Okay.

Give Attorney Carlson just a minute to come in here.

Yes.

Okay.

Welcome everybody to the April 28th 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.

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 everybody wishing to speak has the opportunity to do so.

With that said, will the first speaker please step forward and clearly state your name into the microphone.

There is also a sign-up sheet there, too.

So please make sure you have signed in if you are speaking.

Hi, uh my name is Barry Skolnik.

Uh I think you all most of you know me.

I think all of you know me.

Um several things.

Um first, uh, I would appreciate it in the future when they put things on the agenda.

This has to do with staff more than they can more than the commission, but uh I would appreciate it if they would include a lot of detail in it.

So we are the people who like to talk in the open comment period would have something to base some of the comments on.

Like there's nothing in there about the awards committee.

They say to be presented tonight.

I would rather that there would have been something in there uh about the awards committee.

And I that's true.

I've noticed on some other things where we don't hear the full details until the meeting.

And I think the more detail that goes in the packet with the agenda, the better it is for the for you people to look at it and uh you know and think about it before the meeting as well as in the meeting.

So I'd rather have more meat in the agenda.

That's first comment.

Um second comment is um when we're gonna talk about the um the completion of future demo uh future um landmarking.

I I think it's important to know that SHIPO, the state historical preservation office.

I spoke to Michael Coop personally, spoke to him twice about it.

He would like us to uh become a uh a locally landmarked entity with it within the SHIPO framework, and that would give us access to a lot of grants, up to I think 30, 40,000 a year.

You can only once a year you can ask for the grants, but the grants you can ask for more than one.

So if you package it right, you can ask for several grants, and there would be that would be tens of thousands of dollars at stake.

So I do think you'll be between that and the other way that Molly's been doing it.

Um I I I think yeah, certified local government is what I'm talking about.

CLG, they call it most cities are already in that.

They get these grants.

They're federal grants that filter through the state via SHIPO, and uh it'll give us all the money we need to do some of the programs that in my opinion um that that uh uh miss Kessler has proposed.

So that's that.

Another item has to do with uh the Lord's high school.

Uh I was on the HPC uh a few years ago when the HPC wanted Lourdes to be landmarked.

It went to the city council.

Mayo was against it because they wanted to put a a uh a place for the supply depot there, which they did.

So they they said, please allow us to knock down uh lures and in exchange uh as a consolation prize, really, we'll give you a um a park with artifacts from the exterior of Lourdes.

And and and um that was actually an amendment that passed unanimously by the city council, so it's in the law like like that.

The problem is is that there are some people on Mayo's staff who only want to put a few artifacts in there.

So I'm basically asking you to pass a motion tonight.

I know there'll be people speaking about that too.

Pass a motion tonight to go to the city council asking them just to take that up as an item because the city council can't do it themselves easily.

It would have to come from a border commissioner, somebody who calendars it.

The sooner it's calendared, the better.

And so I all would all I'm suggesting is that we we on behalf of the community put a motion together uh to send it to the council asking them to counter this and to take it up as an item for further discussion.

And about that.

That's that's basically all.

Anyway, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Skullnik.

Will the next speaker please step forward, state your name clearly, and you'll have four minutes.

Hi.

I'm Stephanie Padolki.

I live on the corner of West Center and 11th Avenue.

Um several of us are here tonight to ask you to make a presentation to the city council about preserving some of the artifacts from the former Lourdes High School.

I think they'll listen to you, and you have more credibility with the council than a neighborhood committee.

Some of you, and uh I'm sorry if I have to repeat some things that Barry just said.

Some of you may not be familiar with the events of a city council meeting in March 2024.

Mayo was requesting that the former Lourdes High School, which they own be undesignated as a historical landmark.

Um, several members of the HPC spoke in favor of keeping that designation, and several contractors spoke of removing that.

As part of removing the designation, three people from Mayo, including the facilities director, offered to make a small park on the west end of the property using artifact with an S from the building and dedicating the park to the former Lourdes School.

City Council Member Wall, who is still a city council member, offered an amendment that the park be part of the contract with Mayo if the historical landmark removal designation was passed.

The amendment that amendment passed unanimously, and eventually the historical landmark decision was removed with the five to vote.

And the park was part of that decision that Mayo would create a part buffer between their warehouse and the neighborhood using artifacts from the Lord's building.

Two years later, Mayo seemed to forget that agreement and order from the city council.

And it looked to us at the neighborhood uh Cutski Neighborhood Park Association that they were not going to build the park at all.

We made a big fuss.

We reminded them that they agreed to do it.

Reluctantly, it seems to me.

They have come up with a much diminished plan, which is not much more than a meandering sidewalk to replace the straight sidewalk and a bit of landscaping.

There's only one artifact, a medallion placed into a chest high wall.

They agreed to use artifacts, plural.

We watched them remove dozens, if not hundreds, as they raised the building.

So they're replacing the school building with the warehouse.

They can call it the Taj Mahal.

They can call it a logistics center.

It's still a warehouse in the middle of a neighborhood.

We need you.

We really need you to remind the city con city council of the contract with Mayo to build a neighborhood to build a real park to separate us from the noise and commotion of semi-trucks backing into the warehouse.

Please stand up for this neighborhood for the history of the Lourdes Building for requiring entities who make a contract with the council to get what they want to follow through with good faith and not begrudgingly do as little as possible to fulfill their contract.

Our beleaguered neighborhood at least deserves a park with more than one artifact.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs.

Padolki.

Will the next speaker please step forward and state your name clearly into the microphone?

My name's Jim Frost.

I'm the new president of the Cutski Park Neighborhood Association because I was too dumb to say no, and I was elected in April.

This is my first official act.

And I'm going to be rewriting rapidly because I don't want to repeat everything yet again.

