[0:04] 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.

[0:28] And we absent tonight is Commissioner Finnell.

[0:35] So move on to approval of minutes, the possible approval of minutes from the October

[0:39] 15th, 2025 regular meeting.

[0:43] Does anyone have any corrections or a motion to approve?

[0:54] There are a couple of typos in the first section, case number CD,

[1:00] 2025-040.

[1:03] Well, my last name in the fourth paragraph, it has an ass on it, which is incorrect.

[1:12] But the next paragraph, it doesn't make any sentences and make any sense planning, manager

[1:17] good neck, replied that if the items are tabled, have 60 days to act on comma, yet.

[1:24] I don't know what's missing there, but something is,

[1:32] maybe it is, if the items are tabled,

[1:34] the applicant has 60 days to act upon?

[1:40] Commissioner Sherry think it might have been that we

[1:42] the staff would extend the review for an additional 60 days so it would be

[1:45] told 120 but we can take a look into that.

[1:48] Okay. I concur that something is definitely missing.

[1:59] Other correction?

[2:18] Set in the vote count for improving the minutes last time it's

[2:21] said that, you know, in constant stream and I'm guessing

[2:26] those probably somebody else that abstained.

[2:28] Okay, I think that should be palms and suit of columns on

[2:34] any other corrections.

[2:40] Staff are you okay, making that one more about those 60 days.

[2:44] We are chair commissioners, thank you and apologies.

[2:48] So with those corrections, would anyone want to make a motion to approve the minutes?

[2:54] I approve the minutes with changes.

[2:56] Okay, we have a motion from Minos a second.

[2:59] Second, Lars.

[3:00] Okay, a motion from Minos a second from Lars and is there any further discussion?

[3:04] And hearing none, all those in favour, please say aye.

[3:09] Aye.

[3:09] Any opposed?

[3:11] I'll leave state.

[3:12] Okay.

[3:13] Okay.

[3:15] So it would be homes and hembal abstain.

[3:19] And everybody else votes for us.

[3:20] So that is I think four to four votes in favor.

[3:26] No votes against and to abstentions.

[3:29] The motion passes and the minutes are approved.

[3:32] Next up is the open form.

[3:33] It's an opportunity for the public to address the commission on subjects, which are not part of the meeting.

[3:39] The commission may take action or reply or give direction to staff, and we ask that people

[3:44] limit their comments to five minutes or less.

[3:47] Is anyone here tonight for the open forum?

[3:50] Seeing no one else close the open forum and we'll move on to the consent agenda.

[3:54] There's nothing on the consent agenda.

[3:56] There's nothing under public hearing or unfinished business tonight, which takes us to new business.

[4:03] And we'll start out with case number CD2025-048,

[4:09] design review for new construction duplex in the neighborhood

[4:11] conservation district at 950 oin streets or in

[4:16] street north.

[4:17] And with that, I will turn it over to staff for report

[4:21] them of an opportunity for the commission to ask questions

[4:25] of staff them of like the applicant to come up.

[4:28] And then more questions and then we'll have a discussion

[4:30] So, would that turn over to staff?

[4:33] Thank you, Chair.

[4:35] As we consider case 2025-048, we have this presentation to go into some of the details of the project under consideration today.

[4:48] As far as regulatory review, this is in the RB2 family residential district and the neighborhood conservation district.

[4:55] The proposal before us is for a duplex. The lot has over 21.

[5:00] 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.

[5:27] 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.

[5:36] 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.

[5:49] for a site map so that you can tell a bit the situation of the new duplex on the lot.

[5:58] You'll see that there are two nearly identical duplexes, one front and one rear,

[6:03] one with a side loading and one with a partial slash side loading garage.

[6:09] The garage on the front unit is set back a little over 10 feet from the leading edge of the home.

[6:17] which is a requirement both of our design guidelines as well as that of the RB2 family residential district.

[6:29] The front of the home is set back 50 feet from the property line, whereas code would require 20 feet.

[6:35] It's set back 11 feet from the north property line, where the over 24 feet from the south property line,

[6:45] where the combined side setbacks would be 15 feet required by code.

[6:52] For the renderings before us today,

[6:54] as you may have noted in the add on packet that was sent this morning,

[6:58] we've received updated renderings from the applicant

[7:01] after the time in which the original packet was sent out.

[7:05] And this is the design proposal at consideration today.

[7:11] You have the North and South elevations in the middle,

[7:13] with the East Elevation, which is that viewed from Owen Street North in the sort of larger design at the bottom.

[7:22] The West Elevation, which you see smaller up top, does not have any street frontage,

[7:28] but that is the way that the home would look when viewed from its driveway after access has been

[7:34] achieved around the side of the front unit. The recommended conditions of approval that we have for you

[7:42] that the designs shall be consistent with those on file in the community development department

[7:46] except is modified herein. Prior to the release of a building permit the applicant and or

[7:50] property owner shall provide proof of conformance to the approved design approval granted herein.

[7:55] All minor modifications to the plan shall be approved in advance by the city planner.

[7:59] All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the Heritage Preservation Commission

[8:03] determination of the distinction between major and minor is defined in the Zoting ordinance.

[8:07] And finally, project plan shall be updated to reflect principles called for in foresighted design

[8:12] with the inclusion of further windows were noted by staff.

[8:15] Now to address the updated windows that we see in the elevations today,

[8:21] the initial renderings off of which those staff comments in that fourth condition were based

[8:25] can be seen here. Staff particularly called out the lack of windows on the upper story

[8:33] of the southern elevation, the lower level of the east elevation facing the street,

[8:40] and then the sides of the north elevation.

[8:47] And so to compare this original rendering off of which this condition was based versus the plans that we have today,

[8:54] the applicant has provided plans that have new windows and all of these locations.

[9:01] So the distinctions between the two plans can be seen before us.

[9:05] We have symmetry now facing oh and street with the lower level window that mirrors that above

[9:11] it and provides harmony in window design and we also have the inclusion of windows in

[9:18] some hallways as well as bathrooms on both the north and south elevations that we feel

[9:26] as staff much more wholly addressed the foresighted design principle and bring more symmetry

[9:33] to the design.

[9:34] 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.

[9:50] I stand for questions.

[9:51] questions or staff.

[9:58] I may ask this of the help.

[10:00] I'm looking at the north elevation, the front porch should be the facing the street on the left and that seems to be

[10:11] a much narrower porch maybe than the other, the earlier rendering is, but it's trying to be what's going on there.

[10:22] Chair, commissioners, I understand the confusion.

