1
00:00:04,910 --> 00:00:28,450
Okay, good evening. I will call the November 12th, 2025, meeting of the Heritage Preservation Commission order. First up is a roll call. Present tonight. We have commissioners. Summers, Polns, Mino, Hemdall, Larson, Council representative, Tussen, and Council representative Collins and myself being Tussen.

2
00:00:28,450 --> 00:00:32,730
And we absent tonight is Commissioner Finnell.

3
00:00:35,150 --> 00:00:39,930
So move on to approval of minutes, the possible approval of minutes from the October

4
00:00:39,930 --> 00:00:43,270
15th, 2025 regular meeting.

5
00:00:43,790 --> 00:00:46,870
Does anyone have any corrections or a motion to approve?

6
00:00:54,990 --> 00:00:59,870
There are a couple of typos in the first section, case number CD,

7
00:01:00,170 --> 00:01:01,910
2025-040.

8
00:01:03,410 --> 00:01:11,230
Well, my last name in the fourth paragraph, it has an ass on it, which is incorrect.

9
00:01:12,150 --> 00:01:17,310
But the next paragraph, it doesn't make any sentences and make any sense planning, manager

10
00:01:17,310 --> 00:01:24,290
good neck, replied that if the items are tabled, have 60 days to act on comma, yet.

11
00:01:24,930 --> 00:01:28,630
I don't know what's missing there, but something is,

12
00:01:32,310 --> 00:01:34,430
maybe it is, if the items are tabled,

13
00:01:34,430 --> 00:01:38,490
the applicant has 60 days to act upon?

14
00:01:40,220 --> 00:01:42,620
Commissioner Sherry think it might have been that we

15
00:01:42,620 --> 00:01:45,900
the staff would extend the review for an additional 60 days so it would be

16
00:01:45,900 --> 00:01:48,120
told 120 but we can take a look into that.

17
00:01:48,540 --> 00:01:52,280
Okay. I concur that something is definitely missing.

18
00:01:59,260 --> 00:01:59,900
Other correction?

19
00:02:18,350 --> 00:02:21,910
Set in the vote count for improving the minutes last time it's

20
00:02:21,910 --> 00:02:26,690
said that, you know, in constant stream and I'm guessing

21
00:02:26,690 --> 00:02:28,190
those probably somebody else that abstained.

22
00:02:28,670 --> 00:02:31,550
Okay, I think that should be palms and suit of columns on

23
00:02:34,460 --> 00:02:35,760
any other corrections.

24
00:02:40,660 --> 00:02:44,460
Staff are you okay, making that one more about those 60 days.

25
00:02:44,680 --> 00:02:46,420
We are chair commissioners, thank you and apologies.

26
00:02:48,420 --> 00:02:52,960
So with those corrections, would anyone want to make a motion to approve the minutes?

27
00:02:54,500 --> 00:02:56,240
I approve the minutes with changes.

28
00:02:56,980 --> 00:02:58,760
Okay, we have a motion from Minos a second.

29
00:02:59,760 --> 00:03:00,380
Second, Lars.

30
00:03:00,960 --> 00:03:04,080
Okay, a motion from Minos a second from Lars and is there any further discussion?

31
00:03:04,080 --> 00:03:08,160
And hearing none, all those in favour, please say aye.

32
00:03:09,540 --> 00:03:09,580
Aye.

33
00:03:09,580 --> 00:03:10,240
Any opposed?

34
00:03:11,300 --> 00:03:11,760
I'll leave state.

35
00:03:12,340 --> 00:03:12,500
Okay.

36
00:03:13,860 --> 00:03:14,000
Okay.

37
00:03:15,700 --> 00:03:18,000
So it would be homes and hembal abstain.

38
00:03:19,120 --> 00:03:20,480
And everybody else votes for us.

39
00:03:20,580 --> 00:03:26,540
So that is I think four to four votes in favor.

40
00:03:26,540 --> 00:03:28,080
No votes against and to abstentions.

41
00:03:29,220 --> 00:03:31,040
The motion passes and the minutes are approved.

42
00:03:32,240 --> 00:03:33,660
Next up is the open form.

43
00:03:33,660 --> 00:03:39,100
It's an opportunity for the public to address the commission on subjects, which are not part of the meeting.

44
00:03:39,780 --> 00:03:44,680
The commission may take action or reply or give direction to staff, and we ask that people

45
00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:46,860
limit their comments to five minutes or less.

46
00:03:47,000 --> 00:03:48,980
Is anyone here tonight for the open forum?

47
00:03:50,480 --> 00:03:54,080
Seeing no one else close the open forum and we'll move on to the consent agenda.

48
00:03:54,320 --> 00:03:55,860
There's nothing on the consent agenda.

49
00:03:56,600 --> 00:04:03,120
There's nothing under public hearing or unfinished business tonight, which takes us to new business.

50
00:04:03,120 --> 00:04:09,080
And we'll start out with case number CD2025-048,

51
00:04:09,260 --> 00:04:11,940
design review for new construction duplex in the neighborhood

52
00:04:11,940 --> 00:04:16,220
conservation district at 950 oin streets or in

53
00:04:16,220 --> 00:04:17,300
street north.

54
00:04:17,960 --> 00:04:21,100
And with that, I will turn it over to staff for report

55
00:04:21,100 --> 00:04:25,100
them of an opportunity for the commission to ask questions

56
00:04:25,100 --> 00:04:28,400
of staff them of like the applicant to come up.

57
00:04:28,400 --> 00:04:30,400
And then more questions and then we'll have a discussion

58
00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:33,100
So, would that turn over to staff?

59
00:04:33,940 --> 00:04:34,520
Thank you, Chair.

60
00:04:35,060 --> 00:04:47,640
As we consider case 2025-048, we have this presentation to go into some of the details of the project under consideration today.

61
00:04:48,360 --> 00:04:55,660
As far as regulatory review, this is in the RB2 family residential district and the neighborhood conservation district.

62
00:04:55,660 --> 00:04:59,840
The proposal before us is for a duplex. The lot has over 21.

63
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:27,020
1,000 square feet and a duplex is permitted by right on lots greater than 10,000 square feet in this district. The proposed work is a new duplex on an existing vacant lot. The proposed project meets or exceeds all dimensional and land use standards. And the duplex is not side by side, but rather a front unit and a rear unit accessed from a side driveway presenting visually as a single family home.

64
00:05:27,020 --> 00:05:36,060
The Commission in 2024 approved a design for a single family home at this same site that was of a more contemporary and less traditional nature.

65
00:05:36,980 --> 00:05:48,180
But the applicant before us proposes a new design that's not yet been reviewed by the Commission and the lot is still vacant with the previously approved plans never having been acted upon.

66
00:05:49,040 --> 00:05:57,520
for a site map so that you can tell a bit the situation of the new duplex on the lot.

67
00:05:58,020 --> 00:06:03,100
You'll see that there are two nearly identical duplexes, one front and one rear,

68
00:06:03,920 --> 00:06:08,720
one with a side loading and one with a partial slash side loading garage.

69
00:06:09,720 --> 00:06:17,660
The garage on the front unit is set back a little over 10 feet from the leading edge of the home.

70
00:06:17,660 --> 00:06:28,000
which is a requirement both of our design guidelines as well as that of the RB2 family residential district.

71
00:06:29,820 --> 00:06:35,040
The front of the home is set back 50 feet from the property line, whereas code would require 20 feet.

72
00:06:35,660 --> 00:06:45,540
It's set back 11 feet from the north property line, where the over 24 feet from the south property line,

73
00:06:45,540 --> 00:06:50,440
where the combined side setbacks would be 15 feet required by code.

74
00:06:52,880 --> 00:06:54,440
For the renderings before us today,

75
00:06:54,880 --> 00:06:58,300
as you may have noted in the add on packet that was sent this morning,

76
00:06:58,780 --> 00:07:01,180
we've received updated renderings from the applicant

77
00:07:01,900 --> 00:07:05,100
after the time in which the original packet was sent out.

78
00:07:05,460 --> 00:07:10,060
And this is the design proposal at consideration today.

79
00:07:11,140 --> 00:07:13,980
You have the North and South elevations in the middle,

80
00:07:13,980 --> 00:07:22,140
with the East Elevation, which is that viewed from Owen Street North in the sort of larger design at the bottom.

81
00:07:22,980 --> 00:07:28,240
The West Elevation, which you see smaller up top, does not have any street frontage,

82
00:07:28,320 --> 00:07:34,640
but that is the way that the home would look when viewed from its driveway after access has been

83
00:07:34,640 --> 00:07:42,300
achieved around the side of the front unit. The recommended conditions of approval that we have for you

84
00:07:42,300 --> 00:07:46,160
that the designs shall be consistent with those on file in the community development department

85
00:07:46,160 --> 00:07:50,540
except is modified herein. Prior to the release of a building permit the applicant and or

86
00:07:50,540 --> 00:07:54,760
property owner shall provide proof of conformance to the approved design approval granted herein.

87
00:07:55,220 --> 00:07:58,900
All minor modifications to the plan shall be approved in advance by the city planner.

88
00:07:59,400 --> 00:08:03,140
All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the Heritage Preservation Commission

89
00:08:03,140 --> 00:08:07,280
determination of the distinction between major and minor is defined in the Zoting ordinance.

90
00:08:07,780 --> 00:08:12,080
And finally, project plan shall be updated to reflect principles called for in foresighted design

91
00:08:12,300 --> 00:08:14,900
with the inclusion of further windows were noted by staff.

92
00:08:15,540 --> 00:08:21,000
Now to address the updated windows that we see in the elevations today,

93
00:08:21,500 --> 00:08:25,720
the initial renderings off of which those staff comments in that fourth condition were based

94
00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:33,460
can be seen here. Staff particularly called out the lack of windows on the upper story

95
00:08:33,460 --> 00:08:40,600
of the southern elevation, the lower level of the east elevation facing the street,

96
00:08:40,600 --> 00:08:45,980
and then the sides of the north elevation.

97
00:08:47,040 --> 00:08:54,280
And so to compare this original rendering off of which this condition was based versus the plans that we have today,

98
00:08:54,880 --> 00:09:00,300
the applicant has provided plans that have new windows and all of these locations.

99
00:09:01,060 --> 00:09:05,720
So the distinctions between the two plans can be seen before us.

100
00:09:05,720 --> 00:09:11,640
We have symmetry now facing oh and street with the lower level window that mirrors that above

101
00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:18,260
it and provides harmony in window design and we also have the inclusion of windows in

102
00:09:18,260 --> 00:09:26,460
some hallways as well as bathrooms on both the north and south elevations that we feel

103
00:09:26,460 --> 00:09:32,760
as staff much more wholly addressed the foresighted design principle and bring more symmetry

104
00:09:33,200 --> 00:09:34,160
to the design.

105
00:09:34,160 --> 00:09:49,420
And for those reasons, the staff recommendation is to adopt Resolution HPC 2025-13 to approve the designer view in the neighborhood conservation district for the construction of a new duplex at 950O in Street, North.

106
00:09:50,060 --> 00:09:50,980
I stand for questions.

