Aug 19, 2026 Heritage Preservation Commission

[I. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. TO ORDER PRESENT TONIGHT, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS LARSON, AMDAHL, TUCSON, MINO HOMES, SOMERS AND COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE COLLINS.

EVERYONE IS HERE TONIGHT. BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES, I WANTED TO NOTE A CHANGE OF. IN THE AGENDA, THE. AT THE STAFF'S REQUEST, WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE THE DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE TO THE SEPTEMBER MEETING. JUST GIVEN THAT WE HAVE TWO TWO BIG CASES ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT,

[III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

[2. Case No. CD2026-019: Demolition request for 320 2nd Street North]

AND AT THAT POINT, WE'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AGAIN. AND THEN WE'LL START DISCUSSING AS THE COMMISSION FOLLOWING THAT. SO WITH THAT REFRESHER, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO STAFF AND GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AS YOU NOTED, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THREE 22ND STREET NORTH. IT'S A DEMOLITION REQUEST AND ONE THAT I BELIEVE MOST OF YOU, IF NOT ALL IN THE COMMISSION, HAVE SEEN IN A FEW YEARS PRIOR. AND I'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS THE DEMOLITION OF A PRE 1946 STRUCTURE ON THREE 22ND STREET NORTH. IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND IN THE TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS, PROPERTY AND HISTORY, HISTORIC CONTEXT. THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORIC CONTEXT ON THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND IN YEARS PRIOR. BUT I WANTED TO KIND OF HIGHLIGHT THE JUST HIGH LEVEL HERE. IT'S A 7600 SQUARE FOOT LOT, ABOUT A 1000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IT'S A ONE STORY EARLY VERNACULAR STRUCTURE WITH THREE REAR ADDITIONS THAT ARE SOME NOT NECESSARILY ORIGINAL, BUT STILL ALSO MOST PRIMARILY HISTORIC.

THERE'S A PROMINENT STONE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE FRONT ALONG SECOND STREET. IT OVERLOOKS DOWNTOWN STILLWATER, ALONG WITH THE SAINT CROIX RIVER VALLEY. IT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE 1995 NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY AS AN EARLY SURVIVING EXAMPLE OF THIS TYPE OF STRUCTURE, WHICH KIND OF GOES INTO THE PROPERTY SIGNIFICANCE. IT WAS BUILT IN 1858. I SHOULD STILLWATER'S 1858 EARLY STATEHOOD. NORTH HILL ORIGINALLY INCLUDED THE WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF STILLWATER. SO IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT TO THAT ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF STILLWATER. EARLY HOMES IN THIS ERA WERE OFTEN SMALL VERNACULAR. ONE STORY SIMILAR TO THIS. AS REDEVELOPMENT HAPPENED THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY AND SPECIFICALLY STILLWATER, THE OTHER HOMES STARTED TO CROP UP. THREE 22ND STREET WAS IDENTIFIED AS A RARE SURVIVING EXAMPLE OF THIS TYPE OF PRE-CIVIL WAR HOME, AND THAT IS A KEY CONSIDERATION THAT MAKES AND PUTS WEIGHT AGAINST DEMOLITION. IN THIS CASE, THE PREVIOUS REVIEWS THAT I HAD MENTIONED WERE 2022 AND 2023. SO IN 2022, THE HPC SUPPORTED PRESERVATION OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE VERY LITERALLY BY RECOMMEND OR BY DENYING DEMOLITION OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. ALTHOUGH NOTED THAT PARTIAL DEMOLITION COULD BE

[00:05:01]

NOTING THESE CONCERNS OR LACK OF. BECAUSE THERE WASN'T MUCH OF A CHANGE BETWEEN THE FIRST INSPECTION AND THIS LAST ONE. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO BROUGHT IN A STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT AND THIS IS THE SAME FROM 2022. AND THIS IS NOTED THE UNDERMINED FOOTING STONES, DEFICIENT ROTTING JOISTS, INADEQUATE BEAMS, STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES IN THE ADDITIONS, WHICH AS WE MENTIONED, WERE, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, WERE APPROVED FOR DEMOLITION. SO THERE'S DEFINITELY CREDENCE TO THAT. AND THEN AN ENGINEER RECOMMENDED COMPLETE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION. THAT STAFF REPORT OR THAT REPORT PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT FROM 2022.

STAFF HAS NOTED AT THAT TIME. AND TODAY IT'S A PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT. THAT'S PART OF THE RECORD, BUT WE CAN'T INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THAT ASSERTION. ALL WE ARE ABLE TO DO IS THROUGH OUR VERY GENERAL, BUT I'D SAY THOROUGH INSPECTION OR INSPECTION, IDENTIFY WHAT WE SEE. AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS MAJOR LIFE, HEALTH AND SAFETY STRUCTURAL CONCERNS, WHICH AGAIN, WE FOUND NONE. THE REHABILITATION AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY. THIS IS WHERE WE SEE A LITTLE BIT OF A CHANGE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. PROPERTY WAS MARKETED IN FOR SALE MULTIPLE TIMES, I BELIEVE 425 000. FOR REFERENCE, THE THE COUNTY HAS ASSESSED THE PROPERTY ASSESSED WITH THE STRUCTURE AND LAND AT ABOUT 409 000. CURRENTLY. THE PREVIOUS REHABILITATION PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2023 WAS ABANDONED. THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS WITHDREW AFTER INSPECTIONS. MOST NOTABLY, ONE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET WAS A ANECDOTAL STORY FROM A BUYER THAT WAS UNDER CONTRACT AND DID FIND CONCERNS REGARDING MOLD, WOOD DECAY. AND THEN IN LIEU OF THAT REHABILITATION COST, WHICH THE NEWS INFORMATION FOR YOU ALL IS THE MOLD REMEDIATION THAT THE APPLICANT DID FIND FOR RECORD WAS 380 000. SO THE APPLICANT'S ESTIMATED TOTAL REHAB WAS ABOUT 1.1 MILLION. AND THAT INCLUDES THE ALTERNATIVE FULL HOUSE REMODEL ESTIMATE FROM 2022, WHICH WAS 782,000, WHICH, IF THAT NUMBER IS FROM 2022, IS LIKELY ALSO INCREASED FROM STAFF'S POSITION. AGAIN, THESE ARE QUOTES AND ASSESSMENTS AS PART OF THE RECORD, BUT NOT INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY STAFF OR ANY OTHER EXPERTS ON OUR TEAM. REASONABLE REUSE AND RELOCATION REASONABLE REUSE REMAINS LEGALLY PERMITTED IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IT IS ALLOWED TO REMAIN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND BE USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

REHABILITATION DOES REMAIN POSSIBLE FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, AND THERE IS SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL PRACTICAL BARRIERS THAT EXIST TO THAT THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE RECORD BY THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, SINCE ABOUT 2023, MAYBE 2022. I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION ON THAT. AS FAR AS RELOCATION, THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMAL ANALYSIS SUBMITTED, BUT FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE AND REVIEWING THE PROPERTY AND BEING IN THE STRUCTURE, THERE ARE DEFINITELY A FEW LAYERS THAT ADD COMPLEXITY AND COST TO RELOCATING THE STRUCTURE, MAINLY THE TOPOGRAPHY, THE SITE, AND THEN JUST THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, NOT CURRENT OWNERS, BUT PREVIOUS OWNERS IN THE MID CENTURY HAD DONE A LOT OF SUBGRADE WORK. THAT LEAVES THE GROUND A LITTLE POROUS. THAT WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO GET HEAVY EQUIPMENT ON THERE, I THINK. SO LITTLE COVERAGE OF WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE 2022 AND 2022. WE HAD LIMITED INFORMATION REGARDING CONDITION.

THERE WAS THE STRUCTURAL REPORT ANALYSIS AND A LOT OF INFORMATION ON THE HISTORIC FABRIC AND INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE. THERE WAS A PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION PROVIDED A POTENTIAL PATH FORWARD. 2023 SAW THAT APPROVED PROJECT AND THAT THEN FOR THE

[00:10:05]

MULTIPLE UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO SELL. AGAIN, PROSPECTIVE BUYERS IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT REHABILITATION CONCERNS. NEW ENVIRONMENTAL AND REMEDIATION INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED AND A SUBSTANTIAL ESTIMATE. REHABILITATION COSTS THEN THEREFORE INCREASED THE. THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE MATERIAL HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT, MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE CONSIDERED IN 2022. AS FAR AS THE THE THE CASE ITSELF, NOT NECESSARILY, AGAIN, IN STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, THE PHYSICAL CONDITION, THE STRUCTURE REMAINS. SO WHAT HASN'T CHANGED SINCE THIS TIME? IT REMAINS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT. IT'S AN 1858 CONSTRUCTION ALSO MAKES IT THAT MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT. IT REMAINS A RARE EARLY VERNACULAR RESOURCE FOR THE CITY. IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT REMAINS LEGALLY PERMITTED TO CONTINUE OPERATING. AS SUCH, THE REHABILITATION HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE.

THE KEY TENSION HERE THAT IS NOTED BY STAFF REPORT IS HISTORIC PRESERVATION VALUE VERSUS PRACTICAL ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY FOR THE APPLICANT IS KIND OF THE THE TUG THAT WE HAVE HERE. SO AGAIN, REMINDING THE COMMISSION THERE ARE TWO FINDINGS THAT ARE CODE REQUIRE YOU ALL MAKE WHEN IT COMES TO DEMOLITION APPROVAL VERSUS CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UNDERLYING ZONING CODE AND DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES, SHOULD THERE BE INFILL AND REASONABLE REUSE IN THIS CASE, THE FIRST ONE IS THE WEIGHT OF THE MERITS OF PRESERVATION CONSIDERING THE AREA'S CHARACTER, AND THAT'S MORE IF THERE'S A PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NOT. AND AND NUMBER TWO WOULD BE WOULD THE DENIAL EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF REASONABLE USE? AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFICULT ONE FOR STAFF. IT'S A LEGAL RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

THAT'S WHAT IT IS TODAY. AND THAT REMAINS. THE APPLICANT HAS ADDED, FOR THE RECORD, SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE TO THE REUSE, THE FINANCIAL BARRIERS SPECIFICALLY, AND STAFF CANNOT CONCLUDE REHABILITATION IS IMPOSSIBLE. EVEN WITH THOSE FINANCIAL BARRIERS, IT DOES APPEAR IT COULD STILL BE DONE, MAYBE JUST NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE HPC AND YOUR DECISION IS IT HAS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE THAT WEIGHT STRONGLY AGAINST DEMOLITION. THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE MATERIALLY CHANGED SINCE 2022. AGAIN, CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT NECESSARILY THE STRUCTURE FROM OUR REVIEW. SIGNIFICANT REHABILITATION CHALLENGES ARE DOCUMENTED. FOR THE RECORD BY THE APPLICANT. THERE'S NO REDEVELOPMENT OR PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION TONIGHT, SO THIS WOULD BE JUST A VACANT LOT. AND THEN REASONABLE USE HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE IMPOSSIBLE AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE COMMISSION TO DO TONIGHT IS APPROVE OR DENY THE DEMOLITION REQUEST. ONE WAY THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT FRAMING THIS IS DOES THE PRESERVATION VALUE OF THE RESOURCE OUTWEIGH THE DEMONSTRATED PRACTICAL OR ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES? KIND OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUST UPDATE THERE WAS A WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH YOUR STAFF REPORT, OR I SHOULD SAY THE, THE PACKET ITSELF. AND THEN THE DEMOLITION REQUESTS DO REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, AS NOTED BY OUR CHAIR. AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT SECTION 24-5 OF CITY CODE DOES STATE THAT A DETERMINATION BASED ON THE FINDING SHALL BE MADE BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. IF THE HPC DOES DENY THE PERMIT APPLICATION, IT WILL BE FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL TO CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT IS AN AUTOMATIC STEP IN PART OF THIS PROCESS. SO I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU ALL OF THAT FACT.

AND THEN JUST SOME EXISTING CONDITIONS. SO THIS IS THE EXTERIOR. THOSE ARE THE REAR ADDITIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND APPROVED FOR DENIAL OR APPROVED FOR DEMOLITION. THE CASE BEFORE YOU IS DEMOLITION OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, NOT JUST PARTIAL.

YOU ALSO HAVE THERE WE GO, A VERY SLOW LOADING POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. BY TWO OTHER SLIDES HERE WITH INTERIOR PHOTOS, ONE SHOWING THE WATER DAMAGE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN. I APOLOGIZE, I'M NOT SURE WHY IT WON'T SHOW UP. YOU COULD. YEAH.

THANK YOU. ONE SHOWED JUST THE BASEMENT WHERE THERE WAS A LARGE SANDSTONE COLUMN, A CLOSER VERSION OF PHOTO OF THE ACTUAL SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT SHOWS WHERE THE ORIGINAL HOME WAS. IN LIEU OF THE ADDITION, THE THREE ADDITIONS THAT CAME IN AFTERWARDS, AN INTERIOR PHOTO OF THE FRONT ROOM WHERE THE WATER DAMAGE HAD TAKEN PLACE, AND THEN THE THIRD SLIDE WAS OF THE BASEMENT, WHERE THE PRIMARY THING THAT I WAS HIGHLIGHTING IS THERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF SOME ROTTED FLOOR JOISTS. BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO A GOOD EXAMPLE OF FLOOR JOISTS THAT HAD BEEN REPAIRED WELL BY PREVIOUS OWNER, AS WELL AS JUST A VERY ROBUST FOUNDATION WALL THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. SO JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT YOU CAN SEE WHEN YOU'RE IN THE BASEMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. APOLOGIES IF THAT'S NOT WORKING. AND WITH THAT, I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE

[00:15:06]

CORRECT. AND IF WE APPROVED AS IT ALSO, IS IT APPEALABLE TO COUNCIL? I GUESS IF IT IS APPROVED, I BELIEVE THAT AN APPELLATE SOMEONE, WHETHER IT WOULD BE THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES SHOULD THEY WANT TO OR SOMEBODY ELSE COULD APPROVE, COULD APPEAL THAT APPROVAL TO COUNCIL CODE JUST STATES THAT AUTOMATICALLY THAT HEIRLOOM HOMES AND NATIONALLY LISTED STRUCTURES THAT ARE UP FOR DEMOLITION ARE AUTOMATICALLY RECOMMENDED, REGARDLESS OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL. GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ALL OTHER HOMES PRE 1946 OR STRUCTURES. I SHOULD SAY APPROVAL IS BY HPC AND THAT'S WHERE IT STAYS. DENIAL GOES AUTOMATICALLY TO CITY COUNCIL. BUT SOMEONE COULD APPEAL THE APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I QUESTION JUST BUILDING ON THAT. IS THAT LIKE A 15 DAY PERIOD OR 30 DAY PERIOD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? CORRECT. THEY HAVE I BELIEVE IT IS TEN DAYS. TEN THREW ME OFF FOR THE 15. YES, IT IS TEN DAYS FOR ANY APPEAL. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT SO THEY TALK ABOUT THE WATER IN THE BASEMENT, THE THE CISTERN, THE UNINTENTIONAL INDOOR WATER FEATURE. AND THAT PROBABLY CAME UP IN 2022. I JUST DON'T REMEMBER. AND YOU COULD YOU REFRESH OUR MEMORY ON WHAT EXACTLY THAT IS, UNFORTUNATELY, AND I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DETAIL. UNFORTUNATELY, ONE OF THE PHOTOS I DO HAVE ACTUALLY SHOWS THAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A RECENT, I'M NOT SURE IF IT DID COME UP IN 2022. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A RECENT AN ADDITION, SO TO SPEAK, TO THE SITUATION. BUT THERE IS CONSTANT RUNNING WATER THROUGH THE BASEMENT. THAT'S IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE IMPACTING THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. BUT AND I DO KNOW AFTER SPEAKING WITH OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL, THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY NECESSARILY NEW TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER OR UNIQUE, BUT THAT IS DEFINITELY HAPPENING AT THIS STRUCTURE. THANKS. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I HAVE A FEW OF THEM.

