Welcome everybody to the November 25th Heritage Preservation Commission meeting.

Before we call to order, we start each meeting with a 15-minute public open comment period.

This is an opportunity for the public to comment to the commission regarding items that do not have a public hearing on today's agenda.

Comments regarding agenda item 5A would be appropriate at this time.

Each speaker has up to four minutes.

The commission will not discuss or respond to any comments made during this time.

Please be concise and mindful of your time during your remarks so that everyone wishing to speak has the opportunity to do so.

Will the first speaker please step forward and clearly state your name into the microphone.

Hi, hi all.

I want to congratulate the committee, the commission on uh the fact that the city council approved another um a landmarking.

I think it's great.

I I always liked it because I've been I was on it for a number of years.

I always liked having when one of the landmarking was approved.

To me, it's a major accomplishment of the HPC.

Not just this one, which is an accomplishment too, but all of the ones when you do it.

To me, it always made me feel good.

So I congratulate you, you know, for doing that.

Um, I I hope you also approve the Central Park certification today as a worthwhile addition to the park.

Um, on the uh HPC committee formation um for the uh context.

I I think that's a good idea too.

The only thing is I'm hoping when you look at the context, you look at the context that might be relevant for as many of the of the buildings on the uh the so-called potential list or the inventory list as possible.

So you don't wind up doing something that is has no relevance to the buildings that are already there because we're very far behind.

So I'm just hoping that you can pick good context to write about that has some relevancy to the to the workload.

Um then uh the downtown historic vision.

I'm hoping that includes information on how the city can work better.

What I heard on how the city could work better on um reducing demolition by neglect, as well as working with the property owners to help them uh keep their properties uh uh uh up to date and and to make it useful for them also.

Um again, I've never seen the final report.

I'm just hoping it says something about how to make it useful to the business owners.

Yeah, and hoping.

Um I'm also hoping you uh have um specific targets for Indian Heights, both in terms of when the consultant will be chosen to do that, just a timeline, a target, and then also how long they think uh it will be uh for that consultant to complete the work.

Because I know it's a lot of work, but I'm just wondering if it's like a month, two months, three months, and how to say the uh rescale award.

I I I was on I I wasn't on the H the Heritage Preservation Committee before the commission, but I used to attend those meetings when I first came here about 16 years ago.

And I I remember when I attended some of the ceremonies, and they always were attended by other people, and it was always a welcome award, uh, both John Krisel and uh and and other people and Judge Lund is on that as well.

And you see it in your packing.

I just think that's a good word award too.

And uh I'm just hoping we have a nice meeting tonight.

Anyway, thank you all.

Thank you all for coming.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Skullnick.

And the next speaker, go ahead and state your name.

My name is Barb Hudson.

I stand here again talking about Indian Heights Park and hoping it will be landmarked.

A year ago, uh this month, I was also standing in front of the commission.

Uh you were getting ready to do the work uh that it takes to landmark Indian Heights Park.

And it was going to be done the first of the year, and here I am in November, you know, almost a year later, and it's still not there.

I just want to remind the commission also that there was an ethnographic review of Indian Heights Park as well as a Silver Lake Park.

And that uh was that is a hundred and seen pages worth of information, a lot of information.

It costs 30,000 to do it.

So I'm hoping we can extrapolate some of that information and make it easier for us to move forward with the Needon Heights Park.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Hudson.

Are there any others wishing to speak during the open comment?

Any others wishing to speak during the open comment?

All right.

With that, we will move forward.

This meeting of the Rochester Heritage Preservation Commission is called to order on November 25th, 2025 at 5.07 p.m.

I will now call the roll.

Commissioner Bedaker is absent.

Commissioner Connell.

Commissioner Dobbmeyer.

Present.

Commissioner Gandhi is absent, excused.

Commissioner Muchler.

Present.

Commissioner Poyer.

Here.

Commissioner Schable also absent excused.

Commissioner Wasmer.

Absent.

And Chair's Astro is present.

Okay, the order of the agenda is on your packet and on the screen before you.

Are there any objections or corrections to the order of the agenda as presented in your packets?

Are there any corrections or objections to the order of the agenda as presented in your packets?