Neighborhoods associations in general and Cutsky Park Association in particular provide an opportunity for residents to connect socially, to bond together and to understand and hopefully influence proposed development or alter our way of life for better or worse.

Often we have concerns with developments that our opinion fail to consider and mitigate as much as possible.

Negative effects to our living.

And this logic decided is going to provide negative effects.

But we're convinced that Mayo is important enough that maybe it's the right thing to do in spite of that.

However, when all of this came before the city council, there were promises made.

They were put in writing when they approved carrying down the building.

Now that the building is gone, Mayo has canceled their promises.

And right is right.

I am hopeful that you will try to influence Mayo.

I'm rather the city to insist that Mayo do what they promised and honor the written commitment that was made when the vote was taken.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Frost.

Will the next speaker please step forward and state your name Hello?

My name's Mickey Elias with Elias Construction.

I'm here with my clients, uh Zach and Joanne Kozak.

We have uh project submittal um on the agenda today, but for my understanding, um it's helpful if I would come up and just say a few quick words.

We're here in support of our submittal.

Uh we worked closely with the HPC, Molly, and the city um to ensure that uh the project uh meets the intent and the guidelines of the HPC um to help our clients uh have a better functional home for them.

So we're here to answer any questions that there may be about the submittal and hope that um the commission sees it as a project that uh fits well within the HPC.

So appreciate your time tonight and having us on the agenda.

Thank you, Mr.

Elias.

Thank you.

Will the next speaker please step forward and state your name?

Is there anybody else wishing to speak?

Okay, please step forward and state your name.

I forgot which order I'm in, so no numbered.

My name is Brianna Bly, and I uh live on the corner of First Street and 13th Avenue Northwest in the Cutski Park neighborhood.

Um we've seen a sketch, our neighborhood association of what this park is going to possibly look like.

Still, it's just an a possible stage.

And when asked to push for a little bit further, there was really nothing that they could provide to us.

Um Stephanie's right, there's a wall and there's a little medallion, and then there's a park and meandering and some of the things that they we asked for.

I believe they've tried in good faith to uh uh accommodate, but um, when you go back and look what the city council asked them to do, it is lacking.

My concern when I talk to uh city council member Miller about being careful, because if all the planning goes through and then all of a sudden you get it presented to the city council, and it's nothing like you thought it was going to be, then you're in real trouble.

And he said, Oh no, that's not going to happen because we don't have the final say.

So the final say is between the city administration and Mayo.

And when I asked, how are you guys monitoring whether or not they're they're following through on what they said with the artifacts and how they were going to blend in?

Um, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of plan.

I think they're putting their trust in the city administration and what they we were told as a neighborhood association, what the city was told at the time during the city council meeting is not what is coming up on this vague sketch that the architects have drawn up and what Mayo was presenting to us.

I also asked, what about all the other artifacts?

You've got a ton of artifacts, and those were supposed to be incorporated into this project.

And the answer was they will be used in other projects around town.

So I asked, well, then will you acknowledge that those are from Lord High School?

And it was like crickets.

I don't know that there's any plans.

They have them stored somewhere.

But this is what was promised.

And as a former school board member, when you go about it in good faith, especially if you commission your administration to work and represent your needs, if there's no checks and balance to come back, what's going to happen when this does not meet what city council member waltz or some of the other city council members had?

We don't want to get to that point once it starts being built.

So we do really value you and what your job is is to really go to the city council and say you really need to look at what you're what you commissioned them to do, and is that being met?

Because from our point of view, it is not.

And when we ask those questions, they are not being answered.

So we hope you will do that for us and do that also for the city council so that they know exactly what is being planned and no one's caught off guard.

Thanks.

Thank you, Ms.

Bly.

Um, with that, our open comment period is out of time.

I know there are more wishing to speak.

So at this point, I would need a motion from commissioners.

I'll make a motion to extend uh open comment period time to accommodate the remaining people that wish to comment in the audience.

Oh psychic.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Poyer to extend the open comment period to accommodate any remaining speakers uh with a second by Commissioner Connell.

Uh, any further discussion?

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, passes unanimously.

Okay, will the next speaker please step forward and state your name.

Hello, my name is Barb Hudson.

And I was a member of the Heritage Preservation Commission when Lourdes first came on board as far as landmarking.

And I was uh one of the members who talked with uh the person representing Mayo when we first discussed landmarking.

And at that point, Mayo said that they were very happy to landmark Lords and that they would be they would consider landmarking it and they would never tear it down.

That was way before we decided as a commission to landmark it.

And then of course bold uh forward came about and then they decided they didn't want it.

So I wouldn't trust the word of Mao because they do change their mind.

Um that just is a matter of fact.

Um I'm up here now talking about Indian Heights Park again, as usual.

Um I didn't know if it was going to be brought up in this meeting, but um this past month uh Molly went to uh the city council and um talked with them again this year um as well as last year in May about getting funding for the um the uh studies um that have to happen so it can be landmarked.

And so I just want to let you know that they did discuss it a year ago in May, and they discussed it again now this April for um grants for the local designation as well as cultural designation.

So I just wanted to let you know that that is moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Hudson.

Will the next speaker please step forward and state your name?

John Creasel.

Uh first off, I'd like to say that I would encourage the HBC Commission to approve uh the project that uh that has been put before you before you uh if I'm not mistaken, I think it's a former meeting.

Uh uh, we and myself and others, I believe, would support that uh as an action item for you.

Uh secondly, um what has been said this evening.

Um I I will try not to repeat most of the bullet points and I'm gonna shift gears uh in my thought process and then speak uh extemporaneously as it relates to elements that are called trust.

The reason you don't see a great deal of people here this evening, or you do not see a great deal of people at other meetings when there are sensitive issues to talk about, whether it's here or at the city council.

I hate this word called bullies, but it is free speech is not free.