107
00:09:51,840 --> 00:09:53,140
questions or staff.

108
00:09:58,720 --> 00:09:59,960
I may ask this of the help.

109
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:10,040
I'm looking at the north elevation, the front porch should be the facing the street on the left and that seems to be

110
00:10:11,320 --> 00:10:21,000
a much narrower porch maybe than the other, the earlier rendering is, but it's trying to be what's going on there.

111
00:10:22,080 --> 00:10:24,800
Chair, commissioners, I understand the confusion.

112
00:10:25,000 --> 00:10:35,120
The original North Elevation does show pillar with the porch at play there.

113
00:10:35,520 --> 00:10:50,680
The dimensions of the porch are six feet wide by the length of the front, which if I can

114
00:10:50,680 --> 00:11:00,880
26 feet wide, by 26 feet long by six feet wide, that porch is shown in the elevations presented

115
00:11:00,880 --> 00:11:07,760
from the south and the east, but I recognize that it is not present in the north elevation,

116
00:11:07,820 --> 00:11:11,680
and that's something that we would want to see rectified.

117
00:11:13,660 --> 00:11:24,540
And then similarly on the south elevation that the roof on that porch doesn't seem to match the east one.

118
00:11:26,820 --> 00:11:37,400
If we, I've got several issues that are similar, I guess we can bring it up now if that makes sense and then maybe the applicant could respond.

119
00:11:39,520 --> 00:11:46,400
Yeah, this second set of drawings has a lot of inconsistencies that I had trouble understanding.

120
00:11:48,220 --> 00:11:51,280
And one of them is what our chair just described.

121
00:11:53,060 --> 00:11:58,120
Another one at the rear elevation shows what appears to be a hip roof.

122
00:11:58,120 --> 00:12:04,200
And in its side elevation on the south and its north elevation, it's shown as a

123
00:12:04,200 --> 00:12:06,260
gable roof on that garage.

124
00:12:08,420 --> 00:12:15,300
Another inconsistency probably the biggest one is the garage shown on the front

125
00:12:15,300 --> 00:12:23,900
elevation that has grown to one and a half to two-story height, whereas the original

126
00:12:23,900 --> 00:12:25,780
garage was a one-story.

127
00:12:26,520 --> 00:12:32,460
The original one that we looked at looked something like the one on the south elevation,

128
00:12:32,820 --> 00:12:38,800
which is a one story garage where the peak doesn't go any higher than the eve of the two

129
00:12:38,800 --> 00:12:39,800
story beyond it.

130
00:12:39,800 --> 00:12:44,480
But if we look at the front elevation, that peak is well above that roof.

131
00:12:45,100 --> 00:12:50,200
So my problem is the drawings are inconsistent from one drawing to another.

132
00:12:51,720 --> 00:12:57,900
The porch, the sort of open side porch, the chair mentioned on both the front and the back,

133
00:12:58,220 --> 00:13:05,480
also have a different slope in that north elevation, then it's shown in the previous elevations

134
00:13:05,480 --> 00:13:12,480
or in the front elevations. So the slope, as it's shown, of that roof, would run right through the windows

135
00:13:12,480 --> 00:13:18,280
in the front, looking at the front porch, as shown in the north elevation, it would run right through

136
00:13:18,280 --> 00:13:20,120
middle of the windows on the front.

137
00:13:20,780 --> 00:13:22,880
So, you know, some of these are, I'm sure,

138
00:13:24,540 --> 00:13:27,880
inadvertent in consistencies, but I found it difficult

139
00:13:27,880 --> 00:13:30,540
to know what we're really looking at here.

140
00:13:30,540 --> 00:13:33,580
On the south elevation, for instance,

141
00:13:35,080 --> 00:13:38,280
one more thing is the, the,

142
00:13:38,300 --> 00:13:41,460
the rising wall or the dividing wall between the two units,

143
00:13:42,120 --> 00:13:44,700
presumably what happened between those two smaller windows,

144
00:13:45,000 --> 00:13:47,360
we see above, but that would run it right through one of the

145
00:13:47,360 --> 00:13:50,240
the last pains of one of the windows below us.

146
00:13:51,060 --> 00:13:55,100
And finally, the one that probably confuses me as much as anything

147
00:13:55,100 --> 00:13:59,940
as we look at that self-evaluation, the garage is positioned

148
00:13:59,940 --> 00:14:04,680
forward of the main facade of the house.

149
00:14:05,340 --> 00:14:07,520
If you look at the right-hand side of the garage

150
00:14:07,520 --> 00:14:11,660
and the right-hand side of the second-level garage is shown forward

151
00:14:11,660 --> 00:14:16,160
of that, whereas in the original, it was actually about

152
00:14:16,160 --> 00:14:18,320
for a feedback from that corner.

153
00:14:20,020 --> 00:14:26,060
So a lot of inconsistencies that I don't understand,

154
00:14:27,160 --> 00:14:28,620
maybe the applicant can address.

155
00:14:32,470 --> 00:14:34,250
Any other questions for staff?

156
00:14:37,940 --> 00:14:39,600
Do you have anything to add before we?

157
00:14:40,260 --> 00:14:42,060
Chair, Commissioner, there's no at this time.

158
00:14:42,100 --> 00:14:44,880
I don't have anything to add to respond to that,

159
00:14:45,040 --> 00:14:48,220
though I've taken note of all of the comments made thus far.

160
00:14:48,220 --> 00:14:59,900
I think that these questions will be helpful in asking of the applicant when he's ready to present or to speak.

161
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:00,980
With you all.

162
00:15:03,450 --> 00:15:16,320
I do have one for staff regarding the driveways. This is a very large driveway according to the site plan with two different rages on it. What kind of guidelines do we have for things like that?

163
00:15:17,070 --> 00:15:29,810
Chair commissioners, the city does not have any setback standards for paved surfaces that are not part of the structure. So this driveway could theoretically go right to the property line and that would still be code compliant.

164
00:15:29,810 --> 00:15:39,590
The 12-foot driveway is a fairly standard with that we see with respect to a lot of coverage in the RB district.

165
00:15:40,610 --> 00:15:50,090
By right, any property owner can improve the lot to 25% of structured coverage and 25% of nonstructured coverage.

166
00:15:50,670 --> 00:15:58,250
And both the structured and nonstructured coverage falls well below the 25% threshold for each bucket.

167
00:15:59,810 --> 00:16:04,590
Okay, so I guess I follow up question two, do we have any guidelines for duplexes like this?

168
00:16:05,870 --> 00:16:10,590
Because it does get challenging when you're trying to put it two, two car garages.

169
00:16:11,670 --> 00:16:16,830
And then making them high as well into a site in the neighborhood conservation district.

170
00:16:19,510 --> 00:16:21,530
Chair, commissioners, thank you for the question.

171
00:16:21,530 --> 00:16:29,510
And the standards that we have in place for dueplexes are they must meet the same

172
00:16:29,510 --> 00:16:33,770
dimensional requirements that a one-family residential unit would.

173
00:16:34,730 --> 00:16:43,550
The only distinction in code between the one-and-two-family structures is that the two-family

174
00:16:43,550 --> 00:16:50,590
structure has a minimum lots as of 10,000 square feet, whereas the one-family is 7,500 square

175
00:16:50,590 --> 00:17:03,390
And further, as far as parking provision, each unit must be required to provide one two parking spaces at least one of which must be covered per unit.

176
00:17:04,010 --> 00:17:09,830
Other than that, the dimensional standards as far as setbacks and massing are the same.

177
00:17:10,570 --> 00:17:19,430
Okay, so you're telling me that this house that we're looking at that's two two sides, two houses would fit into one house.

178
00:17:21,250 --> 00:17:25,710
chair commissioners that's correct. You could build this with the exact same

179
00:17:25,710 --> 00:17:30,230
dimensions if it were a one story structure or a one-unit structure. Okay, thank you.

180
00:17:36,180 --> 00:17:42,780
Any other questions for staff? Good. The applicant to come up to the microphone.

181
00:17:44,720 --> 00:17:50,900
There is a button on the left to turn it on. There you go. And I think you can give your name

182
00:17:50,900 --> 00:17:55,360
for the record. My name is John Paul Johnson. Okay, thank you. Thank you guys for taking the

183
00:17:55,360 --> 00:17:58,060
to speak with me and look over this project.

184
00:17:59,140 --> 00:18:03,640
So the first comment I would like to address is the colored rendering in the discrepancies

185
00:18:03,640 --> 00:18:04,860
that we see in there.

186
00:18:05,520 --> 00:18:11,540
So the purpose of that colored rendering tonight was just to give everybody an idea of what

187
00:18:11,540 --> 00:18:17,660
the concept in the color wise, how this unit is going to be finished out.

188
00:18:18,240 --> 00:18:21,080
What we're actually building off of is that updated unit plan.

189
00:18:21,620 --> 00:18:24,880
So this really has nothing to do with how we're going to be building it.

190
00:18:24,880 --> 00:18:26,640
we just wanted to present it forth.

191
00:18:26,840 --> 00:18:30,280
So you guys could see the colors of the building

192
00:18:30,280 --> 00:18:33,160
that we're trying to present to you tonight.

193
00:18:34,120 --> 00:18:36,660
So for those discrepancies, if we go back

194
00:18:36,660 --> 00:18:42,760
to these updated drawings, this is what we're going to be

195
00:18:43,560 --> 00:18:44,700
with, sorry,

196
00:18:46,720 --> 00:18:47,800
yeah, those other drawings.

197
00:18:47,940 --> 00:18:50,700
So the drawings that we just went to,

198
00:18:50,900 --> 00:18:52,640
those are what we're going to be building off

199
00:18:52,640 --> 00:19:00,160
with some additions. As you guys had comments on for the lack of windows, we're addressed.

200
00:19:00,720 --> 00:19:06,560
So in our new updated drawings, we have new ones. By that, you can see we added the windows,

201
00:19:06,740 --> 00:19:14,300
as well as while talking, we noticed that the garage setback was too far front. And as was talked

202
00:19:14,300 --> 00:19:19,420
about earlier today, we moved that back, which allowed us to have a really nice porch inside

203
00:19:19,420 --> 00:19:23,360
in front, which complements the neighborhood really well.

204
00:19:23,920 --> 00:19:31,320
With that we're able to get an extra window on that east elevation, we're able to get

205
00:19:31,320 --> 00:19:37,060
an extra window on the lower level as well as the upper story compared to our first

206
00:19:37,060 --> 00:19:37,480
drawings.

207
00:19:39,160 --> 00:19:48,000
For the impervious covers that we're talking about on the site, this plan takes up 28% of the

208
00:19:48,000 --> 00:19:55,940
But, as you guys require, 25% can be structured in no more than 25% can be non-structured.

209
00:19:56,580 --> 00:19:58,980
So we meet well under those requirements.

210
00:20:00,080 --> 00:20:16,260
So, again, I do apologize for the confusion with this rendering. But this is not what we will be building off of. So, I hope. Yeah, we will be building off of this. So, if you guys have any questions, I would love to answer them or any remarks.