Hearing none, uh the order of the agenda is approved by unanimous consent.

On to agenda item four, the minutes.

Are there any corrections or objections to the minutes as included in the agenda packet?

Are there any objections or corrections to the minutes as included in your agenda packet?

Hearing none, uh the minutes are approved by unanimous consent.

Moving on to item five A, certificate of appropriateness, uh, the Central Park statue.

I will now turn it over to coordinator Patterson Lundgren.

Thank you, Chair Zastro.

Um HPC members, um, tonight we're going to be looking at a certificate of appropriateness for um a new statute to be um installed in Central Park.

Now, I do want to let you know that um technically we don't need a certificate of appropriateness for a landmark property until it has gone through the entire process.

I did jump the gun on this a little bit because I was unsure about the timing of um of getting the statute and knowing that we're coming to the end of the year.

Um so I just wanted to bring it before you and also just you know have you be aware of this.

So we are looking at it as a certificate of appropriateness, but ultimately it's not required until after the second ordinance passes.

So we're looking for your concurrence on this and keeping you informed about about the change to Central Park since the city has um made the decision to um to to landmark the property.

So um I won't go into too much details here.

Um, this is a project of the mayor's office.

Obviously, Mayor Norton's here and can probably answer additional questions if you have any about the project um about this individual.

Um, but in your packet, I did identify the information about her and um gave you this image of um of what this final statue will look like.

Um, this is actually sort of a um an early part of the process, and ultimately it will be bronze statue that that you'll see in the park.

So um the location is in the southeast corner of the park.

Um, on your screen, you can see um an overhead of the park with where the yellow arrow is pointed.

Um there'll be some plantings, and then um the statue would be located there as you saw in the image.

So in terms of it meeting Secretary of Interior Standards, I've given you the details in your packet.

Um, I don't have that on a screen, but um, in my opinion, it does meet the Secretary of Interior Standards.

Um, you might recall in the designation of Central Park that we identified objects um that are typical in this type of park in the public square, including things like memorabilia, um things like cannons, statues, um, memorial plaques, like that type of thing is very um typical and appropriate for um for a space like Central Park.

So in my opinion, it does meet the um Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation.

So I am recommending, and community development is recommending that um this certificate of appropriateness be appealed or be appealed, pardon me, be um approved.

Um, and I've given you uh a motion there on your screen to to utilize if you'd like.

Any questions for me or the app?

Or the app.

Commissioners, any questions.

Commissioner Poyer.

So the is this this area is uh there's been plants and things like that around.

So um parks department is going to maintain this.

Yes.

They're on board with exactly.

Yeah.

So this project actually has been in the works for um over a year, and um it has gone through park board and been approved.

Um, and they've already started to prep the the space um for the statue.

So um yes.

Okay.

They will thank you.

They will maintain it.

Any other questions, commissioners?

Commissioner Mochler.

Um, I didn't uh see in there, but is there gonna be a plaque or anything associated with the statute?

I believe so.

Yeah.

Um my only question would be uh last time we had talked um a fair amount about the oak trees.

Uh I couldn't really tell from the images given, but are any trees expected to be removed for this?

Yeah.

I think particularly those.

Oh okay.

No, we selected this spot because there was there was no tree there.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Commissioners?

Okay, hearing no further questions, um, I would invite a motion at this time.

Commissioner Poyer.

I'd like to make a motion for approval of the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed installation of the Amelia Hatfield Weatherstein statute in Central Park.

Second that motion.

Okay, we have a motion to approve as uh written on the screen and uh by Commissioner Poyer and seconded by Commissioner Dobmeyer.

Uh Commissioner Poyer, anything further to add?

Uh no.

Any other discussion?

Okay, we can proceed to a vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Approved unanimously.

Okay.

On to agenda item 5B, HPC committee formation.

Uh coordinator Patterson Lundren.

Yes, thank you, Chairs Astro.

Um, yes, so we've had conversations at the last several meetings about establishing um a first committee for the HPC.

And um I've talked to some of you about um joining that committee, and we're working through individually um so as to not break open meeting law, just coming up with um sort of our approach to how we're gonna form the committee and um and what we're gonna be doing.

Um I've provided here some bullet points under the committee role.

