The meeting began with a detailed presentation on the proposed ordinance changes, which were drafted by a subcommittee of the Heritage Preservation Commission in collaboration with city staff and preservation consultants. The proposed ordinance aims to amend the city’s zoning regulations to better manage landmark properties and historic districts, particularly within the Country Club District. Key changes include clarifying definitions related to demolition and street-facing facades, introducing a time limit on Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs), and establishing an escrow requirement for permits associated with landmark properties.

The new escrow fees are intended to ensure that historic resources are maintained during construction projects. The proposed fees are tiered based on project valuation, with a $3,000 fee for projects under $100,000 and a $15,000 fee for those over $100,000. This fee structure sparked debate among commission members and attendees. Concerns were raised about the financial impact on homeowners, particularly those on fixed incomes, as the additional costs could be substantial for renovations such as window replacements.

During the public hearing segment, residents of the Country Club District expressed both support and concern for the proposed changes. One resident highlighted the importance of keeping homes secure throughout renovations. Another resident supported the ordinance amendments, emphasizing the need to protect historic resources from demolition by neglect and appreciating the efforts to refine guidelines and enforcement measures.

The commission also discussed the timeline for COA approval, which could be as short as 40 days assuming all documentation is submitted promptly. The process involves an initial assessment, a complete COA application submitted 30 days prior to a Heritage Preservation Commission meeting, and evaluation by a preservation consultant. Notifications are then sent to property owners within 200 feet of the site. The escrow requirement was explained as a mechanism to maintain weather-tight conditions during construction, addressing community concerns over incomplete or improperly secured projects.

Additional discussion centered around whether accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and detached garage modifications would require a COA. It was clarified that while ADUs would need a COA, there were no outright prohibitions as long as zoning requirements were met. Concerns about the financial burden of escrows prompted consideration of alternatives such as letters of credit, which had been used for tree-related projects.

The debate extended to the historical context of the Country Club District, particularly regarding the use of racially restrictive covenants in the past. A motion was proposed to amend the plan of treatment for the district to include acknowledgment of these covenants during its period of significance. This motion aimed to balance the historical narrative by recognizing both the positive and negative aspects of the district’s development.

In addition to the ordinance amendments, the commission reviewed a proposal to subdivide three lots that had been combined in the 1950s back into their original 50-foot-wide configurations. The applicant argued that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the historical development pattern of the neighborhood, where many homes were originally built on similar-sized lots. The proposal required variances for lot width, lot depth, and lot area, as the current zoning requirements set a minimum lot width of 75 feet and a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet.

The staff report noted that the proposed lots aligned with the median lot size within a 500-foot radius of the site. Commissioner Miranda argued that returning to the original lot sizes was reasonable and would not alter the neighborhood’s character. Other commissioners expressed concerns about preserving naturally occurring affordable housing and the potential impact on the neighborhood’s character. The proposal was eventually approved, with a motion to move it to the city council’s agenda.

The meeting also addressed the 2025 work plan, which included reviewing land use applications, updating the zoning ordinance, and revising the Greater Southdale District design experience guidelines. The commission emphasized the importance of collaboration among various city commissions, particularly in relation to ongoing projects and public engagement efforts.

As the session concluded, there was a call for improved communication and coordination between different departments, especially regarding transportation and land use projects. The commission recognized the need for a more integrated approach to ensure successful outcomes and enhance community engagement.