211
00:20:17,280 --> 00:20:23,240
So, I guess I'm a little bit confused as to which drawings were. So, try to go through here.

212
00:20:23,240 --> 00:20:26,020
Yeah, so I don't know if your changes in the other one are working on it.

213
00:20:26,360 --> 00:20:26,800
Yeah, I apologize.

214
00:20:27,540 --> 00:20:34,520
This is different than these are here, and I do have some copies, if you'd like to see them.

215
00:20:35,620 --> 00:20:37,300
But this is very similar.

216
00:20:37,540 --> 00:20:42,760
The only thing I would say is we added some windows to this drawing, and that really is the main

217
00:20:42,760 --> 00:20:45,000
discrepancy between this and what we have here.

218
00:20:52,230 --> 00:20:59,810
So Mr. Chair, if I might, the addition to the packet, the colored version, and the

219
00:20:59,810 --> 00:21:06,830
Yes, primary purpose was to show color and where windows have been planned to be added.

220
00:21:07,290 --> 00:21:07,670
Yeah, structure.

221
00:21:08,490 --> 00:21:09,070
Yeah, yeah.

222
00:21:09,670 --> 00:21:13,290
We put this together very, this color drying.

223
00:21:13,830 --> 00:21:17,510
We noticed in the notes that we received that it would have been helpful to have a colored rendering.

224
00:21:18,330 --> 00:21:20,190
So we tried to put this together.

225
00:21:20,910 --> 00:21:26,670
But again, we can send an updated rendering over from the architects.

226
00:21:26,670 --> 00:21:39,910
This one, unfortunately, does not depict very well how, like the roof is off and obviously I just wanted to show the colors of what this building's gonna look like and how it's gonna fit within the neighborhood.

227
00:21:41,370 --> 00:21:43,010
Okay, thank you.

228
00:21:45,100 --> 00:21:49,360
So on the east elevation, the bottom elevation,

229
00:21:51,480 --> 00:21:54,260
the garage height is misrepresented in the drawing.

230
00:21:54,260 --> 00:21:59,380
We have absolutely. Yes. Great. Thank you. Yes. And I do apologize for that. That's okay.

231
00:22:00,880 --> 00:22:06,500
And in that same elevation, there's a large window now on the first floor, which is a very

232
00:22:06,500 --> 00:22:12,500
welcome addition to the elevation. But I'm looking at the floor plan, and it looks like that's where the furnace room is located.

233
00:22:13,240 --> 00:22:21,740
Is your floor plan changing to get to them? So that's going to be a black out window. So it's actually just going to be.

234
00:22:21,740 --> 00:22:27,000
you won't be able to tell that it is, but yes, okay, so it'll be a window, but it'll have

235
00:22:27,000 --> 00:22:29,860
standroller or something in it that will that is correct, yes.

236
00:22:34,380 --> 00:22:36,880
If we look at the, let's see,

237
00:22:39,750 --> 00:22:45,090
north or I'm sorry, the south elevation, can we assume that those bottom windows are moving around

238
00:22:45,090 --> 00:22:53,130
someone? Yep, that is. Like I'm assuming maybe the right hand one needs to be nearly touching

239
00:22:53,130 --> 00:22:58,530
the garage in order to stay in the right hand unit that is correct. Yeah, after looking at these

240
00:22:59,470 --> 00:23:06,010
drawings that I have here on that self elevation that window will be moved over and then those

241
00:23:06,010 --> 00:23:15,690
two smaller windows will kind of cradle the inside edge of those larger windows. Will the garage be

242
00:23:15,690 --> 00:23:21,670
a gable roof? The rear garage it should say be a gable roof or a hip roof as it shown there.

243
00:23:21,670 --> 00:23:24,590
Yes, there will be a gateware of a table.

244
00:23:25,610 --> 00:23:25,610
Okay.

245
00:23:29,980 --> 00:23:32,960
And so just as a way of clarifying for myself,

246
00:23:33,300 --> 00:23:36,420
if I look at the original submitted drawings,

247
00:23:36,660 --> 00:23:40,520
the non-colored version, these, this is structurally

248
00:23:40,520 --> 00:23:43,420
correct with the exception of some additional windows.

249
00:23:44,160 --> 00:23:44,440
Yes, sir.

250
00:23:44,520 --> 00:23:45,040
That is correct.

251
00:23:45,520 --> 00:23:46,680
Okay. Thank you.

252
00:23:58,120 --> 00:23:59,540
Other questions for the applicant?

253
00:24:05,090 --> 00:24:05,650
Okay. Thank you.

254
00:24:05,810 --> 00:24:08,370
We may call you up again, but I will have a discussion

255
00:24:08,370 --> 00:24:10,370
What commission here?

256
00:24:16,800 --> 00:24:18,760
Reactions from commissioners.

257
00:24:22,270 --> 00:24:23,750
Well, make just a few comments.

258
00:24:24,490 --> 00:24:31,050
It was helpful to hear the corrections, but we would need some

259
00:24:31,050 --> 00:24:34,570
how to have a single set of drawings that shows everything that

260
00:24:34,570 --> 00:24:37,770
would be built. You understand we need to have something to hold and

261
00:24:37,770 --> 00:24:41,910
applicant to and something that we understand will be built.

262
00:24:43,250 --> 00:24:45,690
So one way or the other we're going to need a

263
00:24:45,690 --> 00:24:48,250
the reconciled set of plans.

264
00:24:50,770 --> 00:24:52,130
But that aside,

265
00:24:55,070 --> 00:24:59,970
I appreciate the efforts that were made here to fit this.

266
00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:01,640
The next question is to move on to the next question.

267
00:25:01,640 --> 00:25:05,220
It is a site we have seen before.

268
00:25:06,800 --> 00:25:08,460
And some other efforts on it.

269
00:25:08,900 --> 00:25:14,000
But my biggest concern, I guess, would probably simply be having to

270
00:25:14,000 --> 00:25:16,300
do with its massing and its roof.

271
00:25:18,980 --> 00:25:24,340
Our guidelines talk about the massing and scale of a new building being

272
00:25:24,340 --> 00:25:27,020
compatible with neighboring structures and following the pattern.

273
00:25:27,020 --> 00:25:36,840
It's difficult, I suppose, to have a larger duplex fit, that neighborhood, but the uninterrupted

274
00:25:36,840 --> 00:25:45,400
length of 72 feet on the north side, especially on the south side, it's benefited by a

275
00:25:45,400 --> 00:25:50,940
couple of garages breaking that up somewhat. On the north side is 72 feet, two feet,

276
00:25:50,940 --> 00:25:59,660
two stories tall, and that is something we don't see as a pattern typically in houses.

277
00:26:00,280 --> 00:26:07,040
And we sometimes, when we're looking at a front elevation, like you've done here, that's

278
00:26:07,040 --> 00:26:11,300
not how we really see the house, what we see is a long side and a short side.

279
00:26:11,700 --> 00:26:20,920
So that long side on the north has no break in the roof and no steps of any sort of

280
00:26:20,920 --> 00:26:27,860
that we're leaving that, and that's probably one of the biggest concerns I have is

281
00:26:27,860 --> 00:26:28,840
those two things.

282
00:26:28,920 --> 00:26:34,380
Even in our design guidelines, there's an image that says an inappropriate

283
00:26:34,380 --> 00:26:41,480
infill as when roof horns are not compatible, large and broken slopes, are out of scale

284
00:26:41,480 --> 00:26:49,720
with neighboring buildings, and it seems to me that this has that kind of barracks

285
00:26:49,720 --> 00:26:53,500
like length to it that I find concerning.

286
00:27:02,820 --> 00:27:07,760
Your questions are observations or thoughts of recognition?

287
00:27:09,360 --> 00:27:09,760
I agree.

288
00:27:09,840 --> 00:27:13,580
I think we need more definitive plans before I would ever

289
00:27:13,580 --> 00:27:14,500
approve something.

290
00:27:15,300 --> 00:27:18,180
And I am concerned about the mass of the north and south

291
00:27:18,180 --> 00:27:18,880
sides.

292
00:27:21,190 --> 00:27:24,130
When you're speaking here, maybe there's a way you can

293
00:27:24,130 --> 00:27:29,230
try to break up each unit in either vertically or horizontally,

294
00:27:29,230 --> 00:27:33,550
and that might create some distinction between just the solid

295
00:27:33,550 --> 00:27:38,370
siding all the way down. That might add some, you know,

296
00:27:38,530 --> 00:27:43,150
some additional detail, or it might break up that long side of it too.

297
00:27:49,760 --> 00:27:54,400
I mean, it does seem to, there's a lot of, there's a mix of a lot of window shapes,

298
00:27:54,920 --> 00:27:59,240
like there's four pains in the front, and then two pains in the back,

299
00:27:59,360 --> 00:28:01,620
and then some that look more modern than that.

300
00:28:01,620 --> 00:28:09,640
Some consistency might be good in that and a little more of a traditional look to it to them, especially in those more modern looking windows.

301
00:28:14,580 --> 00:28:18,460
You're speaking of the shape and size of widow page arrangement.

302
00:28:18,600 --> 00:28:19,520
Correct, right.

303
00:28:20,020 --> 00:28:26,440
There's, I mean, there's just a mixture of different types of windows on it, just doesn't seem to have really a cohesive feel.

304
00:28:28,110 --> 00:28:41,970
I agree with Commissioner, I think it'd be a minor change and easily achieved if the front windows are apparently double hung, whether they are, not they have a crossbar that makes them look that way.

305
00:28:42,430 --> 00:28:51,190
It would seem consistent to do that on both sides. We're looking at a corner of a house and we're seeing windows change on each side, the way it is here.

306
00:28:51,190 --> 00:28:58,310
And the traditional pattern would be a similar type of window, and that's pretty much what we asked for in our foresighted design.

307
00:28:58,650 --> 00:29:01,910
But that's a relatively easy thing, I think, to address.

308
00:29:03,170 --> 00:29:07,870
It doesn't affect necessarily the windows dimensions or size or location.

309
00:29:08,250 --> 00:29:10,850
It's more just trying to be more consistent with them.

310
00:29:10,970 --> 00:29:21,170
They could operate as casements if that's your intent, but they could have that additional million that would at least give them the same appearance.

311
00:29:21,170 --> 00:29:22,010
the others.

312
00:29:33,940 --> 00:29:40,360
And I'm just going to pick on to the North Elevation in particular. One of the

313
00:29:40,360 --> 00:29:45,180
suggestions was, is there a way to break that up either, you know, laterally, I guess on the

314
00:29:45,180 --> 00:29:52,300
site so that the two units are somewhat distinct. We do have examples in town of houses that

315
00:29:52,300 --> 00:29:58,320
were an original structure with an addition onto the back that might even achieve a similar length,

316
00:29:58,320 --> 00:29:59,960
but it's very clear that those are...

317
00:30:02,420 --> 00:30:12,100
And I think that would help greatly in not giving this kind of a commercial feel to it. It would give it a more residential feel.

318
00:30:12,620 --> 00:30:16,960
And so that's just I think a consideration that might be well guided.