If you speak out against the power brokers of this community that basically feed off of mail, there is a price that you pay for it.

Uh you aren't going to get Christmas cards for all of the power brokers.

Okay.

Uh but uh uh beyond that, the reason that you see fewer numbers showing up at these public opportunities to speak and express your thoughts is exactly that.

Most everybody works off of or works within the confines of the mail clinic.

And it's very difficult for people.

There would have been more people here this evening in the neighborhood, but it's quite quite frankly uncomfortable for them to be here.

There is an element of distrust.

I'll call it a trail of tears.

It's been going on for years.

Uh trying to focus on the Lures Um project.

Uh, it is very definitely a trail of tears.

What's been promised to the neighborhood?

Oh, could you give us some renderings?

Oh, uh, what's the building going to look like?

Ah, well, we have no idea.

But then once all the money was donated for the buildings, all of a sudden, like magic, a rendering came forward.

So now the the neighborhood has said, what is this park going to look like?

Well, it's a work in progress.

I urge all of you to put forth to the city council.

The urgency, because timing is everything.

The clinic doesn't want to have their feet put to the fire so that they have to come up with a rendering.

It can be a work in progress.

That's what they say all the time.

And the neighborhood is placated.

They're tired of going to the meetings because the meetings are not healthy and held in good faith.

Creasel are there any other speakers wishing to speak are there any other speakers wishing to speak hearing none we will close the open comment period um and at this point the this meeting of the Rochester Heritage Preservation is called to order on April 25th 2026 at 521 p.m.

I will now call the rule uh commissioner bodiker present commissioner Connell Commissioner Gandhi is absent excused Commissioner Kessler present commissioner muchler present commissioner poyer here commissioner Schable is also absent excused commissioner Tater present commissioner Wasmer and Chair Zastro is present.

The order of the agenda is in your packets and on the screen um yep.

Are there any objections or corrections to the order of the agenda as presented in your packets or on the screen are there any objections or corrections to the order of the agenda as presented uh in our packets or on the screen hearing none the order of the agenda is approved by unanimous consent.

Going on to agenda item four uh the consent agenda which includes item four a the minutes uh the the minutes from the March 24th meeting are available on the city website and a link was included in our packets are there any corrections or objections to the minutes as included in the link to the city website uh that was in the agenda packet are there any corrections or objections to the minutes as linked in the agenda packet hearing none the minutes are approved by unanimous consent moving on now to uh agenda item 5a certificate of appropriateness the garage edition at 829 5th street southwest uh coordinator Patterson Lungren you have the floor hey um good evening members of the heritage preservation commission um it's a nice spring day so hopefully that's okay that I left the uh the windows open in back of you and um let me know if at any time we need to readjust things like that as we have our meetings in this room um so tonight we have a certificate of appropriateness application to review uh it is once again up on Pill Hill in the Pill Hill Historic District location is 829 Fifth Street Southwest and on your screen you see an image of um of the home as viewed from 5th Street Southwest.

It is a corner property and um the actual proposed addition is on the other side of the house.

I think as I go through and talk a little bit about the proposal um keep in mind that we have uh an approximate date of construction of this house as circa 1922 I wasn't able to find any additional um you know historic data about it um but uh we don't know for sure we don't know the architect on this property um and I wasn't able to find any historic designs of it either so um so we pretty much have um the record that I did indicate in in the packet so the proposal is um an addition to the existing garage and uh this is the view from um 9th Avenue um so I've circled on the screen there uh the location of the proposed addition um in the packet I indicated that this is a two-car garage it's a it's a tandem two-car garage which means that you can fit two vehicles in there pulling one in and then pulling one in behind that which is why you only see one one garage door the uh the applicants would like to add a second uh stall adjacent next to um basically in the area where you can see the small shed is located and um they would line it up with uh the existing addition before I go to the next image though I want to make sure that you realize um I was able to find some historic information in the historic building files building permit files again there weren't any designs of what happened at the time but I think it was 1963 I believe 1960s there was an addition um and I believe it's the part that comes out kind of from that back wall I don't know if yeah I do not have well let's see yep so um you can see on the screen the garage may have only been kind of that tuck in tuck under integrated into the rest of the house um or there may have been a little bit that came out we don't know for sure but we know that there was an addition that was permitted in the 1960s so it did change at that time um we also know that um there was something that happened up in this area where the kind of triple windows are on the second floor uh it was either an open deck or it was maybe an open porch maybe it was a sleeping porch that would have been typical of this style of house um

Or there may have been a little bit that came out.

We don't know for sure, but we know that there was an addition that was permitted in the 1960s.

So it did change at that time.

But something was modified in that area as well.

And I believe that was in the 1970s or 80s.

I think it's indicated in your packet.

So there has been some changes to this side of the house.

And it is after the period of significance for which Pill Hill was designated.

So kind of to keep that in mind that there's already been changes to this area of the house.

The proposal again is to add a second garage door, um, a second parking space uh directly next to um the existing garage edition.

And you see uh on the right hand um photo of what that would look like.

This is the proposed rendering of what that would look like.

Um so looking at the Secretary of Interior Standards, which is what we base our decisions on.

Um standards one through five really talk about um continued use of the property and allowing for minimal changes uh that allow for continued use, um, having uh what level of impact on the historic integrity of the property.

Um that's where the issue of past renovations come into play and um really that area not having historic integrity to the period of significance of Pill Hill.

Um then standard nine, um, the addition will not impact historic material.

Again, some of this has already been changed.

Um, so if you consider historic material from the period of significance, they're not making changes to that.

Um it does very little to change the characterization of the property, the spatial characteristics.

Um expanding on again what was built in 1962, and then standard number 10.

If removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the property would remain unimpaired.

So my recommendation is that it does meet the intent of the standards.