So um what we've decided is that um it makes sense to have committee members.

Um, so we're going to create a a cloud-based um sharing app.

Um, and actually Lower Town did a project within the last couple of years where they used Google Docs.

So I think that we're gonna use that.

Um meeting with Commissioner Mutchler next week to talk a little bit more about that and what role she can play in helping us get that set up and managed.

Um, and then Chair's Astro will also be part of this.

So um we're gonna continue to kind of, you know, um get the details of this figured out, but um we don't want to have more than three individuals on this committee so that we can have communication between them and not break open meeting law.

Um, and really at this point, that's what we're asking you to do is to establish this committee um as allowed under the UDC with a maximum of three HPC members, voting members on the committee.

Um there can be additional folks, either HPC members or non-members who um who volunteer and help do the research.

Um but this is this is the way that we'll we'll set this up.

So there'll be those two roles.

One will be a committee role and one will be a volunteer um who can help do research, but not be actually officially on the committee.

So um yeah, I think that's pretty much the basics of what we're looking to do, and just looking for you to establish it now, and we'll continue um over the next several meetings to um kind of refine the process and and continue to keep the commission as a whole informed thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

I guess all I would add to that is um so this would not be um uh standing committee, but this would be a special ad hoc committee.

Um and how that would work typically is uh once we approve it, uh the chair would appoint uh the committee members.

And to do that, I would simply be looking for any volunteers.

But if anybody else uh were to be interested, please um let me know and we can discuss that further.

Um I guess that's all I have to add at this point.

Are there any other thoughts, questions on this at all?

Okay, at this point, I would invite a motion on item 5B.

I'll make a motion to establish a committee with up to three voting members of the HPC for the purpose of historic context development per section 60.500.020.d dot i of the unified development code.

And I will second that motion.

Okay, we have the motion to establish the committee as written on screen by Commissioner Poyer, seconded by Commissioner Mutchler.

Uh Commissioner Poyer, any other thoughts?

Uh no.

Commissioner Mutchler.

Um, I think this is a good progress that we can work on things and keep momentum moving forward with our projects.

Great.

Any other thoughts?

Okay, we can proceed to a vote.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Passes unanimously.

Uh there are no public hearings today, so we will move on to agenda item seven, other business.

Um, item seven A, I believe we have project updates.

Coordinator Patterson Lundgren.

Yes.

So um the first project update that I want to give to you is on the downtown historic district visioning process.

Um, I've given you updates on this every month.

And um, you know, most recently it's been that they were continuing to put together the final report.

Um, they are finalizing that as we speak.

And um our first uh review will be an internal um city department review.

So we'll be looking at their recommendations.

Um we've already seen um everything that's been compiled for um public comment and engagement on the project.

So we've had a review of that, and then we're gonna be looking at the recommendations, um, identifying other departments that may need to weigh in and at least be aware of the recommendations so that we can be you know ready to answer questions when this comes forward ultimately to city council.

We were not able to get a study session until um February 23rd.

They get filled up really quickly.

So we'll be presenting to city council on the 23rd, and that will be when the full document will be released to the public.

Um we have an HPC meeting the following night, and I plan to um have that available and in your packet for that evening as well.

Um we can talk through it, we can answer questions, um, and uh, you know, just discuss any issues or things that you see questions that you see within the document.

So in between now and February, we'll be doing internal reviews.

Um, I may come back to you with some things if we identify questions that we want to float by you first, um, either in December or January.

Um, but really, yeah, we're not that far from February anyway.

So um then one of the things that the final document will have is um budget numbers for the projects that are proposed.

And that will be provided to um city council.

So it goes to council in a study session.

Well, it'll be presented to them.

Um, and then it will go back to city council for their for them to adopt it as official city policy as a um as a plan document.

Um so that should happen sometime in March.

And um, and then it will be ready for them to consider as they're looking at budgeting um for capital improvement projects.

So any questions on that.

Um I have one to start off.

So February 24th uh for HPC, what will that entail for us that review?

Yeah, so the plan is to have the entire the entire document in your packet so that you can review it, um, make comments on it, ask questions on it.

Is there anything we will be voting on, or is that simply just an update?

Um good question.