319
00:30:17,760 --> 00:30:23,020
I agree, and I think it could be as simple as simply offsetting the floor plans, but

320
00:30:23,020 --> 00:30:26,980
I do feed or something like that. You'd have the two roofs just shifting. You would

321
00:30:26,980 --> 00:30:32,660
have that same effect. It would be a relatively minor and relatively inexpensive change,

322
00:30:32,920 --> 00:30:39,740
but it would help meet our guidelines of breaking up large masses and large uninterrupted

323
00:30:39,740 --> 00:30:48,180
roots. Some cities have these very explicit guidelines, I know, of one that says no more

324
00:30:48,180 --> 00:30:54,300
than 16 feet or 32 feet without a two foot job. And glad we don't have these really

325
00:30:54,300 --> 00:31:09,720
prescriptive things, but yet we end up in this sort of situation where we have some more

326
00:31:10,600 --> 00:31:12,820
maybe that's something we can look forward to

327
00:31:12,820 --> 00:31:14,380
correcting in the future.

328
00:31:15,520 --> 00:31:17,340
And as we look at this site plan,

329
00:31:17,500 --> 00:31:20,400
it's pretty clear that there is room on both sides for

330
00:31:20,400 --> 00:31:21,200
lateral movement.

331
00:31:21,600 --> 00:31:24,520
So I don't think that would impede their setback requirements.

332
00:31:25,200 --> 00:31:27,480
I think we're in good shape there.

333
00:31:29,870 --> 00:31:30,730
Question for staff.

334
00:31:32,210 --> 00:31:35,610
Can we have more than one curb cut on a residential property

335
00:31:36,130 --> 00:31:37,290
to serve a duplex?

336
00:31:38,310 --> 00:31:43,610
chair commissioners the city does not have a restriction on number of curb cuts we have

337
00:31:43,610 --> 00:31:50,450
restrictions on width of curb cuts and that is a maximum of 20 feet but there's no limit

338
00:31:50,450 --> 00:31:56,690
on number. The curb cut proposed here is 12 feet wide.

339
00:31:59,250 --> 00:32:00,990
Sorry I just thought of a question

340
00:32:00,990 --> 00:32:05,930
for the applicant and forgive me for not thinking about it sooner but are you planning on any

341
00:32:05,930 --> 00:32:10,930
landscaping for your site, maybe in particular the front.

342
00:32:11,330 --> 00:32:13,290
So I invite the applicant to come back up.

343
00:32:17,630 --> 00:32:18,190
Yeah, yes.

344
00:32:18,430 --> 00:32:21,150
We're going to have landscaping around the whole unit.

345
00:32:23,230 --> 00:32:27,150
It might want to include that too in overall design too.

346
00:32:29,630 --> 00:32:32,170
And since you're here at the podium.

347
00:32:33,190 --> 00:32:36,710
So the plan is to have a chain length fence all the way along.

348
00:32:36,990 --> 00:32:39,470
What is the set of the south side?

349
00:32:39,470 --> 00:32:45,550
And then part of the west side.

350
00:32:45,550 --> 00:32:46,310
Where is that existing?

351
00:32:46,430 --> 00:32:47,270
I think this.

352
00:32:47,610 --> 00:32:48,310
Not existing.

353
00:32:48,830 --> 00:32:49,650
Is that existing?

354
00:32:50,170 --> 00:32:52,410
No, there's going to be no chain length.

355
00:32:52,770 --> 00:32:52,890
Fine.

356
00:32:53,470 --> 00:32:53,670
Okay.

357
00:32:53,890 --> 00:32:56,170
It's shown in the survey site plan.

358
00:32:56,490 --> 00:32:57,650
So I'm just curious.

359
00:32:58,510 --> 00:32:58,590
No.

360
00:33:01,950 --> 00:33:02,870
Oh, yes.

361
00:33:03,130 --> 00:33:04,490
I believe that's the neighbors.

362
00:33:04,810 --> 00:33:05,310
Oh, okay.

363
00:33:05,310 --> 00:33:05,690
The fence.

364
00:33:05,850 --> 00:33:06,190
I apologize.

365
00:33:06,330 --> 00:33:07,610
All right. Thank you.

366
00:33:11,150 --> 00:33:11,670
We'll call you back.

367
00:33:14,430 --> 00:33:14,990
So

368
00:33:17,290 --> 00:33:28,450
I think I'm not hearing support to approve this as it stands that there seem to be some changes that are needed here.

369
00:33:29,510 --> 00:33:32,510
It seems to me to be not quite fully cooked.

370
00:33:33,250 --> 00:33:43,290
You know, we see some inconsistencies in drawings, and I think that there are ways that the site plan and the design in general could be significantly improved.

371
00:33:43,290 --> 00:33:52,290
And I guess I would support tabling for this session in order to give the applicant time to do some further work on.

372
00:33:53,030 --> 00:33:53,050
Okay.

373
00:33:53,050 --> 00:33:54,370
Is that a motion?

374
00:33:56,510 --> 00:33:59,490
Do I like to hear what others think?

375
00:34:00,350 --> 00:34:02,310
I would be supportive of tabling it as well.

376
00:34:02,750 --> 00:34:04,630
And I could make a motion if you don't want to.

377
00:34:04,970 --> 00:34:05,350
Commissioner Holmes.

378
00:34:06,630 --> 00:34:08,530
Well, I'm willing to turn my comment into a motion.

379
00:34:08,530 --> 00:34:15,890
I would move that we table this project for the time being in order to allow the applicant

380
00:34:15,890 --> 00:34:23,290
time to put together a consistent set of drawings and respond to some of the comments relative

381
00:34:23,290 --> 00:34:30,910
to window-type and long-side geometry matching that we've brought up in this meeting.

382
00:34:32,230 --> 00:34:32,810
Is there a second?

383
00:34:33,050 --> 00:34:34,090
I'll make that second.

384
00:34:34,690 --> 00:34:42,070
We have a motion by homes in a second by Hamdahl to table, in this case with some feedback to the applicant.

385
00:34:43,510 --> 00:34:44,370
Is there any other discussion?

386
00:34:46,850 --> 00:34:47,230
Very none.

387
00:34:47,390 --> 00:34:48,850
All those in favor please say aye.

388
00:34:49,230 --> 00:34:49,410
Aye.

389
00:34:50,490 --> 00:34:51,130
Any opposed?

390
00:34:51,890 --> 00:34:52,570
Any abstentions?

391
00:34:53,510 --> 00:34:56,690
The motion passes unanimously to table the project.

392
00:34:57,330 --> 00:34:59,730
I hope we keep working with staff and we can.

393
00:35:00,270 --> 00:35:04,190
Hopefully, see it again sometime soon. Yep. Good night.

394
00:35:05,950 --> 00:35:16,810
So move on then to the next case, which is CD2025-053. Design Review for Newst Gate Arc located adjacent to

395
00:35:16,810 --> 00:35:25,350
a lot of 15 parking lot 15, I think, which is called the Teddy Bear Park parking lot, and turn it over to staff.

396
00:35:26,070 --> 00:35:30,470
Thank you chair. Members of the Commission, my apologies. That is parking lot 15. I got a little

397
00:35:30,470 --> 00:35:35,590
relax with that thinking down town parking commission that's just how we refer to it.

398
00:35:37,070 --> 00:35:42,650
As you'd mentioned, this is a request to locate a skate park, a Json 2 parking lot, 15,

399
00:35:43,550 --> 00:35:45,850
or common term, a teddy bear parking lot.

400
00:35:46,490 --> 00:35:50,550
It's the corner of second in Nelson, also right across the street from teddy bear park.

401
00:35:50,810 --> 00:35:56,150
The city proposes to replace the existing skate park, which has been removed as in early

402
00:35:56,150 --> 00:36:00,530
2025, which was previously in our business part commercial district, by the St.

403
00:36:00,590 --> 00:36:04,770
Query Recreation Center, and also what is commonly referred to as the Brian's

404
00:36:04,770 --> 00:36:05,090
building.

405
00:36:05,990 --> 00:36:09,030
It's in the central, the proposed location is in the central business.

406
00:36:09,710 --> 00:36:15,490
Central, I'm confusing my business, part districts, central, business district, it's in

407
00:36:15,490 --> 00:36:16,830
the downtown design review district.

408
00:36:16,870 --> 00:36:22,490
It is not within the registered commercial district nor is it a registered or listed

409
00:36:22,490 --> 00:36:23,030
structure.

410
00:36:24,110 --> 00:36:28,310
the design partner that our Parks Department and our Parks Commission worked with

411
00:36:28,310 --> 00:36:33,670
this spawn ranch I believe. This site was chosen for redevelopment due to city

412
00:36:33,670 --> 00:36:37,550
ownership of the location. It's current location being informally used as a

413
00:36:37,550 --> 00:36:42,330
skate park in a place for graffiti artists or people who partake will go there

414
00:36:42,330 --> 00:36:47,290
and then just general and I can get into all get into this a little bit later on but

415
00:36:47,290 --> 00:36:52,190
just generally trying to bring a skate park closer to where you see that activity which is

416
00:36:53,550 --> 00:37:03,190
The historic context, I think I would jump to, no, the historic context here is this is the previous site where the gas, where I would jump and I apologize.

417
00:37:03,750 --> 00:37:08,610
It's the previously the northern states power facility where there was a cold gas burning plant.

418
00:37:09,110 --> 00:37:15,550
The circle, the circular area that pad that they're proposing on a redeveloping, was the storage location for that gas.

419
00:37:15,550 --> 00:37:17,910
and it was commonly referred to as a gasoline meter.

420
00:37:19,130 --> 00:37:21,190
The photo provided by the chair earlier on the first

421
00:37:21,190 --> 00:37:23,550
weekend discussing this shows the structure,

422
00:37:23,990 --> 00:37:25,950
unfortunately, just to the left out of frame,

423
00:37:26,090 --> 00:37:28,290
it's where that silo would have been.

424
00:37:29,070 --> 00:37:30,390
I don't believe this one was our net,

425
00:37:30,490 --> 00:37:33,010
but if you look at some older photos of along the Chippewa

426
00:37:33,010 --> 00:37:37,250
River and O'Clayer, there was some very ornate-looking siloes

427
00:37:37,250 --> 00:37:39,770
as what I would infer, kind of, compare them to.

428
00:37:40,010 --> 00:37:42,650
This was a little bit more simple and obviously no longer there.

429
00:37:42,650 --> 00:37:46,710
The request is design review approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission.

430
00:37:47,190 --> 00:37:50,070
It's to establish that purpose-built skate park for downtown.

431
00:37:50,070 --> 00:37:56,510
So a lot of bring the park to where the skaters are rather than have them have to walk all the way

432
00:37:56,510 --> 00:37:58,410
or drive all the way to the business park district.

433
00:37:58,570 --> 00:38:05,450
I think that was an active placement for the, for the Parks Department and our, I should say, park commission, as well as city council.

434
00:38:06,390 --> 00:38:12,530
It's replacing an aging outdated facility, which was the oldest skate park providing recreational amenities to both skaters.

