing and they were like, well, why have we been looking at this? I mean, and so while we got a vote on, we got to do something with it. So they, you know, didn't have the same, they didn't have our

429
00:40:31,100 --> 00:40:37,420
passion for all the arguments that we stated here, they just randomly made a decision and

430
00:40:37,420 --> 00:40:43,180
sent it to the city. And so I want to make sure that our recommendations, if they

431
00:40:43,180 --> 00:40:47,200
are going to be channeled not directly to the city council,

432
00:40:49,460 --> 00:40:50,160
I don't know why there wouldn't

433
00:40:50,160 --> 00:40:50,740
be actually.

434
00:40:53,390 --> 00:40:56,510
I think they should be. And I want to make sure that that would be the council.

435
00:40:56,790 --> 00:40:59,730
Yeah, I think that needs to be something when we do this whole ordinance.

436
00:40:59,730 --> 00:41:08,060
LDC changed the experts. We take that ambiguity of could it go here or could it go there or we don't really know and we'll let staff decide or

437
00:41:08,530 --> 00:41:15,610
So you would like Matthias when he writes the draft for us to write it like this that these recommendations go to come

438
00:41:15,610 --> 00:41:17,890
That's my point. Yes. Thank you

439
00:41:17,890 --> 00:41:25,250
Okay, yeah, and are not that not the plan commission. Yeah, unless you know unless there's some LDC violation that

440
00:41:27,030 --> 00:41:32,710
We don't understand, but you should, I mean, staff would know that before they put this

441
00:41:32,710 --> 00:41:33,490
on our agenda.

442
00:41:38,240 --> 00:41:43,700
And another thing I'm kind of confused with, because like, if something does burn down and

443
00:41:43,700 --> 00:41:48,240
it is a landmark, if it's in the district, is that different than if it's not in the district.

444
00:41:49,900 --> 00:41:51,120
And so how do we treat that?

445
00:41:51,340 --> 00:41:52,380
Yes, it's a...

446
00:41:52,380 --> 00:41:52,720
It's a listing.

447
00:41:52,720 --> 00:41:59,600
It's the same, in this terminology, they're using landmark to be a property within a district

448
00:41:59,600 --> 00:42:02,200
or an individual property.

449
00:42:03,900 --> 00:42:06,800
The landmark designation is the same, so-

450
00:42:06,800 --> 00:42:08,900
Then we really asked you how to classify the example.

451
00:42:08,980 --> 00:42:10,540
It's a district, it burned down.

452
00:42:12,000 --> 00:42:19,440
We didn't de-list it, but it kind of came through the rehab.

453
00:42:19,440 --> 00:42:26,060
I mean, something should probably be clarified in city code to say in the

454
00:42:26,060 --> 00:42:31,740
archer house is now. It doesn't exist anymore. That's something like that

455
00:42:31,740 --> 00:42:35,760
happened when it burned now because we didn't. We don't have the

456
00:42:35,760 --> 00:42:43,320
amendment designation. Yep. And so we do have a, we do have an

457
00:42:43,320 --> 00:42:48,860
amendment or delisting process spelled out in our code a little bit. It's a

458
00:42:48,860 --> 00:42:55,400
a little bit ambiguous though, in that we do have like the replacement in the infill guidelines

459
00:42:55,400 --> 00:43:01,480
as well for new construction. And so this is one of those, and the Ultra House is a really

460
00:43:01,480 --> 00:43:09,600
good example of where we did lose a project, but it's within the district. And so should a replacement

461
00:43:09,600 --> 00:43:16,540
building follow those guidelines or not, and that would be a good question for, is that criteria

462
00:43:16,540 --> 00:43:23,600
before amending something and would, would the justification that, you know, my new construction,

463
00:43:24,240 --> 00:43:27,720
I don't want to follow the infill guidelines or the new construction guidelines of

464
00:43:27,720 --> 00:43:34,420
a historic site, be enough to justify a delisting.

465
00:43:35,920 --> 00:43:43,440
And so the archer fire was at some point somebody voted to deem it a no longer contributing

466
00:43:43,440 --> 00:43:51,980
property, but still within the boundary. And the vote here would be if we passed an amendment

467
00:43:51,980 --> 00:43:58,180
like this, would be to redraw the boundary with that building out of the boundary even though

468
00:43:58,180 --> 00:44:00,100
it's non-contributing either way.

469
00:44:01,720 --> 00:44:05,400
Yeah, I don't believe that a vote was ever taken that would save the archers no longer.

470
00:44:06,100 --> 00:44:11,420
Contributing to the district, the building is gone, right? But in theory, because in the practice

471
00:44:11,420 --> 00:44:16,920
preservation we do have reconstruction right and so if somebody for property owner were

472
00:44:16,920 --> 00:44:21,340
to in the case of like the archer house as a good example we're to say I want to actually

473
00:44:21,340 --> 00:44:29,560
rebuild the archer house like it was as best I can then I don't know chair would that still be

474
00:44:29,560 --> 00:44:37,080
a contributing building if it is a I mean with the standards for reconstruction it's so rigorous

475
00:44:37,080 --> 00:44:42,020
that it would be unlikely that anybody would reconstruct something to that because it literally

476
00:44:42,020 --> 00:44:47,500
has to be every single material and every single dimension has to be exactly as the historic

477
00:44:47,500 --> 00:44:55,320
building was with the from porch and everything that was there. So unlikely and would it be considered

478
00:44:55,320 --> 00:44:59,980
contributing as a reconstruction that would be in nationalism.

479
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:13,200
All register realm, that can happen, yes. Fort snowing is sort of an example of that. Those are all reconstructed buildings, but they are reconstructed perfectly. So their national register listed.

480
00:45:14,240 --> 00:45:29,520
I guess the removal that gets back to E of this Minneapolis example, where the landmark within a district, it's not the entire district, but that landmark that building within the district was destroyed.

481
00:45:29,520 --> 00:45:37,300
by fire, it should technically be removed from the paperwork that says Archer House is in

482
00:45:37,300 --> 00:45:42,680
the historic district. It does not exist anymore. The boundary still goes around that empty

483
00:45:42,680 --> 00:45:46,920
lot, so it's still in the district, so a new construction applies, which is why we reviewed

484
00:45:46,920 --> 00:45:51,820
all that. Not to keep rehashing Archer over. Right, but that's an example. It seems like there

485
00:45:51,820 --> 00:45:56,800
should have been some sort of... To clean it up. To declare a head of all the votes that

486
00:45:56,800 --> 00:46:01,960
take in here about improving stuff to declare what its status was going into those proposals.

487
00:46:02,980 --> 00:46:09,380
The boundary, it's still an empty site within the historic district, but that the previous building

488
00:46:09,380 --> 00:46:16,160
doesn't exist anymore. Yeah, some sort of cleanup in the in the recordation. The other part,

489
00:46:16,260 --> 00:46:21,180
and then I'm wondering about the historic district boundaries, where it says they can be expanded

490
00:46:21,180 --> 00:46:22,920
in a minute, but not reduced.

491
00:46:25,460 --> 00:46:28,320
So, in national register realm, you can do both.