I think we'll want you to vote on it.

Okay.

Commissioners, any other questions.

Okay.

Moving on to item 7B, the Louise Hill Award.

Yeah, you know what?

Or wait, actually, no, sorry, you still have another update.

Yeah, I apologize.

Um, so as we've talked about, um Indian Heights got bumped because Central Park was made a priority for us to um to consider landmark.

Um, and as I've explained in the past, um, before we make a decision about how to approach Indian Heights, we want to decide if we're going to look at just local landmarking or if we're going to do um consider national register.

The form, it's called a questionnaire was completed and submitted to the state preservation office, um, describing just the very basics of um the significance as we currently understand um the property.

Um again, it's really highlighting um the uh the cultural um the potential cultural significance of it for in particular Dakota people, um as it relates to um them being present in the vicinity of Rochester uh prior to um Euro American moving Euro Americans moving in settlement of the city.

Um so that's still the approach we're taking, waiting to hear back from the state preservation office.

Um, and then we'll be looking at do we hire consultants?

As I've indicated, I think we probably want to hire a consultant to do that project, somebody um who has a better, deeper understanding of these traditional cultural properties from a um from a Native American standpoint.

So thank you.

Commission, any questions.

All right.

Now moving on to item 7B, the Louise Hill Award.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Um, yes.

So actually uh I am gonna pass it back to you, um, Chair Zastro.

I've got a couple of different bullet points here um from the photo of the plaque, which I believe is just um down the hall here in City Hall.

And I if I had been made aware of this previously, I had um forgotten about it.

I it's nothing that I'm aware of.

I will say that I've tried to find research, I did research and documents um in city files.

I was not able to find any more details about it.

So pretty much what we know about it is what is on um the plaque.

And um the primary thing is that second bullet point that it was a recognition of individuals who have displayed leadership courage, dedication in preserving the city and culture of this at the preserving the history and city pardon me, preserving the history and culture of the city.

Give it to you.

Great, thank you.

Yeah.

Um, so I was made aware of this plaque by community members and was told it's in City Hall.

And I was kind of surprised, like, no way, really, we all missed this.

Um, and sure enough, it's hanging up there.

Uh, I don't know what happened happened since 2014, but uh apparently we've all been walking past it and not noticing it.

Um I also was made aware that there are other plaques that were handed out in those years, um, some for specific work done on buildings.

And in fact, the Oddfellows building, interestingly enough, uh after our hearing, uh, I did kind of a walkthrough and they have plaques hanging up from 2009 during some of the work that they had done to restore that building, and it was from uh the same Rochester Heritage Preservation Committee.

So at one point, the committee was um really active in recognizing how the community was engaging uh heritage preservation.

And so I think this is a very simple way, uh, this Louise Hill award for us to bring some of that back without reinventing the wheel too much.

Um that said, we don't have a lot to work off of because it's been 12 years.

So I just thought it would be something for us to consider, discuss.

I don't think we have any motion or anything specifically ready.

Um, but just wanted to get thoughts of my fellow commissioners.

So I guess any thoughts or questions, commissioners.

Commissioner Dabmar.

I think it's that sounds like a good idea.

I just wonder if, you know, this is a somewhat deliberative, slower moving process that we're all involved in here, involved with here.

So I wonder if the frequency of the award should be variable, you know, like not necessarily every single year.

Just to keep it real meaningful.

Sure.

Yes, Commissioner Mutchler.

Um, you said that you didn't find anything historically, but is there a way we could see like what criteria or things they used for handing out the award or how we what process would look like for when we would decide to do that or so, and that I would have to go back to Molly for what documents exist in the on the city side.

I don't have access.

There were a few newspaper articles um from these years these were awarded, but I don't have I don't think we have the documents the committee was using.

No, we don't have any documents in city files from the committee time frame.

So, and then there's nothing that I've been able to find from when the commission actually began right around this frame, right around I think 2014 was when the first ordinance was passed to create the commission, right?

It had been a committee before where they didn't have really um, they certainly didn't have as many um uh tasks that you have.

Um so I think it would be probably recreating the criteria, um, unless somebody does have you know, um, documents on file at home that comes forward with those.

Commissioner Boyer.

Thank you, Chair Zastro.

