[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:11] Chair Bimers, Commissioner Clark, Commissioner Jarman, Commissioner Hatcha Chonka, Commissioner Stangler, Vice Chair Street, and Commissioner Tully. Thank you.
[0:35] Sorry good.
[0:57] Do we need to approve the agenda first?
[1:00] Didn't we just do that?
[1:01] We just made the motion.
[1:02] We will.
[1:03] Second.
[1:08] All right.
[1:15] Hi.
[1:16] And one of those.
[1:21] That's where you coach here.
[1:22] Thank you.
[1:23] Thanks a lot.
[1:24] Thank you.
[1:29] Thank you.
[1:30] Motion two.
[1:31] And yes.
[1:33] Some of them.
[3:10] Yes,
[3:16] thank you chair. I do have a presentation prepared but just a quick recap on what is being asked of the
[3:28] 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.
[3:41] 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.
[3:54] on that, and generally, the land development code establishes guidelines for adjacent buildings
[4:04] that are intended to ensure they, while are not held to necessarily the same standard,
[4:11] as historic buildings within the historic district are sort of reflective of a similar,
[4:19] you know, aesthetic and quality, et cetera.
[4:21] So that is what we're doing here.
[4:25] 108 fifth street is the building in question.
[4:28] It's not within the district.
[4:30] And based on the 2016 survey or reservate
[4:34] that was done is considered ineligible for listing
[4:38] due to significant loss of integrity.
[4:43] And I did a search of city records, which usually
[4:46] are mostly limited to building permits.
[4:51] handwritten note, sometimes in there. The ground floor front facade was likely to have been constructed.
[5:00] That are reconstructed in the 70s. And the upper story was added in approximately 1990.
[5:08] 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.
[5:18] So, but, yeah, there's no clear rule for pink colors
[5:23] in a stylistically mixed group of buildings
[5:25] like those in the district, other than two avoid
[5:28] bright or unusual colors.
[5:31] This idea of Northfield strongly recommends property owners
[5:34] keep their buildings regularly painted
[5:35] and follow these guidelines in selecting
[5:37] the type and color of paint.
[5:40] Mostly that was, if oil paint has been used,
[5:42] oil-based paint, continue using oil-based paint,
[5:45] that's just sort of a practical piece of advice.
[5:48] don't switch over to latex, but if latex has been used or a latex-based paint, then continue
[5:54] using that, and trim elements that have the same function should be the same color, and
[6:03] color should be consistent, you know, generally across the, across the building, but a
[6:11] avoid painting masonry that is not painted, that generally applies to historic brick, because
[6:15] paint can deteriorate it and by trapping moisture within the brick. And so that's just again more
[6:23] of a practical preservation piece of guidance there. So then I will pull up the presentation I
[6:32] prepared.
[6:35] Oh yeah. Jump to this one.
[6:40] Perfect. And so the building. This is one
[6:45] of eight fifth street east.
[6:48] It's currently home to Mercado Locale and I believe
[6:51] some apartments at least one apartment above. I don't have a unit count there.
[6:56] But you can see that brick facade on the front. And then that second story, despite
[7:02] that sort of faux boomtown block, kind of styling, and the wood siding that does kind of mimic
[7:09] a historic wood siding is in fact added much later. And then you can see that cinderbuck
[7:16] siding exposed there. The patio for reunion is kind of what you're seeing that stairway on
[7:25] the far right of that. So that is what's adjacent to this.
[7:31] Again, I kind of reviewed this, but comment is asked to comment.
[7:39] And so here's the existing building, and it's current color scheme, featuring sort of a
[7:44] tan gray and sort of a darker neutral, kind of a muted red brown color.
[7:52] And the proposal is to go with more of a slate, and then kind of a similar gray tan color.
[7:58] 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.
[8:11] I have not received clarification if this the mural depicted here is in fact the the final proposal for the mural.
[8:19] Or if this is sort of an artist's representation of what you might include as the mural there.
[8:28] the public our process is slightly different here.
[8:33] Or is subject to a different review process?
[8:37] So, and then again, not eligible due to a very poor integrity,
[8:43] but was built in 1900.
[8:47] No additional info was included in the 2016 survey and the second story was added in 1990.
[8:54] That's essentially the end of my presentation.
[8:58] All right. Thank you. So I had a question. You mentioned that this is going through the public
[9:06] art review process for the city. Yeah, I would imagine. I would imagine. So getting funding
[9:13] for the public art is that why are it just? Yeah, generally they would apply for funding from the
[9:19] the 1% for the arts fund. And so that is funded several other murals like the one on Domino's
[9:25] What's paid for through that?
[9:28] And the one in Lune, or you know?
[9:30] Yes, that would have also been funded through that 1%.
[9:34] Funding and then some of the other murals downtown,
[9:36] like the pedestrian bridge that's down there in some of those as well.
[9:41] And the storm drains, and I don't know if you've seen some of the paintings on the storm drains,
[9:44] or any of them, those were I believe funded through that as well.
[9:47] So thanks.
[9:49] So yeah, we don't have a certificate of appropriateness for this.
[9:52] 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.
[10:00] 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.
[10:14] 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.
[10:25] You look right up the street scape, and it's not an eye catcher, or a juxtaposition, or anything
[10:31] to close.
[10:33] The mirror, I think, is really an added feature, just because if you're sitting at two
[10:37] things, one, it kind of blends the dumpsters in a little bit better than the bread, the red
[10:41] brick, which I really like, because I don't want to see somebody's trash, but if you're sitting
[10:47] out in the patio, you have something interesting to look at instead of just a red wall
[10:51] with a dumpster.
[10:52] So I think it compliments just, you know, a visual, street scape and everything, great color scheme, so that's my skin.
[11:03] 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.
[11:18] adversely impacts the historic district.
[11:21] I guess I would say I think it's important to stay just on that first level.
[11:27] I couldn't or do you foresee the mural getting larger and taking over the entire side of the building?
[11:36] This is all that I've received so far as the proposal.
[11:40] Yeah, I haven't seen anything else that would indicate that it would be expanding beyond this.
[11:48] Would you come back to us for comment if this scope changes significantly or no?
[11:59] We certainly could bring it back for comment on it.
[12:06] 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.
[12:23] But public art process is subject to review by the public art review committee so they'll set up a committee.
[12:33] 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.
[12:46] But adjacent to I can also verify if they'll be looking for somebody to serve on that.
[12:49] 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
[12:57] With that sort of being not a stipulation, but a concern so that they have that address to them when they can be
[13:04] preference. We could certainly yeah, so the HPC does provide comment and
[13:08] 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
[13:16] Then we would just ask that like
[13:18] You know, any comment be kind of voted on to represent,
[13:22] ensure that it represents the sentiment of the commission as a whole.
[13:26] Yeah, so if it's, we would like to see it on that first level,
[13:29] and not really get up into the second level too far.
[13:31] I think it, this go, I mean, it does sort of,
[13:33] it's part of it, part of the leaves and petals are going onto the,
[13:37] but I think anything higher is going to have more of a visual impact
[13:41] in the historic district.
[13:42] So I think the way it's proposed now is appropriate to the adjacent
[13:48] district, but I think anything larger than that could potentially tip it in the other direction.