492
00:46:28,520 --> 00:46:32,180
You have to go through the full process of actually it's more work

493
00:46:32,180 --> 00:46:36,260
to expand a national register boundary than to reduce it,

494
00:46:36,280 --> 00:46:38,520
because you've lost integrity at the edges.

495
00:46:39,060 --> 00:46:43,820
It's actually easier to make a boundary smaller in the national register,

496
00:46:44,020 --> 00:46:46,580
so I'm just confused as to why they wrote it that way.

497
00:46:46,580 --> 00:46:53,940
But I don't know if we'd want to include a reduction provision in our.

498
00:46:53,940 --> 00:46:54,620
I don't.

499
00:46:54,940 --> 00:47:01,400
So if you lose the landmark, but it's in the district, you haven't lost the district.

500
00:47:01,560 --> 00:47:02,200
No, you haven't.

501
00:47:02,780 --> 00:47:06,180
You just lost one of the features within that district.

502
00:47:06,840 --> 00:47:09,500
So why would you cut it out of the boundaries?

503
00:47:10,660 --> 00:47:15,480
Well, at that, I mean, if it's at the edge and your edges are starting to get.

504
00:47:15,480 --> 00:47:16,800
I'm surprised in integrity.

505
00:47:16,920 --> 00:47:18,340
Not that clear where it's located.

506
00:47:18,840 --> 00:47:20,680
Right, it could be anywhere in the case.

507
00:47:21,040 --> 00:47:23,020
Again, in the case of archer, it was at the edge.

508
00:47:24,120 --> 00:47:25,340
But you're right, if it's in the middle,

509
00:47:25,600 --> 00:47:29,140
that's even more important not to redraw or pull in.

510
00:47:29,460 --> 00:47:29,960
The district survives.

511
00:47:30,640 --> 00:47:33,260
I mean, it seems to be the rule of the land.

512
00:47:33,480 --> 00:47:35,080
And that's why it's important to do.

513
00:47:35,520 --> 00:47:35,640
Right.

514
00:47:35,840 --> 00:47:39,260
The subsequent design review is to take your final apology.

515
00:47:39,540 --> 00:47:39,580
Right.

516
00:47:39,620 --> 00:47:40,840
The integrity of the district.

517
00:47:40,920 --> 00:47:41,180
Right.

518
00:47:42,020 --> 00:47:44,040
So I don't know if that would have

519
00:47:44,040 --> 00:47:50,560
want that to apply about reducing because a landmark within a district doesn't mean that

520
00:47:50,560 --> 00:47:54,720
we're going to deal with that portion of the district or anything of that.

521
00:47:55,100 --> 00:48:00,040
Just bring it up as a discussion. I agree though. I don't think any of this is automatic.

522
00:48:01,200 --> 00:48:06,440
Right. Yes. And that would be sort of like, let's it should be established a process for this.

523
00:48:08,500 --> 00:48:12,520
That's what we're looking. That's what I'm looking for out of the discussion is what feels

524
00:48:12,520 --> 00:48:21,560
And what I'm hearing is that, you know, maybe I think Minneapolis and we can all sort of use the artra as an example of where a historic landmark was lost.

525
00:48:21,740 --> 00:48:25,700
It happens coincidentally in this case to be at the edge of a district.

526
00:48:25,700 --> 00:48:41,700
would we want a future HPC and plan and not planning management city council to be able to amend the district to remove it such that

527
00:48:42,220 --> 00:48:51,100
that building no longer had to meet the new construction standards that apply within the district.

528
00:48:52,380 --> 00:48:57,160
or is it more appropriate to say no we have the district the district should the integrity

529
00:48:57,160 --> 00:49:01,860
of the district should be protected and even if a building is lost at the edge just

530
00:49:01,860 --> 00:49:06,300
like if a building was lost in the middle we aren't we don't want to redraw that boundary

531
00:49:06,300 --> 00:49:11,900
to exclude them and we want those standards to continue to apply that would be sort of the

532
00:49:11,900 --> 00:49:16,420
direction that we're looking for. It's kind of the sense I'm getting is that maybe Minneapolis

533
00:49:16,420 --> 00:49:21,080
is on to something here to say we're not going to reduce those boundaries even if

534
00:49:21,080 --> 00:49:22,620
we lose something at the edge?

535
00:49:23,680 --> 00:49:28,140
Yeah, I mean, a parallel example in some ways is the library.

536
00:49:28,200 --> 00:49:29,280
Yeah, I guess.

537
00:49:29,480 --> 00:49:37,900
The library had the addition, that changed its character, but it still is in the district,

538
00:49:38,600 --> 00:49:47,380
and the historic part of the library is still very much visible and extent, right there.

539
00:49:47,380 --> 00:49:59,960
So, and I wasn't here during that period, was there an explicit decision by the HPC that, that, that, that.

540
00:50:00,000 --> 00:50:07,100
Audition would de-certify the building as a contributing property, as a Carnegie historic.

541
00:50:07,240 --> 00:50:09,920
Actually, I was on the HBCO's a whole thing too.

542
00:50:10,180 --> 00:50:16,900
You were too, and I remember it does actually did not agree with the proposed, because for that reason

543
00:50:16,900 --> 00:50:25,840
of the proposed jewel box edition was, in my opinion, an adverse, if I didn't meet the Secretary

544
00:50:25,840 --> 00:50:30,880
standards for, for a new addition. We talked about sort of tucking it under the

545
00:50:30,880 --> 00:50:37,200
Eve, making it a little bit, like having less glass, kind of like the 1990s,

546
00:50:37,200 --> 00:50:43,780
in 1980s, or 1990s, at this point. Right. So we talked about a lot of things and made

547
00:50:43,780 --> 00:50:49,100
many records. You could probably like back at the record. I don't know what our final decision

548
00:50:49,100 --> 00:50:55,100
was if there was, if it wasn't true, I don't know was we had a chance to vote it down. I

549
00:50:55,100 --> 00:51:02,240
And it was, it's a classic case of the city doing a project going through the whole project

550
00:51:02,240 --> 00:51:03,900
and having the whole design.

551
00:51:03,980 --> 00:51:05,320
I mean, to us at the last minute.

552
00:51:06,540 --> 00:51:08,920
And the only thing that it's done.

553
00:51:09,520 --> 00:51:10,260
Yeah, exactly.

554
00:51:10,580 --> 00:51:14,860
I mean, at that point, it sort of, you're sort of stuck.

555
00:51:14,960 --> 00:51:20,100
I think it was brought up because that was sort of the time when the city didn't think

556
00:51:20,100 --> 00:51:23,140
they needed HPC to review their own projects.

557
00:51:23,640 --> 00:51:43,700
And we were trying to coach the city back into, yes, you have a historic building, it's the library, and your proposed change to that library is under the HPC purview, so it came in late. And by that time, they're like, thank you for your opinion. And we're going to do it just like we want to.

558
00:51:43,820 --> 00:51:52,800
Then once the decision was made to move forward with that addition, at what point did someone declare that it was no longer contributing?

559
00:51:52,800 --> 00:52:12,760
It was when the city hired Carol Zellate in 2014, 15, to do a reserve of the district, and again update the period of significance, and because it was from 81, so it was 30 years old, 40 years old, 30 years old, 35 years old.