435
00:38:12,530 --> 00:38:18,410
and then generally just spectators kind of using that space for just activation for the city.

436
00:38:19,150 --> 00:38:23,610
And the HBC is seeing this because it is a public project that is happening within a designer view crate.

437
00:38:24,010 --> 00:38:32,710
That designer view area is not necessarily, it's not, it's current is per code required to see

438
00:38:32,710 --> 00:38:34,930
because it's a public facility in a designer view.

439
00:38:34,930 --> 00:38:41,850
in itself, it doesn't have as much, let's say, historic relevance beyond just what the pad

440
00:38:41,850 --> 00:38:47,350
was there or what used to be there today, as far as structural integrity. The design features

441
00:38:47,350 --> 00:38:52,710
for the park, this was fun for me to write in there. If I'm being candid, it was, I enjoyed saying

442
00:38:52,710 --> 00:38:57,050
things like quarter pipes, ledges, stairs, rails, wall rides, because they weren't hit,

443
00:38:57,050 --> 00:39:02,310
gabled, answered, I just thought that was kind of different for you all to see.

444
00:39:03,230 --> 00:39:06,110
Did any of you all know what those were when you read them?

445
00:39:06,350 --> 00:39:07,590
No, yes.

446
00:39:08,970 --> 00:39:13,330
So that's a general escape park, proposed to be the same location in size of the existing

447
00:39:13,330 --> 00:39:18,850
pad there today, so they're not making it much larger than any of the existing circular area.

448
00:39:19,190 --> 00:39:23,810
There will be some bumpouts where there's going to be spots for benches or any of the other

449
00:39:23,810 --> 00:39:25,330
amenities that skaters would use.

450
00:39:25,790 --> 00:39:29,230
The existing retaining wall that's there that you're probably aware of is proposed to remain

451
00:39:29,230 --> 00:39:32,810
there, the public works department would not want to replace that, but I think it would

452
00:39:32,810 --> 00:39:37,250
want to be a beneficial feature, and to just not worth their time to do it serving a function

453
00:39:37,250 --> 00:39:43,990
today. As mentioned, the former Civil War Gas Light Company and SP had the site from 1880s

454
00:39:43,990 --> 00:39:50,090
to the 1950s. In the 1960s, this is my biggest update for you all. There was remediation of the site,

455
00:39:50,350 --> 00:39:55,050
and if you've gone down to that site today, or maybe even starting Monday, you'll notice that

456
00:39:55,050 --> 00:39:57,010
there's quite a bit of earth tore up.

457
00:39:57,170 --> 00:39:59,190
When an Excel discovered that we were,

458
00:39:59,290 --> 00:39:59,970
or when they found out Earth.

459
00:40:00,000 --> 00:40:06,080
We are working on this. They wanted to go back and do testing of the remediation to ensure that it was actually done appropriately.

460
00:40:06,900 --> 00:40:13,480
So they did remove that pad that was there earlier to make sure that it was remediated appropriately in the 60s and 70s and are testing it now.

461
00:40:13,760 --> 00:40:20,480
To my knowledge, it's not necessarily remediation that is happening, but testing to ensure it was done and is safe for use.

462
00:40:20,540 --> 00:40:25,300
And that goes for the entire site. I think that's including the parking lot too. It isn't just this location.

463
00:40:26,500 --> 00:40:30,540
So it's kind of, I'd say, an added public safety benefit to this project.

464
00:40:32,240 --> 00:40:35,620
Ultimately, from Saps Respected, there isn't remaining historic structure.

465
00:40:36,240 --> 00:40:40,460
The pad itself would lack the confirmed historical integrity of what was there,

466
00:40:40,520 --> 00:40:44,740
and that might be the last remaining historic structure that we could say that was there.

467
00:40:46,020 --> 00:40:49,440
Looking at preservation considerations, the site's not within a listed historic district.

468
00:40:49,680 --> 00:40:54,320
It isn't listed itself. There's an issue overview required for it.

469
00:40:54,320 --> 00:40:58,920
Ultimately, staff does find it's compatible with the downtown design, as well as character

470
00:40:58,920 --> 00:41:04,300
and represents positive activation for that site today, and I think aligns with a lot of

471
00:41:04,300 --> 00:41:06,600
our downtown goals as well.

472
00:41:06,980 --> 00:41:11,920
And just general public activity goals.

473
00:41:12,520 --> 00:41:17,360
This is a site plan of what they're using, so you can kind of see that pad that's about

474
00:41:17,360 --> 00:41:18,040
the same size.

475
00:41:18,160 --> 00:41:21,660
There's another one in your packet that had it overlaid to the actual pad.

476
00:41:21,660 --> 00:41:33,940
Here's some renderings of what that would look like with all of the, I would say, architectural features from a skate park like your, um, I think my favorites to the hub, I think in the middle I just like saying that.

477
00:41:34,660 --> 00:41:36,720
Um, then here's an overview of that site as well.

478
00:41:38,120 --> 00:41:48,580
I'll tell you later, staff, staff recommendation is approval of the HVC Resolution 2025 14 to approve the design review and I will stand for any questions. Thank you.

479
00:41:52,130 --> 00:41:53,810
Thank you. Are the questions for staff?

480
00:41:57,760 --> 00:42:04,280
I have just kind of a big question for all of us and staff included and that's just a dressing.

481
00:42:05,140 --> 00:42:11,640
And this is again maybe something that we can try to do a better job with our, with our design codes.

482
00:42:12,260 --> 00:42:21,420
But I think there's been a few times when we've been not in agreement with something that needed to be reviewed by the HPC.

483
00:42:21,420 --> 00:42:29,040
And in your report, you know, the projects of this nature are not typically subject to the standard design review guidelines.

484
00:42:32,240 --> 00:42:40,340
So, do we have any kind of a more concise definition of what isn't, isn't to come before us?

485
00:42:40,340 --> 00:42:43,460
And if not, then I think that's maybe something we should work toward.

486
00:42:43,460 --> 00:42:49,280
So that, you know, there isn't any ambiguity that we can have.

487
00:42:50,180 --> 00:42:56,180
The, what I, you know, I know this isn't the building, so that's pretty much one reason

488
00:42:56,180 --> 00:42:58,880
that it might fall into that ambiguous area.

489
00:42:59,480 --> 00:43:05,100
On the other hand, we've got all kinds of things in our, in our code about the cultural resources

490
00:43:06,500 --> 00:43:12,540
and we've reviewed retaining walls, we've reviewed things that have far less impact

491
00:43:12,540 --> 00:43:14,560
on our city than this.

492
00:43:15,260 --> 00:43:19,240
So, and really if you look at design review process,

493
00:43:19,500 --> 00:43:22,180
it says the whole purpose of it is to ensure building

494
00:43:22,180 --> 00:43:25,340
and site development, design complement the character

495
00:43:25,340 --> 00:43:28,860
and integrity of still waters, neighborhood commercial districts,

496
00:43:29,680 --> 00:43:31,540
including the buildings, the streetscape,

497
00:43:31,680 --> 00:43:32,760
and the natural environment.

498
00:43:33,080 --> 00:43:36,020
So I think there are things besides buildings

499
00:43:36,020 --> 00:43:42,520
that rightly fall in the design review guideline under our review

500
00:43:42,520 --> 00:43:44,560
And I just think it would be good.

501
00:43:44,700 --> 00:43:46,180
I don't know if you have an answer.

502
00:43:46,340 --> 00:43:49,700
If it's more of a, we've got to work on it kind of a thing.

503
00:43:50,140 --> 00:43:52,540
Commission chair commissioners, it could be a little bit of both.

504
00:43:52,620 --> 00:43:55,780
I can definitely say code does require because it's a public project

505
00:43:55,780 --> 00:43:57,380
in the design and redistrict.

506
00:43:57,580 --> 00:43:59,260
HBC gets the crack at it right away.

507
00:43:59,380 --> 00:44:04,520
And to your point, there are things on here that, again, retaining walls.

508
00:44:04,720 --> 00:44:06,860
I think the commission actually reviewed the retaining wall

509
00:44:06,860 --> 00:44:11,180
replace minutes shown in this rendering here maybe two or three years ago.

510
00:44:11,180 --> 00:44:15,740
So definitely something that is warrant of your review, in this case, from Saph's perspective

511
00:44:15,740 --> 00:44:21,100
for this particular instance, looking back at the older photo of any historic integrity

512
00:44:21,100 --> 00:44:27,120
that was on this site is now primarily steep slope, so natural environment, or parking lot.

513
00:44:27,420 --> 00:44:31,720
And so what used to be there, the cultural resource from Saph's perspective is mostly gone,

514
00:44:32,040 --> 00:44:35,340
but that is definitely another aspect that I think the HPC would review this for.

515
00:44:35,640 --> 00:44:39,260
So it's a little bit of both that this is within your purview because code requires that it's

516
00:44:39,260 --> 00:44:43,540
design review district is the site itself that's going to be impacting downtown.

517
00:44:44,600 --> 00:44:48,420
It just, I think I might have worded that staff reporting a little confusing.

518
00:44:49,700 --> 00:44:53,220
It's, I don't know what it is for the HVC to review this as it's not a structure, but it

519
00:44:53,220 --> 00:44:54,300
is not unwarranted.

520
00:44:54,660 --> 00:44:55,520
Is that only a warranted review?

521
00:44:59,380 --> 00:44:59,860
Yeah.

522
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:07,000
I guess my only question is, is there a bit of overreach here to include a bank to slap a ledge or a grind ledge and a hub a ledge?

523
00:45:07,940 --> 00:45:11,420
I'm just not persuaded that that's, you know, necessary.

524
00:45:12,260 --> 00:45:14,300
Too many lights, too many lights.

525
00:45:19,550 --> 00:45:22,070
So we're noting too many ledges for the commission.

526
00:45:25,390 --> 00:45:33,290
I would agree with what Commissioner Larson said, you know, we've, we've, sometimes these public projects come to us

527
00:45:33,290 --> 00:45:39,850
and they're pretty far down the road of design and they definitely do have an impact and

528
00:45:39,850 --> 00:45:46,450
do relate to the kinds of things that we are looking to to reveal with a downtown designer

529
00:45:46,450 --> 00:45:50,590
view district even if they don't have historic buildings that are being altered.

530
00:45:52,090 --> 00:45:59,090
In this one, I do think that that backwall probably dates from those 200 gas company era.

531
00:45:59,190 --> 00:46:02,290
I'm not sure, you know, I think somebody would have to look into that.

532
00:46:02,290 --> 00:46:06,730
I don't think we even need to look into that since it sounds like it's not going to be altered.

533
00:46:07,150 --> 00:46:17,390
And if I'm understanding this one of the things I was wondering is that in this rendering it appears to have some sort of a texture applied to it.

534
00:46:18,170 --> 00:46:21,250
But perhaps that's just how it came out of a computer.

535
00:46:21,950 --> 00:46:23,270
Chair commissioners, that is okay.

536
00:46:23,530 --> 00:46:28,230
I did ask our deputy public works director about that.