[10:25] The original North Elevation does show pillar with the porch at play there.

[10:35] The dimensions of the porch are six feet wide by the length of the front, which if I can

[10:50] 26 feet wide, by 26 feet long by six feet wide, that porch is shown in the elevations presented

[11:00] from the south and the east, but I recognize that it is not present in the north elevation,

[11:07] and that's something that we would want to see rectified.

[11:13] And then similarly on the south elevation that the roof on that porch doesn't seem to match the east one.

[11:26] 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.

[11:39] Yeah, this second set of drawings has a lot of inconsistencies that I had trouble understanding.

[11:48] And one of them is what our chair just described.

[11:53] Another one at the rear elevation shows what appears to be a hip roof.

[11:58] And in its side elevation on the south and its north elevation, it's shown as a

[12:04] gable roof on that garage.

[12:08] Another inconsistency probably the biggest one is the garage shown on the front

[12:15] elevation that has grown to one and a half to two-story height, whereas the original

[12:23] garage was a one-story.

[12:26] The original one that we looked at looked something like the one on the south elevation,

[12:32] which is a one story garage where the peak doesn't go any higher than the eve of the two

[12:38] story beyond it.

[12:39] But if we look at the front elevation, that peak is well above that roof.

[12:45] So my problem is the drawings are inconsistent from one drawing to another.

[12:51] The porch, the sort of open side porch, the chair mentioned on both the front and the back,

[12:58] also have a different slope in that north elevation, then it's shown in the previous elevations

[13:05] or in the front elevations. So the slope, as it's shown, of that roof, would run right through the windows

[13:12] in the front, looking at the front porch, as shown in the north elevation, it would run right through

[13:18] middle of the windows on the front.

[13:20] So, you know, some of these are, I'm sure,

[13:24] inadvertent in consistencies, but I found it difficult

[13:27] to know what we're really looking at here.

[13:30] On the south elevation, for instance,

[13:35] one more thing is the, the,

[13:38] the rising wall or the dividing wall between the two units,

[13:42] presumably what happened between those two smaller windows,

[13:45] we see above, but that would run it right through one of the

[13:47] the last pains of one of the windows below us.

[13:51] And finally, the one that probably confuses me as much as anything

[13:55] as we look at that self-evaluation, the garage is positioned

[13:59] forward of the main facade of the house.

[14:05] If you look at the right-hand side of the garage

[14:07] and the right-hand side of the second-level garage is shown forward

[14:11] of that, whereas in the original, it was actually about

[14:16] for a feedback from that corner.

[14:20] So a lot of inconsistencies that I don't understand,

[14:27] maybe the applicant can address.

[14:32] Any other questions for staff?

[14:37] Do you have anything to add before we?

[14:40] Chair, Commissioner, there's no at this time.

[14:42] I don't have anything to add to respond to that,

[14:45] though I've taken note of all of the comments made thus far.

[14:48] I think that these questions will be helpful in asking of the applicant when he's ready to present or to speak.

[15:00] With you all.

[15:03] 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?

[15:17] 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.

[15:29] The 12-foot driveway is a fairly standard with that we see with respect to a lot of coverage in the RB district.

[15:40] By right, any property owner can improve the lot to 25% of structured coverage and 25% of nonstructured coverage.

[15:50] And both the structured and nonstructured coverage falls well below the 25% threshold for each bucket.

[15:59] Okay, so I guess I follow up question two, do we have any guidelines for duplexes like this?

[16:05] Because it does get challenging when you're trying to put it two, two car garages.

[16:11] And then making them high as well into a site in the neighborhood conservation district.

[16:19] Chair, commissioners, thank you for the question.

[16:21] And the standards that we have in place for dueplexes are they must meet the same

[16:29] dimensional requirements that a one-family residential unit would.

[16:34] The only distinction in code between the one-and-two-family structures is that the two-family

[16:43] structure has a minimum lots as of 10,000 square feet, whereas the one-family is 7,500 square

[16:50] 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.

[17:04] Other than that, the dimensional standards as far as setbacks and massing are the same.

[17:10] 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.

[17:21] chair commissioners that's correct. You could build this with the exact same

[17:25] dimensions if it were a one story structure or a one-unit structure. Okay, thank you.

[17:36] Any other questions for staff? Good. The applicant to come up to the microphone.

[17:44] There is a button on the left to turn it on. There you go. And I think you can give your name

[17:50] for the record. My name is John Paul Johnson. Okay, thank you. Thank you guys for taking the

[17:55] to speak with me and look over this project.

[17:59] So the first comment I would like to address is the colored rendering in the discrepancies

[18:03] that we see in there.

[18:05] So the purpose of that colored rendering tonight was just to give everybody an idea of what

[18:11] the concept in the color wise, how this unit is going to be finished out.

[18:18] What we're actually building off of is that updated unit plan.

[18:21] So this really has nothing to do with how we're going to be building it.

[18:24] we just wanted to present it forth.

[18:26] So you guys could see the colors of the building

[18:30] that we're trying to present to you tonight.

[18:34] So for those discrepancies, if we go back

[18:36] to these updated drawings, this is what we're going to be

[18:43] with, sorry,

[18:46] yeah, those other drawings.

[18:47] So the drawings that we just went to,

[18:50] those are what we're going to be building off

[18:52] with some additions. As you guys had comments on for the lack of windows, we're addressed.

[19:00] So in our new updated drawings, we have new ones. By that, you can see we added the windows,

[19:06] as well as while talking, we noticed that the garage setback was too far front. And as was talked

[19:14] about earlier today, we moved that back, which allowed us to have a really nice porch inside

[19:19] in front, which complements the neighborhood really well.

[19:23] With that we're able to get an extra window on that east elevation, we're able to get

[19:31] an extra window on the lower level as well as the upper story compared to our first

[19:37] drawings.

[19:39] For the impervious covers that we're talking about on the site, this plan takes up 28% of the

[19:48] But, as you guys require, 25% can be structured in no more than 25% can be non-structured.

[19:56] So we meet well under those requirements.

[20:00] 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.

[20:17] So, I guess I'm a little bit confused as to which drawings were. So, try to go through here.

[20:23] Yeah, so I don't know if your changes in the other one are working on it.

[20:26] Yeah, I apologize.

[20:27] This is different than these are here, and I do have some copies, if you'd like to see them.

[20:35] But this is very similar.

[20:37] The only thing I would say is we added some windows to this drawing, and that really is the main

[20:42] discrepancy between this and what we have here.