Um I think in terms of finding the history and stuff, there's there's probably people in the audience that someone could follow up with afterwards that would be able to fill some of those gaps.

Um the kind of thought I have about this is uh I don't feel comfortable us just brainstorming in a public meeting and debating about who to give this award to.

So that would I would almost feel comfortable with like a three-person subcommittee that did that sort of work and then presented that to us.

I'm just kind of thinking ahead, maybe to the conclusion if we were to award that.

That's all I have.

And I appreciate that.

That actually came up uh in discussion.

I think at attorney Carl Carlson mentioned that.

So that would probably be the avenue this would go.

Should this be something this commission decides we want to reinstate in 2026?

Um, most likely it would be uh we appoint a committee to nominate somebody and bring that forward.

Thank you.

Can I make a suggestion and something that I hadn't mentioned to you, Chair Zastro?

Um, so I believe it's May is preservation month in the United States.

It's a national trust um program um that's recognized.

That might be an appropriate time to actually um honor an individual.

Could be, you know, our our preservation month activity.

Um we've done those in the past, but not very heavily.

So um that would be a kind of a nice tie-in.

And my guess is that that might be good timing for us to get something up and running and ready by May.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, I guess the only other thing I would mention, and and this is all kind of in the idea stage, is that the award would consist of essentially having their name continued either on this plaque or if if we chose to start a new plaque, um, simply having that etching on there and then potentially like a paper certificate.

Um, so this wouldn't be something too opulent or or expensive.

I think it would be a reasonable thing, a reasonable gesture that this commission could do.

Um any other thoughts on this at all.

Okay, okay.

Um coordinator Patterson Lunger, and I'll let you go ahead to your next point there.

All right.

Um, yeah, so the um I think it's the final other business here is um economic hardship and entitlement process.

And this is something that we added.

Um, I think um did I have that on the agenda?

It came up actually last week.

Um, somebody reached out to me.

Um, and I'll let that person speak if they'd like to, asking a little bit more about um sort of how the communication was given to applicants over the last year.

We had two applications um who came in to request removal of landmark status from their properties and both of them based it on this economic hardship.

So to take you back a little bit, um, when we drafted that language, um, it was something that had been in the ordinance when I first started, which was in 2019.

Um, we did an update of the heritage preservation ordinance in 2020.

Um, and then we did another update in 2023 was when it was actually integrated into the unified development code.

Um this the two applications that we looked at this summer were really sort of test cases from uh, you know, sort of like a legal test case, right?

Was the council going to um consider economic hardship and under what type of circumstances and how you know how were they going to look at what was presented to them to make that to make that decision?

So I see the two um cases that we've had in the last year as being sort of these, you know, tests that have further established like what it is we're looking for.

Um so that's the economic hardship, right?

We just we have the plain language of the ordinance that requires them to submit um the material to make their case.

Now, the entitlement process is something that we use that term to refer to um a process that a property owner goes through and a developer goes through to get approvals for projects that they want to do on their property.

So um one of the baselines of entitlement is zoning requirements, right?

And zoning controls use.

If you are in a zone that allows for, let's say industrial as a permitted use, you are entitled to do a development that has industrial use in it.

Um there's setback requirements.

If you meet the setbacks as required, you are entitled to build that building, right?

So you have to meet the requirements.

Those are that's the entitlement process.

When we moved um the heritage preservation standards into the UDC, um, we did that partly because we wanted to make it more clear that that was also part of the entitlement process.

That's something that we review and consider applications through that same process.

So as individuals reach out to me about their properties that have been landmarked.

And in this case, um, the two cases, well, the two cases that we had this last year.

Um, I had people, the owners reach out to me um before it was landmarked, right?

So it was of a different status.

It was on the historic inventory.

So there's requirements there, but they're different requirements than after it was designated.

Um, so explaining to folks what the requirements are and then having changes occur in the ordinance and having changes occur in the status of the property, I think um, you know, really made for a more complex situation for for these individuals um who who both had projects in mind that they wanted to do.

Um, and we've had we had had lots of discussions with them.

And then of course, as changes occurred, we'd meet again and we'd say, okay, you know, these are the new rules.

This is now what's required.