[13:56] I would say if the scope of the mural changes so that it's going to be above
[14:02] where it is now or larger, then we probably would have additional comment on that or in another
[14:10] way of saying the scope of what it is right now is appropriate. I hate to sort of draw a line on it,
[14:17] But I think any major change would need additional consideration.
[14:26] So you would ask that if the mural, whatever the proposal is,
[14:30] if it's differ significantly from this, either in size or...
[14:34] Colors, colors, design, design, et cetera,
[14:38] that it come back to the additional comment.
[14:40] That would be my recommendation, yeah.
[14:42] Yeah, I'd like to restrict it just to the kind of queued block,
[14:44] and not the sighting, the cloudward sighting.
[14:48] is some encroachment on the siding at all or at least a place.
[14:52] Yeah, what's shown here, I think is appropriate.
[14:55] That's that first level.
[14:57] OK.
[14:57] And so would we want a motion.
[14:59] Is there any other...
[15:00] 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.
[15:15] We can do, we can do individual motions on each comment, or we can kind of have a group of comments, sort of.
[15:23] So the motion could be something like
[15:27] would we need to make a motion even if we're not?
[15:31] Even if it's just informal comment from the HPC?
[15:35] Yeah, I think it would be advisable
[15:37] if any comments are going to go forward to the public art review commission, et cetera,
[15:41] that we wouldn't want to ensure that they reflect the sentiments of the HPC generally
[15:46] as opposed to
[15:48] the you know one commissioners opinion or you know whatever. And I think we could probably
[15:53] wrap it into one single motion that would. And so I mean I could move that we recommend
[16:01] that the painting the color, the scheme and all that is acceptable and that mural is fascinating
[16:10] and we approve of it so long as it maintains the integrity of the lower half of the building
[16:17] on the concrete block. It can't extend, perhaps, if there's a pedal or two, but the way it is here,
[16:26] but I think they can restrict it to that.
[16:31] And that blends in very well with the street scape.
[16:34] Let's count them in to each of it. So I think that probably gets to it if
[16:42] something that Matt was y'all are for our consideration. Okay. And any second on that motion?
[16:53] How second it? Any discussion? That motion?
[16:59] They're the awfully we can write down in the comments. If there's, if there's a
[17:03] alley wall that needs a meal, that's certainly the one in town that needs it.
[17:09] Just to be clear on the motion, is there a request that if it changes it comes back to the
[17:14] That would be the sort of the gist of that or that as I think it's significantly changes
[17:20] That is the
[17:22] Maybe the color scheme of the mural and the size of the mural if it's larger than the scope of our recommendation
[17:28] What we're seeing today? Yeah, yeah
[17:32] And I'd like to see it again
[17:36] I think that would justify
[17:37] sub-squared you.
[17:43] All right, so we have that motion. Is it clear to everybody?
[17:49] All in favor of of the motion, please say aye.
[17:53] Hi. Any opposed? I need to recuse myself on this. And one recusel.
[18:02] All right, thank you everybody.
[18:07] All right.
[18:10] It looks like we have a couple topics to discuss
[18:15] amendments to historic. Though they're presented a little bit in a little bit different order.
[18:20] even though you have discussion of historic variances and amendments to local historic
[18:25] state designations. So I guess if you would summarize for us. Yeah, I'll give you the sort
[18:34] of high-level overview. As many of you are aware, we are in the process of rewriting the land
[18:41] development code. And so as part of that, we have discussed a variety of historic preservation,
[18:49] historic district standards that we might revise and change.
[18:54] I think generally we did signs recently, we didn't overhaul of that,
[18:57] and so I think we're really looking at changing a lot with signs,
[19:00] but the discussions about some of the more controversial things,
[19:03] balconies, for instance, or the visibility of solar panels, et cetera.
[19:08] So, in kind of following along a couple of trends,
[19:12] more recently, in preservation a couple of other things that have been discussed,
[19:17] And I will just go in order that they're in the staff report here is the Heritage Site Designation Amendment Process.
[19:24] 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.
[19:45] are supposed to be retained, and so there's a little bit of a nebulous thing where you
[19:52] may have a building that's been modified, but it was modified so long ago that now that
[19:55] new features historic, and then there's the question.
[20:00] Well, should it go back further from that or should it stay at that point?
[20:07] And in order to provide clarity around that, we can have an amendment process in our code.
[20:14] That would provide an opportunity to acknowledge a new and amended designation. That would accept a later modification as being historic,
[20:29] right?
[20:29] started in 1981, and so, you know, we're just about five years out from the district of
[20:36] South being, being 50 years old, which means things that were new construction at the time,
[20:43] were things that were potentially spurring the, you know, the preservationist movement,
[20:47] and kind of a reaction to some redevelopment that was undesirable, considered undesirable.
[20:52] Some of those elements may meet the criteria
[20:57] for being historic now, and so having some oversight
[21:01] about what those things might be is good.
[21:04] But then also there's an element of when
[21:07] the preservation movement was happening in the late 70s
[21:10] and early 80s.
[21:12] And currently,
[21:16] historic sites often reflect a very patriarchal
[21:20] white male, society where individuals who had power back then were very influential and then
[21:27] that has shown kind of through the stories that we tell them what gets designated and then
[21:31] what's actually contained within that designation, which is the justification for why something
[21:36] should be considered significant historically.
[21:40] And so being able to modify those or amend those as kind of more research is done to get a
[21:47] of the story that can be told about the history of our city or of a historic site or a heritage preservation site.
[21:55] Having a clear process that allows for that amendment to be put into place and expand that as something that,
[22:02] you know, I think there's benefit too.
[22:05] And so what I've done at this point is just kind of grab the designation amendments piece from Minneapolis as a city.
[22:16] and so provide that language as an example.
[22:22] And kind of how that goes, it's very similar to a normal designation.
[22:29] And in that there has to be some research done,
[22:32] there's basically a than a case made for, you know,
[22:35] amending that designation.
[22:38] And then it goes through a process of some kind of voting
[22:41] with our heritage preservation designation process.
[22:44] We get a recommendation from the HPC and then that goes to City Council for a final
[22:51] final vote and I would imagine this would be a very similar kind of process.
[22:55] HPC would make a recommendation to amend that now on the as far as a national designation
[23:01] goes or amending the national level that I think that local support can help
[23:06] permending a national designation, but it may not necessarily
[23:12] that the acceptance of that amendment would have to be is done at the federal level
[23:18] and done by the national park server. So that's something that else that we would be looking
[23:22] not necessarily here to incorporate, but would be sort of the role of like community partners,
[23:29] you know, the historical society, et cetera, it might be an as an example of an entity that
[23:34] can kind of move some of those things forward,
[23:36] or we can look at grant funding to move some of those forward,
[23:39] if there was interest there.
[23:42] And then it also allows us to remove a landmark
[23:44] from designation, would be another key piece of this.
[23:47] So in the event that something is a site is lost
[23:53] through demolition or other means,
[23:57] it can be removed from the designation.
[24:02] 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.
[24:12] That allows for redevelopment without being subject to those criteria, right?
[24:20] 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.
[24:32] So, it's a couple of key questions, whether additional criteria for local significance should
[24:38] be considered or added and then does the text from Minneapolis seem appropriate.
[24:46] So, in considering how we assess local designations, are there any additional criteria we
[24:52] should be considering that might help us amend some of these.
[25:00] To tell a story of what's been significant in the history of Northfield, you know, that aren't currently there.
