Minneapolis staff seek full rewrite of heritage preservation code; commission delays vote after questions on authority and timelines

City planning staff on Tuesday presented a comprehensive repeal-and-replace of Title 23, Chapter 5-99 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, proposing updated definitions, new review pathways, and changes to demolition, interim protection and nomination procedures for landmarks and historic districts. The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) heard the draft text amendment from city planners and deferred formal action to a future meeting after extended questions from commissioners and public comment.

The amendment, presented by Rob Skolecki, senior city planner in CPED’s Historic Preservation section, would replace the existing ordinance last comprehensively updated in 2001 and make multiple procedural changes, including new fees, expanded administrative review, clarified demolition review for designated and potentially historic properties, a 16-month interim-protection period, and a 180-day limit for the City Council to act on a designation following an HPC recommendation.

Skolecki told the commission that staff “propose to repeal and replace” the chapter in its entirety to reflect contemporary practice and to better align preservation regulations with other city land-use rules. He said the rewrite would add definitions, adjust application fees to reflect inflation, remove rarely used tools such as transfer-of-development-rights provisions and conservation districts, and clarify how demolition reviews should proceed for designated properties and for properties determined to be potential historic resources.

Under the draft, demolition applications for designated properties would be processed separately from historic-design-review applications; the draft also sets a five-year period of decision validity for approvals of demolition of potential historic resources and raises the interim-protection maximum to 16 months. The draft would require a property to be first identified as a potential historic resource before a nomination may be submitted except when a nomination is filed by the mayor or a city council member. The proposal also renames the “historic variance” tool as a “historic exception” to distinguish it from zoning variances.

Commissioners asked detailed procedural and policy questions. Commissioner Melblum pressed staff on the five-year period of decision validity for demolition approvals of potential historic resources, calling five years “an extraordinarily long amount of time.” Skolecki said staff chose five years to provide a reasonable period in which developments or ownership changes might occur and to align with other land-use timelines that often include multi-year windows and extensions.

Commissioners also asked whether the draft gives the planning director authority to override HPC decisions. Andrea Burke, supervisor for the historic preservation team at CPED, responded directly: “No, staff has absolutely no authority whatsoever to override the HPC’s decision,” and said the draft’s language was intended to make responsibilities and authority more transparent, not to transfer final decision-making away from the commission.

Members of the public — including former commissioners Carol Merrill and Barbara Howard — urged the HPC to preserve decision-making authority for the commission and to ensure that the ordinance retains the specialized role of preservation professionals. Merrill said she was “here today to express my fear that if adopted, the revisions to chapter 5 99 grant substantial decision making to the planning director, a person with no background in historic preservation, [and] the ability to overrule the commissioners.” Howard asked the commission to “retain the commission’s expertise in our city's preservation program” and cautioned against equating the HPC’s role to that of other city bodies.

Commissioners also raised concerns about several specific provisions: the requirement that most nominations first be identified as a “potential historic resource” before an application may be submitted (with an exception for nominations by elected officials); the proposed 180-day deadline for City Council action after an HPC recommendation and a related three-year bar on re-submitting a nomination if the council fails to act; the shift of many reviews from public hearings to administrative reviews; and fee changes that would raise some application costs while aiming to reduce burdens on small-property owners.

Robust back-and-forth explored the practical effects of the new timelines. Commissioners pressed whether the 180-day council window would prevent projects from languishing; staff said the change was intended to increase council accountability, but acknowledged that the language provides remedies in the event council denies or fails to act on a nomination. Commissioners suggested alternatives — for example, making an HPC recommendation take effect if council does not act in 180 days — and asked staff to return with clarified text.

After public comment and extended discussion, the commission voted to continue the item to a future meeting so commissioners could prepare and present specific suggested edits. Clerk roll call recorded eight ayes on the motion to continue; the commission did not adopt the amendment at this meeting.

Because the draft ordinance would change processes for nominations, demolition reviews, interim protection, and administrative approvals, staff said the item will next be noticed for public comment at the Business, Inspections and Zoning (Biz) Committee and then proceed through City Council and the mayor’s signature if adopted. Planning staff said they would incorporate the HPC’s recommended edits into a revised draft to be returned to the commission.

What’s next: The HPC continued the text-amendment item for additional review; staff will prepare a memo incorporating the commission’s requested clarifications and proposed code edits, and the item will be scheduled for the formal public hearing process at the Biz Committee before returning to City Council for final action.