560
00:52:12,760 --> 00:52:31,220
And that just made sense to re-evaluate the historic district, the national register level, and the local designation, and she evaluated the library based on that revision, the addition, and so that it was non-contributing to the national register districts, so that changed that status.

561
00:52:32,520 --> 00:52:41,840
But our district local landmarks, do they have, they do have non-contributing contributing designations, right? I should know that.

562
00:52:42,760 --> 00:52:50,840
in our landmark ordinance locally I would have to review the ordinance a little bit more closely I think

563
00:52:50,840 --> 00:52:56,200
our local designations are intended to be

564
00:52:56,200 --> 00:53:00,420
it's that famous for national register right yeah yeah they have very similar criteria and the

565
00:53:00,420 --> 00:53:05,000
ideas that like we're looking for things with integrity that do meet those significance criteria

566
00:53:05,000 --> 00:53:12,640
that's how that happened I'm raising it the COA process isn't part of this discussion but

567
00:53:12,760 --> 00:53:18,640
I'm curious if since this is about amendments to contributing non-contributing boundaries, et cetera,

568
00:53:19,320 --> 00:53:26,760
if there's any language to not accidentally lose buildings for weird reasons like that.

569
00:53:27,820 --> 00:53:33,900
Like setting aside the politics of a city project or whatever, like that a building somehow gets approved

570
00:53:33,900 --> 00:53:38,960
and getting approved means it's no longer in the district feels absurd and backwards.

571
00:53:41,080 --> 00:53:47,980
And I don't know how to address that because that was a C.O.A. approval that then approved

572
00:53:47,980 --> 00:53:52,420
a building that we then we deemed to have changed.

573
00:53:53,320 --> 00:54:00,580
But if we're talking about how do we write the rules so that buildings have clear designation

574
00:54:00,580 --> 00:54:04,440
that is permanent and less they are destroyed by other peril.

575
00:54:07,720 --> 00:54:13,280
I mean not anyone, I think the fact that it's the library in the city is a red

576
00:54:13,280 --> 00:54:19,740
hearing for the question of could someone accidentally sneak through a COA

577
00:54:19,740 --> 00:54:25,480
that we don't realize five years later means it's not a contributing property anymore,

578
00:54:25,680 --> 00:54:28,240
even though we all wanted it to be the whole time.

579
00:54:28,960 --> 00:54:33,820
Well, and I think this raises a good question, especially, you know, the library being a good

580
00:54:33,820 --> 00:54:40,280
example, potentially, and not having the history on it that, you know, maybe commissioner,

581
00:54:40,500 --> 00:54:41,840
dirt chair by him or as a commissioner.

582
00:54:44,580 --> 00:54:49,980
Clark does. It was 13 years ago. It was a while ago

583
00:54:49,980 --> 00:54:58,340
that edition went on. And I had been sort of told that, you know, again, I have not been here that

584
00:54:58,340 --> 00:54:59,860
long enough to have that history.

585
00:55:00,000 --> 00:55:06,980
I've been told that there was an attempt to design something that would kind of retain the significance of that building.

586
00:55:07,800 --> 00:55:11,820
Now, of course, I don't know the extent to what that attempt was made.

587
00:55:12,960 --> 00:55:18,660
But this is where we have the Secretary of the Interior Standard say like new construction should be differentiated from the old.

588
00:55:18,780 --> 00:55:27,040
And the library is a really good example of where the 1980s edition, which most people looking at that building would not even recognize as an addition,

589
00:55:27,040 --> 00:55:35,700
because it matches in nearly every conceivable way the historic building from the brick that was

590
00:55:35,700 --> 00:55:41,400
selected to the patterning of the detailing and all of that. And so there would be again this is

591
00:55:41,400 --> 00:55:48,940
you know in my mind and I haven't been doing this that long but there is a question with HPCs as far as

592
00:55:48,940 --> 00:55:53,740
like how much difference does an HPC have when they are approving things like so we have an

593
00:55:53,740 --> 00:55:57,680
building that has an addition that looks exactly like the original building and an addition

594
00:55:57,680 --> 00:56:00,280
that looks very distinctly different.

595
00:56:00,720 --> 00:56:04,620
And now, my understanding in the library is that there was a character defining features,

596
00:56:04,640 --> 00:56:09,580
specifically that entrance viewable from Washington Street that was destroyed when

597
00:56:09,580 --> 00:56:11,620
that addition was added.

598
00:56:12,140 --> 00:56:13,520
I haven't seen it again.

599
00:56:13,640 --> 00:56:14,900
I didn't review it.

600
00:56:14,960 --> 00:56:20,480
And so that is sort of the basis for the delisting there or the non-contributing status.

601
00:56:20,480 --> 00:56:22,500
is that that element was removed,

602
00:56:24,540 --> 00:56:27,860
and so, you know, I think this is a question of like, yes,

603
00:56:27,960 --> 00:56:32,220
an HPC could approve something and say, well, we are meeting the Secretary's guidelines.

604
00:56:32,480 --> 00:56:38,220
It is differentiated from, and we do feel that we're retaining enough character defining

605
00:56:38,220 --> 00:56:44,620
features that it still retains its significance, you know, and then it may go up to the Chippo

606
00:56:44,620 --> 00:56:50,380
or some other higher, or a later than period of review that would say, actually no, we think

607
00:56:50,380 --> 00:56:55,440
that it was integrity was destroyed when that feature was removed, even though it retained

608
00:56:55,440 --> 00:56:56,600
a certain portion of it.

609
00:56:56,780 --> 00:57:00,700
Yeah, I would say it was differentiated, but it was not compatible, and it has to be

610
00:57:00,700 --> 00:57:01,020
both.

611
00:57:01,360 --> 00:57:01,540
Yeah.

612
00:57:02,760 --> 00:57:06,920
That's why we were trying, if I can remember it correctly, you should pull those minutes

613
00:57:06,920 --> 00:57:07,240
out there.

614
00:57:08,160 --> 00:57:10,060
It was a fun to read and see how we sat at it.

615
00:57:10,340 --> 00:57:15,600
I wanted to have some little bit more history on what has happened in the past, like

616
00:57:15,600 --> 00:57:20,520
because my question still stands, it's in the district yet, but it's not contributing.

617
00:57:21,580 --> 00:57:26,440
So the land around it and all the concrete work that they want to do is still within our

618
00:57:26,440 --> 00:57:26,740
preview.

619
00:57:27,000 --> 00:57:27,520
That's right.

620
00:57:28,400 --> 00:57:28,780
That's right.

621
00:57:29,020 --> 00:57:31,200
The site is still in the district.

622
00:57:31,460 --> 00:57:36,500
So any changes made to the big wall and the landscape are still within our district?

623
00:57:36,500 --> 00:57:40,400
Yeah, this is the project when we first got on, he was bridge square and we were the last

624
00:57:40,400 --> 00:57:42,880
ones to find out what was going on down there.

625
00:57:42,880 --> 00:57:47,400
they just came to us and said this we're going to do and and uh... there you

626
00:57:47,400 --> 00:57:50,860
gone through other stakeholders and and talked to everybody and said well

627
00:57:50,860 --> 00:57:53,440
this is the final plan what do you guys think?