[25:08] 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.
[25:19] 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.
[25:31] I think it's good. This is a good idea just working in the field for as long as I have
[25:38] old even though our local designation was updated in 2016. It's now 10 years old and new
[25:47] information is sometimes garnered about historic properties. Some that may be considered
[25:52] non-contributing. If new information comes about about an area of significance that wasn't looked at
[25:59] before it may be actually contributing, building to the district, and then I think also considering
[26:06] boundaries, so here in the Minneapolis example, it says that the boundary can be expanded
[26:14] through an amendment, but not reduced. I think that's kind of interesting that that's in there.
[26:21] Anyway, we don't need to get into that right now, but I don't know.
[26:25] fair point for discussion as well, cherry, and I'm sorry to interrupt.
[26:29] Yeah, no, I think, I mean, I think really boundary should look, be looked at for both expansion
[26:33] or reduction. Again, if a property is lost or mostly demolished or is removed from a district,
[26:46] a boundary may need to be modified. So, and then the removal from designation, which makes sense
[26:52] just to sort of keep the record clean buildings that do and may be lost and removing them
[27:00] from the official designation. So I think all those categories make sense to me and all
[27:04] of other people out here.
[27:08] The Minneapolis example uses the term the planning director shall make
[27:14] decision, is do we have a planning director of different type of
[27:22] equivalent?
[27:23] Yeah.
[27:25] In a city with multiple planners or many multiple planners, I should say
[27:29] usually varying fields of expertise, often a city of size of manyapolis
[27:33] will have preservation planners on staff. Yeah,
[27:38] no, we don't. That would
[27:39] be essentially the city planner in our field. It would
[27:41] be the equivalent.
[27:43] So it would be listed as city planners, I'd be Michaela, I mean at this time you.
[27:48] So whatever the equivalent city title is for Northfield, it would be there.
[27:55] What how do people think about these types of instances where an amendment would be appropriate?
[28:05] I think it looks, I mean I've read through them and I thought it feels like it's less vague and more specific.
[28:13] And I think we would benefit with more specificity in that way.
[28:19] Yeah.
[28:20] What would the scenario be where absent the property being destroyed by fire
[28:29] or other peril?
[28:30] And a men would be made to remove a property that had otherwise previously been approved
[28:37] as contributing to a historic district?
[28:41] Or designated as a historic site?
[28:43] Yeah. And I guess further, how if we wanted to allow such a thing, how could we create a very strong
[28:53] dissent political disincentive for such a thing being allowed unless there were some sort of
[28:59] extreme rationale for it. But detriment of a four person vote removing historic designation
[29:06] for something seems really dangerous to me. That I get. But if we vote that we don't
[29:14] like the story behind this building.
[29:16] So now it's out this week seems really dangerous to me.
[29:23] The fire, the fire I don't have a quibble with.
[29:25] You think that would be the voting to remove.
[29:28] Because of a lack of historic significance.
[29:31] Because of a lack of historic significance.
[29:36] After property had already been applied and approved through the normal approval process
[29:41] for it to be removed for any reason other than its destruction.
[29:44] I didn't really think of that scenario. I think more of things being added.
[29:51] Right. I mean, we're able to contemplate here that unless it's destroyed,
[29:55] you can only add. But we were discussing the possibility of the amendment, including room.
[30:00] Two, full four regions other than destruction.
[30:03] The yes. Yeah, and I think that is a very good question and potentially point of discussion.
[30:13] So, in my limited experience, I could imagine somebody might buy a historic property,
[30:20] purchase one that is for sale on an open market. Now, in our district, we don't have a lot
[30:25] single family home. Some districts will incorporate adjacent historic neighborhoods. We don't
[30:30] currently have a residential neighborhood designated as historic or anything like that. As I mentioned,
[30:35] we have a couple of one offs here and there. Hypothetically, somebody could buy one of those purchased
[30:40] one and find that they were in their mind unreasonably restrained in the use of their property
[30:50] because of that designation, and they may request that they were no longer designated historic.
[30:57] They would have to make the argument that, or presumably they would have to make an argument
[31:01] that it was, I would imagine, designated an error or something, or that the significance wasn't,
[31:07] it was unduly recommended or something like that. That's kind of odd, but that would be a scenario
[31:14] where I think somebody would be requesting that. It's like, oh, I bought this historic house,
[31:19] actually want to turn it into something else, or do you know?
[31:22] It's not my concern is there's no process laid out in these amendments. It just defines
[31:27] that there are rights, but doesn't say how those would be applied, and I think my concern for
[31:33] that particular scenario is does it like addition's process just require a vote of four here in a
[31:41] vote of four in the council, or is there a more strenuous process to remove something that a
[31:47] or body did deem significant just because times have changed or someone like something or doesn't
[31:53] like something.
[31:55] Well, to take it like the National Register example, similar to what you mean when I was
[31:59] with the state, we get inquiries like, oh, my properties listed in the National Register,
[32:06] I don't want it to be listed anymore.
[32:08] And there are criteria for removing properties in the federal code and it's, yes, usually
[32:14] 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.
[32:28] So it has to be something pretty fairly objective.
[32:31] It can't just be because we don't want it to be significant anymore because that just doesn't go away.
[32:37] So maybe that's why Minneapolis limited to destroyed by fire or other peril in order to avoid getting into the...
[32:47] I'm intrigued by the approved in error as an exception, but that would be very specific.
[32:53] 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.
[33:03] unless you're a public entity, you can't just be that.
[33:07] But that, I mean, that could be added to if somebody
[33:12] uncovered something at some point that said,
[33:14] oh, you never notified me, City of Northfield,
[33:16] that my property is designated as a local landmark.
[33:22] So I would see that as the only other fairly objective example
[33:26] to put in that removal section.
[33:31] I wonder if any other cities have examples
[33:33] like that, like, a mistake was made, a legal mistake in the process.
[33:38] Are we voting on anything, or are we just-
[33:40] No, no, this is just a discussion, you know, and so looking forward.
[33:44] Additional considerations is, it sounds, you know, like, is there a general sort of, like,
[33:49] we think in a amendment process is a good idea.
[33:51] I think so, yeah.
[33:52] I think so.
[33:52] Seems like that's kind of the gist, I'm getting, and we're seeing that.
[33:55] Maybe removal would be okay, but like Minneapolis, we want it limited.
[34:01] Yes.
[34:01] Yeah, um, if we collectively think this is a good idea, does the, does it, would we see some draft language next?
[34:12] Oh, yeah.
[34:13] Oh, yeah.
[34:13] Yeah.
[34:15] Yeah.
[34:15] That would be, yeah.
[34:16] We would, we would bring, I would develop some draft language that would be sort of like,
[34:20] this is what we're thinking for an amendment process.
[34:23] And this is sort of to provide a broad overview.
[34:26] Um, and so I like the, you know, I can't think of everything.
[34:30] 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
[34:44] thought more appropriate than others and does that actually swing the significance of a property.
[34:50] It's such that it might be un-designated or re-mannered.
[34:53] That's actually my concern.
[34:55] Is that changing cultural norms, have us just wipe the whole slick?
[35:00] We don't, we don't like the 1870s anymore, or something.