THE THE TEST WERE THE WERE THE AIR TEST OCCURRED THAT THE REPORT SAID WAS THE LIVING ROOM THAT I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY. THAT'S IN THAT FRONT PORTION OF THE HOUSE. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. YEP. OKAY. MENTIONED IN THE REPORT THAT THE UTILITIES WERE DISCONNECTED. DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF HOW LONG IT WAS WITHOUT CHAIR COMMISSIONERS? I'M NOT SURE WITH HOW LONG. I BELIEVE IT WAS FOR AT LEAST A YEAR. AND THEN LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO MORE DETAIL. BUT I BELIEVE THAT WATER WAS TURNED OFF, AND THAT DID LEAD TO A RADIATOR BURSTING AT SOME POINT WITH SOME WATER DAMAGE. AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE PHOTOS NOT WORKING. IS THAT THE ROOM WHERE THAT TEST HAPPENED OR SOME OTHER PART OF THE HOUSE? I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD THAT FRONT ROOM WOULD BE THE LIVING ROOM WHERE THE TEST WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. THE WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT WE GOT IS AN ASSERTION THAT THE THE OWNERS CEASED TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY AFTER IT. SOMETIME AFTER THE THE CASE, AFTER THEY DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE THEIR PROJECT. MAYBE. DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE OF OF WHETHER IT WAS MAINTAINED. YEAH. OF COURSE. THANK YOU, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. THE PROPERTY, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WOULD NORMALLY HAVE COME BEFORE US IF IT WAS A NUISANCE. SO IF THERE WERE BROKEN WINDOWS, DOORS, SIDING FALLING APART OR ROOFING ALL THE WAY TO THE EXTERIOR FEATURES LIKE LONG GRASS OR WEEDS, STAFF HASN'T RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS. AND THEN EVEN IN JULY, ALBEIT IT WAS QUITE A DRY SUMMER WHEN WE WERE OUT THERE IN JULY, IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE THAT THE PROPERTY OR THE EXTERIOR PROPERTY HAD BEEN ABANDONED IN ANY WAY. I WOULD SAY FROM MY UNTRAINED EYE, IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THE PROPERTY WAS BEING. IT DEFINITELY WAS VACANT. NO ONE WAS LIVING THERE, BUT IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS MAINTENANCE, NOR WAS THERE A LACK OF MAINTENANCE. FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE AND OUR BUILDING OFFICIALS PERSPECTIVE, IT WASN'T REACHING A POINT OF DILAPIDATION THAT WOULD HAVE NECESSITATED DEMOLITION, EXCEPT FOR NOT HAVING UTILITIES. YES. CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, JUST IN TERMS OF SOMETHING IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO COMMISSION REPORTS, YOU KNOW, MY UNDERSTANDING OF OUR DEMOLITION ORDINANCE IS THAT WE KIND OF HAVE THIS CHECKS AND BALANCES WHERE THE, THE APPLICANT CAN CAN PRESENT REPORTS AS THEY'VE THEY'VE DONE. AND THEN THERE ARE SOME, SOME REPORTS ON ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND OTHER THINGS THAT THE CITY CAN COMMISSION TO, TO CONFIRM AND VERIFY THAT IS THIS

[00:20:06]

SO WE CAN PROBABLY DISCUSS IT MORE LATER. BUT I WAS JUST WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT. THANK YOU. IF I MAY ADD, I DO RECALL THE CITY COMMISSIONING REPORTS IN THE PAST, BUT. CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? I DO RECALL THE CITY COMMISSIONING REPORTS FOR DEMOLITION PERMITS IN THE PAST. YEAH, I KNOW WE DID. UNDER THE OLD ORDINANCE AND I'M I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE WERE SINCE THE NEW ORDINANCE, BUT I. I THINK THE NEW ORDINANCE ENVISIONS THEM. GOOD POINT. OKAY. YEAH, IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE OLD ORDINANCE STAFF WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE OLD ORDINANCE TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING SPECIFIC IN THAT LANGUAGE. AND AS YOU NOTED, CHAIR, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT EITHER, INCLUDING FOR FUTURE REQUESTS SUCH AS THESE OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF CLARIFYING OR OTHERS. OKAY, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PROCESS. AND NEXT WE'LL INVITE THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. AND THEN WE CAN ASK OPPORTUNITY TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AS WELL BEFORE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. SO IT LOOKED LIKE OUR APPLICANT IS ON THE ON ZOOM. SO MAYBE I DON'T KNOW HOW WE QUEUE THAT UP, BUT WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO THEM. ALL RIGHT. CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? WE CAN. YEP. OKAY. THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS PAT ESTENSON. MY WIFE AND I ARE THE OWNERS OF 322ND STREET NORTH, AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED HERE TONIGHT. YES. WE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION. WERE DENIED. SUBMITTED ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR REDEVELOPMENT. AND ULTIMATELY WE'RE APPROVED FOR A DESIGN. JUST SOME BACKGROUND ON WHY AND HOW AND THINGS GOT TO WHERE IT'S AT WITH THE APPROVAL. WE, YOU KNOW, MOVED FORWARD AND THINGS STARTED MOVING QUICKLY AND WE WERE PRETTY EXCITED. BUT IT JUST QUITE HONESTLY, THE, THE DESIGN THAT WAS SUBMITTED AFTER OR THAT WAS APPROVED, I SHOULD SAY IT, IT JUST BECAME UNREACHABLE FOR US PRICE WISE.

I MEAN, IT JUST BECAME SO EXPENSIVE AND IT WAS JUST NOT ANYWHERE NEAR IN OUR BUDGET. SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT. SO WE MOVED FROM THERE TO WHAT CAN WE SCALE BACK? HOW CAN WE GET IT BACK IN LINE WITH OUR BUDGET AND STILL COMPLY WITH THE APPROVAL APPROVED DESIGN? AND REALLY THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE WERE NOT SIGNIFICANT, I DON'T THINK, TO THE EXTERIOR DESIGN OF THE HOUSE, OTHER THAN IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE THAT FACED WEST. WE CHANGED THE ROOFLINE QUITE A BIT BECAUSE WE REMOVED SOME SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE FROM THE ATTIC AREA, TOP FLOOR, AND WE WERE MOVING THE HOUSE ONTO SLAB AS OPPOSED TO A NEW BASEMENT AND FOUNDATION. BUT AT THAT POINT, THE CURRENT, THE, THE, THE GENTLEMAN WHO WAS THE CITY PLANNER AT THAT POINT DECIDED THAT THE DESIGN WAS GOING TO BE TOO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED AND NEEDED TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN. AND, AND QUITE HONESTLY, AT THAT POINT, WHAT WE GOT TO WAS NOT AT ALL WHAT HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR US IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS IN OUR HEART AND WHAT WE HAD, YOU KNOW, WANTED TO BE OUR, OUR, OUR HOME AND OUR DREAM. AND THEN TO BE TOLD THAT WE NEEDED TO NOW GO THROUGH THE PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN BECAUSE IT WAS TOO DIFFERENT OF A DESIGN, WHICH I ARGUED BECAUSE FROM THE FRONT IT LOOKED THE SAME. AND REALLY FROM THE SIDE IT MOSTLY DID. WE JUST DECIDED, THIS IS THAT IT'S NO LONGER OUR DREAM. IT KIND OF WE, WE, WE WERE BEAT BY THE SYSTEM AND THAT'S WHY WE ABANDONED IT AT THAT POINT. WE DID PUT IT UP FOR SALE. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT. THERE WERE MANY SHOWINGS AND WE DID HAVE AN OFFER UNDER CONTRACT. AND THAT'S WHAT KIND OF LED TO ALL WHAT WHERE WE'RE

[00:25:01]

YOU READ THE LETTER OR WHAT I WAS TOLD IS BURNING THROAT, RESPIRATORY ISSUES, WHATEVER.

AND THEY TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES, UNBEKNOWNST TO US ACTUALLY, WHICH I WAS KIND OF SURPRISED ABOUT. BUT THAT'S FINE. HAD IT TESTED AND THAT'S WHERE THE THAT'S WHERE THE TESTING RESULTS CAME FROM. AND THEN THAT'S WHERE I THINK THEY DID THAT WITHOUT TELLING US BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO GET THEIR EARNEST MONEY BACK, WHICH OF COURSE WE, YOU KNOW, GAVE THEM BACK AND GET OUT OF THE CONTRACT BECAUSE OF THE MOLD ISSUES. AND SO THE MOLD ISSUES ARE WHAT LED TO US REAPPLYING FOR THIS BECAUSE OUR REALTOR SAID WE CAN'T WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE SHOWING THE HOUSE ANYMORE BECAUSE SOMEONE'S GOTTEN SICK. THAT'S ALL GOING TO COME INTO DISCLOSURE FOR SALE. SO WE CAN'T SHOW THE HOUSE TO SELL. IT NEEDS TO BE REMEDIATED BEFORE WE CAN DO THAT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I MET WITH THE CITY TO KIND OF TALK TO THEM ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PROPERTY. SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT. I DID CONTACT THE CITY HAD TWO, TWO PEOPLE. THEY RECOMMENDED THE CONTACT AND WE FOUND TWO OTHERS. REALLY ONLY TWO OF THEM RESPONDED TO PHONE CALLS. THEY JUST KIND OF GHOSTED US. AND TWO OTHERS DID RESPOND AND SCHEDULE A TIME. ONE OF THEM DID NOT SHOW UP FOR THE APPOINTMENT AND NEVER RESPONDED AFTER THAT. SO THE ONE PROPOSAL OR AND I GUESS YOU HAVE FOR MOLD REMEDIATION THERE FROM BAUER PROPERTY SERVICES, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO THAT'S THE GENTLEMAN THAT DID SHOW UP AND DO THE WORK AND GIVE US A PROPOSAL. AT THIS POINT, WE'RE AT WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE THE, YOU KNOW, THE COST TO REMEDIATE. AND WE WERE GIVEN TWO OPTIONS BY THE BY THE THE MOLD REMOVAL ONE WAS BASICALLY SAID, YOU CAN HAVE I CAN REMOVE THE MOLD TO TRICK. I CAN REMOVE ENOUGH TO TRICK THE TEST, BUT THE PROBLEM WILL PERSIST IN RETURN. AND SO THAT'S NOT REALLY REMEDIATING. THAT'S HIDING. AND THAT WAS A $30,000 PROPOSITION. THE REMOVAL OF THE MOLD SO THAT IT DOES NOT RETURN. SO I CAN LEGITIMATELY SELL IT AS A YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE ADDRESSED, WAS THE PROPOSAL YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU FOR LIKE 380 PLUS THOUSAND DOLLARS. THE PRICE OF REBUILDING THE 700 AND SOME THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM KANE CONSTRUCTION THAT CAME FROM BACK WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS BEFORE THAT WAS TO BASICALLY REBUILD THE HOUSE, AS IS, JUST PUT IT UP TO CODE AND WHATNOT. AND THAT THAT WAS THE 720. SO THAT'S WHERE IT CAME TO THE 1.1 MILLION. AT THIS POINT, CONSTRUCTION PRICES HAVE HAVE, HAVE GONE UP. BUT REGARDLESS IF THEY HAVE OR NOT, THE 1.1 MILLION IS JUST, IT'S JUST NOT A PRICE OR COST THAT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT THE PROPERTY IS FOR SALE. I GUESS THAT'S THE STORY. THERE'S, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, I'M OPEN FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO THE FIRM YOU USED. DO YOU CAN YOU SPEAK ON IF THEY HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH HISTORIC STRUCTURES WHICH WHICH FIRM HAS BEEN INVOLVED. THE ONES YOU GOT FOR THE QUOTES OF THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS, THE 700 FIGURE. I WOULD SAY KANE CONSTRUCTION OR KANE KANE BUILDERS. YEAH. THEY'RE LOCAL STILLWATER COMPANY. THEY WERE THE ONES WHO WERE, YOU KNOW, GAVE US THE BID AND WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THE FOREVER STRUCTURE.

SO THEY WERE HE WAS, YOU KNOW, HE WAS NICE TO TO PUT TOGETHER THE TIME AND THE WORK TO, TO

[00:30:02]

OH, YEAH. SO THE, THE, THE CONTRACTOR WHO GAVE US THE, THE, THE, THE ESTIMATE NUMBER ONE, HE WAS GIVING IT ON THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. AS YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED FOR DEMOLITION OF AT LEAST HALF OF THE STRUCTURE OR MORE JUST THE, THE ADDITIONS THAT CAME, YOU KNOW, OVER TIME. BUT ALL OF THAT, IF IN HIS ESTIMATE TALKED ABOUT BRINGING IT DOWN TO STUDS.

SO I IMAGINE THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEAN REMOVAL. WELL, HE POINTS OUT IT'S REMOVAL OF ALL THE PLASTER FROM THE INTERIOR WALLS AS WELL AS I UNDERSTAND THE, THE SIDING AND THE, THE, THE, THE SHEATHING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE WALLS TO BRING IT DOWN TO STUDS AND THEN ENCAPSULATE IT ALL. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE WORK TO BE. DO YOU DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY. AND I UNDERSTAND YOU DIDN'T AUTHORIZE THE TEST OR PAY FOR IT, SO I WON'T BE SURPRISED IF YOU DON'T HAVE THIS ANSWER, BUT I'M CURIOUS, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY MOISTURE PROBE TESTING DONE IN THE WALL CAVITY TO THAT WOULD INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ACTUALLY MOISTURE IN THE WALL? I DO NOT KNOW THAT. YEAH, I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THAT.

I WILL SAY THAT THE CONTRACTOR THAT GAVE ESTIMATE SAID THAT WE WOULD NOT BE. HE SAID HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHERE THE MOLD WAS UNTIL EVERYTHING WAS UNCOVERED, AND MAYBE NOT EVEN THEN, HE SAID. THAT'S WHY EVERYTHING WOULD NEED TO BE BROUGHT DOWN TO STUDS. THAT'S THAT WAS HIS COMMENT. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO JUST GOING A LITTLE FURTHER ON THAT, THEN THE WATER IN THE BASEMENT. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER? I'M LOOKING AT SOME OF THE PICTURES IN THE MAGNUM GEO ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT 15 THROUGH 19 IS ARE WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE LOOKING AT? AND CAN YOU KIND OF TALK ABOUT WHERE THAT WATER IS COMING FROM THAT IS IN THE BASEMENT? YEAH.