[20:52] So Mr. Chair, if I might, the addition to the packet, the colored version, and the

[20:59] Yes, primary purpose was to show color and where windows have been planned to be added.

[21:07] Yeah, structure.

[21:08] Yeah, yeah.

[21:09] We put this together very, this color drying.

[21:13] We noticed in the notes that we received that it would have been helpful to have a colored rendering.

[21:18] So we tried to put this together.

[21:20] But again, we can send an updated rendering over from the architects.

[21:26] 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.

[21:41] Okay, thank you.

[21:45] So on the east elevation, the bottom elevation,

[21:51] the garage height is misrepresented in the drawing.

[21:54] We have absolutely. Yes. Great. Thank you. Yes. And I do apologize for that. That's okay.

[22:00] And in that same elevation, there's a large window now on the first floor, which is a very

[22:06] 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.

[22:13] 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.

[22:21] you won't be able to tell that it is, but yes, okay, so it'll be a window, but it'll have

[22:27] standroller or something in it that will that is correct, yes.

[22:34] If we look at the, let's see,

[22:39] north or I'm sorry, the south elevation, can we assume that those bottom windows are moving around

[22:45] someone? Yep, that is. Like I'm assuming maybe the right hand one needs to be nearly touching

[22:53] the garage in order to stay in the right hand unit that is correct. Yeah, after looking at these

[22:59] drawings that I have here on that self elevation that window will be moved over and then those

[23:06] two smaller windows will kind of cradle the inside edge of those larger windows. Will the garage be

[23:15] a gable roof? The rear garage it should say be a gable roof or a hip roof as it shown there.

[23:21] Yes, there will be a gateware of a table.

[23:25] Okay.

[23:29] And so just as a way of clarifying for myself,

[23:33] if I look at the original submitted drawings,

[23:36] the non-colored version, these, this is structurally

[23:40] correct with the exception of some additional windows.

[23:44] Yes, sir.

[23:44] That is correct.

[23:45] Okay. Thank you.

[23:58] Other questions for the applicant?

[24:05] Okay. Thank you.

[24:05] We may call you up again, but I will have a discussion

[24:08] What commission here?

[24:16] Reactions from commissioners.

[24:22] Well, make just a few comments.

[24:24] It was helpful to hear the corrections, but we would need some

[24:31] how to have a single set of drawings that shows everything that

[24:34] would be built. You understand we need to have something to hold and

[24:37] applicant to and something that we understand will be built.

[24:43] So one way or the other we're going to need a

[24:45] the reconciled set of plans.

[24:50] But that aside,

[24:55] I appreciate the efforts that were made here to fit this.

[25:00] The next question is to move on to the next question.

[25:01] It is a site we have seen before.

[25:06] And some other efforts on it.

[25:08] But my biggest concern, I guess, would probably simply be having to

[25:14] do with its massing and its roof.

[25:18] Our guidelines talk about the massing and scale of a new building being

[25:24] compatible with neighboring structures and following the pattern.

[25:27] It's difficult, I suppose, to have a larger duplex fit, that neighborhood, but the uninterrupted

[25:36] length of 72 feet on the north side, especially on the south side, it's benefited by a

[25:45] couple of garages breaking that up somewhat. On the north side is 72 feet, two feet,

[25:50] two stories tall, and that is something we don't see as a pattern typically in houses.

[26:00] And we sometimes, when we're looking at a front elevation, like you've done here, that's

[26:07] not how we really see the house, what we see is a long side and a short side.

[26:11] So that long side on the north has no break in the roof and no steps of any sort of

[26:20] that we're leaving that, and that's probably one of the biggest concerns I have is

[26:27] those two things.

[26:28] Even in our design guidelines, there's an image that says an inappropriate

[26:34] infill as when roof horns are not compatible, large and broken slopes, are out of scale

[26:41] with neighboring buildings, and it seems to me that this has that kind of barracks

[26:49] like length to it that I find concerning.

[27:02] Your questions are observations or thoughts of recognition?

[27:09] I agree.

[27:09] I think we need more definitive plans before I would ever

[27:13] approve something.

[27:15] And I am concerned about the mass of the north and south

[27:18] sides.

[27:21] When you're speaking here, maybe there's a way you can

[27:24] try to break up each unit in either vertically or horizontally,

[27:29] and that might create some distinction between just the solid

[27:33] siding all the way down. That might add some, you know,

[27:38] some additional detail, or it might break up that long side of it too.

[27:49] I mean, it does seem to, there's a lot of, there's a mix of a lot of window shapes,

[27:54] like there's four pains in the front, and then two pains in the back,

[27:59] and then some that look more modern than that.

[28:01] 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.

[28:14] You're speaking of the shape and size of widow page arrangement.

[28:18] Correct, right.

[28:20] 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.

[28:28] 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.

[28:42] 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.

[28:51] And the traditional pattern would be a similar type of window, and that's pretty much what we asked for in our foresighted design.

[28:58] But that's a relatively easy thing, I think, to address.

[29:03] It doesn't affect necessarily the windows dimensions or size or location.

[29:08] It's more just trying to be more consistent with them.

[29:10] 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.

[29:21] the others.

[29:33] And I'm just going to pick on to the North Elevation in particular. One of the

[29:40] suggestions was, is there a way to break that up either, you know, laterally, I guess on the

[29:45] site so that the two units are somewhat distinct. We do have examples in town of houses that

[29:52] were an original structure with an addition onto the back that might even achieve a similar length,

[29:58] but it's very clear that those are...

[30:02] 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.

[30:12] And so that's just I think a consideration that might be well guided.

[30:17] I agree, and I think it could be as simple as simply offsetting the floor plans, but

[30:23] I do feed or something like that. You'd have the two roofs just shifting. You would

[30:26] have that same effect. It would be a relatively minor and relatively inexpensive change,

[30:32] but it would help meet our guidelines of breaking up large masses and large uninterrupted

[30:39] roots. Some cities have these very explicit guidelines, I know, of one that says no more

[30:48] than 16 feet or 32 feet without a two foot job. And glad we don't have these really

[30:54] prescriptive things, but yet we end up in this sort of situation where we have some more

[31:10] maybe that's something we can look forward to

[31:12] correcting in the future.

[31:15] And as we look at this site plan,

[31:17] it's pretty clear that there is room on both sides for

[31:20] lateral movement.

[31:21] So I don't think that would impede their setback requirements.

[31:25] I think we're in good shape there.

[31:29] Question for staff.

[31:32] Can we have more than one curb cut on a residential property

[31:36] to serve a duplex?