628
00:57:54,280 --> 00:57:58,300
well we think we should have had this at the beginning and

629
00:57:58,300 --> 00:58:00,660
well the consultant to the city

630
00:58:02,000 --> 00:58:05,360
was made a said that since it wasn't a structure

631
00:58:05,820 --> 00:58:08,320
on bridge square right there for

632
00:58:08,320 --> 00:58:10,360
it wasn't within our jurisdiction

633
00:58:10,360 --> 00:58:15,360
And she was, they said it was a real way to that state.

634
00:58:16,220 --> 00:58:17,200
Listen to that.

635
00:58:17,200 --> 00:58:18,420
Program after that.

636
00:58:18,420 --> 00:58:19,160
That's a property.

637
00:58:20,700 --> 00:58:24,520
And the consult was said, absolutely not.

638
00:58:24,520 --> 00:58:28,940
It does not have to have the structure on it to be considered.

639
00:58:29,220 --> 00:58:30,040
It's out of the consultant.

640
00:58:30,420 --> 00:58:31,440
The concern of that.

641
00:58:31,620 --> 00:58:31,860
Yeah.

642
00:58:31,860 --> 00:58:33,860
The consultant was simply wrong.

643
00:58:34,160 --> 00:58:36,080
But we also really had an order to change it.

644
00:58:36,100 --> 00:58:39,820
So the city property is included, not excluded from our preview.

645
00:58:39,820 --> 00:58:47,820
And I think, you know, also getting with and leading over to the dam, too, and what's going to happen with the dam. So we'd like to be involved in that.

646
00:58:49,620 --> 00:58:57,940
I think, yeah, the next step we've had a lot of good discussion, I think we'll have even more, once we actually see what this would look like for our own city.

647
00:58:58,060 --> 00:58:58,320
Sure.

648
00:58:58,520 --> 00:59:00,780
And I look forward to see what you could draft up.

649
00:59:00,900 --> 00:59:05,200
Yeah, I can draft something for us to review then, specific to know what I feel.

650
00:59:05,200 --> 00:59:35,080
Yeah, I will take, you know, I'll take the comments and the notes from this and again because this is part of the broader like land development code update and rewrite, that we will, I don't have a, I don't have an exact timeline for you on some of these things and like right now with Michaela out, you know, I don't have a ton of time to work on some of these projects, but these are things that then I will communicate with our consultant and say hey look at,

651
00:59:35,080 --> 00:59:40,460
We want to make sure our amendment process is covering these things, and so that there's

652
00:59:40,460 --> 00:59:45,080
clarity there, because we want to ensure that the district is intact even if we lose a building

653
00:59:45,080 --> 00:59:50,820
at the edge, and that there isn't this opportunity to sort of like, you know, via demolition

654
00:59:50,820 --> 00:59:55,660
through neglect, which we don't seem to have a significant problem with a Northfield, but does happen

655
00:59:55,660 --> 00:59:59,960
in other communities where an owner will just simply ignore their building into it.

656
01:00:01,920 --> 01:00:16,620
And then have justification for demolishing it so that they can essentially build something more profitable there, or what have you, or put a parking lot there, because we need more parking.

657
01:00:17,140 --> 01:00:29,140
Yeah, always. And so, you know, kind of communicate with them, sort of this just and then get them, they'll probably do a lot of the legwork to bring that back to us.

658
01:00:29,140 --> 01:00:36,280
And so anything that relates to the HPC, I will be presenting along the way as we get those

659
01:00:36,280 --> 01:00:37,020
drafts.

660
01:00:37,360 --> 01:00:42,000
And my goal with what we've been doing with some of these discussions is to sort of head some

661
01:00:42,000 --> 01:00:47,620
of those off and just pick up some of those topics that I know have been like, when we

662
01:00:47,620 --> 01:00:53,840
as planners are reviewing applications or when we are trying to prepare staff reports and

663
01:00:53,840 --> 01:00:58,120
analysis of whether or not this building meets the code and it's like, well, balconies.

664
01:00:58,120 --> 01:01:01,600
I mean, I might not anticipate the balconies would be contentious.

665
01:01:01,860 --> 01:01:05,800
They're just so commonplace, but then understanding, okay, well, yeah, they are.

666
01:01:06,360 --> 01:01:10,100
There's character, there's, you know, this district thing.

667
01:01:10,100 --> 01:01:15,440
And so we want to be just then clear on what, where and when and how we would allow those things.

668
01:01:15,800 --> 01:01:19,080
So that we can, again, provide clarity to the developers.

669
01:01:19,380 --> 01:01:23,340
And then we don't have to have that initial like conversation like, oh, you can't actually put a balcony there.

670
01:01:23,460 --> 01:01:25,160
And they're like, oh, you're killing my project.

671
01:01:25,360 --> 01:01:27,960
And then we can, because it can be right up front.

672
01:01:27,960 --> 01:01:34,700
like no bell can use. They can be on the back and then they can make their plans from there. Right. So.

673
01:01:34,700 --> 01:01:39,500
Right. So that to be said, I don't have a good timeline for you. But yes, we will you will get

674
01:01:39,500 --> 01:01:45,100
draft language on this long before anything gets adopted. When will things start to be adopted,

675
01:01:45,120 --> 01:01:51,520
and though it will be adopted wholesale. But when will that, it wants that projected to happen here.

676
01:01:51,780 --> 01:01:57,820
Roughly one year from now. Oh, year from now. Yeah. So the yeah. So zoning

677
01:01:58,720 --> 01:02:01,240
variants is our next topic.

678
01:02:03,530 --> 01:02:09,010
Can you give us a little for those those of us are not zoning experts?

679
01:02:09,690 --> 01:02:16,430
Yeah and this one I got to get a little bit more I certainly need to do a little bit more research on this myself.

680
01:02:17,250 --> 01:02:19,910
So I apologize if I don't have a ton of answers.

681
01:02:21,370 --> 01:02:45,850
But in the case of, so there is a process where it's called a historic variance, and where a structure might require a variance from typical zoning regulations in order to be put to new use, the HPC could be granted some authority to either grant or participate in a variance process when a designated properties involve.

682
01:02:45,850 --> 01:02:53,410
So hypothetically, let's say we have a designated property and let's just say the depo as a building, right?

683
01:02:53,530 --> 01:02:59,430
And that is a heritage site. And let's say that, you know, it's not going to be used as a depo,

684
01:03:00,130 --> 01:03:08,430
but somebody has an idea for how it can be put to an adaptive reuse. Now, outside of the transit hub,

685
01:03:08,810 --> 01:03:15,030
which is, you know, presumably will be, but just bear with me. And this often comes up as an example with churches.

686
01:03:15,030 --> 01:03:20,530
So churches are a building that does often get designated as a historic site or heritage site,

687
01:03:20,550 --> 01:03:25,170
but then the congregation sort of dissipates. This is happening more and more frequently.

688
01:03:26,150 --> 01:03:31,010
And then somebody's able to purchase that building and they want to put housing on that site.

689
01:03:32,430 --> 01:03:38,050
Well, you know, in order to make housing work with a historic church and protect the integrity,

690
01:03:38,050 --> 01:03:44,190
Um, a variance might be required from normal zoning regulations, right?