[35:04] I'm going to say in line, where you see this happening is on collegiate buildings named after a donor
[35:17] or say in Northfield on the public school and suddenly the donor, if it's John C. Calhoun or
[35:29] or civil, civil, civil, civil,
[35:33] suddenly is now looked as not a great ideal to put forward.
[35:42] Then, we're likely, I'm my concern as long as
[35:47] the streets with that.
[35:50] We live in a very contentious time,
[35:54] and part of that contentious contentious
[35:58] is taking away historic names,
[36:04] and that gets into a really contentious kind of debate, and
[36:15] the Northwestern University wanted to remove the name of one of the founders because
[36:23] 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.
[36:44] naming of properties gets complicated thankfully. The name is usually not going to
[36:52] physically alter. It's sort of chiseled into building.
[36:58] Well, the Kennedy Center might be an example of, yeah, that's a historic. That's a
[37:04] building, actually. So we want to avoid as much as possible. The way this can become
[37:12] political issue. I think I think it would be good to see I'm a very visual learner, so to
[37:21] see the Northfield version of what this might look like. I don't have the opportunity to
[37:27] review that. I was just curious too about the procedural aspect of this because so many things
[37:35] LDC related don't go to the city council to go to the planning commission. So is that going to be a
[37:43] sub step before our recommendations move forward? Does it have to go to the planning commission?
[37:49] Do I know what all these? I think what is that a type three procedure or something that
[37:53] the recommendation it splits and says goes to the council or goes to the planning commission?
[37:59] What determines where it goes?
[38:01] Yeah, that was after we, after we would review an amendment,
[38:05] what happens to it.
[38:07] Yeah, I mean, there's so many times that we went through this with all these projects we did in the past and say,
[38:12] well, that's going to go to the planning commission,
[38:14] or that's going right to the city council in the diagrams,
[38:19] and right in the ordinances,
[38:24] it's not 100% clear which way it's going to go.
[38:26] It says either or.
[38:28] and so I always want a little before I make a decision on LDC or recommendation on the LDC.
[38:36] How much is going to channel up? Yeah, absolutely. Do you have any thoughts on that? So with our
[38:43] designation process, I had the, I had the language pulled up here.
[38:52] Let's see,
[39:03] let's
[39:08] see, review
[39:09] decision by city council, I'm trying to see what the planning commission was, they can
[39:16] so city council normally would make the decision and they can request recommendation from the
[39:23] planning commission, yes.
[39:30] So it had to go to the city first in council first and then they could
[39:33] after, for the time, send it down to the point of communication.
[39:37] Yeah, I just forgot what we would see.
[39:39] Well, we would see, of course.
[39:41] And he's asking what would happen after we saw him.
[39:44] He's not what you're asking.
[39:45] We would see an amendment.
[39:47] Well, right here, it says, you know, we would make recommendations
[39:50] to the city council.
[39:52] Not to the point of communication.
[39:54] I mean, this is the Minneapolis language.
[39:57] Yes.
[39:58] Oh, what it's like.
[39:59] That's what I wanted to do.
[40:00] 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
[40:31] passion for all the arguments that we stated here, they just randomly made a decision and
[40:37] sent it to the city. And so I want to make sure that our recommendations, if they
[40:43] are going to be channeled not directly to the city council,
[40:49] I don't know why there wouldn't
[40:50] be actually.
[40:53] I think they should be. And I want to make sure that that would be the council.
[40:56] Yeah, I think that needs to be something when we do this whole ordinance.
[40:59] 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
[41:08] So you would like Matthias when he writes the draft for us to write it like this that these recommendations go to come
[41:15] That's my point. Yes. Thank you
[41:17] Okay, yeah, and are not that not the plan commission. Yeah, unless you know unless there's some LDC violation that
[41:27] We don't understand, but you should, I mean, staff would know that before they put this
[41:32] on our agenda.
[41:38] And another thing I'm kind of confused with, because like, if something does burn down and
[41:43] it is a landmark, if it's in the district, is that different than if it's not in the district.
[41:49] And so how do we treat that?
[41:51] Yes, it's a...
[41:52] It's a listing.
[41:52] It's the same, in this terminology, they're using landmark to be a property within a district
[41:59] or an individual property.
[42:03] The landmark designation is the same, so-
[42:06] Then we really asked you how to classify the example.
[42:08] It's a district, it burned down.
[42:12] We didn't de-list it, but it kind of came through the rehab.
[42:19] I mean, something should probably be clarified in city code to say in the
[42:26] archer house is now. It doesn't exist anymore. That's something like that
[42:31] happened when it burned now because we didn't. We don't have the
[42:35] amendment designation. Yep. And so we do have a, we do have an
[42:43] amendment or delisting process spelled out in our code a little bit. It's a
[42:48] a little bit ambiguous though, in that we do have like the replacement in the infill guidelines
[42:55] as well for new construction. And so this is one of those, and the Ultra House is a really
[43:01] good example of where we did lose a project, but it's within the district. And so should a replacement
[43:09] building follow those guidelines or not, and that would be a good question for, is that criteria
[43:16] before amending something and would, would the justification that, you know, my new construction,
[43:24] I don't want to follow the infill guidelines or the new construction guidelines of
[43:27] a historic site, be enough to justify a delisting.
[43:35] And so the archer fire was at some point somebody voted to deem it a no longer contributing
[43:43] property, but still within the boundary. And the vote here would be if we passed an amendment
[43:51] like this, would be to redraw the boundary with that building out of the boundary even though
[43:58] it's non-contributing either way.
[44:01] Yeah, I don't believe that a vote was ever taken that would save the archers no longer.
[44:06] Contributing to the district, the building is gone, right? But in theory, because in the practice
[44:11] preservation we do have reconstruction right and so if somebody for property owner were
[44:16] to in the case of like the archer house as a good example we're to say I want to actually
[44:21] rebuild the archer house like it was as best I can then I don't know chair would that still be
[44:29] a contributing building if it is a I mean with the standards for reconstruction it's so rigorous
[44:37] that it would be unlikely that anybody would reconstruct something to that because it literally
[44:42] has to be every single material and every single dimension has to be exactly as the historic
[44:47] building was with the from porch and everything that was there. So unlikely and would it be considered
[44:55] contributing as a reconstruction that would be in nationalism.
[45:00] 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.
[45:14] 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.
[45:29] by fire, it should technically be removed from the paperwork that says Archer House is in
[45:37] the historic district. It does not exist anymore. The boundary still goes around that empty
[45:42] lot, so it's still in the district, so a new construction applies, which is why we reviewed
[45:46] all that. Not to keep rehashing Archer over. Right, but that's an example. It seems like there
[45:51] should have been some sort of... To clean it up. To declare a head of all the votes that
[45:56] take in here about improving stuff to declare what its status was going into those proposals.
[46:02] The boundary, it's still an empty site within the historic district, but that the previous building
[46:09] doesn't exist anymore. Yeah, some sort of cleanup in the in the recordation. The other part,
[46:16] and then I'm wondering about the historic district boundaries, where it says they can be expanded
[46:21] in a minute, but not reduced.
[46:25] So, in national register realm, you can do both.
[46:28] You have to go through the full process of actually it's more work
[46:32] to expand a national register boundary than to reduce it,
[46:36] because you've lost integrity at the edges.
[46:39] It's actually easier to make a boundary smaller in the national register,
[46:44] so I'm just confused as to why they wrote it that way.