[31:38] chair commissioners the city does not have a restriction on number of curb cuts we have

[31:43] restrictions on width of curb cuts and that is a maximum of 20 feet but there's no limit

[31:50] on number. The curb cut proposed here is 12 feet wide.

[31:59] Sorry I just thought of a question

[32:00] for the applicant and forgive me for not thinking about it sooner but are you planning on any

[32:05] landscaping for your site, maybe in particular the front.

[32:11] So I invite the applicant to come back up.

[32:17] Yeah, yes.

[32:18] We're going to have landscaping around the whole unit.

[32:23] It might want to include that too in overall design too.

[32:29] And since you're here at the podium.

[32:33] So the plan is to have a chain length fence all the way along.

[32:36] What is the set of the south side?

[32:39] And then part of the west side.

[32:45] Where is that existing?

[32:46] I think this.

[32:47] Not existing.

[32:48] Is that existing?

[32:50] No, there's going to be no chain length.

[32:52] Fine.

[32:53] Okay.

[32:53] It's shown in the survey site plan.

[32:56] So I'm just curious.

[32:58] No.

[33:01] Oh, yes.

[33:03] I believe that's the neighbors.

[33:04] Oh, okay.

[33:05] The fence.

[33:05] I apologize.

[33:06] All right. Thank you.

[33:11] We'll call you back.

[33:14] So

[33:17] I think I'm not hearing support to approve this as it stands that there seem to be some changes that are needed here.

[33:29] It seems to me to be not quite fully cooked.

[33:33] 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.

[33:43] And I guess I would support tabling for this session in order to give the applicant time to do some further work on.

[33:53] Okay.

[33:53] Is that a motion?

[33:56] Do I like to hear what others think?

[34:00] I would be supportive of tabling it as well.

[34:02] And I could make a motion if you don't want to.

[34:04] Commissioner Holmes.

[34:06] Well, I'm willing to turn my comment into a motion.

[34:08] I would move that we table this project for the time being in order to allow the applicant

[34:15] time to put together a consistent set of drawings and respond to some of the comments relative

[34:23] to window-type and long-side geometry matching that we've brought up in this meeting.

[34:32] Is there a second?

[34:33] I'll make that second.

[34:34] We have a motion by homes in a second by Hamdahl to table, in this case with some feedback to the applicant.

[34:43] Is there any other discussion?

[34:46] Very none.

[34:47] All those in favor please say aye.

[34:49] Aye.

[34:50] Any opposed?

[34:51] Any abstentions?

[34:53] The motion passes unanimously to table the project.

[34:57] I hope we keep working with staff and we can.

[35:00] Hopefully, see it again sometime soon. Yep. Good night.

[35:05] So move on then to the next case, which is CD2025-053. Design Review for Newst Gate Arc located adjacent to

[35:16] a lot of 15 parking lot 15, I think, which is called the Teddy Bear Park parking lot, and turn it over to staff.

[35:26] Thank you chair. Members of the Commission, my apologies. That is parking lot 15. I got a little

[35:30] relax with that thinking down town parking commission that's just how we refer to it.

[35:37] As you'd mentioned, this is a request to locate a skate park, a Json 2 parking lot, 15,

[35:43] or common term, a teddy bear parking lot.

[35:46] It's the corner of second in Nelson, also right across the street from teddy bear park.

[35:50] The city proposes to replace the existing skate park, which has been removed as in early

[35:56] 2025, which was previously in our business part commercial district, by the St.

[36:00] Query Recreation Center, and also what is commonly referred to as the Brian's

[36:04] building.

[36:05] It's in the central, the proposed location is in the central business.

[36:09] Central, I'm confusing my business, part districts, central, business district, it's in

[36:15] the downtown design review district.

[36:16] It is not within the registered commercial district nor is it a registered or listed

[36:22] structure.

[36:24] the design partner that our Parks Department and our Parks Commission worked with

[36:28] this spawn ranch I believe. This site was chosen for redevelopment due to city

[36:33] ownership of the location. It's current location being informally used as a

[36:37] skate park in a place for graffiti artists or people who partake will go there

[36:42] and then just general and I can get into all get into this a little bit later on but

[36:47] just generally trying to bring a skate park closer to where you see that activity which is

[36:53] 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.

[37:03] It's the previously the northern states power facility where there was a cold gas burning plant.

[37:09] The circle, the circular area that pad that they're proposing on a redeveloping, was the storage location for that gas.

[37:15] and it was commonly referred to as a gasoline meter.

[37:19] The photo provided by the chair earlier on the first

[37:21] weekend discussing this shows the structure,

[37:23] unfortunately, just to the left out of frame,

[37:26] it's where that silo would have been.

[37:29] I don't believe this one was our net,

[37:30] but if you look at some older photos of along the Chippewa

[37:33] River and O'Clayer, there was some very ornate-looking siloes

[37:37] as what I would infer, kind of, compare them to.

[37:40] This was a little bit more simple and obviously no longer there.

[37:42] The request is design review approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission.

[37:47] It's to establish that purpose-built skate park for downtown.

[37:50] So a lot of bring the park to where the skaters are rather than have them have to walk all the way

[37:56] or drive all the way to the business park district.

[37:58] 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.

[38:06] It's replacing an aging outdated facility, which was the oldest skate park providing recreational amenities to both skaters.

[38:12] and then generally just spectators kind of using that space for just activation for the city.

[38:19] And the HBC is seeing this because it is a public project that is happening within a designer view crate.

[38:24] That designer view area is not necessarily, it's not, it's current is per code required to see

[38:32] because it's a public facility in a designer view.

[38:34] in itself, it doesn't have as much, let's say, historic relevance beyond just what the pad

[38:41] was there or what used to be there today, as far as structural integrity. The design features

[38:47] for the park, this was fun for me to write in there. If I'm being candid, it was, I enjoyed saying

[38:52] things like quarter pipes, ledges, stairs, rails, wall rides, because they weren't hit,

[38:57] gabled, answered, I just thought that was kind of different for you all to see.

[39:03] Did any of you all know what those were when you read them?

[39:06] No, yes.

[39:08] So that's a general escape park, proposed to be the same location in size of the existing

[39:13] pad there today, so they're not making it much larger than any of the existing circular area.

[39:19] There will be some bumpouts where there's going to be spots for benches or any of the other

[39:23] amenities that skaters would use.