691
01:03:44,270 --> 01:03:49,970
That would say like, oh, you're housing has to do this or, for example, that church is located

692
01:03:49,970 --> 01:03:55,870
in a low density residential zoning district, and you are only allowed to put one single

693
01:03:55,870 --> 01:03:57,530
family house on that site.

694
01:03:58,750 --> 01:04:03,610
Well, I just bought a, you know, 18,000 square foot church, it's not going to work as a single

695
01:04:03,610 --> 01:04:09,030
family residents, I need a variance to allow something, to do something else, right?

696
01:04:10,550 --> 01:04:19,210
And so kind of going through that, the legal process established by the state to get a variance

697
01:04:19,210 --> 01:04:25,510
requires that there be a practical difficulty for a landowner, and that that can't be

698
01:04:25,510 --> 01:04:26,810
their own fault,

699
01:04:31,730 --> 01:04:31,910
right?

700
01:04:31,910 --> 01:04:38,630
a very steep hillside that precludes you from building there and therefore reduces the actual

701
01:04:38,630 --> 01:04:44,190
buildable area of a lot such that in order to build a structure on it you need to get closer

702
01:04:44,190 --> 01:04:49,070
to the street than you would normally be allowed to. As an example that's an easy variance where

703
01:04:49,070 --> 01:04:55,250
we can say yes you did not put that hill there and you couldn't possibly meet the regulation that

704
01:04:55,250 --> 01:04:59,870
says you have to be 20 feet away from your front property line if you wanted to build a house.

705
01:05:00,000 --> 01:05:29,020
We're going to let you be 10 feet away from the property line so you can build a house there, right? So in this case, we would say, in the interest, the idea would be that in the interest of preserving a heritage site, you know, and that would be a competing interest for a redevelopment opportunity that would demolish a, you know, that would be viable if they were to demolish that site. There's opportunity to say, well, we actually do have a practical difficulty here because we aren't going to let you demolish that.

706
01:05:29,020 --> 01:05:36,080
and so we can then use that as a justification for a variance to meet that practical difficulty.

707
01:05:36,420 --> 01:05:43,620
So we don't currently have that, but it just would be a nice thing to have cleaned up in our code

708
01:05:43,620 --> 01:05:47,900
to offer that. Of course we don't have a lot outside of our historic district.

709
01:05:49,400 --> 01:05:54,460
A lot of sites at this time outside of there, such that that might come up, but it may come up

710
01:05:54,460 --> 01:05:56,700
sites even within our historic district.

711
01:05:57,260 --> 01:05:59,520
So just for example, like the art your house,

712
01:06:00,000 --> 01:06:02,260
it was always set back away from the road.

713
01:06:02,440 --> 01:06:04,520
It wasn't at the zero, a lot, line, exactly.

714
01:06:04,580 --> 01:06:09,080
We could have at that time, perhaps, suggested a set back

715
01:06:09,080 --> 01:06:12,080
ordinance with our head.

716
01:06:12,380 --> 01:06:17,640
If we put this thing through, in retrospect, we could have,

717
01:06:17,660 --> 01:06:19,540
if this was in place, said, well, OK, you've

718
01:06:19,540 --> 01:06:23,380
got to have a 10-foot set back at both ends and write that

719
01:06:23,380 --> 01:06:28,460
to recommendations to, I guess, probably have to go to the Plan Commission to grant the variance

720
01:06:28,460 --> 01:06:29,720
wouldn't it?

721
01:06:30,000 --> 01:06:33,540
Well, and so that's where we can do a little bit more research and say, you know, how

722
01:06:33,540 --> 01:06:36,440
would the HPC be involved in something like that?

723
01:06:37,160 --> 01:06:43,280
Is it sort of certifying that there would be a practical difficulty or, in the case of Minneapolis,

724
01:06:44,900 --> 01:06:51,620
you know, they are where the difficulty is preservation of a site, they are authorized to grant

725
01:06:51,620 --> 01:06:56,980
This variance, and I have to look again into the legality of this as far as who's designated

726
01:06:56,980 --> 01:07:03,020
and who's allowed to make that consideration, but it's just a piece in there to consider.

727
01:07:03,120 --> 01:07:09,720
I think in the case of the Archer House, a more realistic scenario would be if the fire had

728
01:07:09,720 --> 01:07:12,360
only destroyed, let's say, the north wing of that building.

729
01:07:13,300 --> 01:07:17,900
And so you are correct that building was set back from the property line, but our zoning code

730
01:07:17,900 --> 01:07:20,480
does require that it be brought up to the property line.

731
01:07:20,480 --> 01:07:26,660
That is a very good example of if that had been the scenario,

732
01:07:29,280 --> 01:07:30,880
it could have had an

733
01:07:30,880 --> 01:07:36,400
it likely would have had an adverse impact on the remaining historic portion of that structure

734
01:07:36,400 --> 01:07:40,280
to build a new wing that was at the zero-lot line, right?

735
01:07:40,580 --> 01:07:48,260
And so we would have wanted that pushed back 10 feet, or that the HBC, you know, in the interest

736
01:07:48,260 --> 01:07:53,140
of preserving the integrity of what remained of the archerhouse would have wanted to see that

737
01:07:53,140 --> 01:07:58,900
brought back that would be in line. But in that scenario, there's already a process for the

738
01:07:58,900 --> 01:08:05,020
zoning variants and the reconstruction of the building would still have to come here for a COA.

739
01:08:05,140 --> 01:08:09,880
So the process would still play out appropriately even without this amendment, right?

740
01:08:10,440 --> 01:08:16,200
Well, it's not clear that preservation of a historic property would present

741
01:08:18,580 --> 01:08:27,160
justifiable practical difficulty. And so this would help us establish that, and this would be a justifiable practical day.

742
01:08:27,180 --> 01:08:35,300
Could it apply to something like the post office, which doesn't take up the entire lot, and doesn't, is it at the zero?

743
01:08:35,620 --> 01:08:37,460
I don't know, you'd have to count the stairway, maybe?

744
01:08:38,100 --> 01:08:38,340
No.

745
01:08:38,500 --> 01:08:43,240
It's not really, because it's a big stairway in front, but so maybe that's an example

746
01:08:43,240 --> 01:08:48,060
that building ever did go out of federal ownership and became privately owned, there could be

747
01:08:48,060 --> 01:08:53,480
some conundrums there with, I would think, maybe with some additions in the back.

748
01:08:53,600 --> 01:08:58,100
Yep, this typically comes up with adaptive reuse and so yeah, I mean, you might think of like

749
01:08:58,100 --> 01:09:01,520
the buildings along Fort Street and Fist Street where we do have great changes and then

750
01:09:01,520 --> 01:09:06,020
suddenly now we have to deal with like access and ramps and how we might end up setting things back.

751
01:09:06,020 --> 01:09:12,860
They're all, you know, and say like, well yes, you know, in order to get that site

752
01:09:13,240 --> 01:09:21,140
to be put to a new use, we are going to have to get a variance from our, from our normal zoning

753
01:09:21,140 --> 01:09:25,240
regulations, because it's also important that we're preserving the historic structure.

754
01:09:25,340 --> 01:09:29,240
So it really brings the historic designation more into that zoning variance.