I will tell you that I met with the property owner and contractor on site along with one of the planners, and we actually looked at the other side of the house and either doing an addition on um on 5th Street, uh, either set back or attached um and looked at all sorts of different sort of options on that side of the house as well.

Um they would need to, in order to do that, they would need to do um some modifications.

There's uh an incline up to the house.

Um, and I can go back to that photo if that's helpful, but they would have to make some changes to the topography of the lot.

We felt like this actually was sort of the less invasive um of the of the options, even though this does require zoning um setback variants, but um the community development department is supporting both that variance as well as the certificate of appropriateness.

So I am recommending approval and um I have a recommended motion on the screen for you to consider and available for questions.

Okay, I I will start with a quick question here.

So um slide eight shows a window on the second story there that doesn't exist in your other photo.

I'm just curious.

Um, I understand if if the left photo was from Google Maps, may already be outdated.

Um, but is that window on the right part of this edition?

Does it already exist or uh what's going on with that?

I guess it's a very sharp eye.

I did not notice that.

So I I don't have an answer to that.

Um yeah, and you're talking about see if I can write here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I I guess I'm just curious if there's other work that's associated with this project in this request, or is it just the garage?

It is just an application for the garage.

So I'm guessing that may have gotten in there, but I can't, I can't be certain.

Okay.

So and I think you can, you know, if you if you wanted to approve it, I think you can make it very clear that it's just for the garage edition.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Okay, no other questions.

So at this point, I would invite a motion from the commission.

I'll make a motion for approval of the certificate of appropriateness for a garage addition to 829 Fifth Street.

Was that Commissioner Wasmer?

Okay.

Unfortunately you're nonvoting members, so we can't accept your second, but thank you.

Second okay.

So we have a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for garage addition to 829 Fifth Street by Commissioner Poyer, seconded by uh that was Commissioner Bodeker, correct?

Okay, by Commissioner Bodeker.

Uh Commissioner Poyer, any further discussion?

Uh no, I think it's uh um a good addition that maintains the a good, you know.

The historical integrity I mean we uh coordinator Patterson Long had a few discussions about that about the addition not being the the time of the historical significance but um I think the look is of the property is maintained and um no no objections to it at all.

Thank you, Commissioner Poyer.

Um Commissioner Bodaker.

Any other commissioners anything further to add okay we'll move uh to a vote all in favor of approving the certificate of appropriateness for a garage addition to 829 Fifth Street say aye.

Any opposed any abstentions?

Okay approved unanimously moving on to agenda item 5B certificates of appropriateness process and requirements uh coordinator Patterson Lunger and you have the floor.

Okay.

All right um at our meeting last month we had some conversation about um kind of more broadly the certificates of appropriateness and the process um the difference between major and minor um alterations and when things are brought to the preservation commission.

So I did provide um sections um regarding that in your packet um starting with sections of the UDC um 60.200.040C8 which is um the requirements for um the standards for um maintaining um and treating sorry standards for treating historic landmark properties designated properties and um I'm not going to go over all of this but I do have it on the screen and we can talk about you know if there are any questions about it um and you know ways that it could be modified in the future if there's a desire to do that.

So um on the screen right now we've got kind of that first part of that section the treatment of historic pro uh treatment of historic landmark properties um and it really starts with B, where um to determine if a certificate of appropriateness is required first of all it's going to be a change to the exterior of the building is as underlined there.

Second it would require a permit or approval under either the UDC so that's like a zoning certificate sometimes there's site development plans that are required um a subdivision right something like that or it requires a building permit um or that are paid for in whole or in part by the city so certificates of appropriateness um uh that's kind of the first step in whether or not a COA is required um and then it talks about um both major and minor alterations and recently okay um so major minor alterations and the process for each of those you know that major alterations come before the commission um and basically it refers to it says anything that's not a minor alteration is a is a major alteration so it comes to the commission minor alterations are specified um in the UDC uh as as indicated um I think the one that is kind of open in terms of um you know how that will be um interpreted for each project is the second one the replacement or alteration of features that are not character defining so then the question is like what's the project is it a character defining feature of the property um and you know as staff I have to make that determination um and either approve it as a minor alteration or technically if I'm giving it to you like that's that might happen sometimes where I say I just can't approve it or I feel like it needs to come to the commission um it's technically then an appeal to you as the as the commission as an it becomes a major alteration.

I think the other thing is we do have a section on character defining elements um which clearly says that yes those can be changed but if they are character defining elements that um uh that it has to be approved again by the HPC or it could be something could be appealed to the city council and approved by the city council so um and then the final or not the final but D is the Secretary of Interior standards.

I just have a small section there that I omitted from the UDC, but it really just talks about the different standards that can be used.

We tend to use rehabilitation because that's the one that allows for kind of the most modification to allow a continued sort of modern use of the property.

And then the final one is the Rochester um heritage preservation design guidelines.

And these are really um, these were developed and are intended to kind of make the code language a little bit more accessible to folks, understandable, um, with some images, some you know, charts and and things to sort of help them understand um what's required.

Really the way that the design guidelines are set up, and I think you've all had a chance to look at those.

Um, is that um it's it shows, you know, starts with understanding your property, right?

So um you know, what is it that's special that's unique that's historic about your property?

And that's there's a section on that in the guidelines.

And then it talks about okay, what is the appropriate treatment then based on what you're trying to achieve, based on either rehabilitation or one of the other standards?

And then it's a uh section on, you know, how do you get approval through the COA?

What's the process?

What kind of materials do you need to provide?

Um then of course, we also have the section in there that talks about other city priorities, um, the foundational principles of environmental stewardship, fiscal responsibility, sustainability, public safety, social equity, and compassion.

Um, those were the you know principles that were adopted at the time the design guidelines were adopted.