537
00:46:28,230 --> 00:46:34,690
are you playing or placing it, repairing it, what are you going to do? And their goal is actually to leave it as much intact as it is today.

538
00:46:35,070 --> 00:46:43,210
There's obviously some to Commissioner Summers points. Maybe there is pervute here. They are planning and using it as a wall, right?

539
00:46:43,270 --> 00:46:47,810
So literally using that infrastructure as part of the skate park itself, so they don't want to remove it.

540
00:46:47,990 --> 00:46:54,010
I also think that another goal that the Public Works Director mentioned, well not an organized effort.

541
00:46:54,010 --> 00:46:57,410
As if you've been back there, you'll notice there's a lot of graffiti and taking.

542
00:46:58,710 --> 00:47:03,950
There isn't an active program to remove that now, and I don't think that they're going

543
00:47:03,950 --> 00:47:05,570
to actively want to remove it in the future.

544
00:47:05,710 --> 00:47:10,370
In fact, there might be some sort of encouragement to use that space rather than other infrastructure

545
00:47:10,370 --> 00:47:11,570
throughout downtown.

546
00:47:12,370 --> 00:47:19,070
So, it really is an attempt to, from kind of a public, more public side of things, to bring

547
00:47:19,070 --> 00:47:22,910
the skateboard park to the skaters, where they're likely downtown, and also some of those

548
00:47:22,910 --> 00:47:26,650
or attractive nuisances, go use that wall instead of another one.

549
00:47:27,650 --> 00:47:29,850
And I do want to apologize for the tardiness on this.

550
00:47:29,890 --> 00:47:31,010
I think it was the chair that mentioned.

551
00:47:31,170 --> 00:47:32,970
I didn't even know it was happening all of a sudden.

552
00:47:33,150 --> 00:47:36,750
There was a small yard science with this proposal on it.

553
00:47:36,870 --> 00:47:38,330
And I didn't know that was there.

554
00:47:41,510 --> 00:47:42,770
Question for somebody.

555
00:47:43,330 --> 00:47:44,910
Mr. McRolley knows this better than I do.

556
00:47:44,970 --> 00:47:52,150
But is there some way to just wear that new, those new ramps kind of,

557
00:47:52,150 --> 00:47:59,730
up against the the original walls, there's some sort of narrow separating material that could

558
00:47:59,730 --> 00:48:07,390
keep the new concrete from physically attaching to the to the old wall. If that's possible,

559
00:48:07,630 --> 00:48:12,830
that might make it theoretically reversible if the design changes are the escape arc changes

560
00:48:12,830 --> 00:48:20,670
or something else in the future is in that spot. Chair commissioners, if I'm understanding looking

561
00:48:20,670 --> 00:48:28,990
for a way so that if the fist is constructed as shown they're likely not penetrating the

562
00:48:28,990 --> 00:48:34,070
wall the existing wall that I put rebar in and other kind of building it alongside it

563
00:48:34,070 --> 00:48:38,650
but close enough we're still function but also far enough a way that it's removable or

564
00:48:38,650 --> 00:48:45,150
if demoed that doesn't impact the integrity of that wall a common detail would be to have an

565
00:48:45,150 --> 00:48:49,970
extension material between the existing and the new just to make sure there was a bond break there

566
00:48:49,970 --> 00:48:51,290
OK, what's going to happen?

567
00:48:51,610 --> 00:48:54,190
OK, so if that expansion material serves

568
00:48:54,190 --> 00:48:58,770
that purpose, then I think would be a good thing for a few reasons.

569
00:49:02,720 --> 00:49:05,620
I just have a couple of thoughts, and since we're reviewing it,

570
00:49:06,140 --> 00:49:08,680
and looking at it, and it's surrounding landscape.

571
00:49:10,180 --> 00:49:13,680
So I look at this, and I look at the teddy bear park.

572
00:49:14,220 --> 00:49:19,260
And I think of what are the design elements of teddy bear park,

573
00:49:19,320 --> 00:49:21,400
and what are the design elements of this?

574
00:49:21,400 --> 00:49:32,900
And I think one thing that stood out to me between this one and between the park is just the, you know,

575
00:49:33,020 --> 00:49:42,300
well, one, the concrete, it doesn't appear to be dyed at all. And you know, might be, you know,

576
00:49:42,440 --> 00:49:48,860
might we consider a dye that's either kind of a cream or more of a reddish brick, like the

577
00:49:48,860 --> 00:49:51,380
levers are in teddy bear park,

578
00:49:53,760 --> 00:49:57,660
you know, just so it doesn't have that, you know, that

579
00:49:57,660 --> 00:49:59,960
vast expanse of unfinished, you know.

580
00:50:00,000 --> 00:50:09,100
Now I finish concrete look. Are the ways we can incorporate some color into this, some, you know,

581
00:50:09,260 --> 00:50:16,020
some colors that we traditionally see in downtown. That's, that was my one dot on this.

582
00:50:16,280 --> 00:50:25,600
And then also going back to that while I think it's worth the city having conversations about what to do with that long term.

583
00:50:25,600 --> 00:50:33,060
because if it's going to remain a blank while I can almost guarantee that there will be a continuous

584
00:50:33,060 --> 00:50:40,920
issue with taking. And so my, you know, my thought isn't and maybe not all of the commissioners

585
00:50:40,920 --> 00:50:48,000
will agree with this, but perhaps look at that as a potential public arts face as well to try to

586
00:50:49,480 --> 00:50:51,560
proactively mitigate that issue.

587
00:50:55,440 --> 00:50:56,520
We just call it a mirror.

588
00:50:59,760 --> 00:51:07,780
I understand from what you were saying earlier, question for staff, that kind of the intent is that it remain

589
00:51:07,780 --> 00:51:09,700
out, be taking surface.

590
00:51:10,360 --> 00:51:11,620
Chair, commissioners, that is correct.

591
00:51:12,260 --> 00:51:18,060
I will say, I think that's a comment that we can definitely pass along to the public works

592
00:51:18,060 --> 00:51:24,040
staff and also the applicants or I'd say the consultants that we're working with the public

593
00:51:24,040 --> 00:51:29,360
work staff, but essentially the plan is to kind of leave it, it appears to be doing an effective

594
00:51:29,360 --> 00:51:35,880
job of being tagged and leave it that way. I don't think there's any, I don't think there's

595
00:51:35,880 --> 00:51:40,640
any request from PD or public works to go out there and paint it now and I don't think they intend

596
00:51:40,640 --> 00:51:45,320
to either, I'm going to go on on a limb and say if there's obviously clearly offensive art

597
00:51:45,320 --> 00:51:50,780
or work they would probably go out there, but I think they want to use it to attract that

598
00:51:50,780 --> 00:51:52,820
since rather than repel it.

599
00:51:55,120 --> 00:51:57,200
And then as for the dying, I think that's a really good comment.

600
00:51:57,460 --> 00:52:00,240
I'm looking at Google Street or Google Aerial.

601
00:52:00,420 --> 00:52:02,320
It looks almost red compared to definitely

602
00:52:02,320 --> 00:52:04,460
on the sun, catches Teddy Bear Park's parking lot

603
00:52:04,460 --> 00:52:06,700
or not parking lot, but the walkway

604
00:52:06,700 --> 00:52:07,640
it definitely looks red.

605
00:52:07,860 --> 00:52:11,260
And so I can see they're being, if it is just this clean

606
00:52:11,260 --> 00:52:14,320
of a concrete, while that might look good in a vacuum,

607
00:52:14,620 --> 00:52:18,060
I could see that being very different from across the street.

608
00:52:20,870 --> 00:52:22,490
I mean, I know it looks, sorry.

609
00:52:22,490 --> 00:52:29,850
It looks like the teddy bear park uses a kind of combination of some reddish tint and some tan it as well.

610
00:52:29,850 --> 00:52:30,430
Well,

611
00:52:38,090 --> 00:52:44,950
I had walked out on the site just recently and they're well under way demolishing everything.

612
00:52:45,290 --> 00:52:47,070
So most of the concrete's gone.

613
00:52:49,350 --> 00:52:52,150
Just two thoughts in it.

614
00:52:52,210 --> 00:52:58,390
These are probably not HPC realm comments, but just throw them out there again.

615
00:52:59,030 --> 00:53:03,990
Because we have it in front of us, and one would be just concerns the safety at the top

616
00:53:03,990 --> 00:53:04,510
of the wall.

617
00:53:04,770 --> 00:53:12,730
There's an existing barboyer top fence that moves along Chilcoot and probably does a pretty

618
00:53:12,730 --> 00:53:18,670
good job, doesn't show up in any of these drawings and assuming if that area at the top

619
00:53:18,670 --> 00:53:25,190
of the wall is accessible with this additional activity would be good to make sure we have

620
00:53:25,190 --> 00:53:28,690
kind of a fall protection at the top of the wall.

621
00:53:29,290 --> 00:53:36,930
And the other is really the way you enter and exit the site that just kind of struck me

622
00:53:36,930 --> 00:53:45,680
as maybe not the best way because it doesn't take you out of the site before you get to

623
00:53:45,680 --> 00:53:56,660
crosswalk at Teddy Bear, the park, so right there, that's a extremely steep slope right

624
00:53:56,660 --> 00:54:02,360
at that entrance point. It looks nice but there's no doubt that if you've got on that

625
00:54:02,360 --> 00:54:06,920
and you have a board over your shoulder you probably will get on it and go down it brings you

626
00:54:06,920 --> 00:54:15,200
to that intersection and I just questioned whether it wouldn't make some sense to bring the

627
00:54:15,200 --> 00:54:21,420
entrance in at the parking lot, maybe move us all over if need be handicapped, saw there's

628
00:54:21,420 --> 00:54:31,860
plenty of room. It's just, my concern is giving almost, well, giving access to

629
00:54:31,860 --> 00:54:36,820
Chilkut where it never had it before. And it's at a steep slope and not an ideal place.

630
00:54:36,940 --> 00:54:43,140
Ideally, you would come out at a street intersection that's marked rather than 20 feet up the hill

631
00:54:43,140 --> 00:54:45,140
on a steep slope from that intersection,

632
00:54:47,340 --> 00:54:50,520
but that's something if you could pass, most of

633
00:54:50,520 --> 00:54:55,520
these drawings just sort of cut us off before we get to that point, but that was my

634
00:54:55,520 --> 00:54:56,340
turned it.

635
00:55:11,600 --> 00:55:12,980
Any further thoughts?

636
00:55:15,100 --> 00:55:41,540
And my correct one we're looking for a motion to approve or I can't get the package here. There's a resolution in here. That has just one condition of approval right now. Is there anything based on what we've heard here tonight? Is there support to approve it?

637
00:55:41,540 --> 00:55:48,700
As is, or with some conditions, or ask for those things you've all mentioned to be considered

638
00:55:48,700 --> 00:55:49,700
in broad back.

639
00:55:49,840 --> 00:55:51,740
I guess there are probably three options here.

640
00:56:03,120 --> 00:56:06,620
I'm looking at the proposed resolution and the package.