755
01:09:29,800 --> 01:09:35,060
It becomes a consideration in the variance process, which I think is a good idea.

756
01:09:35,620 --> 01:09:38,080
So in the zoning variance business, no.

757
01:09:39,140 --> 01:09:45,540
Well, and it looks like you have some examples of, would we advise the zoning board of appeals

758
01:09:45,540 --> 01:09:47,660
or do it ourselves?

759
01:09:48,020 --> 01:09:52,960
I guess it would probably be good, that sounds like a lot, but I think the advising

760
01:09:52,960 --> 01:09:57,460
of the zoning board of appeals, maybe, would make them a sense, but it would be good to

761
01:09:57,460 --> 01:09:59,980
understand the different scenarios once you have time.

762
01:10:00,000 --> 01:10:06,720
I am to look into this a little bit more on what that might look like for Northfield and take a building through

763
01:10:06,720 --> 01:10:14,100
each of the scenarios, maybe the post office is a good one, but what that would look like would help us understand.

764
01:10:14,260 --> 01:10:23,800
So if it came up today before this amendment, is it that the zoning board of appeals would not have a justification they could hold

765
01:10:23,800 --> 01:10:32,200
And that they just need to be authorized to consider this, or is it that we want to be able to instruct them that they must?

766
01:10:36,950 --> 01:10:40,610
That is a really good question, right?

767
01:10:40,950 --> 01:10:47,070
And so if faced with, because this comes up in community development planning, et cetera,

768
01:10:47,070 --> 01:10:56,430
in face with a choice of a sort of property, well, I can demolish it or I can, but I can't meet the zoning code.

769
01:10:58,190 --> 01:11:06,690
What is the appropriate path forward, right? And fortunately, yeah, yeah. Well,

770
01:11:07,030 --> 01:11:10,870
fortunately, Northfield, we don't have a lot of those sort of buildings that are seeing vacant.

771
01:11:10,870 --> 01:11:15,310
We don't have a lot of like the industrial buildings. We don't have designated churches right now.

772
01:11:15,310 --> 01:11:22,050
Well, like hypothetically, the LICM building has been a residence, a chicken hatchery, an office building like it.

773
01:11:22,370 --> 01:11:22,390
Yes.

774
01:11:22,490 --> 01:11:28,810
It's been the whole gamut of zoning uses even if it never was zoned differently.

775
01:11:30,090 --> 01:11:30,670
Yes, exactly.

776
01:11:30,830 --> 01:11:36,090
So, variances don't apply to uses or we can't grant a variance from a use.

777
01:11:36,490 --> 01:11:41,750
But let's say somebody bought the LICM building and proposed a new permitted use.

778
01:11:43,090 --> 01:11:52,890
Yeah, I'm going to turn it. I want to turn it into a restaurant, right, and it's the only commercially viable option for that building, but in order to do it, I'm going to need to, I don't know.

779
01:11:53,790 --> 01:11:58,690
Yeah, change something so that I can get, have an accessible entrance or something on the front side, right?

780
01:11:58,690 --> 01:12:05,670
And so then we now we would be like, well, do we need a variance for that, or whatever you might have.

781
01:12:05,870 --> 01:12:07,530
And so then how would we navigate that process?

782
01:12:07,610 --> 01:12:13,410
Because in the interest of preserving the building, we want to say that's a practical difficulty and a justifiable one.

783
01:12:14,290 --> 01:12:14,670
Like, yeah.

784
01:12:14,850 --> 01:12:18,970
I mean, your Minneapolis example does actually say the HPC may grant variances.

785
01:12:19,510 --> 01:12:23,370
So that it seems like they have the power to do that.

786
01:12:23,730 --> 01:12:26,670
So they went to authorize the variance in its entirety.

787
01:12:28,310 --> 01:12:30,190
Yeah, so where this might come up is like, you know,

788
01:12:30,310 --> 01:12:32,130
height limitations or something like that, right?

789
01:12:32,230 --> 01:12:34,210
We might say in a low density residential district,

790
01:12:34,210 --> 01:12:35,670
well, we have a height limit of 30 feet.

791
01:12:35,710 --> 01:12:37,690
And you may have a church that's taller than that.

792
01:12:37,890 --> 01:12:40,290
In order to protect the integrity of that church,

793
01:12:41,070 --> 01:12:43,970
historic structure with any new addition,

794
01:12:44,130 --> 01:12:46,410
you would want that to exceed 30 feet as well,

795
01:12:46,450 --> 01:12:47,970
so that your roof line matches, right?

796
01:12:48,190 --> 01:12:49,970
So now we need a variance for that.

797
01:12:50,170 --> 01:12:52,490
This would help offer clarity that.

798
01:12:52,550 --> 01:12:54,490
Does a variance run with a land?

799
01:12:55,890 --> 01:12:57,490
It's a church burnt down.

800
01:12:57,630 --> 01:13:00,890
I mean, can you go as high as a church was before then?

801
01:13:01,970 --> 01:13:03,270
No, it would be...

802
01:13:03,270 --> 01:13:03,870
It would be a church.

803
01:13:04,410 --> 01:13:04,970
It would be a church.

804
01:13:05,310 --> 01:13:05,930
It would be a church.

805
01:13:05,930 --> 01:13:06,350
Yeah, it would be a church.

806
01:13:06,350 --> 01:13:07,350
We would be a church.

807
01:13:07,870 --> 01:13:07,970
Yeah.

808
01:13:07,970 --> 01:13:08,010
Yes.

809
01:13:08,010 --> 01:13:12,650
So you're approving the specific variance for this project for...

810
01:13:12,650 --> 01:13:13,590
Okay, based on.

811
01:13:13,810 --> 01:13:17,590
Not to assign you a bunch of research, but I'm just curious if you know...

812
01:13:17,590 --> 01:13:23,410
Are there other approaches beyond Minneapolis that tackle this in...

813
01:13:23,410 --> 01:13:28,350
interesting different ways this would be yeah certainly something that then and again like I said

814
01:13:28,350 --> 01:13:33,890
uh something else to look into uh and get some more feedback on but one of those things it's like

815
01:13:33,890 --> 01:13:41,390
thank you yeah add it to your to-do list. I think if you get to see similar size communities like ours

816
01:13:41,390 --> 01:13:47,450
and with with more limited scope of currently designated properties as well.

817
01:13:47,450 --> 01:13:50,970
I don't know if it's okay, I'm going to be out mad.

818
01:13:51,830 --> 01:13:53,090
So you're going to be pretty busy.

819
01:13:53,390 --> 01:13:55,050
Yeah, she's coming back.

820
01:13:55,250 --> 01:13:55,690
November.

821
01:13:56,970 --> 01:14:00,070
Sort of, I think she's planning a slow back on ramp.

822
01:14:00,190 --> 01:14:01,790
She transitions back into that.

823
01:14:03,270 --> 01:14:03,630
All right.

824
01:14:03,850 --> 01:14:07,510
What sounds like we have some fun things to look forward to.

825
01:14:07,530 --> 01:14:09,650
You put those together.

826
01:14:09,910 --> 01:14:14,970
I might also try to see if there I can find any resources and a PC website.

827
01:14:14,970 --> 01:14:24,370
I mean, if sure if you were to email my coup, you might be able to provide you some examples as well, too, or ask AI.