[46:46] But I don't know if we'd want to include a reduction provision in our.
[46:53] I don't.
[46:54] So if you lose the landmark, but it's in the district, you haven't lost the district.
[47:01] No, you haven't.
[47:02] You just lost one of the features within that district.
[47:06] So why would you cut it out of the boundaries?
[47:10] Well, at that, I mean, if it's at the edge and your edges are starting to get.
[47:15] I'm surprised in integrity.
[47:16] Not that clear where it's located.
[47:18] Right, it could be anywhere in the case.
[47:21] Again, in the case of archer, it was at the edge.
[47:24] But you're right, if it's in the middle,
[47:25] that's even more important not to redraw or pull in.
[47:29] The district survives.
[47:30] I mean, it seems to be the rule of the land.
[47:33] And that's why it's important to do.
[47:35] Right.
[47:35] The subsequent design review is to take your final apology.
[47:39] Right.
[47:39] The integrity of the district.
[47:40] Right.
[47:42] So I don't know if that would have
[47:44] want that to apply about reducing because a landmark within a district doesn't mean that
[47:50] we're going to deal with that portion of the district or anything of that.
[47:55] Just bring it up as a discussion. I agree though. I don't think any of this is automatic.
[48:01] Right. Yes. And that would be sort of like, let's it should be established a process for this.
[48:08] That's what we're looking. That's what I'm looking for out of the discussion is what feels
[48:12] 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.
[48:21] It happens coincidentally in this case to be at the edge of a district.
[48:25] 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
[48:42] that building no longer had to meet the new construction standards that apply within the district.
[48:52] or is it more appropriate to say no we have the district the district should the integrity
[48:57] of the district should be protected and even if a building is lost at the edge just
[49:01] like if a building was lost in the middle we aren't we don't want to redraw that boundary
[49:06] to exclude them and we want those standards to continue to apply that would be sort of the
[49:11] direction that we're looking for. It's kind of the sense I'm getting is that maybe Minneapolis
[49:16] is on to something here to say we're not going to reduce those boundaries even if
[49:21] we lose something at the edge?
[49:23] Yeah, I mean, a parallel example in some ways is the library.
[49:28] Yeah, I guess.
[49:29] The library had the addition, that changed its character, but it still is in the district,
[49:38] and the historic part of the library is still very much visible and extent, right there.
[49:47] So, and I wasn't here during that period, was there an explicit decision by the HPC that, that, that, that.
[50:00] Audition would de-certify the building as a contributing property, as a Carnegie historic.
[50:07] Actually, I was on the HBCO's a whole thing too.
[50:10] You were too, and I remember it does actually did not agree with the proposed, because for that reason
[50:16] of the proposed jewel box edition was, in my opinion, an adverse, if I didn't meet the Secretary
[50:25] standards for, for a new addition. We talked about sort of tucking it under the
[50:30] Eve, making it a little bit, like having less glass, kind of like the 1990s,
[50:37] in 1980s, or 1990s, at this point. Right. So we talked about a lot of things and made
[50:43] many records. You could probably like back at the record. I don't know what our final decision
[50:49] was if there was, if it wasn't true, I don't know was we had a chance to vote it down. I
[50:55] And it was, it's a classic case of the city doing a project going through the whole project
[51:02] and having the whole design.
[51:03] I mean, to us at the last minute.
[51:06] And the only thing that it's done.
[51:09] Yeah, exactly.
[51:10] I mean, at that point, it sort of, you're sort of stuck.
[51:14] I think it was brought up because that was sort of the time when the city didn't think
[51:20] they needed HPC to review their own projects.
[51:23] 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.
[51:43] Then once the decision was made to move forward with that addition, at what point did someone declare that it was no longer contributing?
[51:52] 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.
[52:12] 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.
[52:32] But our district local landmarks, do they have, they do have non-contributing contributing designations, right? I should know that.
[52:42] in our landmark ordinance locally I would have to review the ordinance a little bit more closely I think
[52:50] our local designations are intended to be
[52:56] it's that famous for national register right yeah yeah they have very similar criteria and the
[53:00] ideas that like we're looking for things with integrity that do meet those significance criteria
[53:05] that's how that happened I'm raising it the COA process isn't part of this discussion but
[53:12] I'm curious if since this is about amendments to contributing non-contributing boundaries, et cetera,
[53:19] if there's any language to not accidentally lose buildings for weird reasons like that.
[53:27] Like setting aside the politics of a city project or whatever, like that a building somehow gets approved
[53:33] and getting approved means it's no longer in the district feels absurd and backwards.
[53:41] And I don't know how to address that because that was a C.O.A. approval that then approved
[53:47] a building that we then we deemed to have changed.
[53:53] But if we're talking about how do we write the rules so that buildings have clear designation
[54:00] that is permanent and less they are destroyed by other peril.
[54:07] I mean not anyone, I think the fact that it's the library in the city is a red
[54:13] hearing for the question of could someone accidentally sneak through a COA
[54:19] that we don't realize five years later means it's not a contributing property anymore,
[54:25] even though we all wanted it to be the whole time.
[54:28] Well, and I think this raises a good question, especially, you know, the library being a good
[54:33] example, potentially, and not having the history on it that, you know, maybe commissioner,
[54:40] dirt chair by him or as a commissioner.
[54:44] Clark does. It was 13 years ago. It was a while ago
[54:49] that edition went on. And I had been sort of told that, you know, again, I have not been here that
[54:58] long enough to have that history.
[55:00] I've been told that there was an attempt to design something that would kind of retain the significance of that building.
[55:07] Now, of course, I don't know the extent to what that attempt was made.
[55:12] But this is where we have the Secretary of the Interior Standard say like new construction should be differentiated from the old.
[55:18] 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,
[55:27] because it matches in nearly every conceivable way the historic building from the brick that was
[55:35] selected to the patterning of the detailing and all of that. And so there would be again this is
[55:41] you know in my mind and I haven't been doing this that long but there is a question with HPCs as far as
[55:48] like how much difference does an HPC have when they are approving things like so we have an
[55:53] building that has an addition that looks exactly like the original building and an addition
[55:57] that looks very distinctly different.
[56:00] And now, my understanding in the library is that there was a character defining features,
[56:04] specifically that entrance viewable from Washington Street that was destroyed when
[56:09] that addition was added.
[56:12] I haven't seen it again.
[56:13] I didn't review it.
[56:14] And so that is sort of the basis for the delisting there or the non-contributing status.
[56:20] is that that element was removed,
[56:24] and so, you know, I think this is a question of like, yes,
[56:27] an HPC could approve something and say, well, we are meeting the Secretary's guidelines.
[56:32] It is differentiated from, and we do feel that we're retaining enough character defining
[56:38] features that it still retains its significance, you know, and then it may go up to the Chippo
[56:44] or some other higher, or a later than period of review that would say, actually no, we think
[56:50] that it was integrity was destroyed when that feature was removed, even though it retained
[56:55] a certain portion of it.
[56:56] Yeah, I would say it was differentiated, but it was not compatible, and it has to be
[57:00] both.
[57:01] Yeah.
[57:02] That's why we were trying, if I can remember it correctly, you should pull those minutes
[57:06] out there.
[57:08] It was a fun to read and see how we sat at it.
[57:10] I wanted to have some little bit more history on what has happened in the past, like
[57:15] because my question still stands, it's in the district yet, but it's not contributing.