SO WHERE IT'S COMING FROM TO START WITH, I BELIEVE IS THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. IF YOU WALK TO THAT CORNER, THERE'S RETAINING WALLS THERE AND IT'S PRETTY, IT CAN BE DEPENDING ON TIME OF YEAR AND WHATNOT. BE PRETTY SQUISHY BACK THERE. SO IT APPEARS TO BE THAT'S WHERE IT'S COMING FROM, BUT IT ENDS UP IN THAT CORNER OF THE HOUSES WHERE YOU SEE THE PHOTOS OF IT, WHERE IT'S COMING IN IT. DEPENDING ON TIME OF YEAR, IT RUNS PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY DOWN TO A TRICKLE. SO IN THE WINTER, IT'S IT'S TRICKLING IN. AND IN THE SPRING AND DEPENDING ON RAINFALL, IT'S COMING IN. LIKE PROBABLY I, I, I DON'T, I CAN'T IMAGINE THE FLOW, BUT TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE A GALLON OR MORE A MINUTE. IT'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. IT WAS THAT,

[00:35:04]

THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR, FOR THE APPLICANT. IS IT YOUR INTENT TO DEMO THE STRUCTURE AND THEN RESELL THE VACANT LOT? THAT'S CORRECT. WE MY INTENT AT THIS POINT, UNLESS I'M TOLD OTHERWISE, WOULD BE WITH APPROVAL, WOULD BE TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE. WE WOULD LEAVE THE THE FOUNDATION AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE NUMBER ONE, THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FOUNDATION IS THE RETAINING WALL BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. SO THAT THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, COULDN'T BE DEMOLISHED. AND THEN AND, AND EVEN WITH, WITH OUR APPROVED DESIGN, WE WERE KEEPING THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS, THAT'S A FUNCTIONING RETAINING WALL AS WELL AS A FOUNDATION WALL. BUT WHOEVER WOULD BUY OR BUILD ON THAT PROPERTY WOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS. SO I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE FOUNDATION UNTIL I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT UP TO SOMEBODY ELSE WHO'S GOING TO BUILD THEIR. THANK YOU. YEAH.

ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU. WE WILL INVITE YOU TO SPEAK AGAIN AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. SO WE'VE HEARD FROM THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT. SO I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE, JUST AS A REMINDER THAT I WOULD ASK ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO TEN MINUTES OR LESS. SO IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THE OPENING. FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. STEP ON UP. AND THERE'S A BUTTON ON THE LEFT, BOTTOM LEFT OF THE MICROPHONE TO TURN IT ON. THERE YOU GO. AND THEN IF YOU COULD GIVE I SEE A GREEN. GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. YES. THANK YOU. CHAIR TYSON. MY NAME IS DEVIN HOLSTEAD. I RESIDE AT 115 LINDEN STREET. THE PINK HOUSE THERE, RIGHT TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY. I'M GOING TO START MY TIMER JUST TO MAKE SURE I STICK WITHIN YOUR TEN MINUTES. I JUST FIRST, I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT MR. CHAIR AND THIS COMMISSION HAVE DONE, AND ALSO MR. GUTKNECHT AND THE STAFF BETWEEN THREE YEARS AGO AND THIS PROCESS, THE STAFF AND THIS COMMISSION CLEARLY TAKE THIS ISSUE SERIOUSLY AND PUT IN A LOT OF GOOD WORK IN ORDER TO PRESERVE WHAT MAKES THIS TOWN GREAT. AND I THINK THAT IS COMMENDABLE.

AND IF YOU DON'T GET THANKED ENOUGH. THANK YOU. I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE POINTS. MY LETTER IN THE RECORD IS PRETTY THOROUGH, I THINK, AND SO I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR TOO MANY

[00:40:03]

[00:45:02]

THEY KNEW THAT RENOVATIONS HAD TO BE MADE TO THE BUILDING TO MAKE IT IMMEDIATE. IT'S NOT A TURNKEY PROPERTY, BUT IT WAS LIVABLE AND EVERY SINGLE ONE SAID THEY KNEW IT. THE HISTORIC VALUE WAS IMPORTANT TO THEM, BUT THAT IT WAS JUST A LITTLE TOO EXPENSIVE ON THE LIST PRICE.

AND NOTHING WE'VE HEARD INDICATES THAT THERE IS ANY ISSUE WITH THE LIVABILITY OF THIS PROPERTY, OTHER THAN IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THE CURRENT OWNERS, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S JUST A RISK OF BUYING A HISTORIC PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY WAS HISTORIC WHEN IT WAS PURCHASED. IT HAS REMAINED. SO THOSE RISKS ARE INHERENT WITH BUYING A PROPERTY THAT IS PART OF THE FABRIC, THE FABRIC OF THIS COMMUNITY AND THIS STATE. THIS IS ONE OF FEW HOUSES. I THINK IT'S ONE OF TWO HOUSES IN THE STATE OF ITS TYPE AND OF ITS AGE. THAT WAS A FINDING IN THE LAST IN 2022, 2023. I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER ONE. THIS COULD BE THE LAST ONE LEFT. SO THERE IS NO DENYING THAT PRESERVATION IS IMPORTANT HERE.

AND PRESERVATION NEEDS TO MEAN SOMETHING. THE REAL ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT DEMOLITION IS CHEAPER THAN PRESERVATION, BUT THAT CANNOT BE THE STANDARD. IT'S NOT THE STANDARD. WHAT THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO ASK IS WHETHER PRESERVATION IS FEASIBLE. MR. GUTKNECHT PRESENTATION ANSWERED THAT IT IS, AND WHETHER DENIAL DEPRIVES THE USER OF ALL REASONABLE USE.

MR. GUTKNECHT PRESENTATION AFFIRMED EXPLICITLY THAT IT DOES NOT. NEITHER OF THE STANDARDS THAT THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO DECIDE TO ALLOW DEMOLITION HAVE BEEN MET, AS THE CITY'S OWN GUIDANCE REGARDING DEMOLITION MAKES CLEAR, DEMOLITION IS FOREVER, AND ONCE A BUILDING IS GONE, IT TAKES AWAY ANOTHER PIECE OF THE CITY'S CHARACTER THAT COULD NOT BE MORE APPLICABLE TO ANY SITUATION. MORE THAN THIS ONE, I ASK THAT THE COMMISSION DENY THE PERMIT, UPHOLD ITS PRIOR FINDINGS AND PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE PRESERVATION PROCESS THAT PROTECTS NOT JUST THIS PROPERTY, NOT JUST MY PROPERTY, BUT EVERY HISTORIC PROPERTY IN THIS CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING? GOOD EVENING. STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS RICHARD MCDONOUGH WITH LAKE SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY. I'VE BEEN A REALTOR HERE IN STILLWATER FOR 33 YEARS. I THINK I'M THIRD OR FOURTH GENERATION STILLWATER. SO I DO KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF OUR TOWN. ONE THING THAT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE REALLY BEEN OVERLOOKED HERE IS THE HEALTH ASPECT OF THIS PROPERTY. I'VE PROBABLY BEEN IN THE PROPERTY MORE THAN ANYBODY OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS SINCE I DECIDED NOT TO DO THE RENOVATION AND OR REBUILD TO HAVING A. I KNOW IT WAS MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE FIRST SLIDES THAT HEALTH WAS NOT AN ISSUE HERE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN DRAMATICALLY AND DRASTICALLY OVERLOOKED BY BOTH CITY STAFF AND TONIGHT'S PROCEEDINGS. THE CONTRACT. AND TO SAY THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A CONTRACT ON THE PROPERTY IS NOT TRUE. WE DID HAVE A FULL EXECUTED PURCHASE AGREEMENT. AND THE THING THAT WAS SO AMAZING ABOUT THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THEY WERE JUST GOING TO RESTORE THE HOUSE AS IT WAS. THEY WANTED TO LEAVE. WHAT YOU SEE RIGHT THERE, THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO. THE REASON THEY HOOKED UP AT THEIR EXPENSE, THE FURNACE AND BOILERS AND SO FORTH, WAS SO IT COULD PASS INSPECTION. IT WAS A VETERAN THAT WAS TRYING TO BUY THE HOUSE, AND THE POTENTIAL BUYERS WERE DOING IT THEMSELVES AND WITH THEIR HELP OF THEIR TECHNICIANS, BUT THEY WERE ALSO DOING SOME OTHER WORK THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO GET THAT APPRAISAL TO FLY. AND THROUGH THAT PROCESS IS WHEN MISSUS BUYER CAME DOWN WITH A VERY SEVERE SORE THROAT THAT THEN THEY ASKED ME TO HAVE THE PROPERTY TESTED FOR THE MOLD, AND THEN THE MOLD CAME BACK AT AN ASTRONOMICAL LEVEL. AND ALSO TO CLARIFY, THAT STREAM IS ALWAYS RUNNING. IT MIGHT NOT BE. IT IS ALWAYS RUNNING. IT IS ALWAYS BEEN A PROBLEM. WHEN I SHOW THAT HOUSE, WHEN PEOPLE SEE THAT STREAM, THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS WHY THEY DO NOT WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE HOUSE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ASPECT. IT'S A STREAM AND THE HEALTH ASPECT. FROM MY EXPERIENCE OF SELLING REAL ESTATE. TWO THINGS THAT ARE PROBABLY THE BIGGEST KIBOSH TO

[00:50:08]

NOW, WITH THE MOLD THAT'S THERE, DO I HAVE PEOPLE PUT ON A HAZMAT SUIT AND AND MASK AND SO ON? AND IT'S THE SAME THING WITH TRYING TO GET SOMEONE TO WORK ON IT. AS MR. STINSON POINTED OUT, HE COULDN'T EVEN GET PEOPLE TO COME BACK. SO TO. THINK THAT WE CAN REALISTICALLY SAY THAT YOU DON'T DESERVE A BUILDING PERMIT BECAUSE OF THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT HOUSE. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THAT FRONT PORCH IS NOT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT. THE TWO STRUCTURES OFF THE BACK ARE NOT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT. THE ONLY REALLY ORIGINAL THING IS THIS CUBE RIGHT HERE. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM ALL THE MEETINGS THAT THEY WENT TO, AND GOING ONE STEP BEYOND, I WAS AT THE OTHER MEETINGS TOO. FROM WHAT I RECALL, THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, THE REASON WHY THAT WAS TO BE REVIEWED WAS I DON'T THINK SOME PEOPLE LIKE WHAT WAS IN THAT REPORT. SO THEY WANTED TO HAVE A THIRD PARTY REVIEW IT. AND THE THIRD PARTIES THAT WERE ASKED TO DO IT WOULD NOT DO IT. SO SUBSEQUENTLY, YES, IT'S SAD TO SEE ANOTHER HISTORIC STRUCTURE GO, BUT I DON'T KNOW. IT'S NEVER SORRY TO SAY, IN MY OPINION, BEEN THAT HISTORIC COMPARED TO SOME OF THE OTHER HOUSES THAT WE'VE LOST. AND OF COURSE, I'M NOT SURE IN A PUBLIC HEARING IF THAT HOW IT GOES. BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME DURING THAT WHOLE PROCESS OF HOW THE PROPERTY'S BEEN SHOWN AND LISTED AND THE COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT PROCEDURE. ARE WE ABLE TO ASK THOSE WHO ARE HERE FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT QUESTIONS, OR IS IT JUST TO RECEIVE THOSE COMMENTS? PUT THAT QUESTION TO STAFF. YOU CAN DEFINITELY INQUIRE, ADD QUESTIONS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTERS. OKAY, WELL THEN I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR.

FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS. OKAY, WELL, SO I HAVE JUST HAVE A QUESTION. SO THE HOUSE SOLD IN 2021 AND THIS WOULD BE FOR FOR YOU AGAIN. YEAH. YES. JUST WONDERING IF YOU WERE INVOLVED IN THAT SALE. YES. SO WAS THIS WATER ISSUE THEN. YES. OKAY. SO THE HOUSE WAS BOUGHT AND IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS AN ISSUE. YES. SO THE IT WAS AN ISSUE, BUT THEY WERE AT THAT TIME GOING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. OKAY. SO CAN YOU TELL US WHY IT WAS NEVER ADDRESSED? BECAUSE I NEVER TO ADDRESS IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THE FULL PROJECT. SO IT WAS JUST LEFT TO. BE IN THE BASEMENT. I GUESS MY POINT IS IT CLEARLY IF THEY'RE STANDING WATER IN THE HOUSE, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO END UP WITH MOLD ISSUES, ESPECIALLY IF THE UTILITIES HAVE BEEN TURNED OFF.

SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT UNSAFE CONDITION, IF THAT IS THE CASE, HAS A LOT TO DO WITH

[00:55:01]

YOU HAVE TO HAVE 50% HUMIDITY OR ABOVE, I BELIEVE, TO CREATE MOLD AND ALSO TOO WITH. EVEN WITH THE HOUSE BEING VACANT, THERE'S A LOT OF HOUSES THAT PEOPLE LIVE IN THAT HAVE MOLD AND THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT. BECAUSE I CAN ATTEST TO MANY, MANY HOUSES THAT THAT WHEN YOU LOOK BACK AT SOME OF THE HOUSES THAT HAD STUCCO AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN THAT HAD TO BE DEALT WITH. SO THERE THE AND AGAIN, I'M SPEAKING, I MIGHT BE SPEAKING OUT OF TURN FOR THE ESSENCE. BUT WHEN WE DISCUSS THE PROJECT, WE KNEW AT SOME POINT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE WATER ISSUE IN THE BASEMENT, THE STREAM, I'LL CALL IT. AND THEN WITH THE PROCESS THAT THEY WENT THROUGH, YOU KNOW, ONE POINT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN, THEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY TO TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN. AND THEN WE FIND OUT THAT IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE FOR US TO DO THIS PROJECT. YES. THEN AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE WATER RUNNING THROUGH THE BASEMENT AND NO ONE REALLY BEING IN THERE DOES NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU ALWAYS ARE GOING TO SEE. IT'S NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE A BLACK SPOT ON A WALL. IT'S GOING TO BE A SPORE THAT'S FLOATING THROUGH THE AIR. AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE WITH THE BUYER THAT BOUGHT THE HOUSE. THEY WANTED THAT HOUSE. THEY WERE HEARTBROKEN. THEY WERE FROM STILLWATER ORIGINALLY AS WELL. AND THAT LETTER IS IN THAT PACKET. THANK YOU. YES, I READ THE LETTER. THANK YOU. RICHARD, I HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL. I'M SORRY. HOW MANY SHOWINGS DID YOU HAVE ROUGHLY IN THE THREE YEARS WE WERE HAVING A 1 OR 2 SHOWINGS A WEEK. YEAH. DID ANYONE COMPLAIN ABOUT RESPIRATORY ISSUES AFTER A SHOWING? THEY WERE ONLY IN THERE 1520 MINUTES BECAUSE THAT HALF THE TIME THEY LOOK AT THEY SEE THE BASEMENT AND THEY'RE RUNNING FOR THE DOOR. YEAH. SO DO YOU THINK THAT IT'S REASONABLE TO NOT SHOW IT TO ANYONE NOW BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MOLD IN IT? YES. I FEEL BECAUSE I WASN'T AWARE I, I'D HAVE TO TELL THEM BEFOREHAND AND I'D HAVE TO BRING A MASK AND, AND BOOTIES AND MAYBE A, DEPENDING UPON WHAT THEIR COMFORT LEVEL WAS. YEAH. I PROBABLY WOULDN'T GO IN THERE AS MUCH AS I DID BEFORE. RIGHT. BUT MY, MY POINT IS, WOULD IT SEEMS UNREASONABLE TO THINK THAT THE HOUSE ISN'T SHOWABLE AT THIS POINT. IF YOU IF YOU TOLD SOMEBODY, HEY, THIS IS TESTED POSITIVE FOR MOLD, WOULD YOU STILL LIKE TO SEE IT? I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, WELL, I HAVE COVID. DO YOU WANT TO HANG OUT? THANK YOU. THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO SAY IT. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SOMEONE ELSE IS GOING TO DO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF SAYING THE HOUSE HAS MOLD. IT TESTED FOR A VERY HIGH OFF THE CHART LEVEL. IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE HOUSE, YOU CAN, BUT I'M WAITING OUTSIDE. OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S HOW THAT WOULD GO DOWN. ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE I DID, I FOR THE MOST PART, IT WAS NOT THE TYPE OF LISTING WHERE I JUST GAVE THE LOCK BOX TO SOMEONE AND LET THEM SHOW IT ON THEIR OWN. I WAS THERE FOR PROBABLY 90% OF THE SHOWINGS UNLESS I COULD NOT MAKE IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I GUESS, WERE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE FOR THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER? OKAY. IS ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY.

SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AGAIN. YEAH, JUST JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I'VE NOT MET DEVIN HOLSTEAD. I HONESTLY, WHEN I SAW THE LETTER HE SUBMITTED, I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE I REMEMBER THE NEIGHBOR BEING NAMED BRYCE HOLSTEAD. SO I FOUND OUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A DIFFERENT HOLSTEAD. SO I'M ASSUMING FAMILY MEMBER BOUGHT THE HOUSE RENTS, THE HOUSE, WHATNOT. I'M NOT I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE. BUT TO ADDRESS HIS COMMENTS AND, AND IS NUMBER ONE, THE, THE, HIS PERSONAL REASON OF THE THE RETAINING WALL BETWEEN AND AND CLAIMING THAT MY HOUSE IS PART OF THE RETAINING WALL. TO BE CLEAR, THE FOUNDATION IS PART OF THE RETAINING IS THE RETAINING WALL, THE HOUSE BUILT ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL.

THE HOUSE BUILT ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL, PRESENTS WHAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD BE CALLED A

[01:00:03]

IT'S NOT PART OF THE THE THE PROPOSAL TO BE DEMOLISHED. IT'S REALLY JUST A STRUCTURE THAT SITS ON TOP OF IT, STRUCTURE THAT SITS ON TOP OF IT DOES NOT ADD TO THE STABILITY OF THE RETAINING WALL. IN FACT, QUITE THE OPPOSITE. IT IT DOESN'T HELP IT OUT. IT'S A SURCHARGE TO THE WALL. SO IN EITHER WAY, IF THERE WERE SOME ISSUE THAT AROSE BECAUSE OF IT, BECAUSE OF THE DEMOLITION, WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY BE WELL, MAYBE NOT OBVIOUS. I'LL JUST SAY IT.

WE'LL WE WOULD DEFINITELY BE, YOU KNOW, RESPONSIBLE TO, TO, TO, TO FIX THAT WALL AND MAKE SURE IT'S, IT'S DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO TO RETAIN THE SOIL BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES.

I'M NOT TRYING TO I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. HOLSTEAD AS AN ATTORNEY AND HIS LETTER WAS FRAMED AS AN ATTORNEY AND HIS PRESENTATION. I SURE SOUNDED LIKE AN ATTORNEY IN COURT. AND I'M I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO THAT'S NOT HOW MY PRESENTATION SOUNDS. I'M SURE. I'M JUST TRYING TO KIND OF BE WHAT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT IS THIS IS JUST NEIGHBORS AND RESIDENTS OF STILLWATER FIGURING OUT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE SITUATION. SO THE RETAINING WALL WON'T BE TOUCHED THAT THE THE IDEA THAT I'M THAT I'M TRYING TO ARGUE AND AND WEAR DOWN THE COMMISSION BY RETURNING EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS FOR THIS, I, I DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THAT. I'M NOT I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO CONTINUE TO OWN THIS PROPERTY FOREVER. AND JUST EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS, TRY AND PEEK IN WITH ANOTHER APPLICATION AND WEAR YOU ALL DOWN. I WAS LEGITIMATE IN EVERYTHING I DID. I'VE FOLLOWED THE RULES. I'VE TRIED TO GO BY THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO APPROACH THIS AND HOW TO APPLY FOR THIS, AND DO EVERYTHING PROPERLY. THERE'S AN EXAMPLE JUST, I DON'T KNOW, A BLOCK AND A HALF, TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM THIS PROPERTY OF WHERE MY WIFE'S BUSINESS AGAIN PURCHASED A HOUSE ON THE CORNER OF CHERRY AND THIRD AND, AND COMPLETELY RESTORED IT. THERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF A PROPERTY THAT, THAT, THAT SHE OWNS ON THE LOWELL IN ON SECOND AND MYRTLE WHERE THIS THE THE HPC GAVE THEM AN AWARD FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE MYRTLE SIDE STREET OF THE BUILDING. SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO SQUIRT SKIRT THE RULES OR DO ANYTHING TO WEAR ANYBODY DOWN.

THIS IS ONE THAT JUST IT IT PRESENTED PROBLEMS. WE THOUGHT WE HAD A SOLUTION TO THE CITY.

THE BUDGET GOT OUT OF CONTROL. AND THEN NOW WITH THIS WITH THIS PROBLEM WITH THE MOLD AND IT BEING ALMOST, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IS IT NOT SHOWABLE CAN YOU GO IN THERE FOR 15 MINUTES WITHOUT A MASK? I KNOW THAT WHEN I BROUGHT MR. GUTNICK AND THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL THROUGH FOR THEIR LAST INSPECTION, I OFFERED MASKS AND ALL OF US DECIDED TO WEAR MASKS TO GO THROUGH IT. SO IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A JOKE. AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A REAL THING. A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS THAT THE, THE IDEA THAT THERE'S NOT BEEN MATERIAL CHANGES. I THINK THAT ALL OF US UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S MAYBE WHAT WE'RE ARGUING HERE. THERE'S BEEN SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL CHANGE BETWEEN THE CASE IN THE PAST AND THIS ONE. AND THAT IS THE FACT THAT THERE'S MOLD. THE MOLD NEEDS TO BE REMEDIATED BEFORE ANYBODY DOES ANYTHING WITH THE PROPERTY, THE COST TO REMEDIATE THE MOLD THAT WE CAN FIND FROM ESTIMATES AND PROPOSALS FROM THE ONE CONTRACTOR WHO'S WILLING TO, TO, TO LOOK AT IT IS JUST OUT OF LINE TO WHAT THE PROPERTY WOULD EVER BE WORTH. SO TO ME, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. YOU KNOW, I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'VE NEGLECTED THE PROPERTY. WE DIDN'T START THE WATER COMING THROUGH THERE. IT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER. OUR GOAL WAS TO WHEN WE WERE GOING TO DO THE PROJECT, WE WERE GOING TO REDIRECT THE WATER AGAIN. YOU CAN'T STOP THE WATER. I DON'T I DON'T BELIEVE MY THEORY IS YOU JUST REDIRECT IT. WE HAD A PLAN. I THINK THE PLAN IS STILL SOLID AND RELEVANT TODAY TO WHOEVER DOES BUY THE PROPERTY. IT'S BASICALLY TO CATCH THE WATER AT THE BACK AND MOVE IT DOWN.

THERE'S AN EXISTING CISTERN THAT IN THE IN THE EASEMENT TO THE PROPERTY THAT THAT WOULD BRING IT TO THE CITY SEWER. YOU KNOW. MR. MR. GUTNICK, I DON'T I DON'T THINK HE, I DON'T THINK IN THE CITY'S AND IN HIS PRESENTATION SAID THAT PRESIDENT PRESERVATION IS, IS, IS DEFINITELY POSSIBLE. I THINK HE SAID THAT THEY HADN'T REALLY EVALUATED IT AND COULDN'T MAKE

[01:05:04]

THAT HOUSE WAS ONE THAT WOULD HAVE PRESENTED THAT THAT THAT DANGER. NOW, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR, BUT I KNOW THERE'S BEEN OTHER PROPERTIES IN TOWN WHERE PEOPLE HAVE COMPROMISED THE STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT, IN ORDER TO MAKE IT BECOME A SAFETY HAZARD. WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THAT. WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE IS I WAS TRYING TO SELL THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT WASN'T GOING TO WORK FOR US. THE BUDGET GOT WAY OUT OF CONTROL. IT WAS NOTHING THAT WE COULD DO TO BRING IT BACK INTO LINE BEFORE OUR DREAM RAN OUT. AND SO WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO THE HOUSE TO TO COMPROMISE IT. IT'S JUST IT, IT'S, IT'S THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON CHANGED. THERE'S TALK ABOUT THE UTILITIES BEING DISCONNECTED AND THAT HAVING SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE, THE, THE MOLD OR THE ROT. I WOULD SAY THIS, THE ONLY UTILITY THAT WAS DISCONNECTED WAS INDEED THE WATER. AND SO IF IT'S THE IDEA THAT WATER IS WHAT'S CAUSING THE ROT, THE WATER IS WHAT'S CAUSING THE MOLD, WHICH IT PROBABLY IS.

IT'S NOT THE WATER FROM THE UTILITY THAT WE DISCONNECTED THE ELECTRICITY, THE GAS WERE STAYED CONNECTED THE ENTIRE TIME. TRUST ME, I KNOW. I PAY THAT XCEL ENERGY BILL EVERY SINGLE MONTH. EVEN IF WE DON'T USE THE HOUSE, WE'RE STILL PAYING $33 A MONTH. SO THAT THAT WAS NEVER DISCONNECTED. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S BEEN SINCE THE MOLD HAS BEEN HAPPENING. IT'S MAYBE BEEN HAPPENING THE ENTIRE TIME. WE DID NOT HAVE A TEST WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. IF YOU REMEMBER BACK TO 2021, AND IT'S MAYBE DIFFERENT THAN IT IS TODAY, BUT BACK THEN, IF YOU SAW PROPERTY YOU WANTED, YOU KIND OF HAD TO BUY IT NOW AND THEN RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TOMORROW. AND SO WE JUMPED. WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS HOUSE AND MAKE IT INTO SOMETHING THAT WORKED FOR US AND STILL PRESERVE THE HISTORIC NATURE OF IT. IT DIDN'T WORK.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE TRIED. WE'RE TRYING TO DEMOLISH THIS HOUSE, AND WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF IT. THAT'S NOT TRUE. IT'S JUST AND THAT'S EVIDENT BY THE OTHER PROJECTS WE'VE DONE. BUT AT THIS POINT, IT'S IT'S REALLY JUST THIS IS ONE THIS IS THE I'VE SAID IT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THIS IS THE THE TRAIN THAT JUST COULDN'T GET TO THE TOP OF THE HILL. IT'S JUST NOT ONE WHERE FINANCIALLY IT MAKES SENSE FOR ANYBODY, WHETHER IT'S US, WHETHER I SELL IT TOMORROW FOR FOR NO DOLLARS, WHAT SOMEBODY TRIES TO PUT IN TO RESTORE THIS HOUSE DOESN'T MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE ANYMORE TO ANYBODY FOR ANY REASON. SO, YOU KNOW, BAD ON US FOR MAYBE BUYING IT, BUT IT WAS AT A POINT AND IT'S AT A POINT WHERE IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR ANYBODY. AND IT'S, IT'S DENYING US USABLE PRACTICAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, REALLY, I GUESS MY, MY POINT. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION BACK TO THE APPLICANT. OKAY. NOW THEN WE WILL SHIFT TO THE COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF OF THE CASE. A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS I HAVE AND MAYBE STAFF CAN ANSWER.

[01:10:14]

WITH THE FRONT PORCH, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO FIND ANY OTHER BUILDING PERMITS AT THAT TIME REGARDING THIS PROPERTY FOR THE FRONT PORCH. OKAY. THANK YOU. CAN I MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT WHAT'S EVIDENT ON THE FRONT PORCH? GO AHEAD. THE ROOF LINE OF THE HOUSE IS IS VERY OBVIOUS.

AND IF YOU STICK YOUR HEAD IN THE ATTIC, YOU'LL SEE IT EVEN MORE. BUT IF JUST FROM THE PHOTO THAT'S ON THE SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE, THERE'S A SHORT LITTLE SHADOW LINE OF A ROOF LINE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. THAT IS THE PITCH OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. AND IT'S EASY TO SEE IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SIDING AND THE WAY THE SIDING WORKS IN THE HOUSE, THAT THAT WAS THE PITCH OF THE HOUSE. THE PORCH WAS ADDED LATER, AND IT'S OBVIOUS BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEY'VE KICKED OUT RAFTERS AND ADDED SOME SIDING TO THAT ORIGINAL PITCH TO MATCH THE NEW PITCH OF THE PORCH. AND WHEN YOU GO UNDERNEATH, IT'S IT'S REALLY EVIDENT THAT THE PORCH WAS JUST ADDED ON TO THE FOUNDATION OF THE HOUSE. YEAH, IT'S A DIFFERENT FOUNDATION. THE QUESTION IS JUST WHEN, AT WHAT DATE THAT THAT ADDITION WAS PUT ON IT IS THAT CAN AFFECT HOW IT'S CONSIDERED.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS. DISCUSSION THOUGHTS FROM THE COMMISSION. I'VE HAD A LOT OF MATERIAL, A LOT OF MATERIAL. AND THIS IS A A COMPLICATED AND SAD SITUATION BECAUSE THIS IS A A GENUINELY IMPORTANT HOME FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TAKEN GREAT EFFORT AND INVESTED A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY IN TRYING TO PRESERVE WITH DOING A PROJECT THAT WOULD KEEP IT, THAT DIDN'T COME TO FRUITION. AND, AND NOW WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE AGAIN, CONSIDERING DEMOLITION AND. WHAT STRIKES ME IS THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS A MAGNIFICENT VIEW OF THE SAINT CROIX RIVER, AND THAT MAKES IT A VERY VALUABLE, MORE VALUABLE.

BY A LOT WITHOUT THE HOUSE ON IT THAN IT IS WITH THE HOUSE ON IT. AND IN THAT RESPECT, IT'S LIKE A LOT OF HOUSES IN STILLWATER THAT NEED A LOT OF WORK. AND THE LOTS THEY SIT ON WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE VALUABLE WITHOUT THE HOUSES ON THEM. BUT IF WE WENT AROUND SAYING THAT ANY HOUSE IN STILLWATER THAT HAS WATER IN THE BASEMENT, THAT ISN'T UP TO CURRENT STRUCTURAL CODES, BECAUSE THE ROOF IS FRAMED WITH TWO BY FOUR AND THE JOISTS ARE NOTCHED IN THE BASEMENT. WE'D BE CONDEMNING A SIZABLE PERCENTAGE OF THE HOUSES IN TOWN. SO I. I SEE HERE AN OLD HOUSE IN NEED OF A LOT OF WORK, LIKE OTHER HOUSES IN TOWN THAT ARE IN NEED. A LOT OF WORK. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY HOUSE WITH MOLD IN IT. IT'S NOT THE ONLY HOUSE WITH WATER IN IT.