[39:25] The existing retaining wall that's there that you're probably aware of is proposed to remain

[39:29] there, the public works department would not want to replace that, but I think it would

[39:32] want to be a beneficial feature, and to just not worth their time to do it serving a function

[39:37] today. As mentioned, the former Civil War Gas Light Company and SP had the site from 1880s

[39:43] to the 1950s. In the 1960s, this is my biggest update for you all. There was remediation of the site,

[39:50] and if you've gone down to that site today, or maybe even starting Monday, you'll notice that

[39:55] there's quite a bit of earth tore up.

[39:57] When an Excel discovered that we were,

[39:59] or when they found out Earth.

[40:00] We are working on this. They wanted to go back and do testing of the remediation to ensure that it was actually done appropriately.

[40:06] 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.

[40:13] To my knowledge, it's not necessarily remediation that is happening, but testing to ensure it was done and is safe for use.

[40:20] And that goes for the entire site. I think that's including the parking lot too. It isn't just this location.

[40:26] So it's kind of, I'd say, an added public safety benefit to this project.

[40:32] Ultimately, from Saps Respected, there isn't remaining historic structure.

[40:36] The pad itself would lack the confirmed historical integrity of what was there,

[40:40] and that might be the last remaining historic structure that we could say that was there.

[40:46] Looking at preservation considerations, the site's not within a listed historic district.

[40:49] It isn't listed itself. There's an issue overview required for it.

[40:54] Ultimately, staff does find it's compatible with the downtown design, as well as character

[40:58] and represents positive activation for that site today, and I think aligns with a lot of

[41:04] our downtown goals as well.

[41:06] And just general public activity goals.

[41:12] This is a site plan of what they're using, so you can kind of see that pad that's about

[41:17] the same size.

[41:18] There's another one in your packet that had it overlaid to the actual pad.

[41:21] 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.

[41:34] Um, then here's an overview of that site as well.

[41:38] 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.

[41:52] Thank you. Are the questions for staff?

[41:57] I have just kind of a big question for all of us and staff included and that's just a dressing.

[42:05] And this is again maybe something that we can try to do a better job with our, with our design codes.

[42:12] 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.

[42:21] And in your report, you know, the projects of this nature are not typically subject to the standard design review guidelines.

[42:32] So, do we have any kind of a more concise definition of what isn't, isn't to come before us?

[42:40] And if not, then I think that's maybe something we should work toward.

[42:43] So that, you know, there isn't any ambiguity that we can have.

[42:50] The, what I, you know, I know this isn't the building, so that's pretty much one reason

[42:56] that it might fall into that ambiguous area.

[42:59] On the other hand, we've got all kinds of things in our, in our code about the cultural resources

[43:06] and we've reviewed retaining walls, we've reviewed things that have far less impact

[43:12] on our city than this.

[43:15] So, and really if you look at design review process,

[43:19] it says the whole purpose of it is to ensure building

[43:22] and site development, design complement the character

[43:25] and integrity of still waters, neighborhood commercial districts,

[43:29] including the buildings, the streetscape,

[43:31] and the natural environment.

[43:33] So I think there are things besides buildings

[43:36] that rightly fall in the design review guideline under our review

[43:42] And I just think it would be good.

[43:44] I don't know if you have an answer.

[43:46] If it's more of a, we've got to work on it kind of a thing.

[43:50] Commission chair commissioners, it could be a little bit of both.

[43:52] I can definitely say code does require because it's a public project

[43:55] in the design and redistrict.

[43:57] HBC gets the crack at it right away.

[43:59] And to your point, there are things on here that, again, retaining walls.

[44:04] I think the commission actually reviewed the retaining wall

[44:06] replace minutes shown in this rendering here maybe two or three years ago.

[44:11] So definitely something that is warrant of your review, in this case, from Saph's perspective

[44:15] for this particular instance, looking back at the older photo of any historic integrity

[44:21] that was on this site is now primarily steep slope, so natural environment, or parking lot.

[44:27] And so what used to be there, the cultural resource from Saph's perspective is mostly gone,

[44:32] but that is definitely another aspect that I think the HPC would review this for.

[44:35] So it's a little bit of both that this is within your purview because code requires that it's

[44:39] design review district is the site itself that's going to be impacting downtown.

[44:44] It just, I think I might have worded that staff reporting a little confusing.

[44:49] It's, I don't know what it is for the HVC to review this as it's not a structure, but it

[44:53] is not unwarranted.

[44:54] Is that only a warranted review?

[44:59] Yeah.

[45:00] 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?

[45:07] I'm just not persuaded that that's, you know, necessary.

[45:12] Too many lights, too many lights.

[45:19] So we're noting too many ledges for the commission.

[45:25] I would agree with what Commissioner Larson said, you know, we've, we've, sometimes these public projects come to us

[45:33] and they're pretty far down the road of design and they definitely do have an impact and

[45:39] do relate to the kinds of things that we are looking to to reveal with a downtown designer

[45:46] view district even if they don't have historic buildings that are being altered.

[45:52] In this one, I do think that that backwall probably dates from those 200 gas company era.

[45:59] I'm not sure, you know, I think somebody would have to look into that.

[46:02] I don't think we even need to look into that since it sounds like it's not going to be altered.

[46:07] 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.

[46:18] But perhaps that's just how it came out of a computer.

[46:21] Chair commissioners, that is okay.

[46:23] I did ask our deputy public works director about that.

[46:28] 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.

[46:35] There's obviously some to Commissioner Summers points. Maybe there is pervute here. They are planning and using it as a wall, right?

[46:43] So literally using that infrastructure as part of the skate park itself, so they don't want to remove it.

[46:47] I also think that another goal that the Public Works Director mentioned, well not an organized effort.

[46:54] As if you've been back there, you'll notice there's a lot of graffiti and taking.

[46:58] There isn't an active program to remove that now, and I don't think that they're going

[47:03] to actively want to remove it in the future.

[47:05] In fact, there might be some sort of encouragement to use that space rather than other infrastructure

[47:10] throughout downtown.

[47:12] So, it really is an attempt to, from kind of a public, more public side of things, to bring

[47:19] the skateboard park to the skaters, where they're likely downtown, and also some of those

[47:22] or attractive nuisances, go use that wall instead of another one.

[47:27] And I do want to apologize for the tardiness on this.

[47:29] I think it was the chair that mentioned.

[47:31] I didn't even know it was happening all of a sudden.

[47:33] There was a small yard science with this proposal on it.

[47:36] And I didn't know that was there.

[47:41] Question for somebody.

[47:43] Mr. McRolley knows this better than I do.