And I think it's important that you still use the Secretary of Interior Standards, but you're looking at it through kind of that lens of some of these other local priorities.

Um, and that's all I have on that.

So I think if there's any questions about anything in here, um, we can talk about that.

If there's um anything else that you're kind of wanting more information about um or additional presentation in the future, I guess I'm open to questions or comments.

So thank you, coordinator Patterson Lundgren.

Commissioners, do we have any questions?

Um, I'll just add I feel very confident in our process as it is.

Um I appreciate the hard work you do.

And when you bring something to us, I trust your decision that this is something you would like the commission to weigh in on.

So thank you for your hard work.

I also will just throw out there for commissioners the uh SHIPO State Historic Preservation Office uh has a commissioner training manual that we all I believe received a copy of.

Um if not, I think there's a link on our site.

If not, definitely on the SHIPO site.

Um, but section eight, pages 14 through 17 cover things like windows.

Uh, there's a lot of other great information in there that might be a good refresher.

And even though it's not an officially adopted document for our guidelines, um, it really can help guide some of our thinking uh as as we go through this stuff.

Um so last call, I guess any other thoughts on this before we move on.

Uh yes, Commissioner Kessler.

Thank you so much for taking the time to essentially just clarify these things.

Um I know last time we were hearing some frustration with delay.

Is there and I know you all are very swamped.

It's not a matter of you know, anything like that.

Um, I see typically two weeks and prior to the meeting uh for that time frame.

Is that you receiving the information two weeks prior, or is that the decision being made to come to the HPC two weeks prior?

Yeah, that's me receiving the application material two weeks prior.

That allows me a chance to look through it, make sure that um what I'm seeing is complete and that I'm understanding, you know, what's proposed.

Um, it allows a little bit for some back and forth.

Since we don't do certificates of appropriateness as a public hearing, I don't have to get that notice out there.

Otherwise, it would be, you know, a longer um period before the applic before the meeting for the application to be due.

Um I oftentimes look at what we have on the agenda um and we'll say, you know, well, it was due two days ago, but I can I can squeeze it in, right?

Like if I have the time, I will because I take that pretty seriously that people you know have projects that they need to to try and get done.

Yeah.

Um, so yeah.

Well I that was going to be my follow-up is is there any possibility for flexibility?

And it sounds like you already do that.

So thank you.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Any further questions?

Okay.

Thank you, Coordinator Patterson Lundgren.

We'll move on.

Um, there are no public hearings, so we are on to agenda item seven, other business item seven A, Commissioner Kessler's proposal, historic preservation inventory strategy.

Uh, coordinator Patterson Longren, I'll let you open up with your slide and introduce the editor.

Well, I'm going to pass it over to Commissioner Kessler.

Um, I took a look through uh the material that she sent, and most of it has been included in the packet.

We've had a couple brief discussions, but haven't had a chance to really sit down and go over it.

Um, there are a couple of things that probably need to be tweaked, um, you know, just to be consistent either with our current process or that would have to be changed.

Um, uh, you know, a more definitive change of process.

Um, but I will pass it over to Commissioner Kessler.

Um, so we have it today as another other business item because I I wanted to get that feedback both from staff and from the rest of the commission before we vote on if this is something we want to pursue.

Um so a very high level of the strategy is that essentially the way I see it is right now we don't have a system for determining the importance of any of our buildings on our inventory list.

Um, we don't have a system for determining if it is something that needs to be evaluated by an external contractor, or if it's something that we could ask staff to review.

Um with that, I have a in the proposal.

I have a three-tier system for kind of determining the level of documentation.

Um, that tier one is something that we believe could be listed in that national register, um, something that would need a very intensive study.

And so we would want to be hiring that externally.

Um this level of documentation would be probably the most significant or it would be the most significant of the three tiers.

Tier two is somewhat in the middle.

Um with tier two documentation, we would be looking at grouping um similar buildings together to be reviewed by a consultant, similar to how we did with Pill Hill.

Um, an example would be we have several churches on our inventory list.

And so if we could find somebody, you know, put out an RFP or request for proposal to get those buildings studied together.

Um, I believe that would save us some money and also move us forward a little bit more quickly with getting buildings off of our inventory list and either getting them landmarked or deciding that they are not eligible for landmarking.

Um, and then tier three is more of that properties that are already listed on the national register or state register, but are not landmarked locally.

Um this could, for example, the bridge on 7th Street that I talked about last week.

Um that is eligible to be landmarked at the national level and the studies have already been completed on that.

And so that's something that I would personally consider a tier three, where we have that documentation or that study completed, and we just need to finish that documentation um and get it in front of us to either approve or deny.

With that, I've also listed a scoring system for how we can determine if something is a high priority for us to review or if it's lower on that priority list for us to review.

Um, and so I want to think of these two things as separate, but not you know, necessarily going against each other.

And so that scoring system, there's quite a few pieces to it.

Um right now we've got significance, risk, feasibility, but then in addition, in the packet, you would see public value and complexity.

Um the complexity score is what would drive the tier documentation score.

So depending on how large the site is, if it's a district property, if it's an archaeological site, um, if it requires design guidelines as part of a context, or is already well documented or city owned, these are all things I think would weigh into the complexity of the documentation required.

So that's kind of it counts in both.

Um, but the rest of the scoring system is purely to determine if this is a high medium or low sort of um priority for our group.

Um and so in the packet, there's a lot more information.

I I have some ideas on how we could roll this out over the next several years to get through the inventory list by the end of, I think it was 2031.

And so truly I I would love to get any feedback on the scoring system itself if there are things that would need to be altered in there, get feedback on if we think the three tiers is something that we would want to move forward with.

And then also, you know, I know that there's been a subcommittee working on context and wanting to see what we could do to potentially incorporate that and hopefully get most of our buildings done at that tier two level where we're doing an RFP.