THIS IS NOT THE ONLY LOT THAT WOULD BE A LOT MORE VALUABLE WITHOUT THE HOUSE ON IT. AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO SET PRECEDENT BY SAYING, YES, LET'S TAKE THIS DOWN. WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1858 AND SOMEBODY LIVED HERE, A SINGLE FAMILY LIVED HERE GENERATIONS FROM 1867 TO 1994, AND THEN A WOMAN LIVED THERE BY HERSELF FROM 1994 UNTIL 2021. AND NOW WE'RE SAYING IT'S IT'S UNLIVABLE AND HAS TO BE TORN DOWN. I THINK THIS IS RESCUE ABLE. I DON'T

[01:15:03]

AND SO I GUESS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, AND IT'S A QUESTION. AT RANDOM, BUT IS THERE SOMEONE WILLING TO TAKE ON THIS PROJECT BUT AT A LOWER PRICE POINT? I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION TO EXPLORE. I RECALL BUYING A HOUSE, AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL ANECDOTE, BUT THEY DEMOED IT HALFWAY DOWN TO THE STUDS, AND THEN THE COUPLE GOT A DIVORCE AND YOU COULD NOT GET CONVENTIONAL FINANCING ON IT. AND SO THEY HAD TO SELL IT FOR CASH TO WHOEVER COULD COME UP WITH ENOUGH CASH TO BUY IT. AND THE PRICE DROPPED AND DROPPED UNTIL THAT'S WHERE IT WAS, GIVEN THE MITIGATION OF MOLD REQUIRED, GIVEN THE WATER FLOW THROUGH, I CAN EASILY UNDERSTAND WHY VA APPROVED LOANS AND OTHER FHA LOANS MIGHT NOT QUALIFY. THAT BEING SAID, WATER WAS FLOWING THROUGH IT WHEN IT SOLD LAST TIME. TO SOMEONE'S POINT. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN MOLD IN IT WHEN IT SOLD LAST TIME. AND SO, BECAUSE THOSE ARE TRUE, DOES NOT MAKE IT UNSALABLE IN MY VIEW. IT WOULD SURPRISE ME THAT IT IS UNSALABLE WITH THE VIEW THAT IT HAS. AND SO I GUESS IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE SERIOUSLY THAT A HOUSE OF THAT AGE SHOULD BE SAVED, I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE HEARD THAT. WE'VE EXPLORED EVERY AVENUE TO FIND SOMEBODY WILLING TO DO SO. AND THAT HOUSE IS AS OLD AS THEY GET TO THE POINT AGAIN, SOMEONE MADE THERE MAY ONLY BE 1 OR 2 LIKE IT LEFT. THERE'S CERTAINLY ONLY ONE HERE IN TOWN. WE KNOW THAT FROM OUR OWN SURVEY. AND TO HAVE THAT HOUSE OF THAT CHARACTER SITTING ON THAT LOT, I THINK, IS A MIRACLE THAT IT EVEN EXISTS TO THIS DAY, BECAUSE THAT LOT'S HAD THAT VIEW SINCE THE 40S, WHEN WE DIDN'T CARE AS MUCH. BUT IT WAS OCCUPIED RIGHT UP UNTIL 2021.

AND I HAVE THE BELIEF THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE WILLING TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO OCCUPY IT AGAIN. APART FROM THAT, I DON'T SEE A REASON TO APPROVE DEMOLITION. SO THAT'S WHERE I WILL SIT. THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS CHAIR. SO THERE'S A LOT OF TECHNICAL DETAILS HERE IN WHICH I DO NOT UNDERSTAND, AND I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, LIKE A SECOND REPORT. AND I DO NOTE IN OUR CURRENT DEMOLITION ORDINANCE, IT TALKS ABOUT THE CITY AND ITS AUTHORITY MAY ENGAGE IN REPORTS FROM SO AND SO AND SO. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE BUDGETING ISSUES. BUT THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE A GOOD CHECKS AND BALANCE AND GIVE OUR COMMISSION A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. I REALIZE THIS IS AN EXTREMELY CHALLENGING

[01:20:05]

SO THAT IS WHERE I STAND AS WELL. THANK YOU. MY, MY ONLY COMMENTS HAVE TO DO WITH THE MOLD AND THE LEAD, WHICH IF WE HAVE A HOME BEFORE 1978, IT'S MOST LIKELY DID HAVE LEAD OR STILL HAS LEAD IN IT. BUT THERE ARE RESOURCES AND LOANS SPECIFIC TO THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS. THERE'S A FIX UP LOAN FROM MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY FUND THOSE PROJECT, THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT ARE MAYBE HARDER TO FINANCE FROM A TRADITIONAL BANK. I KNOW THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY HAS FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING, HOUSING, REHABILITATION AS WELL. I'M NOT SURE IF THE CITY HAS ANY FUNDS, BUT, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE FROM THE COUNTY AND THE STATE. AND, YOU KNOW, I IT'S IT'S NOT EASY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY HAS, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE SHOWN THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH A LOT. BUT I ALSO RECALL THAT WHEN THEY PURCHASED IT IN 2021 AND CAME BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING YEAR WITH A DEMOLITION REQUEST. AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE EVEN THEY WERE EVEN PLANS FOR WHAT THEY WANTED TO BUILD ON THAT SITE. AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, QUITE SUBSTANTIAL MANSION, IF YOU WILL, YOU KNOW, AND NOW NOW HERE WE ARE AGAIN A COUPLE YEARS LATER. MY YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS PRICED RIGHT, IT WILL DEFINITELY SELL. BUT IT, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT NOT BE PRICED WHAT THE OWNER WANTS IT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE CONDITION AND BASED ON THE LOT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE NOTE OF THOSE RESOURCES THAT COULD BE AVAILABLE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION? I'LL SAY THAT I AS OTHERS HAVE SAID, THIS IS A VERY TOUGH ONE, VERY TOUGH SITUATION, I SHOULD SAY. I THINK THAT FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT, WHAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT AS A COMMISSION, AS I UNDERSTAND OUR ORDINANCE AND AND PART OF THE REASON THAT WE.

IN THEORY AT LEAST HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK FOR SOME ECONOMIC REPORTS IS THAT IT AS OTHERS HAVE SAID, THERE IS PROBABLY SOME COMBINATION OF OF SALE PRICE, NEW CONSTRUCTION ON AN ADDITION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, WHICH WOULD BE A CONCEPT WHERE THOSE ADDITIONS THAT WERE IN IN WORSE SHAPE THAN THE, THE MAIN HOUSE COULD BE DEMOLISHED POTENTIALLY, AND A NEW STRUCTURE THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE TALLER COULD BE BUILT ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE LOT. I KNOW THOSE THINGS ARE CHALLENGING TO DO, BUT I THINK THE BENEFIT OF A OF A REPORT WOULD BE TO GET A, A INDEPENDENT SOMEBODY TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT THE ECONOMICS OF THE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD, WOULD, WOULD SUPPORT. I AGREE WITH WITH WHAT OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID. THIS IS ONE OF THE OLDEST HOUSES IN TOWN, AND IT'S. YOU KNOW, WE SET A PRETTY HIGH BAR FOR DEMOLITION AND STILLWATER.

[01:25:01]

ALL THAT BEING SAID, IT DOES SEEM THERE'S KIND OF A CONSENSUS UP HERE THAT THAT THE THE SEEMS TO BE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF DENIAL. IS THAT WHAT I'M READING FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? PUT ANOTHER WAY, DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? WELL, WHEN I LOOK AT THE TWO MOTIONS THAT ARE IN THE PACKET, THE. THE ONE GRANT, THE RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE DEMOLITION, AND I READ THROUGH THE FINDINGS AND I COULDN'T SUPPORT THEM. SO I THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE WITH THAT. SO AND I THINK OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE MADE VERY GOOD COMMENTS ABOUT THIS IN TERMS OF REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY, AND I WOULD I WOULD DEFINITELY LEAN IN FAVOR OF DENIAL. I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID THAT IT DOES NOT SEEM TO MEET THE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR DEMOLITION OF A PRE 1946 STRUCTURE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR 320 SECOND STREET NORTH. WITH THE CONDITIONS AS WELL. THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS. WELL, AS OUTLINED IN THE RESOLUTION. THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.

SECOND BY AMINO. IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'M JUST PULLING UP THE RESOLUTION TO LOOK AT IT ONE MORE TIME. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION DENYING THE DEMOLITION, YOU SAY I, I, I ANY OPPOSED, ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF IS THAT THIS WILL THEN JUST AUTOMATICALLY GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS THE NEXT STEP. THANK YOU, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE THAT POINT JUST FOR THE APPLICANTS. UNDERSTANDING THIS WOULD GO TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE COUNCIL MEETING. SHOULD THAT DATE WORK FOR THEM. THEY DON'T NEED TO MAKE ANY WRITTEN REQUESTS OR APPEAL IT AS PER CODE AUTOMATICALLY FORWARDED ON. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO SHOWED UP TONIGHT FOR YOUR TIME AND INVOLVEMENT IN THIS. CAN I ASK WHAT THE

[01:30:07]

[3. Case No. CD2026-033: Design Review approval for rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Bergstein Warehouse and Shoddy Mill site at 1250 Main Street South (Plans included in Packet, Staff Report next week)]

AND THIS IS THAT FIRST ITERATION, OR I SHOULD SAY THE UPDATED ITERATION. SO MAJOR CHANGES INCLUDE THE KIND OF SHEATHING OF WHAT USED TO BE COLUMNS WITH NOW CLEAR CORNERS OF, I BELIEVE, A FOOT AND A HALF TO TWO FEET WIDE ON EACH SIDE. SO THERE WOULD BE A CORNER HERE SIDING HERE AND ANOTHER CORNER HERE. AND THIS IS ON THE EAST FACADE. THE COLOR IS ALSO AN UPDATED GREEN. BEFORE IT WAS A LITTLE BIT LIGHTER THAN WHAT YOU SEE NOW.

THIS PLAN WAS IN YOUR PACKET. I DO HAVE RENDERINGS THAT MIGHT SHOW IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER. SO I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE AGAIN. PRIOR TO THIS THERE WERE JUST WHITE COLUMNS HERE. SO NOW WE SEE A CLEAR CORNER THAT HELPS TO BETTER SHOW THAT THIS THIS IS THE MASSING IN THE FORM OF THE STRUCTURE OR WAS BEFORE THE WALLS WERE REMOVED. AND AGAIN, THESE WERE THE PLANS THAT WERE PROPOSED TO OUR CITY COUNCIL. AND I CAN GO BACK TO THESE.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW. ULTIMATELY, THESE ARE THE PLANS. I DO HAVE THE FLOOR PLANS FOR YOU ALL. SO THIS KIND OF GOES OVER THE OCCUPANCY. THIS WAS PROVIDED TO YOU IN YOUR AD ON YESTERDAY, THE LARGE 100 PLUS PAGE PACKET. THIS OUTLINES THE OCCUPANCY FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND TO GET INTO THAT, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE IF THE AREA WAS ENCLOSED, THAT WOULD CHANGE THE OCCUPANCY AND THEREFORE ADD SOME ADDITIONAL COST TO GENERALLY ENERGY CODE AND OTHER UTILITY CONNECTIONS

[01:35:01]

THERE WON'T BE ANY ACTIVATION TO THAT AREA. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE SHODDY MILL, THAT IS AGAIN PRETTY MUCH GOING TO BE A RESTORATION MORE THAN REHAB. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE ASKING FROM STAFF TO TAKE ACTION ON THE PENDING APPLICATION. SO WE'D LIKE HPC TO DISCUSS THE APPLICATION, ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF US. BUT AT TONIGHT'S MEETING, IF YOU ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSED PLAN BEFORE YOU APPROVE WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU ALL, IF NOT SUPPORTIVE, DENY THE APPLICATION. AND THIS IS WHERE I WOULD RECOMMEND AND HIGHLY SUGGEST ADDING SPECIFIC DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS OR OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DON'T HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY GEARED TOWARD DESIGN, BECAUSE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD THEN BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. AND SO EXAMPLES WOULD BE EXTENSION OF THE CORNERS. IF YOU WANTED TO SEE THOSE LARGER, ADDING HISTORIC SIGNAGE OR OTHER WAYS, CREATIVE WAYS TO COMMEMORATE THIS BUILDING IN ITS CURRENT ITERATION, OR WHERE IT WAS WHEN IT WAS IN OAK PARK HEIGHTS. THE REASONING FOR THAT IS TO PROVIDE A CLEAR RECORD OF THE HPCS PRESERVATION CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AS YOU'VE ALREADY DONE IN JULY. BUT THIS TO THIS WOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC TO THE DESIGN BEFORE YOU. AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE OUR STAFF HERE AND WE STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. AND I DO HAVE COMMISSIONER LARSON. YOU DID FORWARD IT. I CAN PULL THAT UP IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO. I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO I THINK IT WAS THE THIRD PAGE OF THE REPORT AND SOME. JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON SORT OF HOW WE GOT HERE. WITHOUT GOING BACK TOO FAR, WE'VE SEEN THIS TWICE, RIGHT. AS SOME SORT OF REVIEW. THAT'S CORRECT, ISN'T IT? AND THE LAST TIME SEAN WAS HERE TO PRESENT THE FIRST TIME, THERE WAS NO ONE FROM THE CITY THE WAY I RECALL. IS THAT RIGHT? I WOULD ACTUALLY ADD A FOURTH, I THINK IN 2024, YOU MIGHT HAVE ALL SEEN REU STUDY, AND I THINK THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A AN ADDITIONAL TIME WHERE, TO YOUR POINT, THERE WAS NO STAFF PRESENT. AND THEN SEAN SO THIS WOULD BE YOUR FOURTH TIME? YES.

OKAY. BUT I, I THINK I'M CORRECT, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IN EACH OF THOSE TIMES, IT WAS CHARACTERIZED TO US AS JUST GIVING INFORMAL COMMENTS. NONE OF THOSE TIMES WAS IT CHARACTERIZED AS WE WERE DOING A DESIGN REVIEW. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YEP.

YOU'RE NOT INCORRECT. SO. YOU KNOW, IN THE REPORT IT TALKS ABOUT HOW THE DESIGNS WERE PRESENTED TO THE HPC FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. THAT'S FAIR I GUESS. WE REVIEWED AND COMMENTED, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ADVISED STAFF THAT THE HPC MUST TAKE FORMAL ACTION ON THE PENDING APPLICATION RATHER THAN CONTINUE TO DEFER THE MATTER. WE HAVEN'T DEFERRED IT YET. WE'RE. WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO INFORMALLY REVIEW AND COMMENT, WHICH WE HAVE DONE. AND AT LEAST FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IT'S OFFICIALLY IN FRONT OF US FOR A DESIGN REVIEW UNDER OUR DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY, COMMISSIONER AND CHAIR, I WOULD SAY THE THE LAST MEETING WAS THE FIRST WAS THE FIRST DESIGN REVIEW FOR THIS ACTUAL PROJECT. WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS AN UPDATE AT THE COMMISSION'S SUGGESTION FOR ADDING THOSE ADDITIONAL CORNERS. BUT THAT DESIGN BEFORE YOU IN JULY WAS THE FINAL ITERATION.

IT WAS THE PROJECT TEAM THAT ADDED, PER THIS COMMISSION'S SUGGESTION, THOSE FINAL TOUCHES OR FINISHING TOUCHES. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. JUST BY WAY OF CLARIFICATION, ONE OF THE STRONG CONCERNS I BELIEVE I HEARD AT THE LAST REVIEW WAS THAT SHIPPO NEEDED TO BE NOT ONLY INVOLVED, BUT BE PART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR AN INTENDED DESIGN. HAS THAT CHANGED SINCE WE MET LAST? THE SENTIMENT FROM THE COMMISSION HAS NOT CHANGED, I'D IMAGINE, AND FROM STAFF'S, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE DESIGN TEAM'S PERSPECTIVE, THEY'RE CONTINUING TO MOVE FORWARD, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH AT THE COUNCIL MEETING. BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S PERSPECTIVE IS THE SAME THAT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE. THEY DON'T NEED TO BE INVOLVED. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE THE OPEN AREA AND THE VISION FOR HOW THAT'S GOING TO

[01:40:01]

I, I GUESS FIRST TIME WE HEARD THE COMMENT, SO I'M, I'M KIND OF GOING THROUGH A THOUGHT PROCESS RIGHT NOW. OKAY. THANKS. AND IS THE, THE IDEA TO KEEP THAT OPEN ALL WINTER THEN JUST LIKE HAVE THAT STILL PLOWED AND ACCESSIBLE IN THE WINTER. I MEAN, I THINK IT WOULD BE OPEN IN THE WINTER. WE WOULDN'T CLEAR IT OUT IN THE WINTER FOR ANYTHING, JUST LIKE WE DO IN PIONEER PARK. WE DON'T CLEAR UNDER THE PAVILION OF THE PICNIC SHELTERS IN THAT AREA.

COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU BASED ON YOUR SUGGESTION. YOUR SUGGESTION RIGHT THERE. WOULD YOU RECOMMEND ON. I GUESS IT WOULD BE THE EAST WALL THERE THAT THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD PUT THE KNEE HIGH WALL WITH POTENTIALLY A BENCH. SO YOU STILL KEEP THAT OPEN ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE. I THINK YOU COULD DO IT IN. I MEAN, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT. I DEFER TO THE ARCHITECTS ON THE COMMISSION. BUT YES, THAT'S ONE WAY YOU COULD DO IT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD HELP, AGAIN, PRESERVE THAT ORIGINAL CHARACTER AND FEEL OF THE BUILDING IN A POSITIVE WAY. OKAY. I JUST ASK A QUESTION. ONE SIDE, TWO SIDES, EAST SIDE OF THE I THINK, WELL, I WOULD THINK YOU'D WANT TO KEEP AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE SIDES OPEN BECAUSE YOU WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO WALK IN AND OUT OF IT, RIGHT? YES. BUT I THINK YOU COULD CONSIDER IT. AND THE EAST WALL MAYBE WOULD BE A GOOD OPTION. THANK YOU. SO THE PLAN FOR PRESENT, AS I UNDERSTAND, IS THAT MILL BUILDING JUST SITS EMPTY, OR IS IT USED FOR SOMETHING ELSE? DID YOU HAVE ANY CONSIDERATION OF PERHAPS USING THAT AS A AS A SPACE FOR. LEAVING THAT OPEN ALL THE TIME WITH FOR PICNIC TABLES AND STUFF LIKE THAT? CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, I BELIEVE THAT THE SPACE THERE IS STORAGE. I THINK THAT IS THE OCCUPANCY TYPE. IF I'M NOT, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE FOR THE MILL BUILDING IT WAS JUST STRICTLY STORAGE. YEAH, WE ARE MY POWER TO THAT SPACE. SO MAYBE THERE'S SOME OTHER USE IN THE FUTURE. BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST PLANNING FOR STORAGE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU'D CONSIDERED USING THAT AS THE OPEN AIR COMPONENT IN ORDER TO LEAVE MORE OF THE THE OTHER BUILDING INTACT. IF YOU HAVEN'T, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IDEAS HAVE BEEN GONE THROUGH. SO, I MEAN, ONE OF THE EARLY IDEAS THAT WE HAD FOR THE MILL, FOR THE MILL BUILDING, AND THIS WAS JUST WE WERE BRAINSTORMING ON WHAT THE USE COULD BE. I MEAN, ONE THOUGHT WAS, YOU SEE THE WIDER DOORS, MAYBE AT SOME POINT A SMALL BAND COULD PLAY OUT OF THERE. FOR INSTANCE, OPEN THE DOORS, YOU KNOW, THE POWER WOULD BE THEY COULD SET UP THERE AND HAVE A SMALL GROUP GATHERING WITH A BAND. I MEAN, NOTHING MORE THAN THAT. THERE ARE SOME EARLY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HAVING THAT TO BE THE BATHROOM FACILITY, BUT WE KIND

[01:45:04]

CHANGES GOING THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE TO THAT LITTLE BUILDING. YES. OKAY. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING TOO. YEAH. IN THE REPORT YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, AND I THINK I MAYBE HEARD THIS AT ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS TO ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THIS DESIGN AND THE LAST ONE BEING DISCUSSED WITH SHIPPO LATE LAST YEAR WAS SOMETHING ABOUT HEATING AND COOLING COSTS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONNECTION WAS. YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, OF COURSE. I THINK I'M GOING TO GO TO THE OCCUPANCY TYPE. THIS WILL EXPLAIN IT. THE BEST STAFF DID SPEAK WITH OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL TO GET CLARITY ON THIS AS WELL. SO THE WAY THAT THIS IS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY, IT HAS A DIFFERENT OCCUPANCY THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY IS SMALL ENOUGH THAT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE CONDITIONING, SO IT DOESN'T NEED AN AIR CONDITIONING UNIT.

IT DOESN'T NEED A FURNACE. THERE ARE SOME HEATING ELEMENTS THAT COULD BE ADDED, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS, FOR LACK OF BETTER WORDS, BEING PROPOSED AS AN OPEN AIR PAVILION WITH BATHROOMS. THIS ALSO DOES BECAUSE IT'S MORE OPEN AIR. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE SAME KIND OF ENERGY CODE OR FURNISHINGS IF IT IS ENCLOSED. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND SPEAKING WITH OUR BUILDING, OFFICIAL NEW ENERGY CODE REQUIREMENTS COME INTO PLAY. AND THAT'S WINDOWS, THAT'S SIDING, THAT'S ROOFING, THAT IS A FURNACE AND AIR CONDITIONING UNIT. AND THEN AND THEN THAT'S THANK YOU. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ZIMMERMAN ADDED THAT THAT IS FOR BOTH FLOORS, TOO. SO THAT ISN'T JUST FOR THE FLOOR THAT YOU WOULD SEE THE PUBLIC. THE STORAGE AREA IS, I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED, NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, BUT THAT SPACE WOULD ALSO WOULD NEED THIS CONDITIONING, THIS ADDITIONAL ENERGY CODE REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN BECAUSE OF THE ASSEMBLY USE, IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE SPRINKLING. AND THAT WOULD ADD A COST TO THE LINE. IT WOULD EITHER BE A SEPARATE LINE EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE UTILITIES.

OBVIOUSLY FOR THE BATHROOMS BEING RUN HERE, THE LINE WOULD EITHER NEED TO BE INCREASE IN SIZE AS FAR AS HOW THE DIAMETER OR SEPARATE LINE BROAD. SO THE COST REQUIREMENTS ARE MOSTLY DUE TO THE ENERGY CODE REQUIREMENTS. CHANGING THE MATERIALS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED FROM ANYTHING FROM WINDOWS AND SIDING TO THE ACTUAL SPRINKLING OF THE BUILDING, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE USED AS GATHERING FOR ASSEMBLY. I IF I UNDERSTAND RIGHT, THERE'S SOME PROVISIONS IN THE BUILDING CODE FOR LISTED BUILDINGS ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER TO HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY ON HOW HOW THOSE CODES ARE APPLIED. WAS THAT ALREADY BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT I, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL IN THE PAST REGARDING SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR JUST HISTORIC STRUCTURES, ESPECIALLY DOWNTOWN, AND I HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM WHEN IT COMES TO THAT. SO I, I JUST, I, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THERE WASN'T. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN LOOK INTO. I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER. OKAY. AND ONE OTHER QUESTION I HAD FOR THE MOMENT AT THE COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY, THE THE THE MAYOR INDICATED THAT CONGRESSWOMAN MCCOLLUM'S STAFF SUGGESTED THAT SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO HELP THE CITY GET IT DELISTED FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION? DOES NOT APPEAR THAT STAFF I. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT CONVERSATION. IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT STAFF IS HAS ANY MORE INFORMATION ON THAT CONVERSATION, I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. SURE. AND I THINK THIS WAS ASKED, BUT I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR THE ANSWER. SO BASED ON OUR ACTION TODAY, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT WITH SHIPLEY'S INVOLVEMENT AS OF RIGHT NOW, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE SHIPPO IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS DESIGN. SO BASED ON YOUR ACTIONS, WHETHER YOU APPROVE THE DESIGN OR APPROVE IT WITH SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES, THAT IS WHAT WOULD MOVE FORWARD. IF YOU DENY IT.

YOU WOULD ALSO LIKELY HAVE SOME SUGGESTED COMMENTS OR CHANGES, AND THAT WOULD GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT SHIPPO WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THAT REVIEW, SO THERE'S NO PLAN TO INVOLVE THEM GOING FORWARD. NOT AT THIS POINT, NOT TO MY UNDERSTANDING. WELL, AS FAR AS I GUESS, WE'VE BEEN KIND OF ASKING SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT PROCESS AND CLARIFYING HERE, AND WE HAVEN'T QUITE GOTTEN TO DISCUSSING THE DESIGN YET. BUT OTHER MAYBE WE'LL SHIFT TO THAT IN A SECOND.

I WANTED TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE DO THAT. IF I COULD JUST ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, IF I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU JUST PRESENTED. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE DETERMINES WHETHER SPRINKLERS AND HVAC AND ALL THAT COMES INTO PLAY. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS.

I THINK SQUARE FOOTAGE DOES PLAY A PART IN IT, BUT IT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS FINISHED ASSEMBLY SPACE. SO RIGHT NOW, DUE TO THE OPEN AIR NATURE OF THE PERCENTAGE OF THE

[01:50:06]

ANYTHING ELSE ON CLARIFYING OR PROCESS? OTHERWISE, I THINK WE COULD SHIFT TO TALKING TO THE DESIGN, BUT IF ANYTHING COMES UP MORE ABOUT THOSE THINGS, FEEL FREE TO ASK THEM. OF COURSE, I GUESS I WOULD JUST MAKE THE COMMENT THAT I, I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD THAT SOMETHING SHOULD GO BACK TO SHIPPO. I MEAN, THAT, I THINK IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT. SO NOT JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S MY SUGGESTION. AND YEAH, JUST ANOTHER COMMENT TOO. LIKE, I MEAN, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHY WEREN'T WE INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT FOR ALL THESE YEARS? I MEAN, I THINK EVEN JUST HAVING ONE OF US SITTING AT A TABLE IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS WOULD HAVE ALLEVIATED A LOT OF THESE HEADACHES THE CITY MAY HAVE HAD WITH DEALING WITH SHIPPO AND I. I JUST HOPE IN THE FUTURE YOU CONSIDER WORKING WITH US PROACTIVELY. I'LL COMMENT A LITTLE BIT ON THE ON THE DESIGN. I'M I'M ENCOURAGED BY THE RENDERINGS. I WALK WALK BY THIS FAIRLY FREQUENTLY, AND IT HAS BEEN HARD TO SEE IT IN ITS CURRENT STATE. AND IT'S NICE TO SEE SOMETHING ON THE VERGE OF HAPPENING. I LIKE THE PUBLIC PLAZA BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS, AND I THINK THE DESIGN DIRECTION FOR THE. THE MAIN BUILDING HAS MOVED A LITTLE IN IN A GOOD DIRECTION. WE. WE SEE THE CORNERS OF THE BUILDING.

THE BUILDING IS NOT QUITE SO LUNGING AND HOLLOW UNDERNEATH, AND I THINK THE SUGGESTION COMMISSIONER MINO MADE IS VERY HELPFUL AS WELL, IF IT CAN BE CONSIDERED. I KNOW THERE ARE SECURITY ISSUES HERE AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD INTRODUCE A LITTLE BIT MORE SOLIDITY TO THAT LOWER LEVEL WITH A KNEE WALL THAT WOULD RUN THROUGH SOME OF THOSE SPACES IN A SYMMETRICAL WAY, STILL ALLOWING ACCESS THROUGH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT AS WELL. THE OPENINGS ARE OF DIFFERENT SIZES. I MEAN, I THINK IT IT WOULD BE NICE TO KIND OF GET SOME REGULARITY TO THE, TO THE OPENINGS IN TERMS OF SIZES AND THE RHYTHM OF THE BUILDING. BUT I THINK THAT'S A LESS IMPORTANT ISSUE THAN GETTING THE EDGES OF THE BUILDING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SOLID AND REVEALED. YEAH, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HOLMES AND THAT I THINK THIS IS A GREAT DIRECTION. IT'S HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK YOU, SEAN, FOR ASKING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AT THAT LAST MEETING AND TRYING TO DRAW THIS OUT OF US. IT IS A DIFFICULT PROCESS WHEN WE AREN'T AT THE TABLE. SO WE'RE THROWING THINGS TO YOU WHO THROW IT TO SOMEONE WHO SOMEHOW MAYBE INTERPRETS IT THE SAME WAY, GETS THROWN TO YOU, IT COMES BACK TO US. IT SEEMS VERY INDIRECT AND VERY. YOU KNOW, PRONE TO MISINTERPRETATION. WE'LL JUST PUT IT THAT WAY. SO IF WE'RE REVIEWING THIS NOW, WE'RE REVIEWING IT BY OUR DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES, I ASSUME, AND NOTHING ELSE. AND AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO ASSUME. I GUESS IF WE'RE NOT CHARGED, I'M UNCLEAR ON THIS WITH, WITH FOLLOWING ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GUIDELINES. BUT I THINK. IN GENERAL, WHAT WHAT'S BEEN ASKED BY US ALL ALONG IS IT'S THAT THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THE TWO THINGS FIGHTING EACH OTHER, BEING THE NEED FOR OPEN SPACE AND A BUILDING THAT WANTS TO BE THE OPPOSITE. AND SO. INCREASING THOSE COLUMN CORNERS A LITTLE BIT AND THE SPACE AND MAYBE DECREASING THE SIZE OF THAT WINDOW, THE WINDOWED SPACE ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH. NOT THE GARAGE DOORS, BUT THE. THE. IF I COUNT THEM RIGHT, I CAN LOOK THEM UP HERE. FIVE WINDOW PANELS. IS IT STOREFRONT SYSTEM HAVE THE LATEST ONE. YEAH, IT'S FIVE WITH THE DOOR ON ONE SIDE, FIVE ON THE OTHER. JUST. SOMEHOW MAKING THOSE SPACES A LITTLE SMALLER AND THE WALLS A

[01:55:02]

AND THOSE ARE CLOSE, BUT NOT QUITE. BUT BASICALLY USE THAT SAME SIZE TO MAKE THOSE TWO OPENINGS ALSO THE SAME. SO THEY'RE ALL ALL THE OPENINGS ARE THE SAME. AND BY DOING THAT YOU WOULD MAKE THE CORNERS ON THAT EAST UPPER RIGHT HAND FACADE ALSO A LITTLE WIDER.

THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T EXACTLY MATCH THE OTHER SIDE, BUT THAT'S OKAY. AND I JUST HOPE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHEN WE SEE THOSE GARAGE DOOR THINGS, THOSE ARE HAPPENING BEYOND THOSE ARE NOT AT THE FRONT, BUT THEY'RE IN THE BACK. SO I'M FINE WITH THAT. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THAT AND THE FACT THAT IT'LL BE OPEN SOME OF THE TIME. BUT THAT THAT WAS MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE'RE WE'RE IT'S JUST TAKING IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A RADICAL CHANGE IN TERMS OF FUNCTIONALITY, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT GET US JUST A LITTLE FURTHER ALONG THE WAY. CAN I JUST TO CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER LARSON, MAKE THE OPENINGS AND THE WINDOW AREAS THE SAME SIZE AS A SLIDING GLASS SLIDING DOOR THAT WE HAVE ON THE WEST END OF THE BUILDING. YEAH. MAKE THE OVERALL OPENING IF WE'RE GOING TO. RIGHT NOW, WE'VE GOT AN OVERALL SLIDING DOOR AND WE'VE GOT A DIFFERENT SIZE, HEIGHT AND WIDTH OF THE DOOR AND THE WINDOW PANELS. THEN WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SIZE OF THE OPENING BELOW THE WALLS. OKAY, SO I SENT A SKETCH. I HATE DOING THIS. I SAID THIS LAST TIME, BUT AFTER MONDAY'S MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, IT'S LIKE, WELL, TELL US WHAT YOU WANT. AND I, WE WE DON'T GET SHOWN ANYTHING THAT WE CAN RESPOND TO EXCEPT TO SAY, MAKE IT MORE, MAKE IT MORE. SO I JUST BRIEFLY DID WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED ON THE DRAWINGS SO WE COULD AT LEAST LOOK AT IT AND COMMENT.

