Heritage Preservation Commission forwards text amendment changes to city council after approving several edits

The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission recommended that City Council adopt an amended Chapter 599 governing heritage preservation, approving a set of staff-drafted changes plus four commission amendments on Sept. 30, 2025.

The text amendment had been continued from a Sept. 16 meeting. City planning staff presented a summary of changes, explained the rationale for administrative delegations (including clarified roles for the CPED director and staff) and outlined several points of public comment and commissioner concern. After discussion and proposed edits from commissioners, the commission voted to forward the amendment to the council with the commission’s recommended changes.

Rob Skolicki, Senior City Planner in CPED’s Historic Preservation Section, summarized the staff position and explained why certain administrative authorities — for example, routine determinations about potential historic resources and short-term demolition delays for nominated districts — were proposed for administrative handling rather than repeated referral to the commission. Skolicki said some proposed delegations are consistent with existing practice and with prior guidance from the city attorney’s office.

Commission discussion focused on several recurring concerns: the length of approvals for demolition of potential historic resources, whether council or staff should have final authority on some designation and code-administration matters, and how nomination exemptions should apply for council members, the mayor and commissioners. Commissioners urged clearer procedural language and expressed different views on appropriate time frames for demolition approvals.

After discussion, the commission adopted four formal edits (as recorded in the public transcript) and voted to recommend approval to City Council with those amendments. The amendments the commission approved and forwarded were:

- Change the maximum approval period for demolition of a potential historic resource from five years to an initial two-year approval with the option to extend one additional year (effectively a 2-year standard with a possible 1-year extension).

- Add a clarifying statement that certain final decisions by the Heritage Preservation Commission will be "subject to applicable appeals of the commission's decisions by City Council action," making council appeal authority explicit in the chapter's decision language.

- Allow the planning director, on written request and for good cause, to grant a time extension "of up to 180 days" to any procedural time limit imposed on an applicant, replacing language that had not specified a time cap.

- Revise nomination exemption language so that nominations filed by a member of the Heritage Preservation Commission, a City Council member or the mayor are exempt from certain submission requirements (the commission restored the commission-member exemption to match current practice).

Commissioner Melblum moved that the commission recommend City Council approve the amendment with the stated edits; Commissioner Wallace seconded. The commission then voted on the amendments to the amendment and approved the package in a roll call that produced nine ayes (Booty absent).

Staff and the clerk clarified how the commission's advisory recommendation will be transmitted to council: the staff-drafted ordinance will be presented to the Business, Inspections and Zoning Committee along with an HPC memo that documents the commission’s recommendation and the specific edits the HPC voted to forward. Staff and the clerk also advised commissioners that any commissioner wishing to provide additional testimony at the committee hearing would likely be doing so in an individual capacity rather than as a formal appearance on behalf of the HPC.

During discussion commissioners also questioned the legal limits of binding council actions, including whether the council could be required to act within a set period; staff and clerks explained some items in the proposed text involve legislative decisions that are ultimately subject to council discretion and legal review. Commissioners who raised those concerns said they nonetheless wanted the record to show the HPC's policy preferences.

The commission’s recommendation will go to council for final action; the transcript shows the HPC approved forwarding the amendment with the four edits and the clerk recorded the vote as 9-0 in favor of the motion to adopt the amendments and forward the package to council.