So with that, I will hand it over to whoever wants to speak.

I know one point that you had addressed Molly in the emails back and forth was that in the significance I had only up through the fifth criteria.

I want to claim that I forgot to put a plus mark at the end.

So five plus criterion is what I was intending to put there.

But I do think it opens up a great opportunity to discuss it.

Would we want to stop at five or would we want to continue to add two points through seven or six, seven and eight.

So all right with that I'm done.

Thank you, Commissioner Kessler.

Coordinator Patterson Lungren, do you have anything to add right away?

No, I think well I think that um you know I've had a chance to kind of briefly go through it but I think even like as you were presenting Commissioner Kessler there was like, oh okay, you know, something that I didn't understand.

So I think that probably more discussion to get a better idea.

I think there's some things like um listed on the state register.

Well the state register in Minnesota only applies to properties that the state owns it's within the historic sites like so there isn't any, you know, so like we'd want to remove that um listed on the national register any properties that already are listed on the national register already are locally listed.

So things like that where we would just have to go through and kind of clarify.

And I think that probably one of the things we should do is me going through a little bit of a training process of kind of what the process is and where the um the process comes from in terms of Secretary of interior standards.

Typically when we talk about the standards, we talk about the standards for the treatment of historic properties, but there's also standards for um evaluating a property for listing for designation and some of the um there's some of that shows up in the design guidelines.

Some of it shows up in previous discussions we've had about going through the inventory I think it probably would be appropriate for me to go through that discussion with all of you and sort of point out just kind of high level like what the what the uh advice is from the Secretary of Interior, the Department of Interior for for doing evaluations.

Pardon me I will say too that um you know ultimately my time and city budget is determined well of course the broader city budget is determined by the city council but community development budget is determined by you know the department director and I think you know I think this might help all of you come up with sort of your priorities but that doesn't necessarily mean that those are the priorities for my time and our and our community development budget.

So I think it's important to understand that as well that um right part of this would be I think trying to align those things um but that there that that is a reality still right that my direction comes from community development director.

So I think that's all I have at least to start with.

Thank you, coordinator Patterson Lundgren.

I'll just go ahead and say uh thank you, Commissioner Kessler for putting in uh this effort that shows kind of uh to me some extraordinary initiative and um uh application of your skills and abilities and I appreciate that uh going along with that could could you maybe restate I I don't know if I missed it uh the goals of this I have a few that I I see could help direct a context committee which we have it could help uh aid in setting our annual priorities uh what other goals do you see that this um proposal could help us accomplish yeah um so some of the goals would be getting the documentation of our historically significant properties completed uh prior to alterations that may be major or minor um and potentially demolition um it would give us an opportunity to prioritize our preservation efforts based on significant risk and what our community value is um again hearing um hearing you I I do want to make sure that we are managing staff workload associated with this because you know the more properties we take on for designation the more you have to review when it comes to any sort of alterations or you know so I hear that and and I think as part of my multi year plan um I did have it in there that we would be reviewing um staffing needs and doing what we can

Again, hearing um hearing you I I do want to make sure that we are managing staff workload associated with this because you know the more properties we take on for designation, the more you have to review when it comes to any sort of alterations or you know, so I hear that and and I think as part of my multi-year plan I did have it in there that we would be reviewing um staffing needs and doing what we can as a commission to encourage city council for additional funding for additional staff.

So that would be one of the goals of this is to ensure that there is a manageable workload for staff.

Additionally I think that this would give a more transparent framework um both for the community and for us as a commission as to how we prioritize and decide which properties we want to move forward with taking on each year.

And also the other goal of this proposal is to just kind of give us a long-term support plan to move us forward so that we can get through the the existing backlog the existing inventory.

Thank you, Commissioner Kessler.

I do have a few other things but I'll um open it up to the commission to any other commissioners.

Okay, Commissioner Poyer, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair Sastro.

I echo your your thanks to this this was a remarkable initiative and effort.

I appreciate also that I was able to review an early draft of this and uh um just just really really appreciate this effort.

I've been on the commission for a little more than two years and I think there's some frustration with some commissioners in the community as well about our lack of pace with landmarking and um I commend you you're the first one that's actually taken proactive action about that.

So I support this I'm I'm interested in staff and other commissioners' recommendations to tweak this.

Obviously there's a lot of stuff here.

So um while I while I fully support it I I'm sure there's probably ways it could be made better.

In terms of the staff and city council we we are an advisory commission.

Yeah we all know that so we can come up with all the plans we want and their advice so um but I but I I I think I think this is providing advice that we that we should provide that we haven't been doing and if if staff and city council don't support it then that's so be it.

But we tried and I appreciate you trying and I fully support it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Poyer.

Any other commissioners um commissioner Wasmer Commissioner Wasmer is your button on I'm pushing it down.

Oh there we go.

Okay I can hear you now.

Um we have a lot of people in the community as well.

Like we don't have to just depend on people within the city budget to do stuff.

We have very knowledgeable people here.

I can speak to the knowledge of people at research at the history center that while it might not be official official we don't have to depend on people who are paid in the city.

We can get initial information from a lot of the well-intentioned and and well-versed people in the community as well.

So I think it'd be a mistake not to lean on them while it can't be official capacity, but there are people in this room that probably know more about the history of Rochester than many of us combined.

And again the research is the History Center as well.

So I think we should not be afraid to to reach out to those that that have additional knowledge to help knock out some of the information that we would need for some of these um analysis pieces.

So thank you Commissioner Wasmer any other commissioners I just like to again thank you Commissioner Kessler for putting this together.

Coordinator Patterson on grid I'd appreciate some additional schooling so if that would be uh something we could have on the agenda thanks thank you Commissioner Bodaker and uh yep Commissioner Mochler.