AND MAYBE WE DECIDE WE NEED A LOT MORE. IT'S VERY SUBTLE, PROBABLY, BUT IF. I'LL, I'LL WALK OVER AND JUST EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. SO. THAT'S THE SIZE AND START WITH THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EXACTLY. MAKE THAT SIZE AND REPEAT IT. REPEAT IT. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS THESE GET WIDER. THIS GETS WIDER. AND YES, WE LOSE SOME GLASS IN THAT SPACE, BUT IT'S STILL FUNCTIONAL. REMEMBER THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT SPACE IS WIDE OPEN. SO IT'S IT'S NOT A BIG SPACE. IT'S GOT A LOT OF OPENNESS. I THINK IT CAN LOSE A LITTLE BIT HERE AND GAIN A LITTLE BIT OF THIS. I DON'T KNOW THE PROVENANCE OF THESE WINDOWS, BUT UNLESS THEY'RE HISTORICALLY HAVE TO BE THERE, I WOULD CENTER THEM THEN ON THESE TWO, AND THEN WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT STARTS TO MAKE A LITTLE SENSE. THE OTHER SIDE, YOU DO THE SAME THING. YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY I SCALED IT AS WELL. I WISH IT WAS EIGHT. YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE IT TO BE BIGGER. BUT I REALIZE THERE'S A COMPROMISE TO BE MADE HERE. AND THEN AGAIN, ON THIS SIDE, WE'RE LOSING SOME WINDOWS. WE'RE MAKING IT SMALLER. WE'RE PUTTING THAT EXTRA STUFF THERE. AND THEN FINALLY ON THIS SIDE, IT'S HARD TO SEE YET, BUT THESE GET WIDER AND THIS STAYS THE SAME. IT WAS.

AND THAT'S IT. SO IN A NUTSHELL. I'D LIKE COMMISSIONER I LIKE COMMISSIONER MUNOZ SUGGESTION OF MAYBE ACROSS THE EAST FACADE, IF THAT'S THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT, OF HAVING A WALL COME UP TO MEET A BENCH AND IT WOULD STILL FUNCTION. YOU COULD CIRCULATE NORTH AND SOUTH. THAT'S THE WAY THE TRAFFIC GOES ON THE TRAIL, AND YOU COULD SLIDE IN AND SLIDE OUT OF THAT SPACE. I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT IT ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A BARRIER TO THE NATURAL CIRCULATION. JUST TO ITERATE ON THAT FOR A SECOND, YOU KNOW, IF THE IF THE BENCH IS ACTUALLY KIND OF SEE IT MAYBE A DIFFERENT WAY. AND I KNOW WE DON'T NORMALLY, YOU

[02:00:05]

YEAH. AND CONNECTING TO THE TRAIL, IS THAT CORRECT? WE'VE HAD IT. WE'VE HAD TO MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE COURTESY DOCK RAMP SYSTEM TO GO TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, RATHER THAN WHAT YOU SEE AT THE CONNECTION BEING AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. SO SO THIS IS THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING. OKAY, SO WE DO HAVE A TRAIL THAT SWOOPS RIGHT BY THE FRONT, BUT IT'S NOT GOING ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I. YEAH. OKAY. IT'S NOT RUNNING ALONGSIDE. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. WELL, I'M, I THINK WE'RE DOWN IN THE WEEDS AND EITHER ONE WOULD WORK FOR ME AND LEAVE IT TO, YOU KNOW, CAPABLE DESIGNERS TO FIT YOUR PROGRAM BEST, BUT ADDING SOME MORE SOLIDITY OR CONNECTION AT THE BASE OF A SIDE THAT MAKES SENSE. WOULD I'D BE ALL IN FAVOR OF AS WELL AS THE CONSISTENCY OF OPENINGS? THANKS FOR DOING THAT WORK. I WAS VERY HELPFUL. I THINK JUST TO THE QUESTION OF THE, THE THE WINDOW OPENINGS, I CAN HEAR BECAUSE I. DO YOU HAVE THAT THOSE PHOTOS OF THE HISTORIC WINDOWS FROM THOSE 1950 PHOTOS. I THINK THOSE WINDOW POSITIONS ARE ARE KNOWN. I CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, I DO NOT HAVE THE PHOTOS. IT THEY WERE IN YOUR REPORT FOR THE 215 REUSE STUDY, BUT I CAN CONFIRM THAT THOSE HISTORIC PHOTOS, THOSE WINDOWS ARE HISTORIC. AND I BELIEVE THAT THOSE LOCATIONS ARE ACCURATE TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO MOVE THOSE OPENINGS OR CHANGE THEM IN ANY WAY BEYOND RESTORING THEM. FROM JUST FROM LOOKING AT AN OLD PHOTO OF THE BUILDING. IT DOES LOOK LIKE THAT. THAT'S I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T HAVE THAT IN THIS PRESENTATION, BUT I CAN CONFIRM AS COMMISSIONER, THAT THOSE ARE YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO MOVE THOSE WINDOWS OR INCREASE THOSE SIZES. YEAH. I GUESS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT IS I WOULDN'T MOVE THEM BECAUSE I THINK, NO, NO, IF, IF THEY HAD ANY SIGNIFICANCE, IT'S NOT IT'S A FINE POINT. NOT THAT IMPORTANT. HOW ARE THOSE, HOW ARE YOU ENVISIONING THOSE WINDOWS WOULD END UP BEING I MEAN, ARE THEY THEY'RE BEING REPLACED WITH A

[02:05:05]

THOSE ARE WOOD. YES. OH OKAY. ARE THEY A SLIDING DOOR OR. YES. THEY'RE NOT SLIDING. NO THEY'RE NOT SLIDING. THEY OPEN. THEY OPEN. OKAY. ARE THEY OPERABLE OR JUST FIXED SHUT. ARE THEY OPERABLE. YES. THAT'S GOING TO BE THE ENTRANCE INTO THE BATHROOMS. OKAY. I KNOW THIS IS JUST A RENDERING, BUT THEY LOOK KIND OF COOL THERE. AND I JUST MAKING THE SUGGESTION IF IF YOU COULD SECURE OLD GROWTH WOOD FOR THOSE, THAT'D BE KIND OF INTERESTING AND COOL. SO. ONE OTHER THING THAT COULD HELP WITH THE SOLIDITY PERHAPS WOULD BE IN THE, THE MIDDLE SECTION WITH THE GLASS ON THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A HIGHER WALL UNDER THE WINDOW, YOU KNOW, A SHORT WALL AGAIN, FOR EVERYBODY LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO GET THE SAME VIEW OF THE RIVER AND THE TRAIL AND EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT IT DOES, YOU KNOW, JUST BY HAVING THAT, THAT BASE OF SIDING UNDER THE WINDOW WOULD HELP WITH. HELP WITH THE BUILDING OVERALL. AND, AND THAT'S WHERE I'D LIKE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, I THINK I GET THAT AS AN IDEA AND MORE WALL IS BETTER WALL, YOU KNOW, I'M ALL ON BOARD. BUT IF IT CHANGES THE PROPORTIONS OF THESE OPENINGS. SO NOW WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN EVERYTHING ELSE. NOW WE'VE GAINED SOMETHING, WE'VE LOST SOMETHING. SO I CAN'T EVEN JUDGE THAT WITHOUT SEEING IT. AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF US CAN. SO IT'S AN OPTION. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. BUT YEAH, THAT'S WHY WE TRY NOT TO HAVE THIS KIND OF CONVERSATION, UNFORTUNATELY. AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S LIKE DOING, DO WE WANT TWO LIKE THINGS OR DO WE WANT YET ONE MORE DIFFERENT THING AND THAT ELEVATION, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT KIND OF WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. I THINK ONE OF MY COMMENTS TOO, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO BE OPENING IT UP AND ADDING A LOT OF GLASSES TO HAVE THE CITY CONSIDER ADDING BIRD SAFE GLASS, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE ARE TECHNICALLY A BIRD CITY. OTHERWISE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO CLEAN UP A LOT OF DEAD BIRDS. I FEEL LIKE JUST BECAUSE IT'S ALONG A RIVER WAY TO. MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY ADD A FEW COMMENTS QUESTIONS FIRST, I JUST I NEVER REALLY UNDERSTOOD WHY WE DIDN'T.

THE CITY DIDN'T JUST PROPOSE A COVERED STRUCTURE NEXT TO THIS BUILDING, SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO MODIFY THIS HISTORIC BUILDING. YOU KNOW, JUST DO A PERGOLA IN BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, FOR SHADE, IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY SIMPLE SOLUTION. I NEVER HAVE HEARD AN ANSWER TO THAT. I GUESS MY THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THAT COMMENT. AND WE NEVER HAD THAT TYPE OF

[02:10:05]

THIS PROJECT ALWAYS WAS REHABILITATION OF THE SHODDY MILL BERGSTEIN WAREHOUSE BUILDING. AND MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, JUST TO REITERATE THE EARLIER POINT, BY HAVING THAT OPEN SPACE, IT ALLOWS THE PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER COST BURDEN.

SO THAT IS THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF WHY IT'S OPEN. NOW, WOULD WOULD YOU STILL GET A COVERED STRUCTURE WITH A PERGOLA? I WOULD AGREE YOU WOULD. BUT IF YOU ENCLOSE THAT SPACE, I THINK WHAT I HEARD FROM STAFF IS YOU WOULD ADD MEANINGFUL COST TO THE PROJECT.

OKAY. I THINK TAKING DOWN SOME WALLS IS PROBABLY PRETTY COSTLY AS WELL. BUT I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND STAFF'S RESPONSE. WERE YOU JUST SAYING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NEVER CONSIDERED IT JUST RATHER THAN I'VE I'VE BEEN INTO THE BUILDING AND OPENING UP THE STRUCTURE, JUST HAVING A A STRUCTURE ON THE SIDE, A FREESTANDING PERGOLA, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THAT IDEA FOR THIS PROJECT AT ALL. SO IT WAS NEVER DISCUSSED. AT THE TIME OF THE DESIGN. WHY IS EVERYONE LIKE AGREEING? I DON'T UNDERSTAND, I DON'T EITHER, WE WEREN'T PART OF THIS CONVERSATION THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. SO ALL OF THIS FEEDBACK. SO SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE AGREEING THAT IT WAS NEVER DISCUSSED. IT WAS NEVER DISCUSSED. OKAY. YES. SEEMS LIKE A SIMPLE SOLUTION THOUGH.

I, I AGREE THAT SOME, RATHER THAN BEING SUBTRACTIVE TO THE BUILDING, WE COULD BE ADDITIVE.

AND THEN YOU RETAIN THE BUILDING, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S THE CONCEPT, RIGHT. BUT I AND THAT'S GOOD. AND I LIKE THAT IDEA. EVEN THE IDEA OF DOING PORCHES AND ALL THAT OR SOMETHING ELSE TO THE BUILDING OR A FREESTANDING TO THE BUILDING. BUT THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THE BUILDING? WHAT IS THE USE WITHIN THE BUILDING? AND IF I UNDERSTAND SEAN AND JOHN'S COMMENT NOW, THE BUILDING BECOMES AN INTERIOR SPACE LARGE ENOUGH TO BE AN ASSEMBLY SPACE NEEDING SPRINKLERS AND SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT TRIGGER A LOT OF COSTS. SO IF I UNDERSTAND IT RIGHT AND I ACCEPT IT, I GUESS AT FACE VALUE THAT THAT THIS BUILDING NEEDED TO LOSE SOMETHING IN ORDER TO AVOID THOSE COSTS. AND THAT'S THE SUBTRACTIVE SORT OF THING WE SEE IN FRONT OF US. THANK YOU, I UNDERSTOOD THAT. THANK YOU. ALSO, I WAS WONDERING, ARE WE LOOKING AT THE ANY OF THE OVERLOOK OR LIKE THE BIKE OR THE WROUGHT IRON THAT'S BEING PROPOSED AROUND THE STRUCTURE? BECAUSE IN THE RENDERINGS HERE IT SHOWS AS WHITE WROUGHT IRON? IS THAT I MEAN, WE SHOULD BE KIND OF BE COMMENTING ON THAT AS WELL, I WOULD IMAGINE. I THINK WHAT YOU SEE IS THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS GOING ON. ONE PROJECT IS A SHODDY MILL, BERGSTEIN BUILDING REHABILITATION, WHERE YOU SEE THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE AREA. THAT'S PART OF THE COURTESY DOCK PROJECT. SO WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS RENDERING IS JUST SHOWING THAT THERE WILL BE A FENCE AS THE WALK FOR THE WALKWAY GOING DOWN TO THE COURTESY DOCKS. SO THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE FENCE. I MEAN, IF THERE'S CHANGES TO THE FENCE, WE COULD SURELY LOOK AT THAT AS PART OF THE PROCESS. BUT WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS JUST TO SHOW THAT THERE'S RAILING OR FENCE THAT HAS TO GO DOWN AS A WALKWAY DOWN TO THE COURTESY DOCKS. THANK YOU. SO THAT OUR COMMISSION COULD LOOK AT THAT AS SOMETHING AS A MITIGATING CONDITION. WE COULD ADD, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS ON THAT OR RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I JUST WANT TO FINISH, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I DID LOOK AT THAT ORIGINAL CONSULTANT REPORT ABOUT MITIGATION FEATURES, AND THEY TALKED ABOUT INSTALLING HISTORIC FEATURES IN THE BUILDING. AND I REMEMBER OUR ORIGINAL DISCUSSION YEARS AGO, WHICH WASN'T A REVIEW. IT WAS JUST KIND OF CONCEPTS. BUT I RECALL THERE'S A LARGE MILL STRUCTURE IN THE BUILDING, AND WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING THAT VISIBLE SO PEOPLE COULD SEE IT. WHAT, WHAT TAKE WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT? YEAH. IN THE WHERE BEN HAS THE HI LASER POINT SHOWING THROUGH. THAT'S WHERE THE OLD MILL OF THE BUILDING IS. SO AS YOU LOOK UP ABOVE FROM THE GROUND FLOOR, THERE WILL BE A GLASS AREA THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT IN THE SECOND FLOOR. OH, WAS THAT IN THE REPORT? I DIDN'T SEE THAT. I BELIEVE CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, I NOTED THAT IN THE JULY REPORT. I APOLOGIZE FOR OMITTING IT FROM THIS REPORT, BUT THAT THAT WAS PART

[02:15:01]

SO WHEN YOU'RE IN THE OUTSIDE PORTION OF THE BUILDING, YOU'LL LOOK UP AND SEE IT. YEAH. WELL, THAT'S INTERESTING AND FUN. THANK YOU. AND THEN FINALLY, THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION WERE TONGUE AND GROOVE WOOD SIDING, WHICH I ASSUME THAT THIS IS. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. THAT IS CORRECT. SO THE HCM AND NEW HISTORY WORKED HARD TO ENSURE THAT THE THE ROOFTOP WAS GOING TO BE REPAIRED WITH WOOD SHINGLES, AS IT WAS HISTORICALLY CLADDED WITH RATHER THAN METAL AS IT IS TODAY, AND THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE TONGUE AND GROOVE WOOD SIDING. SO THERE'S ELEMENTS OF REHABILITATION AND RESTORATION AS FAR AS THE MATERIALS BEING USED. AND IT WILL BE PAINTED WOOD SIDING, THE COLOR THAT YOU SEE HERE IN THE RENDERINGS, TO MY UNDERSTANDING. YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT. AND THEN EDUCATIONAL SIGNAGE WAS ALSO COMMENTED.