641
00:56:09,300 --> 00:56:14,460
And the condition of approval, the designs, she'll be consistent with those unfile

642
00:56:14,460 --> 00:56:17,900
for the slate, roof, mimicking metal roof.

643
00:56:18,880 --> 00:56:19,480
Is that it?

644
00:56:19,480 --> 00:56:21,140
That is a typo commissioners.

645
00:56:21,140 --> 00:56:22,660
It seems like a wrong condition.

646
00:56:23,360 --> 00:56:23,580
Okay.

647
00:56:24,000 --> 00:56:26,000
Just wanted to make sure I was reading that correctly.

648
00:56:27,920 --> 00:56:32,400
We'll make sure to update that that proposed plans are consistent with those on file for the skatepark.

649
00:56:32,400 --> 00:56:32,880
I apologize.

650
00:56:33,620 --> 00:56:34,020
So what?

651
00:56:34,300 --> 00:56:35,640
So is there a condition of approval?

652
00:56:35,900 --> 00:56:36,260
I don't know.

653
00:56:36,300 --> 00:56:39,560
That would be the standard condition that it's consistent with what it's before you hear.

654
00:56:39,580 --> 00:56:39,960
Okay.

655
00:56:40,280 --> 00:56:41,380
Thank you.

656
00:56:45,300 --> 00:56:46,840
The earlier condition that's sad for it.

657
00:56:46,900 --> 00:56:50,500
It sounded like there was a lot of good comments that we broke down that will definitely be passing along.

658
00:56:50,500 --> 00:56:56,600
think one more designer view or kind of consistent with the neighborhood area or the site itself

659
00:56:56,600 --> 00:57:01,400
was the pigmentation of the concrete and that's something that we could... I admittedly

660
00:57:01,400 --> 00:57:05,100
I'm not familiar with how skate parks are constructed if that's something they can do.

661
00:57:05,220 --> 00:57:08,880
I've seen different colored ones, but it's definitely something we could add as a condition for them to

662
00:57:08,880 --> 00:57:09,300
explore.

663
00:57:11,960 --> 00:57:19,040
And I would point to finding see there, which is that, you know, that would potentially

664
00:57:19,040 --> 00:57:23,800
negatively alter the essential character of that space, that expansive gray

665
00:57:23,800 --> 00:57:24,160
concrete.

666
00:57:40,280 --> 00:57:43,560
I think this is a really good use in this location. I think it's

667
00:57:43,560 --> 00:57:48,980
cleverly cited. I think it's adjacent seat of Teddy Bear Park is kind of ironic and

668
00:57:50,020 --> 00:57:54,740
and fun. Little kids big kids. I don't know that I care very much about this

669
00:57:54,740 --> 00:57:58,240
inconsistency between the two. They're so very different in use and everything else

670
00:57:59,500 --> 00:58:04,120
that I'm less concerned about that. I am concerned from a safety standpoint and

671
00:58:04,120 --> 00:58:08,660
this effect, the designers parse this as well, just when people come out of this skate park

672
00:58:08,660 --> 00:58:15,080
on skateboards, they're immediately given a steep slope to come down and that seems to me

673
00:58:15,080 --> 00:58:21,300
to be a recipe for some conflict there, but strollers crossing from the parking lot to teddy bear

674
00:58:21,300 --> 00:58:26,000
and cars coming down, fill a code and bike coming out, fill a code and it would be safer.

675
00:58:26,240 --> 00:58:30,100
It seems to me if it was a stairway down onto the parking lot itself rather than a sidewalk

676
00:58:30,100 --> 00:58:38,260
that went down at a steep slope. So I guess I support a motion to approve with the condition

677
00:58:38,260 --> 00:58:45,340
that they evaluate a different entry location, not that it had a different entry location,

678
00:58:45,620 --> 00:58:47,520
but that they take time to evaluate that.

679
00:58:50,390 --> 00:58:53,290
You have a motion? I would second that motion.

680
00:58:53,730 --> 00:58:58,850
I do have concerns to about the safety of the site, so I think that should definitely be looked at.

681
00:58:58,850 --> 00:59:04,750
motion by home, second by me, you know, my I agree with with that as well and

682
00:59:04,750 --> 00:59:10,570
Jilakud is so narrow and and so Daisy half the time, the cars and pedestrians and

683
00:59:10,570 --> 00:59:16,250
everything else that I think it would be wise to not have another element to have mixed.

684
00:59:19,460 --> 00:59:26,920
I'd maybe add another from the amendment to just encourage the city to continue exploring

685
00:59:26,920 --> 00:59:30,560
the feasibility of public art with artists and community partners.

686
00:59:30,560 --> 00:59:31,980
Yes, let's base.

687
00:59:34,520 --> 00:59:35,860
I would be too.

688
00:59:35,860 --> 00:59:36,720
I would be too.

689
00:59:37,480 --> 00:59:42,520
Friendly amendment was accepted by both of the commissioners the original in the second.

690
00:59:43,840 --> 00:59:56,680
So we have, I believe we have as the motion in the packets with the corrective standard condition that plans to be consistent with those on fire in the community development department except as modified here in.

691
00:59:56,680 --> 00:59:58,840
condition to

692
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:14,380
Explore, having the entrance be through the park for greater safety or through the parking lot, for greater safety, and then a condition to consider public art on that wall.

693
01:00:19,220 --> 01:00:20,260
Anything else?

694
01:00:22,270 --> 01:00:25,510
Okay, well then all those in favour, please say aye.

695
01:00:25,550 --> 01:00:28,950
Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

696
01:00:29,590 --> 01:00:35,470
Okay. The motion passing unanimously unanimously to grant design approval with those conditions.

697
01:00:37,630 --> 01:00:39,910
So moving on down the list.

698
01:00:40,410 --> 01:00:44,130
I think we've got a computer calendar is kind of question here.

699
01:00:45,610 --> 01:00:47,170
So I will turn it over to Smith.

700
01:00:47,430 --> 01:00:51,450
Chair, commissioners, I might, if you're all right, do a little bit of a reverse order on the staff.

701
01:00:51,450 --> 01:00:54,670
update so we can end with a little bit of fun discussion on comparing calendars.

702
01:00:55,450 --> 01:00:57,410
I'll start with number five.

703
01:00:57,450 --> 01:01:01,430
A subcommittee for designer view guidelines has been chosen so we do have three of our great

704
01:01:01,430 --> 01:01:02,950
commissioners up here. They're on a subcommittee.

705
01:01:03,550 --> 01:01:07,170
Subcommittee to look at our designer view guidelines and just red line them. Again, it's not

706
01:01:07,170 --> 01:01:12,970
very large changes just looking at where there can be updates minor tweaks here to just improve

707
01:01:12,970 --> 01:01:19,230
the design guidelines not looking at each section and trying to update the entire section individually.

708
01:01:20,550 --> 01:01:25,190
A reminder of 2020-26 Commission calendars, there is a draft of those for looking at next year.

709
01:01:25,610 --> 01:01:30,910
And the only update I have for that is similar to what we experienced this month and next month,

710
01:01:31,570 --> 01:01:35,470
where HPC and a subsequently planning commission will be moved up a week.

711
01:01:35,790 --> 01:01:42,350
So looking into 2020-26, I just wanted to give you all a year heads up that we're going to have early meetings.

712
01:01:42,450 --> 01:01:47,350
And November December, we will be reminding you, but otherwise everything else is looking consistent

713
01:01:47,350 --> 01:01:53,370
and with next year's calendars, an update on last week's City Council meeting.

714
01:01:53,790 --> 01:02:01,510
220 Murdoch Street was the appeal was upheld by the City Council kind of in half.

715
01:02:02,130 --> 01:02:07,770
So the City Council did ultimately save determined that there was enough information to determine

716
01:02:07,770 --> 01:02:12,830
replacement was warranted over repair for the, and I should back up to 220 Murdoch Street

717
01:02:12,830 --> 01:02:19,030
the old post office site, Rearof, the air in the resolution earlier for the site roof.

718
01:02:19,670 --> 01:02:25,610
The Council did determine that replacement was appropriate over repair, but they did ask and

719
01:02:25,610 --> 01:02:32,250
direct the applicant to return to the HPC. Right now, we're looking at December to discuss

720
01:02:32,250 --> 01:02:37,350
the appropriate materials. I've been working with our staff and pigeon to request more information

721
01:02:37,350 --> 01:02:41,910
beyond the scopes and quotes that have been submitted to you thus far to ensure you have

722
01:02:41,910 --> 01:02:48,730
information to make that decision. So that'll be coming back and at this time the appeal that was,

723
01:02:48,730 --> 01:02:54,390
it was an appeal to the denial that was from HBC. The Council of Return of the Appeal proved

724
01:02:54,390 --> 01:02:59,610
for placement but have sent the applicant back to the HBC to discuss materials. So I'll just

725
01:02:59,610 --> 01:03:05,950
want to let you know that that will be coming up here in December most likely. Does that restart

726
01:03:05,950 --> 01:03:11,270
the clerk on the case? It does not. So they do. That's something that I double check with our city attorney.

727
01:03:11,270 --> 01:03:13,190
it does not appear to reset the clock.

728
01:03:13,450 --> 01:03:15,570
This is technically the appeal period.

729
01:03:16,190 --> 01:03:18,090
So even when we have that 60 days,

730
01:03:18,470 --> 01:03:20,670
what something that it's safe just finding out as well

731
01:03:20,670 --> 01:03:23,630
is you have those 60 days to make or take action.

732
01:03:24,010 --> 01:03:25,490
And that includes that appeal period.

733
01:03:25,710 --> 01:03:27,650
So we have extended it to the full 120.

734
01:03:28,050 --> 01:03:29,390
So I believe that brings us into,

735
01:03:29,730 --> 01:03:32,650
I can pull this up, but I believe that will bring us

736
01:03:32,650 --> 01:03:33,590
into early January.

737
01:03:35,530 --> 01:03:37,110
I know commission has done some research.

738
01:03:37,330 --> 01:03:39,870
Do you need any additional info about materials?

739
01:03:39,870 --> 01:03:49,490
Are roofing that would be approval by us at this point? Not not as much, but I appreciate that what we're looking for from the applicant is if there's a

740
01:03:49,490 --> 01:03:55,610
What I believe it will be seeking from our conversations is that they're going to propose a specific project or product

741
01:03:55,610 --> 01:04:02,470
We are going to seek information how that's going to be a fix. How it's going to impact the the cornices, the dormers, the windows, the skylights

742
01:04:03,810 --> 01:04:09,330
Because they're likely not going to be seeking to replace it with slate, which is a product. We know for that roof

743
01:04:09,330 --> 01:04:13,010
know what it looks like, how it's going to be installed. If it was like for like replacement,

744
01:04:13,230 --> 01:04:17,990
it would likely be an easier review for the commission, because it's likely not going to be.

745
01:04:18,010 --> 01:04:22,110
I'd like for like replacement, we're going to be asking for much more information on how that

746
01:04:22,110 --> 01:04:27,790
material is going to be operating on that roof, because it's foreign to that roof. That's something

747
01:04:27,790 --> 01:04:30,750
that we were just speaking with our consultants with earlier today.