Um yeah I wanted to thank you Commissioner Kessler for putting this all together um and um Molly want to thank you for putting out like usually you give us updates on prioritization of certain things um and kind of wanted to get a little look at how you would envision this kind of framework to affect how that would um do what you current currently do for prioritizing.

Um, so just kind of like how we would effectively score all of them adequately, like would that be something you envision the commission doing or um just kind of what would that would kind of look like?

And I do like the idea of um kind of setting what we want and using the context um committee to kind of focus in because we have like a whole bunch of things we want to look at and kind of groupings of it, and then maybe we could focus work on that um anticipation and things that are coming down the line or what is being prioritized.

Thank you, Commissioner Muchler.

So first, can you restate your question to coordinator Patterson Lundgren?

Sure.

Yes.

Um how would you envision the framework that um is being discussed uh affect your prioritization of um of current workload or things of that sort?

Yeah, yeah.

Um I think I I'm not sure yet, to be honest.

I think that um one of the things, like I said, is I'd like to prepare some um some slides and go over sort of it's it's a process where um you first do research and and we do that under the um kind of within the historic context, right?

So how do we understand um the history of the community and historic significance of different types of properties within the community?

Um, and then you go to identifying properties that may meet that that historic context, that criteria, right?

We've established the eight criteria and you look at that based on the the information that you have through context.

Um, and then you actually go through the process of um, you know, determining and designating the properties, which is a separate um, you know, process that we go through.

Um, and then the final one is once those are designated, um, you look at the standards for the treatment of those properties.

And that, what is that, a five-step process?

That really is outlined in the Secretary of Interior standards for um historic preservation planning, which is um what was used when we um made changes to the preservation ordinance and and um updated it.

So we use that kind of those steps um to to go through that process.

And I think that's where we want to look at sort of how this would fit um with with those, like I said, I think five steps.

Um, in terms of kind of how that might impact my day to day, um I think there's still gonna be the question of, you know, yes, the funding for um, you know, who's gonna do to the research.

Um I think that grouping the properties together for research, that's probably more I'm thinking about how that would look in a in an RFP, a request for proposals.

That's probably more of like a request for somebody for a consultant to do deeper context study.

They typically wouldn't research evaluate to do an evaluation of individual properties as a grouping.

So I'm not sure that that in itself would get us any further along quicker.

Um I mean, that's still the idea of grouping it and having more research done within a context, I think is it would be helpful, right?

And that's what we're trying to do with the context committee.

Um then I think you know, there's other issues still that kind of aren't sort of caught with that question about resources, and that has to do with kind of the the will of the council and um, you know, city leadership and sort of what are the priorities that they want me to be spending my time on.

Um, you know, and actually with our conversation last month, it was brought up that maybe I need to be spending some time reaching out to property owners within Pill Hill and within the downtown historic district and doing some sessions for them to have a better understanding of what it means to be a landmark property.

Um, so you know, is that where my time is gonna be um devoted?

Um I think the other thing to keep in mind is that um we do have some opportunities for grants.

There's one that's out there right now that we're waiting for.

Um writing the grants and administering the grants and working with somebody who's not in town to help them get, you know, going on a project also still takes time.

Um reporting on the grant after it's done, right?

Those are all things that still um take time.

So I guess just keep those things in mind as well.

Thank you, coordinator Patterson Lundgren.

Definitely understand the constraints uh that are numerous that we we face.

Um then there was another question, Commissioner Muchler.

Are you able to?

I thought you had a question for Commissioner Kessler.

Are you able to restate that concisely?

Yes, yeah.

So my question to Commissioner Kessler is how would you envision the scoring framework to work?

Would it be through um kind of a separate, like through the commission itself, or just kind of how would you envision that?

Yeah, and that's something where I think I'd be very open to ideas and feedback.

Um personally, I have an Excel sheet up.

And one of the things that I call out in the proposal is utilizing the landmark application form.

Um, that is where we could find the significance of things listed along with some of that information that is in that scoring system.

Um, so potentially needing to work with city staff, whether it be myself or a small subcommittee that gets together to do that.

Um I know personally I'm happy to, you know, come and help work through this if that is um if this were to get to the point of us moving it forward.

Um, but I think my my first route would be to see if there was a group of commissioners willing to potentially work on this.

Thank you, Commissioner Kessler.

Any other questions from the commission?

I have a few thoughts I'll share.

Um so I see some a lot of potential in this.

Um, I think it does need to be tightened up in a number of areas after hearing our discussion, hearing from staff.

Um, I think it would be beneficial to break it down into various objectives.

So some of the objectives that I see, uh, such as um, you know, informing the context committee or helping us set annual priorities.

Uh, those are things that I think some of this maybe needs to be separated.

And I could see the scoring system being something useful to a committee uh that annually helps um score what's on the inventory to then advise the committee, the whole commission when we're choosing our priorities for the next year, uh, as well as advise that context committee that, hey, these are maybe contexts coming up in the next year or two that are of importance to the commission.

Uh, please focus your work on building out those contexts as much as possible.

Um, and that would be something that could be committee work and commission discussion rather than anything that really involves or requires staff.

Um, so I think trying to separate some of those things might help.

And maybe if we bring this back to the commission discussing, you know, here is this set of objectives and here are some tools from your documents that maybe could help us.

And then separately, another objective, say if it's to um actually work through the list or guide funding or requests or things like that.

I I think that would maybe be a different animal to be tackled a different way, and maybe we separate some of the language and ideas that wouldn't require more involvement from staff and discussion to understand how we align with current city policy procedure and and language too, because we want to make sure that if there is something to that level, the language of the document aligns with the city language used in city documents.

Um, so I guess those are some of my thoughts.

Uh I think we can revise and tighten some of this.

Um, and I also think that uh it's worth noting really quickly the scoring system.