THOSE WERE MY COMMENTS. I DO APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S WORK ON MAKING THIS A MUCH, YOU KNOW, KEEPING THE MASS OF THE BUILDING. AND I LIKE THE COLOR TOO. I MUCH APPRECIATE THE THE NEW COLOR. SO THANK YOU. JUST TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE CODE THING, I DON'T WANT TO LINGER ON THIS TOO LONG, BUT BACK TO THE, THE CONCEPT OF A OF A SEPARATE SHELTER OR PERGOLA MOVING THE THE OPEN GATHERING OUTSIDE. IF THE THE DESIGN WERE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHERE THE THE OTHER TWO THIRDS OF THE BUILDING COMPARABLE SPACES WERE STILL IN THERE. AND THEN THERE WAS A THIRD OF THE BUILDING UNPROGRAMED AND JUST MOVED OUTSIDE IN ORDER TO HAVE THE.

THE SHELL REMAIN INTACT, BUT STILL HAVE THE. THE SMALLER INDOOR GATHERING SPACE AND THE RESTROOMS, DOES THAT THEN TRIGGER THOSE EXTRA CODE COSTS OR CAN THAT STAY CLASSIFIED LIKE THIS ONE IS CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. I'M YOU SOUND LIKE SOME OF THE APPLICANTS THAT COME TALK TO OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL. LIKE HOW DO I NOT HAVE OCCUPANCY BE TRIGGERED? AND I UNFORTUNATELY DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THAT WORLD TO SPEAK TO THAT. MY. I WOULD, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND FROM OTHERS THAT I'VE HEARD, I WILL DO A LITTLE PLUG. I THINK OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION OF BUILDING CODE, AND IT'S PRETTY FAIR AND I. I THINK IF I WERE TO CHANNEL OUR BUILDING OFFICIALS, SHE WOULD LIKELY SAY THAT JUST HAVING THAT SPACE ENCLOSED WOULD LIKELY LEAD TO A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE WHERE EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT OCCUPYING IT, IF IT WAS, SHE WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO SEE SOME REALLY CLEAR WAYS AS TO HOW YOU'RE GOING TO ENSURE PEOPLE DON'T GO INTO THAT SPACE.

BECAUSE FROM FROM BUILDING CODE PERSPECTIVE, THE MOMENT PEOPLE ARE USING THAT SPACE, YOU'RE CHANGING THAT OCCUPANCY. IT'S NOW ACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC. AND IF IT IS, THEN IT NEEDS TO MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS, REQUIREMENTS. SO I DO THINK THAT I WOULDN'T KNOW. I WOULD ASSUME MORE ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE THAT IT WOULD LIKELY STILL REQUIRE SOME SORT OF FINISHING AND CODE REQUIREMENTS IF IT WAS FULLY INTACT. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS COMMENT MORE AS A USER THAN REALLY AN HPC COMMISSIONER. AS SOMEONE WHO BIKES THAT TRAIL ALL THE TIME, AND I PASS THESE BUILDINGS ALL THE TIME, I THINK THAT THE CITY'S VISION FOR THIS REUSE IS ACTUALLY VERY EFFECTIVE. THESE BUILDINGS HAVE SAT THERE EMPTY FOR A LONG TIME, AND THIS WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE IT AN ACTIVE USE. AND I THINK THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE MADE HERE, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF PRESERVING SOME OF THE MASS OF THE BUILDING, THESE ARE DEFINITELY NOT INSURMOUNTABLE.

PARTS OF OF THE DESIGN. SO I DO APPLAUD THE CITY FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS. THIS LOOKS LIKE A SPACE THAT I WOULD WANT TO STOP AND USE WHEN I'M ON THE TRAIL. IT SEEMS THAT THE OPTIONS ARE. I GUESS THAT WE'VE BEEN URGED BY STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY IS TO EITHER.

APPROVE IT OR DENY IT WITH SUGGESTIONS. IS THAT A CORRECT WAY TO SAY IT? THAT IS CORRECT.

YOU CAN APPROVE WITH SUGGESTIONS OR DENY WITH SUGGESTIONS. I THINK THE ONLY MATERIAL CHANGE WOULD, OR THE LARGER ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE WOULD BE IF IT'S APPROVED, IT SIMPLY WOULD MOVE FORWARD INTO BIDDING. SO THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT TIME THAT THE COUNCIL

[02:20:03]

SO I THINK THE BIG THING IS, IS IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL TO INCLUDE YOUR SUGGESTIONS, YOU CAN SIMPLY APPROVE IT AND THEN RELY ON THE PROJECT TEAM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE SUGGESTIONS AND THEN IT GOES FORWARD. OTHERWISE, THE ALTERNATIVE IS IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL. I GUESS THE CHALLENGE IS THEY HAVEN'T RELIED ON OUR SUGGESTIONS. I DON'T NEED THE POINTS. IN THE PAST, AS I WAS SAYING THAT, IT'S LIKE, I KNOW THAT THIS IS THAT THAT WOULD BE THE RESPONSE. I UNDERSTAND THAT AND SAYING THAT I DO APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THIS THIS MOVEMENT FROM FROM LAST MONTH, I REALLY DO. AND, YOU KNOW, THE CHALLENGE FOR ME IS JUST, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS PROCESS IS KIND OF ARTIFICIALLY PUTTING US IN THIS BIND HERE. YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S MOVING THERE. IT'S NOT THERE YET. YOU KNOW, IF IT WERE A PRIVATE APPLICANT, WE WOULD DENY IT OR TRY TO KEEP WORKING WITH THEM. I THINK. SO I'M, I'M STRUGGLING JUST, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW TO EVEN. DEAL WITH THAT IN THAT WE I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A POSITIVE DIRECTION. I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME GREAT IDEAS THAT THAT COULD MOVE IT THERE. AND IT'S, IT'S NOT QUITE THERE YET. AND EVERY, YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT APPROVING IT WITH SUGGESTIONS REALLY SEEMS TO HAVE MUCH TEETH BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. MR. CHAIR, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY'S HOPE AND INTENT IS TO GET THIS INTO CONSTRUCTION NEXT MONTH. AND IF IF THAT'S THE CASE, MAYBE BY APPROVING IT WITH SUGGESTIONS AND EASING THE INCLUSION OF THOSE THINGS, RATHER THAN HAVING IT COME BACK TO US, WE HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF THOSE THINGS BEING DONE. CAN CAN WE NOT APPROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS AS WE ALWAYS DO? I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SUGGESTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND THEN STAFF IS TO MAKE SURE THOSE CONDITIONS PUTS IT ALL ON. BEN, GET INCORPORATED. OR I GUESS IF ANYONE DISAGREED WITH THEM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO OVERTURN OUR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER LARSON, I'M GLAD THAT YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. THAT POINT, I WAS FOCUSED MORE ON THE DENIAL. SO YOU'RE CORRECT. YEAH. YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO APPROVE WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. AND IF THOSE CONDITIONS WERE FOUND TO BE UNTENABLE, THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO APPEAL THAT APPROVAL WITH THOSE CONDITIONS.

AND JUST ON THE TIMING THING, THE THE LEGISLATIVE MONEY WINDS UP NEXT YEAR. OR IS THAT ARE WE UP AGAINST A LEGISLATIVE DEADLINE TO GET IT BUILT THIS YEAR? OR WHAT'S KIND OF THE DRIVING THE TIME TO THE END OF 2027 TO 2027? OKAY. I AM ALSO A PARK USER WHO WOULD LOVE TO USE THIS BUILDING. I JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF A, A RUSHED PROCESS HERE FOR US. WE HAVE TO BALANCE OUR HPC RESPONSIBILITIES FROM OUR REGULAR CITIZEN DUTIES AND DESIRES. SO. MR. CHAIR, I THINK WE SHOULD, IF SUPPORTED, APPROVE THIS WITH CONDITIONS.

AND ONE OF THOSE CONDITIONS COULD BE ENCOURAGING THE CITY TO HAVE SHIP WILL LOOK AT THIS ONE LAST TIME. THAT COULD BE A CONDITION. I DON'T REALLY FEEL WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS. I FEEL IT'S SLIPPING AWAY FROM US AND THIS IS OUR LAST OPPORTUNITY.

AND AND WE MUST NOT. LET'S SEE, WHAT DID THE CITY ATTORNEY SAY? CONTINUE TO DEFER THE MATTER.

SO I'M JUST SO IF WE DID APPROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS, I'M JUST TRYING TO KIND OF THINK ABOUT OUR CONVERSATION HERE. THERE WERE SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER MASSING OF THE BUILDING TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH POTENTIALLY. I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW YOU CALL IT A SEA WALL.

POSSIBLY. YEAH. AROUND THE THE OPEN AREA. A CONSISTENT THAT THE DESIGN TEAM LOOKS AT THE CONSISTENCY OF THE OPENINGS. WERE THERE OTHER ONES THAT IT SHOULD BE RUN BY SHIP? OH. OR

[02:25:07]

AND I BELIEVE THOSE WERE THE THE FIVE THAT I HAD. MR. CHAIR, COULD WE DISCUSS THE WROUGHT IRON AND REVIEW THE FENCING? SEAN JUST GOT THAT. YEP. OH. REVIEW OF IT. DO WE WANT CAN WE MAKE COMMENT ON WHAT IT SHOULD BE. SHOULD IT BE BLACK WROUGHT IRON. I THINK THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY WE HAVE TYPICALLY APPROACHED THAT SORT OF IRON RAILINGS IN OTHER PARTS OF OUR TOWN. SO YEAH, AND I WOULD I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD, I WOULD ENVISION JUST TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE ALONG THE TRAIL, WHETHER IT'S THE UPPER TRAIL OR JUST TO BE CONSISTENT, NOT TO BRING WHITE INTO THE PICTURE. I REALIZE THAT'S A RENDERERS DECISION, NOT PROBABLY A DESIGN DECISION, BUT THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT, SEAN. YEAH.

SPEAKING OF METAL COLOR, I THINK WE HAD DID WE CATCH THE ONE ABOUT THE FRAMING OF THE ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAMES AND WINDOW FRAMES? YES. OKAY. SO TO REPEAT AND I'M SURE I MISSED ONE, SO PLEASE CATCH ME SHIP OVERVIEW ONE LAST TIME. INSTALL KNEE WALL ON EAST FACADE. THE LOWER OPENINGS SHOULD BE SYMMETRICAL TO THAT OF THE EXISTING DOORWAY OPENING FOUND ON THE WEST FACADE. AND I DO HAVE COMMISSIONER LARSEN'S PLANS THAT ARE GOING TO BE VERY HELPFUL IN ARTICULATING THAT. FENCING ON THE SITE SHOULD BE BLACK AND CONSISTENT WITH FENCING ALONG THE LOOP TRAIL. MAKE GLASS BIRD FRIENDLY, AND THEN WINDOW FRAME SHOULD BE DARK IN COLOR AND THAT'S THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. BLUE. THANK YOU. I SWEAR I'M NOT OPPOSED TO INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE. I JUST DON'T LIKE INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE AS NUMBER EIGHT. I LIKE THE BIRD FRIENDLY ONE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY ROOTED IN OUR GUIDELINES. SO I, I AGREE WITH THE SUGGESTION. I JUST WOULD SAY THAT MITIGATION, IT'S MITIGATION. OKAY. ALL ABOUT MITIGATION. SPEAKING OF MITIGATION, DID YOU GET THE WROUGHT IRON? YEAH. I WOULD MAYBE SUGGEST ONE OTHER CONDITION. THIS GETS TO THE TOPIC WE ARE POSTPONING, BUT THAT ANY INTERPRETIVE CONTENT COME TO THE HPC. WILL REPEAT FOR THE RECORD, HAVE A REVIEW ONE LAST TIME. INSTALLING THE WALL ON THE EAST FACADE. THE LOWER OPENINGS THAT ARE LARGE SHOULD BE SYMMETRICAL TO THE EXISTING LARGE OPENING ON THE WEST FACADE FENCING SHOULD BE BLACK AND CONSISTENT WITH THE SITE. FENCING SHOULD BE BLACK AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LOOP TRAIL. HAVE BIRD CITY BIRD FRIENDLY GLASS INSTALLED, BLACK, WINDOW, BLACK OR DARK WINDOW FRAMES THROUGHOUT THE SITE. INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE AND INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE CONTENT SHOULD COME BEFORE THE HPC BEFORE INSTALLATION OR DESIGN APPROVAL AND WROUGHT IRON. I NEVER HEARD IT. IS THAT FOR THE I APOLOGIZE COMMISSION? IS THAT FOR THE FENCING OR IS THAT FOR THE. OH, DID YOU SAY FENCING? I, I GUESS I'M NOT SAYING THE MATERIAL BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROPOSED MATERIAL IS. I JUST MY UNDERSTANDING WAS MAKING SURE THAT IT WAS DARK IN COLOR AND CONSISTENT WITH THE FENCING ON THE TRAIL RECORD. OKAY. IT'S LIKELY ALUMINUM.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. YOU'RE USING THE WRONG WORD. WE'RE USING DIFFERENT WORDS. YEAH.

AND AGAIN, I'M NOT HEARING IT QUITE RIGHT. BUT THE DARK WINDOW FRAMES, NOT DARK WINDOWS.

YEAH. DARK WINDOW FRAMES. NOT BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE NOT TO SEE. I'M SURE THAT YOU DON'T WANT DARK WINDOWS IN THIS APPLICATION EITHER. NO DARK WINDOW FRAMES. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A POTENTIAL MOTION WITH SEVERAL CONDITIONS. NINE CONDITIONS. YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT DESIGN APPROVAL IN THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT FOR THE REHAB AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE BERGSTEIN SHODDY MILL SITE AT 1250 MAIN STREET SOUTH, WITH THE CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF AND CLARIFIED BY THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A

[02:30:03]

I'LL SECOND THAT SENTIMENT. COMMISSIONER LARSON. OH, SECOND. YOU'D BE THIRD. IT'S SO HOT UP HERE. I'M LOSING MY MIND. YEAH, I GOT A CONDITION ON AIR CONDITIONING IN THIS SPACE.

YEAH. SO. YEAH. HEAR, HEAR. GOOD SENTIMENT. I SECOND THAT WE SHOULD VOTE. WE SHOULD VOTE.

VOTE NOW. YEAH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT DESIGN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. ALL OF YOU, THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH US ON THIS.

THANK YOU ALL. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. SO WE ARE POSTPONING THE INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE AGENDA ITEM TO SEPTEMBER. AND NEXT UP IS COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT. I'LL

[5. Council Liaison Report]

[6. Staff Updates]

[02:35:07]

YEAH. YOU WANT TO FILL UP ON THE WAY HOME? YEAH. YEP. AND I YEAH. ANYTHING ELSE? WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? YES. ADJOURN. I SECOND SUMMERS MOTION BY HOLMES, SECOND BY SUMMERS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. WE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.