Um one of them already had some entitlements, you know, that they were able to, they could still follow up on, but they wanted to change it.

I think mostly what I wanted to make sure that everybody was aware of is that um very clearly, and actually several times, that information was given to them.

These are the requirements, this is the process that you follow.

Um, what I wasn't always able to do was to say very clearly, this is what these are the specifics of what you have to do to make your case.

And quite frankly, they need to read the ordinance and make a decision about how they want to make that case.

Um, it's not my job or my position to assist them in proving that they have economic hardship, right?

When the city council and the city has already determined that these properties should be landmarked, right?

It's really up to them and it's on them to make that case.

So I wanted to just kind of have that discussion with everybody here, make sure you were all aware of that sort of the background process that's happening and see if there's additional questions about that.

I think it's really important that you understand that that's not, you know, your it's not on you to like to be communicating that out to folks, but please recognize that we're doing that and feel free to ask us about that, because I do want you to be aware of and understand what's happening in the rest of that picture within the context of of these proposals and requests.

Thank you, coordinator Peterson Long Green.

I'll go over to Commissioner Poyer since you're the one who raised it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And and I've I had a prepared statement kind of what I read to you, but but you've really answered all my questions quite adequately.

So I I had just brought up this issue.

I I touched on it at the last hearing, but the reason I wanted to bring up today was just in a public general environment.

And um, yeah, I'll scrap almost everything I wrote.

I I just want the UDC does lay it out very well.

And uh so I would just point them to the UDC and say, here's here's what you need to do.

And uh I would would hope when they come in with something inadequate, you know, two weeks before the hearing, you let them know it's inadequate.

Yeah.

And here's the reasons why.

Um, and as I said, prepare marks.

We're advisory commission.

We can't direct you what to do.

So this is just me kind of speaking my mind.

Um so that uh I was uncomfortable with the last hearing because that applicant tried to get information to city council, like the day of the appeal, and I thought the process should work, that that they should be getting that information to us so that we can provide the correct advice to city council on the whole process.

And uh it's it's their burden to meet.

And uh I just I just want the community and the the property owners there to know that that it is possible that that if you do your homework and you make your case that that can be granted.

Yeah, and obviously that wasn't the case in in the two that we've had.

So thank you for your work and I appreciate it.

Commissioners, yes, uh, Commissioner Dudmeer.

Uh thank you, Chair Zostro.

Um Coordinator Patterson Lundgren, do you think that the UDC, in your opinion, is sufficiently specific to guide well us and or the council in making a decision that hinges on specific criteria versus say political persuasion and personal views about property rights.

Sure.

Um, because I watched, I've been watching some of these discussions and hearing some of them, and it seems to me that they're detached from in many cases, detached from what um really the ordinance says.

And so I guess do you think it's do you think we have enough clarity on those requirements?

Yeah, I think let I'm gonna just hit a couple more things about those requirements, especially for the economic hardship.

Um when both of these came up, I actually did have some conversations with with our consultants at New History Um and some other folks who um who who work in this area around the state actually amend um our mend group who's doing the downtown visioning.

We had some discussions with them and you know, asking kind of well, what you know, what are other communities doing?

This is a really unusual thing to have.

Um most communities don't have this economic hardship sort of um option to consider removing landmark status.

When we um updated the preservation ordinance and the UDC, um my my recollection is that we had that in there and we felt like it was important to still have the ability for somebody to make that case, right?

For somebody to really make that case if it would it would be a really unique situation, but we made the decision not to remove it from the ordinance.

Um, and at the same time, this is one of those things where, and I've written enough zoning ordinances now where you it's it's you're really threading that needle between very specific requirements and open to allow for different situations.

No case is ever going to be the same, right?

There's always going to be these nuances and differences and different contexts that you're looking at.

So when you write the ordinance language, you really try and thread that needle and have it be balanced.

Um I'm happy with the way the language is.

I think that it worked, right?

Twice now.

So I I think that that actually confirms that what we've done is strong, strong enough to, you know, to withhold.

Um may I jump in.

Yeah.

But I mean, you have you have you have some decision makers who might say, I I want to find economic hardship here.

Yeah.