828
01:14:24,750 --> 01:14:28,310
You can ask chat, GPT, send us some zoning.

829
01:14:28,830 --> 01:14:30,570
Historic preservation and variances.

830
01:14:31,610 --> 01:14:32,090
Example.

831
01:14:32,430 --> 01:14:33,750
You can't look into how often these things are.

832
01:14:33,750 --> 01:14:40,190
So I just want to ask those, kind of really, well, we think they're not obscure, but see what it comes up with.

833
01:14:40,190 --> 01:14:45,310
All right, so I think we move to staff updates next.

834
01:14:45,350 --> 01:14:48,690
Thank you everybody for the discussion on those two items.

835
01:14:49,630 --> 01:14:53,350
Yes, and I did include some information on.

836
01:14:53,650 --> 01:14:56,010
As far as the amendment processes go,

837
01:14:56,970 --> 01:14:59,850
how we might amend those two expand some of the stories that might get.

838
01:15:00,000 --> 01:15:02,180
It told in

839
01:15:04,550 --> 01:15:08,010
there as well that we're, I think, quite interesting from the NAPC conference, so.

840
01:15:08,010 --> 01:15:22,250
Yeah, but how the LA? Yes, which was actually a very fascinating presentation on a building that lacked integrity, but had a very unique sort of historic status and and story.

841
01:15:22,250 --> 01:15:29,050
And so how do you navigate that when you have a building that lacks integrity, but is is there?

842
01:15:32,770 --> 01:15:33,250
And

843
01:15:35,480 --> 01:15:41,100
It had significance more for its story background story than its architecture.

844
01:15:41,780 --> 01:15:45,700
Yeah, which was actually it was a woman who ran a print shop. She was a nun.

845
01:15:47,160 --> 01:15:49,040
And so they ran this print shop for decades.

846
01:15:50,960 --> 01:15:57,340
was very prolific, and the building was up for a demolition or something, and they wanted

847
01:15:57,340 --> 01:16:03,660
to get it designated to kind of preserve that. But again, it lacked integrity because it had

848
01:16:03,660 --> 01:16:10,320
been turned over over the intervening decades. So, you know, 50 years is a long time to keep

849
01:16:10,320 --> 01:16:11,620
building around.

850
01:16:13,760 --> 01:16:21,840
Let's see, so City Council and Board and Commission updates, did provide the agenda items

851
01:16:21,840 --> 01:16:23,840
list, zoning code and update redesign.

852
01:16:24,040 --> 01:16:29,620
I will note the project website now has the preliminary recommendations report available

853
01:16:29,620 --> 01:16:30,800
on it.

854
01:16:30,960 --> 01:16:35,840
We will be kind of promoting that out, sending some news, blurbs, and social media, et cetera,

855
01:16:35,980 --> 01:16:37,740
that that's available for folks to review.

856
01:16:37,740 --> 01:17:01,540
The next step in the zoning code update process is the district and use standards, so our zoning districts, residential, commercial, industrial, etc., will sort of be the next step as those get drawn up, following that then we start to get more, it sort of goes more and more specific as we go.

857
01:17:02,900 --> 01:17:05,720
And so that's kind of where we're at.

858
01:17:07,240 --> 01:17:08,140
Let's see.

859
01:17:10,370 --> 01:17:14,890
Ames Mill Dam is just sort of slowly, you know,

860
01:17:15,170 --> 01:17:18,070
lingering there as things move very slowly around

861
01:17:18,070 --> 01:17:19,450
everybody has a lot of things to do.

862
01:17:20,170 --> 01:17:22,930
Minor COAs, 19 Bridge Square,

863
01:17:23,090 --> 01:17:24,770
which is where the Chamber of Commerce is located,

864
01:17:24,950 --> 01:17:26,790
was approved to repaint their repainting

865
01:17:26,790 --> 01:17:28,750
in the same color that it was.

866
01:17:29,090 --> 01:17:30,590
So that meant the minor work definition.

867
01:17:32,910 --> 01:17:36,970
CLA approved for replacing an upper-story rear window at the Eagles Club.

868
01:17:37,170 --> 01:17:38,110
There's a few apartments there.

869
01:17:38,230 --> 01:17:42,950
One of the upper-story windows in the rear was broken, so they were not original windows.

870
01:17:43,850 --> 01:17:48,830
It was replaced with the same, I believe, Marvin Brand window that had been there.

871
01:17:50,150 --> 01:17:55,010
And then another one for several upper-story windows at four and 18 division street.

872
01:17:55,550 --> 01:17:58,710
And those are not visible from the right of way.

873
01:17:59,670 --> 01:18:04,330
So I did include a few pictures for you on those.

874
01:18:05,030 --> 01:18:07,490
Here's the, this is before the repainting.

875
01:18:07,530 --> 01:18:09,590
You may not have noticed that it was repainted.

876
01:18:09,910 --> 01:18:10,730
It looks pretty good.

877
01:18:11,030 --> 01:18:13,170
Now, they also repainted the window frames

878
01:18:13,170 --> 01:18:14,410
in that same green color.

879
01:18:15,730 --> 01:18:20,610
And then also installed this welcome sign as well,

880
01:18:20,870 --> 01:18:22,170
which again, signs are mine or work.

881
01:18:22,530 --> 01:18:24,150
So that was all included under the same.

882
01:18:25,830 --> 01:18:26,630
See you away.

883
01:18:27,110 --> 01:18:28,510
Zoom out a little here on this one.

884
01:18:28,510 --> 01:18:32,650
The window on the right side is the one that was replaced.

885
01:18:32,790 --> 01:18:39,230
There was some deterioration there, or something was broken with that, so the window

886
01:18:39,230 --> 01:18:40,350
there was replaced.

887
01:18:43,340 --> 01:18:49,260
And then the Lockwood Opera windows are around the other side.

888
01:18:49,260 --> 01:18:51,440
They face the, they face division street.

889
01:18:51,980 --> 01:18:58,080
And this is the view from the parking lot on the other side of grass vet lane here, and you

890
01:18:58,080 --> 01:19:05,380
not see the windows there, so they did provide this image of those Western facing windows,

891
01:19:07,000 --> 01:19:08,100
kind of between those two roofs.

892
01:19:08,220 --> 01:19:12,700
You can sort of see this kind of bizarre, or this roof in the distance here, there's sort

893
01:19:12,700 --> 01:19:14,500
of a space in there, so that's where we're placed.

894
01:19:16,440 --> 01:19:20,400
And again, met the definition of minor work there, because those are not original windows.

895
01:19:21,260 --> 01:19:23,680
So, here's that.

896
01:19:23,680 --> 01:19:28,220
Let's see, other staff updates that did not make it on day here.

897
01:19:29,380 --> 01:19:34,040
We are finally, we did receive a grant for a preservation plan update.

898
01:19:34,380 --> 01:19:37,640
Our last preservation plan was done in 1991.

899
01:19:40,320 --> 01:19:47,320
And we are optimistic that the RFP requests for proposals will be going out to consultants

900
01:19:47,320 --> 01:19:52,620
in the very near future to try and solicit some responses for that for somebody to help

901
01:19:52,620 --> 01:19:55,280
put together an updated preservation plan.