[57:21] So the land around it and all the concrete work that they want to do is still within our
[57:26] preview.
[57:27] That's right.
[57:28] That's right.
[57:29] The site is still in the district.
[57:31] So any changes made to the big wall and the landscape are still within our district?
[57:36] Yeah, this is the project when we first got on, he was bridge square and we were the last
[57:40] ones to find out what was going on down there.
[57:42] they just came to us and said this we're going to do and and uh... there you
[57:47] gone through other stakeholders and and talked to everybody and said well
[57:50] this is the final plan what do you guys think?
[57:54] well we think we should have had this at the beginning and
[57:58] well the consultant to the city
[58:02] was made a said that since it wasn't a structure
[58:05] on bridge square right there for
[58:08] it wasn't within our jurisdiction
[58:10] And she was, they said it was a real way to that state.
[58:16] Listen to that.
[58:17] Program after that.
[58:18] That's a property.
[58:20] And the consult was said, absolutely not.
[58:24] It does not have to have the structure on it to be considered.
[58:29] It's out of the consultant.
[58:30] The concern of that.
[58:31] Yeah.
[58:31] The consultant was simply wrong.
[58:34] But we also really had an order to change it.
[58:36] So the city property is included, not excluded from our preview.
[58:39] 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.
[58:49] 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.
[58:58] Sure.
[58:58] And I look forward to see what you could draft up.
[59:00] Yeah, I can draft something for us to review then, specific to know what I feel.
[59:05] 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,
[59:35] We want to make sure our amendment process is covering these things, and so that there's
[59:40] clarity there, because we want to ensure that the district is intact even if we lose a building
[59:45] at the edge, and that there isn't this opportunity to sort of like, you know, via demolition
[59:50] through neglect, which we don't seem to have a significant problem with a Northfield, but does happen
[59:55] in other communities where an owner will just simply ignore their building into it.
[1:00:01] 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.
[1:00:17] 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.
[1:00:29] And so anything that relates to the HPC, I will be presenting along the way as we get those
[1:00:36] drafts.
[1:00:37] And my goal with what we've been doing with some of these discussions is to sort of head some
[1:00:42] of those off and just pick up some of those topics that I know have been like, when we
[1:00:47] as planners are reviewing applications or when we are trying to prepare staff reports and
[1:00:53] analysis of whether or not this building meets the code and it's like, well, balconies.
[1:00:58] I mean, I might not anticipate the balconies would be contentious.
[1:01:01] They're just so commonplace, but then understanding, okay, well, yeah, they are.
[1:01:06] There's character, there's, you know, this district thing.
[1:01:10] And so we want to be just then clear on what, where and when and how we would allow those things.
[1:01:15] So that we can, again, provide clarity to the developers.
[1:01:19] And then we don't have to have that initial like conversation like, oh, you can't actually put a balcony there.
[1:01:23] And they're like, oh, you're killing my project.
[1:01:25] And then we can, because it can be right up front.
[1:01:27] like no bell can use. They can be on the back and then they can make their plans from there. Right. So.
[1:01:34] Right. So that to be said, I don't have a good timeline for you. But yes, we will you will get
[1:01:39] draft language on this long before anything gets adopted. When will things start to be adopted,
[1:01:45] and though it will be adopted wholesale. But when will that, it wants that projected to happen here.
[1:01:51] Roughly one year from now. Oh, year from now. Yeah. So the yeah. So zoning
[1:01:58] variants is our next topic.
[1:02:03] Can you give us a little for those those of us are not zoning experts?
[1:02:09] 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.
[1:02:17] So I apologize if I don't have a ton of answers.
[1:02:21] 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.
[1:02:45] So hypothetically, let's say we have a designated property and let's just say the depo as a building, right?
[1:02:53] And that is a heritage site. And let's say that, you know, it's not going to be used as a depo,
[1:03:00] but somebody has an idea for how it can be put to an adaptive reuse. Now, outside of the transit hub,
[1:03:08] which is, you know, presumably will be, but just bear with me. And this often comes up as an example with churches.
[1:03:15] So churches are a building that does often get designated as a historic site or heritage site,
[1:03:20] but then the congregation sort of dissipates. This is happening more and more frequently.
[1:03:26] And then somebody's able to purchase that building and they want to put housing on that site.
[1:03:32] Well, you know, in order to make housing work with a historic church and protect the integrity,
[1:03:38] Um, a variance might be required from normal zoning regulations, right?
[1:03:44] That would say like, oh, you're housing has to do this or, for example, that church is located
[1:03:49] in a low density residential zoning district, and you are only allowed to put one single
[1:03:55] family house on that site.
[1:03:58] Well, I just bought a, you know, 18,000 square foot church, it's not going to work as a single
[1:04:03] family residents, I need a variance to allow something, to do something else, right?
[1:04:10] And so kind of going through that, the legal process established by the state to get a variance
[1:04:19] requires that there be a practical difficulty for a landowner, and that that can't be
[1:04:25] their own fault,
[1:04:31] right?
[1:04:31] a very steep hillside that precludes you from building there and therefore reduces the actual
[1:04:38] buildable area of a lot such that in order to build a structure on it you need to get closer
[1:04:44] to the street than you would normally be allowed to. As an example that's an easy variance where
[1:04:49] we can say yes you did not put that hill there and you couldn't possibly meet the regulation that
[1:04:55] says you have to be 20 feet away from your front property line if you wanted to build a house.
[1:05:00] 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.
[1:05:29] and so we can then use that as a justification for a variance to meet that practical difficulty.
[1:05:36] So we don't currently have that, but it just would be a nice thing to have cleaned up in our code
[1:05:43] to offer that. Of course we don't have a lot outside of our historic district.
[1:05:49] A lot of sites at this time outside of there, such that that might come up, but it may come up
[1:05:54] sites even within our historic district.
[1:05:57] So just for example, like the art your house,
[1:06:00] it was always set back away from the road.
[1:06:02] It wasn't at the zero, a lot, line, exactly.
[1:06:04] We could have at that time, perhaps, suggested a set back
[1:06:09] ordinance with our head.
[1:06:12] If we put this thing through, in retrospect, we could have,
[1:06:17] if this was in place, said, well, OK, you've
[1:06:19] got to have a 10-foot set back at both ends and write that
[1:06:23] to recommendations to, I guess, probably have to go to the Plan Commission to grant the variance
[1:06:28] wouldn't it?
[1:06:30] Well, and so that's where we can do a little bit more research and say, you know, how
[1:06:33] would the HPC be involved in something like that?
[1:06:37] Is it sort of certifying that there would be a practical difficulty or, in the case of Minneapolis,
[1:06:44] you know, they are where the difficulty is preservation of a site, they are authorized to grant
[1:06:51] This variance, and I have to look again into the legality of this as far as who's designated
[1:06:56] and who's allowed to make that consideration, but it's just a piece in there to consider.
[1:07:03] I think in the case of the Archer House, a more realistic scenario would be if the fire had
[1:07:09] only destroyed, let's say, the north wing of that building.
[1:07:13] And so you are correct that building was set back from the property line, but our zoning code
[1:07:17] does require that it be brought up to the property line.
[1:07:20] That is a very good example of if that had been the scenario,
[1:07:29] it could have had an
[1:07:30] it likely would have had an adverse impact on the remaining historic portion of that structure
[1:07:36] to build a new wing that was at the zero-lot line, right?