748
01:04:33,890 --> 01:04:35,810
And then I do the last two

749
01:04:35,810 --> 01:04:37,610
are a little bit less ones an update.

750
01:04:37,970 --> 01:04:41,110
Preservation awards were not had in October, November,

751
01:04:41,270 --> 01:04:43,290
but we are going to be getting them ready

752
01:04:43,290 --> 01:04:45,910
for the new year into the for 2026.

753
01:04:46,430 --> 01:04:48,550
So what I'll be asking all of the commissioners here to do

754
01:04:48,550 --> 01:04:49,890
is between now and December.

755
01:04:50,930 --> 01:04:53,290
Please look back or look at some projects

756
01:04:53,290 --> 01:04:54,250
that were done around the city

757
01:04:54,250 --> 01:04:56,370
and send us some addresses and sites

758
01:04:56,370 --> 01:04:59,110
for those that you think would be really good candidates

759
01:04:59,110 --> 01:04:59,850
for preservation.

760
01:05:00,000 --> 01:05:00,120
We'll go to two or three minutes before the next decide.

761
01:05:00,120 --> 01:05:00,520
The question is, basically, depending on the situation, the 2017 decision would be

762
01:05:00,520 --> 01:05:01,600
for the 2020 decision.

763
01:05:04,840 --> 01:05:11,000
The decision was between two and only two months ago.

764
01:05:11,000 --> 01:05:12,960
They'd have a discussion with you, if we decided to get a decision,

765
01:05:12,960 --> 01:05:15,260
we're going to start this project.

766
01:05:15,260 --> 01:05:15,300
We're going to make sure that there's a discussion that's needed.

767
01:05:15,300 --> 01:05:15,460
In the future, we're going to go to a session about the decision decision.

768
01:05:15,460 --> 01:05:20,300
If we did, we'll do the right to start the decision.

769
01:05:20,300 --> 01:05:29,980
What do we want to do if we did the decision to start the decision for the first time?

770
01:05:29,980 --> 01:05:34,060
presented to the Commission in December's planning HPC meeting.

771
01:05:35,340 --> 01:05:38,240
Last update is the calendar update.

772
01:05:39,000 --> 01:05:41,260
So just as a reminder, in this case, it's for camp

773
01:05:41,260 --> 01:05:44,820
and we're looking at, and this is a day-long training

774
01:05:44,820 --> 01:05:47,920
of continuing education on just the importance of preservation

775
01:05:48,680 --> 01:05:52,240
and all things that the NAPC could really give us

776
01:05:52,240 --> 01:05:53,960
and it's something I'm personally looking forward to,

777
01:05:54,020 --> 01:05:55,300
because I think it'll be helpful for me.

778
01:05:56,700 --> 01:05:58,340
The hardest part has been nailing down a date.

779
01:05:58,340 --> 01:06:03,260
They have told us they would prefer bookending it, so 30s day Friday or Monday, and this

780
01:06:03,260 --> 01:06:08,400
is the presenters, those that would be flying out or driving out to teach us.

781
01:06:08,740 --> 01:06:16,180
So what we're looking for from the HPC is some time between January and May of 2026, 30s

782
01:06:16,180 --> 01:06:20,700
day Friday or a Monday that you'd be available the entire day.

783
01:06:23,020 --> 01:06:26,740
I should have sent that out in an email, admittedly earlier to give you some time to look

784
01:06:26,740 --> 01:06:34,240
Your calendars, if you are prepared to speak about it tonight, we could, that would be my preference, but I realize that I've given that direction about a month ago.

785
01:06:34,540 --> 01:06:38,540
So I did not, I believe I failed to remind you all to look at that, and I apologize for that.

786
01:06:38,660 --> 01:06:48,280
So we could also breathe issue that statement and have you take a look for December, but again, it would be beneficial to try to get this done sooner than later.

787
01:06:49,320 --> 01:06:54,760
And if you are prepared to speak in this, we can kind of have a roundtable conversation on what everyone's month looks like.

788
01:06:56,740 --> 01:07:05,000
kind of like a meeting planning, a meeting planning from yeah so are you looking for two full days or

789
01:07:05,900 --> 01:07:12,460
I believe it is just one. Just one. Yep but our plan would be to stay Friday or Monday. Yes,

790
01:07:12,660 --> 01:07:17,840
there's a Friday or Monday okay I believe that they will be the presenters and the speakers will

791
01:07:17,840 --> 01:07:22,680
be coming out those educating will be coming out to meet us here and they would rather do that

792
01:07:22,680 --> 01:07:25,220
a long weekend rather than mid-week.

793
01:07:27,040 --> 01:07:29,600
So are there any particular days that you're thinking?

794
01:07:30,920 --> 01:07:35,820
Honestly, staff is primarily available, and that's the thing, if you'd like I can get

795
01:07:35,820 --> 01:07:39,700
together a few days, we tried doing polling, but unfortunately, it just wasn't working,

796
01:07:39,800 --> 01:07:50,100
and we didn't want to give you, I think, it comes out to like 53 days for you all the

797
01:07:50,100 --> 01:07:53,860
you look all your calendars right now. I'm realizing that now.

798
01:07:54,460 --> 01:08:01,100
Well, and so I can just interject that Mondays are much more difficult for me personally than Thursdays and Fridays.

799
01:08:02,360 --> 01:08:06,200
And I think that's an easy way to carve off a third for my perspective.

800
01:08:07,400 --> 01:08:10,940
But I would just ask everyone if there's days to work.

801
01:08:11,100 --> 01:08:14,640
I mean, because sometimes as approaching weekends, that's difficult for people.

802
01:08:15,300 --> 01:08:19,180
I would say that anyone have a standing Thursday conflict that wouldn't work.

803
01:08:19,180 --> 01:08:26,920
I'll go further and say that January 15 or 22nd, both Thursdays work on my calendar and I have

804
01:08:26,920 --> 01:08:31,940
lots of flexibility, but I'll throw January out because it's less likely to be interrupted by

805
01:08:31,940 --> 01:08:32,840
vacations tomorrow.

806
01:08:35,420 --> 01:08:41,260
I think I'm open on those states too. I am as well. Which one's? 15 and 20 second

807
01:08:41,260 --> 01:08:47,700
15 or 20 second of January Thursdays both. Do those Fridays work or do some any of them?

808
01:08:49,300 --> 01:08:51,700
16th or 23rd also work for me.

809
01:08:55,570 --> 01:08:57,430
Friday would work better for me.

810
01:08:57,570 --> 01:09:00,550
But I could switch things around in my schedule for a Thursday.

811
01:09:01,510 --> 01:09:02,430
That's better for everyone.

812
01:09:02,850 --> 01:09:03,490
Super flexible.

813
01:09:04,570 --> 01:09:07,090
16 and 23rd both work for me as well.

814
01:09:10,540 --> 01:09:12,180
Either of those dates work for me as well.

815
01:09:14,400 --> 01:09:17,320
So it looks like right now we've got four dates.

816
01:09:17,800 --> 01:09:21,440
We're talking about 15th, 16th, 22nd, 23rd.

817
01:09:22,360 --> 01:09:24,040
With a slight preference for Friday.

818
01:09:24,580 --> 01:09:30,940
If that can be done, if anyone see any conflicts on those dudes.

819
01:09:33,800 --> 01:09:36,880
I might have, I might have some, but I don't have it on this calendar.

820
01:09:38,640 --> 01:09:42,960
This staff can send out an email right away tomorrow morning when I plan and make sure,

821
01:09:43,060 --> 01:09:49,820
I know, our missing Commissioner Finwall is that they also have their own recognition meeting tonight in their city.

822
01:09:50,020 --> 01:09:53,520
So what I can do is send that out and just give everyone an opportunity.

823
01:09:54,780 --> 01:09:59,960
I'm cautiously optimistic this felt too easy, but then at the same time I'd be

824
01:10:00,000 --> 01:10:04,340
We can confirm it with camp tomorrow morning right away if those dates worked for them. They've been pretty

825
01:10:04,340 --> 01:10:08,240
available for the most part. I think they're waiting for us. They know the holiday, but I'll just

826
01:10:08,240 --> 01:10:12,120
double check. And I'll send out an email. Have you give you all an opportunity to just

827
01:10:12,120 --> 01:10:18,440
could you pull check your calendars for those four dates? We have January 15th, 16th, 22nd, and 23rd,

828
01:10:18,480 --> 01:10:22,420
targeting Thursdays and Fridays in January. And then tomorrow morning I'll email camp right away and

829
01:10:22,420 --> 01:10:26,520
just see if that is available for them as well. And then email you all as a reminder.

830
01:10:26,520 --> 01:10:44,320
So there was, I think in the grant proposal, based on what some other cities had done, I think Northfield most recently, we proposed to, obviously, try to get the whole staff there, but also to invite the council and planning commission.

831
01:10:44,320 --> 01:10:51,320
do you think? Obviously it's it's important to get a date that works for the full HPC first

832
01:10:51,320 --> 01:10:56,920
but do you think that any of those dates would work better or worse for trying to get?

833
01:10:57,140 --> 01:10:59,600
I'll double check with staff council.

834
01:11:02,060 --> 01:11:04,480
I don't know. I might return to council member

835
01:11:04,480 --> 01:11:10,340
Collins and if they would prefer to have another kind of a called a meeting like commitment to

836
01:11:10,340 --> 01:11:14,520
week of accounts a week or an off week so to speak.

837
01:11:21,200 --> 01:11:24,140
To your point, Chair, all those dates appear

838
01:11:24,140 --> 01:11:28,460
to be mostly I don't think there's any conflicts with day commissions for staff on those

839
01:11:28,460 --> 01:11:33,400
dates and I'd have to check with them on any vacation or time off but I think those are generally

840
01:11:33,400 --> 01:11:37,880
going to be as Commissioner Holmes mentioned pretty low impact or travel dates, so we'll double

841
01:11:37,880 --> 01:11:45,130
check that on staff's perspective. But once we lock in the HPC and NAPC, I'd send it to the

842
01:11:45,130 --> 01:11:48,310
other commissioners and while in council members to try to see if they can get to that.

843
01:11:53,030 --> 01:11:57,880
Thank you for. Thank you. But it's all together and thank you offer.

844
01:11:58,320 --> 01:12:03,040
Okay, I'll just thank you, commissioner Holmes. And above all the just breaking it down. That was

845
01:12:03,040 --> 01:12:04,300
again too easy. We'll see.

846
01:12:09,230 --> 01:12:12,190
All right. It looks like that is everything.

847
01:12:14,510 --> 01:12:20,870
Is there anything else in terms of updates? I think that's when you're to cover with somebody

848
01:12:20,870 --> 01:12:22,970
like to move to a adjourn.

849
01:12:25,160 --> 01:12:26,240
I saw move, summers.

850
01:12:30,190 --> 01:12:32,350
Second meno. Okay, motion by

851
01:12:32,350 --> 01:12:38,830
summers. Second by meno to adjourn. All those in favor. Bye. Any post? Okay.

852
01:12:39,390 --> 01:12:40,770
The meeting is adjourned at 812.