Minneapolis HPC reviews second draft to repeal-and-replace Chapter 599 preservation code

The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission on March 18, 2025, heard a staff presentation on a second draft to repeal and replace Title 23, Chapter 599, the city’s local historic preservation ordinance. Senior City Planner Rob Skolecki of the Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) department summarized the draft, noted changes made since an October 2024 version, and asked commissioners for final feedback before the draft moves to the city clerk for formatting and back to the commission for a public hearing.

The proposed rewrite would repeal and replace Chapter 599 in its entirety. Skolecki said staff is proposing to keep a single administrative preservation application (with a fee) while allowing lower-impact changes to be handled through building permit review, aiming to reduce administrative processing time for applicants and staff. He said, “all of chapter 5 99 as part of this project is proposed to be repealed and replaced in its entirety.”

Why it matters: Chapter 599 administers Minneapolis’s local preservation program and enables the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) to designate landmarks and review alterations. The rewrite changes how routine permit-level work is reviewed, clarifies demolition review for designated properties and interim protections, and alters tools and terminology that govern exceptions to standards.

Key changes described by staff and discussed by commissioners include: - Consolidation of administrative preservation review: staff propose one administrative preservation application (with a fee) and permit-level review for the lowest-impact changes previously handled by a certificate-of-no-change tier. That approach is intended to shorten processing times for small projects while retaining an administrative review route for larger, impactful work. - Renaming the historic variance: the draft renames the historic variance to a “historic exception” to avoid confusion with the zoning definition of a variance and related legal issues. - Findings and plan consistency: findings tying administrative and commission-level reviews to the comprehensive plan were restored after earlier drafts removed them. - Demolition and interim protection clarifications: the draft expands and clarifies findings for demolition of designated properties, states that a demolition-of-designated-property application is required when a property under interim protection is proposed for demolition, and raises the interim protection timeline to 16 months with an option to extend. - State-designated districts: the draft retains language that allows locally administered review of districts designated under state law (the draft specifically references Victory Memorial Drive), after staff concluded removing that language would leave a review gap. - Amendments and designation procedures: the draft adds text clarifying pathways to change periods of significance, contributing/noncontributing status, and criteria of significance for designations.

Commissioner concerns and discussion - Conservation districts: Commissioner Malblum asked about removing rarely used tools such as transfer and development rights for conservation districts. Skolecki said staff’s review found conservation districts have not been adopted and are difficult for staff and the public to implement; staff reported limited pushback but welcomed additional commissioner comment. - Elected-official nominations: the draft allows council members and the mayor to submit nominations without first receiving a “potential historic resource” determination that other nominators must get. Andrea Burke, supervisor of the CPED preservation team, said the intent was “to give them the greatest ease of opportunity to be able to … fast track an item based on constituent interest or political interest.” Commissioner Malblum said he was “completely opposed” to exempting elected officials and warned of possible process abuse. Commissioners debated fairness and safeguards. - Sunset for potential historic resources: staff said an early internal proposal to include a 10-year sunset for potential historic resources was removed; potential historic resource status will remain in effect until adjudicated, demolished, or altered. Commissioner Malblum asked for a sunset to clear long-unused listings; Commissioner Thomas said she opposed a sunset because long dormant buildings can later attract redevelopment and designation incentives. - Public transparency and mapping: Commissioner Wallace asked whether potential historic resources will be mapped publicly. Staff said creating an accurate public map is a likely future initiative to improve transparency but will require staff time and funding and is not on the 2025 work plan. - Emergency exception and enforcement: Commissioner Malblum recommended clarifying emergency exception language to require consultation with the planning director before emergency work begins; staff said they would check consistency with other code language. - Demolition mitigation and deconstruction: Commissioner Thomas asked whether demolition mitigation could require deconstruction and salvage. Staff said deconstruction is difficult to regulate reliably and is not currently included as a required mitigation measure in the draft. - Qualifications for the planning director: commissioners asked whether the ordinance should add professional qualifications for the planning director given the expanded delegated authority; staff said such job qualifications are handled administratively and are not typically codified in the ordinance.

Process and next steps CPED staff told commissioners they circulated the draft to the city attorney’s office and received no legal objections to the changes. The next step is internal edits, submission to the clerk’s office for formatting, and then a public hearing at the Heritage Preservation Commission; following an HPC recommendation the ordinance would proceed through the City Council and mayoral signature. Staff said the public hearing schedule was not yet set but hoped for late spring or summer 2025.

The commission provided detailed feedback across many sections of the draft; staff said this meeting was likely the last major opportunity for substantive edits before formal public hearing and adoption steps.

Ending Staff closed the item after commissioners finished questions; no formal vote on the ordinance content occurred at the March 18 meeting. Staff will incorporate feedback, send the draft to the clerk for formatting, and return it to HPC with a staff recommendation for adoption and a public hearing date to be scheduled.