Um is there enough is is it really um susceptible to so much subjectivity that it could withstand an appeal?

Sure.

Because I know there's a lot of case law on this, or not maybe in the historic preservation context, but within certainly within like um other zoning matters.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think that um typically when a city council makes a decision, that and itself is that is typically upheld, right?

If the ordinance um spells it out, and I think it does, and yeah, so I mean I think that the ordinance does spell it out strongly enough that if the city council makes a decision based on that ordinance, I think that that would hold, you know, not knowing whatever other situations might, you know, might be appealed to the courts.

That's a little bit outside of my realm, right?

I'm now I'm treading into legal territory and politically every place I've ever worked, I've you know, any uh city, I mean, we're political bodies, right?

The HPC is appointed, yeah.

City council is a political body.

That's the reality of you know, the work that I do.

So um there's always that chance.

Um, and that's part of why uh the work that I do and the work with attorney Carlson and and our city teammates is to try and really um give that language and and give the council the ability to make the decisions that that we think are supported, um you know, with them citing the law.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other thoughts, concerns on that?

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Uh with that, uh any other business at all from commissioners.

Okay, hearing none, that brings us uh to let's see.

Oh, yeah, you wanted to mention the calendar.

So go ahead, um, coordinator Patterson Lundgren.

Yep.

So our next meeting is scheduled for December 16th.

Um, obviously we're here tonight a couple days before Thanksgiving.

Um, and um typically our November and December calendar dates run into the holidays, run into these, you know, late monthly holidays, um, late in the month annual holidays, I should say.

Um, I think the fact that we've got some folks missing tonight is probably you know, due to that.

People get really busy um this time of year.

So we have drafted a schedule for next year um similar to what it was this year.

Um in the past, we have sometimes canceled either our November uh meeting or our December meeting.

Um tonight we didn't have an awful lot of business, but wanted to you know bring you together and um get some things done.

Um right now I don't have anything on the agenda for the 16th, although I feel like there was something we talked about.

Um possibly bringing on the 16th.

And now it's escaping me.

Um so I think I'm just gonna throw that out there.

Um, you know, do we want to have the December meeting?

Um it's what two weeks from now, I think.

Um if we don't have any applications, is that something you'd like me to just work with the with the chair and cancel?

Um, and then this is your first look at next year's calendar.

We don't have to answer anything tonight.

That'll get actually officially adopted in January.

But I like to get it out in front of the commission, you know, for a couple months um so that you're thinking about it.

Um and ultimately we always have to think far ahead to November, December of the following year.

So um, I've given you some other things here.

Um the May calendar date would be the day after Memorial Day.

So if people know that that's a problem, we should probably um discuss that.

Let me know.

Um, and we can talk about shifting that meeting.

And we can do it a couple months out too.

Um, you know, if we need to do that.

Um so any questions or thoughts on any of these upcoming meetings.

Commissioner Poyer, thank you.

Yeah, I just have a few thoughts.

I I think for the December meeting, I think we leave it on the calendar, and if something comes up, we have it.

And if it doesn't, we cancel it.

And um, I like next year's calendar.

I'd be my preference that we probably move the May meeting, but that's just one commissioner's thought.

Any other thoughts, Commissioners?

I guess I would um echo Vice Chair Poyer uh for next month.

I think let's I would like to leave it if nobody is having issue right now, um, just in case something comes forward, as well as giving commissioners an opportunity to reach out via email if they want to bring something forward.

Um, I don't anticipate much.

It sounds like you don't anticipate much, but I think it's worth at least giving us that buffer.

And then maybe we check in, you know, a reasonable amount, 10 days a week out.

Um, and if nothing has come up and no commissioners have brought anything up, then perhaps we cancel commissioners.

Any thoughts?

I guess let's just be in touch about that and see if anything comes up.

Sounds good.

Um maybe I'll do a little poll on next year's calendar, um, May, and then also November and December, and just um kind of see put some feelers out and we can um then talk about the final calendar in January.

All right.

Well, thank you.

At this point, um, all we have left is adjournment.

Do I have a motion?

I move to adjourn.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Dabmeyer, seconded by Commissioner Poyer.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right, we are adjourned.

You two five minutes.

Seems like we got a lot to look, actually.