[1:07:40] And so we would have wanted that pushed back 10 feet, or that the HBC, you know, in the interest
[1:07:48] of preserving the integrity of what remained of the archerhouse would have wanted to see that
[1:07:53] brought back that would be in line. But in that scenario, there's already a process for the
[1:07:58] zoning variants and the reconstruction of the building would still have to come here for a COA.
[1:08:05] So the process would still play out appropriately even without this amendment, right?
[1:08:10] Well, it's not clear that preservation of a historic property would present
[1:08:18] justifiable practical difficulty. And so this would help us establish that, and this would be a justifiable practical day.
[1:08:27] 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?
[1:08:35] I don't know, you'd have to count the stairway, maybe?
[1:08:38] No.
[1:08:38] It's not really, because it's a big stairway in front, but so maybe that's an example
[1:08:43] that building ever did go out of federal ownership and became privately owned, there could be
[1:08:48] some conundrums there with, I would think, maybe with some additions in the back.
[1:08:53] Yep, this typically comes up with adaptive reuse and so yeah, I mean, you might think of like
[1:08:58] the buildings along Fort Street and Fist Street where we do have great changes and then
[1:09:01] suddenly now we have to deal with like access and ramps and how we might end up setting things back.
[1:09:06] They're all, you know, and say like, well yes, you know, in order to get that site
[1:09:13] to be put to a new use, we are going to have to get a variance from our, from our normal zoning
[1:09:21] regulations, because it's also important that we're preserving the historic structure.
[1:09:25] So it really brings the historic designation more into that zoning variance.
[1:09:29] It becomes a consideration in the variance process, which I think is a good idea.
[1:09:35] So in the zoning variance business, no.
[1:09:39] Well, and it looks like you have some examples of, would we advise the zoning board of appeals
[1:09:45] or do it ourselves?
[1:09:48] I guess it would probably be good, that sounds like a lot, but I think the advising
[1:09:52] of the zoning board of appeals, maybe, would make them a sense, but it would be good to
[1:09:57] understand the different scenarios once you have time.
[1:10:00] I am to look into this a little bit more on what that might look like for Northfield and take a building through
[1:10:06] each of the scenarios, maybe the post office is a good one, but what that would look like would help us understand.
[1:10:14] 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
[1:10:23] 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?
[1:10:36] That is a really good question, right?
[1:10:40] And so if faced with, because this comes up in community development planning, et cetera,
[1:10:47] 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.
[1:10:58] What is the appropriate path forward, right? And fortunately, yeah, yeah. Well,
[1:11:07] fortunately, Northfield, we don't have a lot of those sort of buildings that are seeing vacant.
[1:11:10] We don't have a lot of like the industrial buildings. We don't have designated churches right now.
[1:11:15] Well, like hypothetically, the LICM building has been a residence, a chicken hatchery, an office building like it.
[1:11:22] Yes.
[1:11:22] It's been the whole gamut of zoning uses even if it never was zoned differently.
[1:11:30] Yes, exactly.
[1:11:30] So, variances don't apply to uses or we can't grant a variance from a use.
[1:11:36] But let's say somebody bought the LICM building and proposed a new permitted use.
[1:11:43] 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.
[1:11:53] Yeah, change something so that I can get, have an accessible entrance or something on the front side, right?
[1:11:58] And so then we now we would be like, well, do we need a variance for that, or whatever you might have.
[1:12:05] And so then how would we navigate that process?
[1:12:07] Because in the interest of preserving the building, we want to say that's a practical difficulty and a justifiable one.
[1:12:14] Like, yeah.
[1:12:14] I mean, your Minneapolis example does actually say the HPC may grant variances.
[1:12:19] So that it seems like they have the power to do that.
[1:12:23] So they went to authorize the variance in its entirety.
[1:12:28] Yeah, so where this might come up is like, you know,
[1:12:30] height limitations or something like that, right?
[1:12:32] We might say in a low density residential district,
[1:12:34] well, we have a height limit of 30 feet.
[1:12:35] And you may have a church that's taller than that.
[1:12:37] In order to protect the integrity of that church,
[1:12:41] historic structure with any new addition,
[1:12:44] you would want that to exceed 30 feet as well,
[1:12:46] so that your roof line matches, right?
[1:12:48] So now we need a variance for that.
[1:12:50] This would help offer clarity that.
[1:12:52] Does a variance run with a land?
[1:12:55] It's a church burnt down.
[1:12:57] I mean, can you go as high as a church was before then?
[1:13:01] No, it would be...
[1:13:03] It would be a church.
[1:13:04] It would be a church.
[1:13:05] It would be a church.
[1:13:05] Yeah, it would be a church.
[1:13:06] We would be a church.
[1:13:07] Yeah.
[1:13:07] Yes.
[1:13:08] So you're approving the specific variance for this project for...
[1:13:12] Okay, based on.
[1:13:13] Not to assign you a bunch of research, but I'm just curious if you know...
[1:13:17] Are there other approaches beyond Minneapolis that tackle this in...
[1:13:23] interesting different ways this would be yeah certainly something that then and again like I said
[1:13:28] uh something else to look into uh and get some more feedback on but one of those things it's like
[1:13:33] thank you yeah add it to your to-do list. I think if you get to see similar size communities like ours
[1:13:41] and with with more limited scope of currently designated properties as well.
[1:13:47] I don't know if it's okay, I'm going to be out mad.
[1:13:51] So you're going to be pretty busy.
[1:13:53] Yeah, she's coming back.
[1:13:55] November.
[1:13:56] Sort of, I think she's planning a slow back on ramp.
[1:14:00] She transitions back into that.
[1:14:03] All right.
[1:14:03] What sounds like we have some fun things to look forward to.
[1:14:07] You put those together.
[1:14:09] I might also try to see if there I can find any resources and a PC website.
[1:14:14] 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.
[1:14:24] You can ask chat, GPT, send us some zoning.
[1:14:28] Historic preservation and variances.
[1:14:31] Example.
[1:14:32] You can't look into how often these things are.
[1:14:33] So I just want to ask those, kind of really, well, we think they're not obscure, but see what it comes up with.
[1:14:40] All right, so I think we move to staff updates next.
[1:14:45] Thank you everybody for the discussion on those two items.
[1:14:49] Yes, and I did include some information on.
[1:14:53] As far as the amendment processes go,
[1:14:56] how we might amend those two expand some of the stories that might get.
[1:15:00] It told in
[1:15:04] there as well that we're, I think, quite interesting from the NAPC conference, so.
[1:15:08] 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.
[1:15:22] And so how do you navigate that when you have a building that lacks integrity, but is is there?
[1:15:32] And
[1:15:35] It had significance more for its story background story than its architecture.
[1:15:41] Yeah, which was actually it was a woman who ran a print shop. She was a nun.
[1:15:47] And so they ran this print shop for decades.
[1:15:50] was very prolific, and the building was up for a demolition or something, and they wanted
[1:15:57] to get it designated to kind of preserve that. But again, it lacked integrity because it had
[1:16:03] been turned over over the intervening decades. So, you know, 50 years is a long time to keep
[1:16:10] building around.
[1:16:13] Let's see, so City Council and Board and Commission updates, did provide the agenda items
[1:16:21] list, zoning code and update redesign.