902
01:19:55,300 --> 01:19:55,500
Hey.

903
01:19:56,160 --> 01:19:57,820
What was the grant amount?

904
01:20:00,000 --> 01:20:08,260
Something like 30, $2,000 or something like that. So, in the cities required to provide a match on that, but we can use staff and volunteer time.

905
01:20:09,960 --> 01:20:17,860
And so, we'll be looking at ways to sort of supplement any cash out lay by. Volunteering.

906
01:20:19,020 --> 01:20:28,760
If anyone's interested to help, you know, specifically around a, you know, community engagement is a really great opportunity to just kind of ask people about things and collect some community feedback.

907
01:20:28,760 --> 01:20:38,660
but that'll be I'll have more for you sort of as that process unfold and then the last piece was

908
01:20:38,660 --> 01:20:47,180
that we had it was suggested by a commissioner that potentially for maybe we discussed potentially

909
01:20:47,180 --> 01:20:53,800
this meeting but maybe next month doing a walking tour of downtown and kind of doing a reflection

910
01:20:53,800 --> 01:21:00,680
on the archer redevelopment project and the approval there, looking at some of the features

911
01:21:00,680 --> 01:21:06,620
of downtown buildings and discussing sort of some of those existing policies, how, you know,

912
01:21:06,660 --> 01:21:11,760
if there were elements that went well with that or things that, you know, we felt like the

913
01:21:11,760 --> 01:21:16,840
guidelines or the policies that we have were kind of allowing for an unintended or producing

914
01:21:16,840 --> 01:21:21,400
an unintended result, how we might, you know, identify some of those and say, this is how we

915
01:21:21,400 --> 01:21:24,420
would like to shift some of those policies

916
01:21:24,420 --> 01:21:27,720
to get something a little bit different.

917
01:21:29,480 --> 01:21:30,740
That felt a little better.

918
01:21:31,420 --> 01:21:37,320
So I don't have anything concrete for that yet,

919
01:21:37,900 --> 01:21:40,040
but just sort of, is there an openness to that?

920
01:21:40,040 --> 01:21:42,720
Is there an interest in, is there any points of discussions

921
01:21:42,720 --> 01:21:45,080
that anybody have anything that they would like to?

922
01:21:45,120 --> 01:21:47,500
Yeah, you and Scott and I had talked about it

923
01:21:47,500 --> 01:21:50,380
walking tour that we would sort of try to facilitate how

924
01:21:50,380 --> 01:21:56,960
do an open meeting while we're walking, but then maybe, you know, walk division

925
01:21:56,960 --> 01:22:02,600
street and most of the district and then maybe end up at the library and could

926
01:22:02,600 --> 01:22:07,420
sort of formally even have our meeting there to discuss. And I think that would

927
01:22:07,420 --> 01:22:10,460
be great. We'd probably have to do a little earlier if the sun is setting

928
01:22:10,460 --> 01:22:16,580
earlier if we were able to swing that in October. That might be good, but if it's

929
01:22:16,580 --> 01:22:20,640
going to happen. Yeah, October, sort of our last just given day lights or

930
01:22:20,640 --> 01:22:23,800
our last. We'll be interested in that because we could walk by buildings and

931
01:22:23,800 --> 01:22:30,120
talks some major. I think that's a great idea. Let's do it touch buildings.

932
01:22:31,560 --> 01:22:35,620
Yeah. Yeah. Would you sort of prefer we could do kind of a loop. We could leave from city hall,

933
01:22:36,980 --> 01:22:41,740
you know potentially the only potentially complicating factors if we have a COA application.

934
01:22:42,600 --> 01:22:46,320
So it might be we do something like that and then go. Although that doesn't push us a

935
01:22:46,320 --> 01:22:55,280
little bit later. Go in and talk about the COI at the end. We could, we could start

936
01:22:55,280 --> 01:23:01,740
at the other end and here. Yeah, walk back so yeah. I mean email me if you think if you walk

937
01:23:01,740 --> 01:23:08,720
it and see how much time it might take. We can do a walking meeting. Can we talk while we're

938
01:23:08,720 --> 01:23:09,520
me walking.

939
01:23:11,740 --> 01:23:12,000
Okay.

940
01:23:13,140 --> 01:23:15,600
Scott said he was going to try and figure this out.

941
01:23:15,920 --> 01:23:17,140
So let's see if he can do that.

942
01:23:17,820 --> 01:23:18,720
But we do it.

943
01:23:18,720 --> 01:23:19,920
You know, it is not uncommon.

944
01:23:20,300 --> 01:23:22,380
We can, you know, have these.

945
01:23:22,580 --> 01:23:23,860
You know, we don't have this.

946
01:23:23,960 --> 01:23:26,740
We just have to publicly notice that that is sort of where the eight

947
01:23:26,740 --> 01:23:28,520
P.C. members of the community could certainly join.

948
01:23:28,980 --> 01:23:30,540
I think that you can do this.

949
01:23:31,320 --> 01:23:31,440
Yep.

950
01:23:31,960 --> 01:23:35,800
The other thing I want to mention when you have the AIMS mill dam is for

951
01:23:35,800 --> 01:23:43,200
consideration of people might be interested doing a similar once that damn transfers to the city.

952
01:23:43,520 --> 01:23:49,020
I think it might be beneficial to have like we had our little subcommittee of three members

953
01:23:49,720 --> 01:23:57,900
or one or two that is involved on whatever that city group will be that decides the family

954
01:23:57,900 --> 01:24:06,880
to somebody from, either a subcommittee or somebody from our HPC needs to be on that.

955
01:24:07,300 --> 01:24:12,560
Task force, whatever they're going to be called, what will they be called?

956
01:24:13,460 --> 01:24:13,740
Yes.

957
01:24:14,160 --> 01:24:16,520
And that is a great, that is a, yeah, that's a good,

958
01:24:18,540 --> 01:24:19,600
that's a good question.

959
01:24:19,680 --> 01:24:23,730
Because it's another thing of coming the same with the library we want, I think we want to

960
01:24:23,730 --> 01:24:28,350
Lloyd, that, oh, we've made a decision, review this HPC.

961
01:24:28,750 --> 01:24:33,790
We, I think, having preservation commission expertise,

962
01:24:34,130 --> 01:24:37,050
I don't know, early stage, one city gets games ownership.

963
01:24:37,350 --> 01:24:39,030
We'll be beneficial for everybody.

964
01:24:39,550 --> 01:24:40,570
Sure, yes, yeah.

965
01:24:41,110 --> 01:24:42,850
OK, that's my last word.

966
01:24:43,050 --> 01:24:44,490
Any other last words?

967
01:24:45,530 --> 01:24:49,630
Then maybe I think we're ready to adjourn.

968
01:24:51,170 --> 01:24:52,030
Are we ready to?

969
01:24:52,330 --> 01:24:54,150
Wait, do I have to make a motion to adjourn?

970
01:24:54,150 --> 01:24:56,650
No, I don't know, you just slam the gavel.

971
01:24:56,690 --> 01:24:59,970
A last minute for this meeting is adjourned.

972
01:25:01,420 --> 01:25:03,920
725 p.m. Thank you.