[47:44] But is there some way to just wear that new, those new ramps kind of,

[47:52] up against the the original walls, there's some sort of narrow separating material that could

[47:59] keep the new concrete from physically attaching to the to the old wall. If that's possible,

[48:07] that might make it theoretically reversible if the design changes are the escape arc changes

[48:12] or something else in the future is in that spot. Chair commissioners, if I'm understanding looking

[48:20] for a way so that if the fist is constructed as shown they're likely not penetrating the

[48:28] wall the existing wall that I put rebar in and other kind of building it alongside it

[48:34] but close enough we're still function but also far enough a way that it's removable or

[48:38] if demoed that doesn't impact the integrity of that wall a common detail would be to have an

[48:45] extension material between the existing and the new just to make sure there was a bond break there

[48:49] OK, what's going to happen?

[48:51] OK, so if that expansion material serves

[48:54] that purpose, then I think would be a good thing for a few reasons.

[49:02] I just have a couple of thoughts, and since we're reviewing it,

[49:06] and looking at it, and it's surrounding landscape.

[49:10] So I look at this, and I look at the teddy bear park.

[49:14] And I think of what are the design elements of teddy bear park,

[49:19] and what are the design elements of this?

[49:21] And I think one thing that stood out to me between this one and between the park is just the, you know,

[49:33] well, one, the concrete, it doesn't appear to be dyed at all. And you know, might be, you know,

[49:42] might we consider a dye that's either kind of a cream or more of a reddish brick, like the

[49:48] levers are in teddy bear park,

[49:53] you know, just so it doesn't have that, you know, that

[49:57] vast expanse of unfinished, you know.

[50:00] Now I finish concrete look. Are the ways we can incorporate some color into this, some, you know,

[50:09] some colors that we traditionally see in downtown. That's, that was my one dot on this.

[50:16] 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.

[50:25] because if it's going to remain a blank while I can almost guarantee that there will be a continuous

[50:33] issue with taking. And so my, you know, my thought isn't and maybe not all of the commissioners

[50:40] will agree with this, but perhaps look at that as a potential public arts face as well to try to

[50:49] proactively mitigate that issue.

[50:55] We just call it a mirror.

[50:59] I understand from what you were saying earlier, question for staff, that kind of the intent is that it remain

[51:07] out, be taking surface.

[51:10] Chair, commissioners, that is correct.

[51:12] I will say, I think that's a comment that we can definitely pass along to the public works

[51:18] staff and also the applicants or I'd say the consultants that we're working with the public

[51:24] work staff, but essentially the plan is to kind of leave it, it appears to be doing an effective

[51:29] job of being tagged and leave it that way. I don't think there's any, I don't think there's

[51:35] any request from PD or public works to go out there and paint it now and I don't think they intend

[51:40] to either, I'm going to go on on a limb and say if there's obviously clearly offensive art

[51:45] or work they would probably go out there, but I think they want to use it to attract that

[51:50] since rather than repel it.

[51:55] And then as for the dying, I think that's a really good comment.

[51:57] I'm looking at Google Street or Google Aerial.

[52:00] It looks almost red compared to definitely

[52:02] on the sun, catches Teddy Bear Park's parking lot

[52:04] or not parking lot, but the walkway

[52:06] it definitely looks red.

[52:07] And so I can see they're being, if it is just this clean

[52:11] of a concrete, while that might look good in a vacuum,

[52:14] I could see that being very different from across the street.

[52:20] I mean, I know it looks, sorry.

[52:22] It looks like the teddy bear park uses a kind of combination of some reddish tint and some tan it as well.

[52:29] Well,

[52:38] I had walked out on the site just recently and they're well under way demolishing everything.

[52:45] So most of the concrete's gone.

[52:49] Just two thoughts in it.

[52:52] These are probably not HPC realm comments, but just throw them out there again.

[52:59] Because we have it in front of us, and one would be just concerns the safety at the top

[53:03] of the wall.

[53:04] There's an existing barboyer top fence that moves along Chilcoot and probably does a pretty

[53:12] good job, doesn't show up in any of these drawings and assuming if that area at the top

[53:18] of the wall is accessible with this additional activity would be good to make sure we have

[53:25] kind of a fall protection at the top of the wall.

[53:29] And the other is really the way you enter and exit the site that just kind of struck me

[53:36] as maybe not the best way because it doesn't take you out of the site before you get to

[53:45] crosswalk at Teddy Bear, the park, so right there, that's a extremely steep slope right

[53:56] at that entrance point. It looks nice but there's no doubt that if you've got on that

[54:02] and you have a board over your shoulder you probably will get on it and go down it brings you

[54:06] to that intersection and I just questioned whether it wouldn't make some sense to bring the

[54:15] entrance in at the parking lot, maybe move us all over if need be handicapped, saw there's

[54:21] plenty of room. It's just, my concern is giving almost, well, giving access to

[54:31] Chilkut where it never had it before. And it's at a steep slope and not an ideal place.

[54:36] Ideally, you would come out at a street intersection that's marked rather than 20 feet up the hill

[54:43] on a steep slope from that intersection,

[54:47] but that's something if you could pass, most of

[54:50] these drawings just sort of cut us off before we get to that point, but that was my

[54:55] turned it.

[55:11] Any further thoughts?

[55:15] 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?

[55:41] As is, or with some conditions, or ask for those things you've all mentioned to be considered

[55:48] in broad back.

[55:49] I guess there are probably three options here.

[56:03] I'm looking at the proposed resolution and the package.

[56:09] And the condition of approval, the designs, she'll be consistent with those unfile

[56:14] for the slate, roof, mimicking metal roof.

[56:18] Is that it?

[56:19] That is a typo commissioners.

[56:21] It seems like a wrong condition.

[56:23] Okay.

[56:24] Just wanted to make sure I was reading that correctly.

[56:27] We'll make sure to update that that proposed plans are consistent with those on file for the skatepark.

[56:32] I apologize.

[56:33] So what?

[56:34] So is there a condition of approval?

[56:35] I don't know.

[56:36] That would be the standard condition that it's consistent with what it's before you hear.

[56:39] Okay.

[56:40] Thank you.

[56:45] The earlier condition that's sad for it.

[56:46] It sounded like there was a lot of good comments that we broke down that will definitely be passing along.

[56:50] think one more designer view or kind of consistent with the neighborhood area or the site itself

[56:56] was the pigmentation of the concrete and that's something that we could... I admittedly

[57:01] I'm not familiar with how skate parks are constructed if that's something they can do.

[57:05] I've seen different colored ones, but it's definitely something we could add as a condition for them to

[57:08] explore.