[1:16:24] I will note the project website now has the preliminary recommendations report available
[1:16:29] on it.
[1:16:30] We will be kind of promoting that out, sending some news, blurbs, and social media, et cetera,
[1:16:35] that that's available for folks to review.
[1:16:37] 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.
[1:17:02] And so that's kind of where we're at.
[1:17:07] Let's see.
[1:17:10] Ames Mill Dam is just sort of slowly, you know,
[1:17:15] lingering there as things move very slowly around
[1:17:18] everybody has a lot of things to do.
[1:17:20] Minor COAs, 19 Bridge Square,
[1:17:23] which is where the Chamber of Commerce is located,
[1:17:24] was approved to repaint their repainting
[1:17:26] in the same color that it was.
[1:17:29] So that meant the minor work definition.
[1:17:32] CLA approved for replacing an upper-story rear window at the Eagles Club.
[1:17:37] There's a few apartments there.
[1:17:38] One of the upper-story windows in the rear was broken, so they were not original windows.
[1:17:43] It was replaced with the same, I believe, Marvin Brand window that had been there.
[1:17:50] And then another one for several upper-story windows at four and 18 division street.
[1:17:55] And those are not visible from the right of way.
[1:17:59] So I did include a few pictures for you on those.
[1:18:05] Here's the, this is before the repainting.
[1:18:07] You may not have noticed that it was repainted.
[1:18:09] It looks pretty good.
[1:18:11] Now, they also repainted the window frames
[1:18:13] in that same green color.
[1:18:15] And then also installed this welcome sign as well,
[1:18:20] which again, signs are mine or work.
[1:18:22] So that was all included under the same.
[1:18:25] See you away.
[1:18:27] Zoom out a little here on this one.
[1:18:28] The window on the right side is the one that was replaced.
[1:18:32] There was some deterioration there, or something was broken with that, so the window
[1:18:39] there was replaced.
[1:18:43] And then the Lockwood Opera windows are around the other side.
[1:18:49] They face the, they face division street.
[1:18:51] And this is the view from the parking lot on the other side of grass vet lane here, and you
[1:18:58] not see the windows there, so they did provide this image of those Western facing windows,
[1:19:07] kind of between those two roofs.
[1:19:08] You can sort of see this kind of bizarre, or this roof in the distance here, there's sort
[1:19:12] of a space in there, so that's where we're placed.
[1:19:16] And again, met the definition of minor work there, because those are not original windows.
[1:19:21] So, here's that.
[1:19:23] Let's see, other staff updates that did not make it on day here.
[1:19:29] We are finally, we did receive a grant for a preservation plan update.
[1:19:34] Our last preservation plan was done in 1991.
[1:19:40] And we are optimistic that the RFP requests for proposals will be going out to consultants
[1:19:47] in the very near future to try and solicit some responses for that for somebody to help
[1:19:52] put together an updated preservation plan.
[1:19:55] Hey.
[1:19:56] What was the grant amount?
[1:20:00] 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.
[1:20:09] And so, we'll be looking at ways to sort of supplement any cash out lay by. Volunteering.
[1:20:19] 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.
[1:20:28] but that'll be I'll have more for you sort of as that process unfold and then the last piece was
[1:20:38] that we had it was suggested by a commissioner that potentially for maybe we discussed potentially
[1:20:47] this meeting but maybe next month doing a walking tour of downtown and kind of doing a reflection
[1:20:53] on the archer redevelopment project and the approval there, looking at some of the features
[1:21:00] of downtown buildings and discussing sort of some of those existing policies, how, you know,
[1:21:06] if there were elements that went well with that or things that, you know, we felt like the
[1:21:11] guidelines or the policies that we have were kind of allowing for an unintended or producing
[1:21:16] an unintended result, how we might, you know, identify some of those and say, this is how we
[1:21:21] would like to shift some of those policies
[1:21:24] to get something a little bit different.
[1:21:29] That felt a little better.
[1:21:31] So I don't have anything concrete for that yet,
[1:21:37] but just sort of, is there an openness to that?
[1:21:40] Is there an interest in, is there any points of discussions
[1:21:42] that anybody have anything that they would like to?
[1:21:45] Yeah, you and Scott and I had talked about it
[1:21:47] walking tour that we would sort of try to facilitate how
[1:21:50] do an open meeting while we're walking, but then maybe, you know, walk division
[1:21:56] street and most of the district and then maybe end up at the library and could
[1:22:02] sort of formally even have our meeting there to discuss. And I think that would
[1:22:07] be great. We'd probably have to do a little earlier if the sun is setting
[1:22:10] earlier if we were able to swing that in October. That might be good, but if it's
[1:22:16] going to happen. Yeah, October, sort of our last just given day lights or
[1:22:20] our last. We'll be interested in that because we could walk by buildings and
[1:22:23] talks some major. I think that's a great idea. Let's do it touch buildings.
[1:22:31] Yeah. Yeah. Would you sort of prefer we could do kind of a loop. We could leave from city hall,
[1:22:36] you know potentially the only potentially complicating factors if we have a COA application.
[1:22:42] So it might be we do something like that and then go. Although that doesn't push us a
[1:22:46] little bit later. Go in and talk about the COI at the end. We could, we could start
[1:22:55] at the other end and here. Yeah, walk back so yeah. I mean email me if you think if you walk
[1:23:01] it and see how much time it might take. We can do a walking meeting. Can we talk while we're
[1:23:08] me walking.
[1:23:11] Okay.
[1:23:13] Scott said he was going to try and figure this out.
[1:23:15] So let's see if he can do that.
[1:23:17] But we do it.
[1:23:18] You know, it is not uncommon.
[1:23:20] We can, you know, have these.
[1:23:22] You know, we don't have this.
[1:23:23] We just have to publicly notice that that is sort of where the eight
[1:23:26] P.C. members of the community could certainly join.
[1:23:28] I think that you can do this.
[1:23:31] Yep.
[1:23:31] The other thing I want to mention when you have the AIMS mill dam is for
[1:23:35] consideration of people might be interested doing a similar once that damn transfers to the city.
[1:23:43] I think it might be beneficial to have like we had our little subcommittee of three members
[1:23:49] or one or two that is involved on whatever that city group will be that decides the family
[1:23:57] to somebody from, either a subcommittee or somebody from our HPC needs to be on that.
[1:24:07] Task force, whatever they're going to be called, what will they be called?
[1:24:13] Yes.
[1:24:14] And that is a great, that is a, yeah, that's a good,
[1:24:18] that's a good question.
[1:24:19] Because it's another thing of coming the same with the library we want, I think we want to
[1:24:23] Lloyd, that, oh, we've made a decision, review this HPC.
[1:24:28] We, I think, having preservation commission expertise,
[1:24:34] I don't know, early stage, one city gets games ownership.
[1:24:37] We'll be beneficial for everybody.
[1:24:39] Sure, yes, yeah.
[1:24:41] OK, that's my last word.
[1:24:43] Any other last words?
[1:24:45] Then maybe I think we're ready to adjourn.
[1:24:51] Are we ready to?
[1:24:52] Wait, do I have to make a motion to adjourn?
[1:24:54] No, I don't know, you just slam the gavel.
[1:24:56] A last minute for this meeting is adjourned.
[1:25:01] 725 p.m. Thank you.