[57:11] And I would point to finding see there, which is that, you know, that would potentially

[57:19] negatively alter the essential character of that space, that expansive gray

[57:23] concrete.

[57:40] I think this is a really good use in this location. I think it's

[57:43] cleverly cited. I think it's adjacent seat of Teddy Bear Park is kind of ironic and

[57:50] and fun. Little kids big kids. I don't know that I care very much about this

[57:54] inconsistency between the two. They're so very different in use and everything else

[57:59] that I'm less concerned about that. I am concerned from a safety standpoint and

[58:04] this effect, the designers parse this as well, just when people come out of this skate park

[58:08] on skateboards, they're immediately given a steep slope to come down and that seems to me

[58:15] to be a recipe for some conflict there, but strollers crossing from the parking lot to teddy bear

[58:21] and cars coming down, fill a code and bike coming out, fill a code and it would be safer.

[58:26] It seems to me if it was a stairway down onto the parking lot itself rather than a sidewalk

[58:30] that went down at a steep slope. So I guess I support a motion to approve with the condition

[58:38] that they evaluate a different entry location, not that it had a different entry location,

[58:45] but that they take time to evaluate that.

[58:50] You have a motion? I would second that motion.

[58:53] I do have concerns to about the safety of the site, so I think that should definitely be looked at.

[58:58] motion by home, second by me, you know, my I agree with with that as well and

[59:04] Jilakud is so narrow and and so Daisy half the time, the cars and pedestrians and

[59:10] everything else that I think it would be wise to not have another element to have mixed.

[59:19] I'd maybe add another from the amendment to just encourage the city to continue exploring

[59:26] the feasibility of public art with artists and community partners.

[59:30] Yes, let's base.

[59:34] I would be too.

[59:35] I would be too.

[59:37] Friendly amendment was accepted by both of the commissioners the original in the second.

[59:43] 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.

[59:56] condition to

[1:00:00] 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.

[1:00:19] Anything else?

[1:00:22] Okay, well then all those in favour, please say aye.

[1:00:25] Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

[1:00:29] Okay. The motion passing unanimously unanimously to grant design approval with those conditions.

[1:00:37] So moving on down the list.

[1:00:40] I think we've got a computer calendar is kind of question here.

[1:00:45] So I will turn it over to Smith.

[1:00:47] Chair, commissioners, I might, if you're all right, do a little bit of a reverse order on the staff.

[1:00:51] update so we can end with a little bit of fun discussion on comparing calendars.

[1:00:55] I'll start with number five.

[1:00:57] A subcommittee for designer view guidelines has been chosen so we do have three of our great

[1:01:01] commissioners up here. They're on a subcommittee.

[1:01:03] Subcommittee to look at our designer view guidelines and just red line them. Again, it's not

[1:01:07] very large changes just looking at where there can be updates minor tweaks here to just improve

[1:01:12] the design guidelines not looking at each section and trying to update the entire section individually.

[1:01:20] A reminder of 2020-26 Commission calendars, there is a draft of those for looking at next year.

[1:01:25] And the only update I have for that is similar to what we experienced this month and next month,

[1:01:31] where HPC and a subsequently planning commission will be moved up a week.

[1:01:35] So looking into 2020-26, I just wanted to give you all a year heads up that we're going to have early meetings.

[1:01:42] And November December, we will be reminding you, but otherwise everything else is looking consistent

[1:01:47] and with next year's calendars, an update on last week's City Council meeting.

[1:01:53] 220 Murdoch Street was the appeal was upheld by the City Council kind of in half.

[1:02:02] So the City Council did ultimately save determined that there was enough information to determine

[1:02:07] replacement was warranted over repair for the, and I should back up to 220 Murdoch Street

[1:02:12] the old post office site, Rearof, the air in the resolution earlier for the site roof.

[1:02:19] The Council did determine that replacement was appropriate over repair, but they did ask and

[1:02:25] direct the applicant to return to the HPC. Right now, we're looking at December to discuss

[1:02:32] the appropriate materials. I've been working with our staff and pigeon to request more information

[1:02:37] beyond the scopes and quotes that have been submitted to you thus far to ensure you have

[1:02:41] information to make that decision. So that'll be coming back and at this time the appeal that was,

[1:02:48] it was an appeal to the denial that was from HBC. The Council of Return of the Appeal proved

[1:02:54] for placement but have sent the applicant back to the HBC to discuss materials. So I'll just

[1:02:59] want to let you know that that will be coming up here in December most likely. Does that restart

[1:03:05] the clerk on the case? It does not. So they do. That's something that I double check with our city attorney.

[1:03:11] it does not appear to reset the clock.

[1:03:13] This is technically the appeal period.

[1:03:16] So even when we have that 60 days,

[1:03:18] what something that it's safe just finding out as well

[1:03:20] is you have those 60 days to make or take action.

[1:03:24] And that includes that appeal period.

[1:03:25] So we have extended it to the full 120.

[1:03:28] So I believe that brings us into,

[1:03:29] I can pull this up, but I believe that will bring us

[1:03:32] into early January.

[1:03:35] I know commission has done some research.

[1:03:37] Do you need any additional info about materials?

[1:03:39] 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

[1:03:49] What I believe it will be seeking from our conversations is that they're going to propose a specific project or product

[1:03:55] 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

[1:04:03] Because they're likely not going to be seeking to replace it with slate, which is a product. We know for that roof

[1:04:09] know what it looks like, how it's going to be installed. If it was like for like replacement,

[1:04:13] it would likely be an easier review for the commission, because it's likely not going to be.

[1:04:18] I'd like for like replacement, we're going to be asking for much more information on how that

[1:04:22] material is going to be operating on that roof, because it's foreign to that roof. That's something

[1:04:27] that we were just speaking with our consultants with earlier today.

[1:04:33] And then I do the last two

[1:04:35] are a little bit less ones an update.

[1:04:37] Preservation awards were not had in October, November,

[1:04:41] but we are going to be getting them ready

[1:04:43] for the new year into the for 2026.

[1:04:46] So what I'll be asking all of the commissioners here to do

[1:04:48] is between now and December.

[1:04:50] Please look back or look at some projects

[1:04:53] that were done around the city

[1:04:54] and send us some addresses and sites

[1:04:56] for those that you think would be really good candidates

[1:04:59] for preservation.

[1:05:00] We'll go to two or three minutes before the next decide.

[1:05:00] The question is, basically, depending on the situation, the 2017 decision would be

[1:05:00] for the 2020 decision.

[1:05:04] The decision was between two and only two months ago.

[1:05:11] They'd have a discussion with you, if we decided to get a decision,

[1:05:12] we're going to start this project.

[1:05:15] We're going to make sure that there's a discussion that's needed.

[1:05:15] In the future, we're going to go to a session about the decision decision.

[1:05:15] If we did, we'll do the right to start the decision.

[1:05:20] What do we want to do if we did the decision to start the decision for the first time?

[1:05:29] presented to the Commission in December's planning HPC meeting.

[1:05:35] Last update is the calendar update.

[1:05:39] So just as a reminder, in this case, it's for camp

[1:05:41] and we're looking at, and this is a day-long training

[1:05:44] of continuing education on just the importance of preservation

[1:05:48] and all things that the NAPC could really give us

[1:05:52] and it's something I'm personally looking forward to,

[1:05:54] because I think it'll be helpful for me.

[1:05:56] The hardest part has been nailing down a date.

[1:05:58] They have told us they would prefer bookending it, so 30s day Friday or Monday, and this

[1:06:03] is the presenters, those that would be flying out or driving out to teach us.

[1:06:08] So what we're looking for from the HPC is some time between January and May of 2026, 30s

[1:06:16] day Friday or a Monday that you'd be available the entire day.

[1:06:23] I should have sent that out in an email, admittedly earlier to give you some time to look

[1:06:26] 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.

[1:06:34] So I did not, I believe I failed to remind you all to look at that, and I apologize for that.

[1:06:38] 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.

[1:06:49] And if you are prepared to speak in this, we can kind of have a roundtable conversation on what everyone's month looks like.

[1:06:56] kind of like a meeting planning, a meeting planning from yeah so are you looking for two full days or

[1:07:05] I believe it is just one. Just one. Yep but our plan would be to stay Friday or Monday. Yes,

[1:07:12] there's a Friday or Monday okay I believe that they will be the presenters and the speakers will

[1:07:17] be coming out those educating will be coming out to meet us here and they would rather do that

[1:07:22] a long weekend rather than mid-week.

[1:07:27] So are there any particular days that you're thinking?

[1:07:30] Honestly, staff is primarily available, and that's the thing, if you'd like I can get

[1:07:35] together a few days, we tried doing polling, but unfortunately, it just wasn't working,

[1:07:39] and we didn't want to give you, I think, it comes out to like 53 days for you all the

[1:07:50] you look all your calendars right now. I'm realizing that now.

[1:07:54] Well, and so I can just interject that Mondays are much more difficult for me personally than Thursdays and Fridays.

[1:08:02] And I think that's an easy way to carve off a third for my perspective.

[1:08:07] But I would just ask everyone if there's days to work.

[1:08:11] I mean, because sometimes as approaching weekends, that's difficult for people.

[1:08:15] I would say that anyone have a standing Thursday conflict that wouldn't work.

[1:08:19] I'll go further and say that January 15 or 22nd, both Thursdays work on my calendar and I have

[1:08:26] lots of flexibility, but I'll throw January out because it's less likely to be interrupted by

[1:08:31] vacations tomorrow.

[1:08:35] I think I'm open on those states too. I am as well. Which one's? 15 and 20 second

[1:08:41] 15 or 20 second of January Thursdays both. Do those Fridays work or do some any of them?

[1:08:49] 16th or 23rd also work for me.

[1:08:55] Friday would work better for me.

[1:08:57] But I could switch things around in my schedule for a Thursday.

[1:09:01] That's better for everyone.

[1:09:02] Super flexible.

[1:09:04] 16 and 23rd both work for me as well.

[1:09:10] Either of those dates work for me as well.

[1:09:14] So it looks like right now we've got four dates.

[1:09:17] We're talking about 15th, 16th, 22nd, 23rd.

[1:09:22] With a slight preference for Friday.

[1:09:24] If that can be done, if anyone see any conflicts on those dudes.

[1:09:33] I might have, I might have some, but I don't have it on this calendar.

[1:09:38] This staff can send out an email right away tomorrow morning when I plan and make sure,

[1:09:43] I know, our missing Commissioner Finwall is that they also have their own recognition meeting tonight in their city.

[1:09:50] So what I can do is send that out and just give everyone an opportunity.

[1:09:54] I'm cautiously optimistic this felt too easy, but then at the same time I'd be

[1:10:00] We can confirm it with camp tomorrow morning right away if those dates worked for them. They've been pretty

[1:10:04] available for the most part. I think they're waiting for us. They know the holiday, but I'll just

[1:10:08] double check. And I'll send out an email. Have you give you all an opportunity to just

[1:10:12] could you pull check your calendars for those four dates? We have January 15th, 16th, 22nd, and 23rd,

[1:10:18] targeting Thursdays and Fridays in January. And then tomorrow morning I'll email camp right away and

[1:10:22] just see if that is available for them as well. And then email you all as a reminder.

[1:10:26] 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.

[1:10:44] do you think? Obviously it's it's important to get a date that works for the full HPC first

[1:10:51] but do you think that any of those dates would work better or worse for trying to get?

[1:10:57] I'll double check with staff council.

[1:11:02] I don't know. I might return to council member

[1:11:04] Collins and if they would prefer to have another kind of a called a meeting like commitment to

[1:11:10] week of accounts a week or an off week so to speak.

[1:11:21] To your point, Chair, all those dates appear

[1:11:24] to be mostly I don't think there's any conflicts with day commissions for staff on those

[1:11:28] dates and I'd have to check with them on any vacation or time off but I think those are generally

[1:11:33] going to be as Commissioner Holmes mentioned pretty low impact or travel dates, so we'll double

[1:11:37] check that on staff's perspective. But once we lock in the HPC and NAPC, I'd send it to the

[1:11:45] other commissioners and while in council members to try to see if they can get to that.

[1:11:53] Thank you for. Thank you. But it's all together and thank you offer.

[1:11:58] Okay, I'll just thank you, commissioner Holmes. And above all the just breaking it down. That was

[1:12:03] again too easy. We'll see.

[1:12:09] All right. It looks like that is everything.

[1:12:14] Is there anything else in terms of updates? I think that's when you're to cover with somebody

[1:12:20] like to move to a adjourn.

[1:12:25] I saw move, summers.

[1:12:30] Second meno. Okay, motion by

[1:12:32] summers. Second by meno to adjourn. All those in favor. Bye. Any post? Okay.

[1:12:39] The meeting is adjourned at 812.

Heritage Preservation Commission

Agenda

Transcript