I see that as being based off the phase one report information.

So it would be essentially if something's on our inventory, it already has had a phase one, and that would help us kind of just run through the points, and then that would help set a priority for that property.

Is this a high priority, a low priority?

And it wouldn't really require going out to um an RFP or anything like that.

Um so yeah, go ahead.

Any thoughts after my thoughts?

Yeah, no, um, absolutely.

I did try to build the scoring system off of that phase one.

Um, like I said, that is our landmark application form to my knowledge.

It's not okay.

I apologize.

Um, so yes, any phase one documentation that we have would be helpful for this.

Yes, absolutely.

Um yeah, can I actually share some information about that as well?

Yes, go ahead.

All of our properties that are on the inventory should have a phase one.

There might be a few, and we actually have a form that was created when we still refer to as the potential landmark list, right?

When that was created.

And the consultant called the 106 group, um, who also did our initial context study, um, created all these phase one reports on all the properties on the inventory.

Um, there were a few that were added by the commission that at that time years ago that didn't have a phase one.

I think we've gotten through all of those, or I've created a phase one, or we have sort of um something like an eligibility study, like you reference the bridge, right?

It's a different format, but we have that kind of same level of data.

So we should have phase ones on all of the properties on the on the inventory.

And I have struggled to try and find a way to get that accessible to commissioners because there's so much.

Um so kind of my approach was like, let's keep sort of you know, picking these off, and eventually we'll be able to get to a point where I can actually get that out there um and available.

We recently within the last couple months, um, have been going through a process here at the city where there's a law that requires us to come into compliance, and I've mentioned it to a couple of you, right?

Where um we have to do some things a little differently with reports and with everything on the website to make it accessible.

Um, and this is I think mostly for um folks who are visually impaired.

Um, it applies mostly to that from my understanding.

So all of our PDFs, we have to now kind of take through a new additional process.

Um, so all of those phase one reports, which are old PDFs would now have to go through that process as well.

So it's not just the bulk, it's now I have to go through that process before I send those out to you.

Um all of that is just to say that they are on file.

I I want to get them out to you in a way that's workable.

Um, I think it's important that you start to see that, even if we just kind of batch it out.

Um, so it's just as soon as I can kind of get get those redone.

Um, I think that's probably one of the first steps in this process is for you to get that information as a commissioner who, you know, if you set up a committee, like whoever is looking at that, yeah.

Thank you, coordinator Patterson Lundgren.

Any other thoughts?

Okay.

Thank you for presenting uh your proposal, Commissioner Kessler.

Um, we'll be moving on to item 7B, the annual award update.

Um, and I will uh coordinator Patterson Lundgren, do you have slides for us?

I just have one slide.

Um, and I'm gonna hand it over to the committee here in a minute.

Um, I just bullet pointed out of some of the communications I've had with them, some of the things we've been talking about, and um I'm gonna hold it hand it over to them to address any of these that they feel are you know appropriate or needed at the time at this time.

Um, and I can answer questions or add some comments too if if appropriate.

So commissioners bodecker and Wasser.

Thank you.

Uh so uh we are really in the infancy stage of this.

So um, you know, we have a saying at work.

Um we uh we would like to know the why before we uh we move forward.

So there was some questions.

There's five questions that uh Valerie and I put together, and uh just trying to make sure we understand uh kind of where we're going, why this has been uh kind of uh in the in the uh attic for 14 years.

So uh wanting to figure out if we can shore this up to uh to five years instead of uh not going back 14 years, and then uh and then figure out how we uh how we proceed with uh the nomination process and uh what the particulars are as far as uh an award goes, uh probably not uh focusing on a plaque in the hallway.

So um anything to add to that.

Yeah, I would just add um we did have a pretty rich conversation about um like the time frame.

I think if we thought like we'd give awards for each year that we've missed, we would do nothing but hand out awards.

So trying to clarify how long the look back is.

Um, and then there's multiple different categories, and I kind of went down the rabbit hole with different communities and how they assign or get nominations or what the specific awards were.

So we came up with a list of four.

We just wanted to have a little bit of input about how many do we need.

Um there there were some that seemed to have a little bit of overlap.

Um then I think previously six.

So we'd like to shore it up to four, but that's again for a vote, I believe.

And then the nomination process in the past was basically to put it in the newspaper and ask people to send in their suggestions.

And so we're thinking about maybe updating that a little bit to uh other formats to include some digital options and things like that.

But um we did spend quite a bit of time down the rabbit hole.

So we came up with some questions that I don't know with our next steps if we want to send them out to the commission and have people perhaps you know, provide feedback that way and come at another meeting having communicated a bit prior to the next meeting.

I don't believe that this is going to be uh suitable to to process it May at any point.

So we'd like to also change the date uh perhaps to the fall, if that's something we could also consider.

So uh thank you, Commissioner Bodeker and Commissioner Wasmer.

So uh as the committee, really the proposal is up to you.

Uh if you have any questions for us as commissioners, feel free to ask them at this point.

Um I think ultimately we trust you to do the research and to bring back a proposal uh that's ready for vote.

Uh but again, if you have any questions today, I think this would be an appropriate time to ask the commission or staff.

I guess I would want some input on the number of categories um and the nomination process.

Um the different categories, the four that we were hoping for.

Maybe Commissioner Bodeker can thank you.

Um so what we were looking at is historic restoration and rehabilitation, things that are returning to their original state or adapted while retaining historic character, adaptive reuse, transforming old structures for new respectful purposes, uh commission uh community advocacy and education, and then stewardship for recognizing individuals or organizations that maintain or stabilize historic properties.

We were thinking instead of multiple categories that those four sort of were the most important and and um made the most sense.

So I guess we would like some feedback.

That's how we would like to proceed.

Um, but I guess we'd like maybe a little bit of endorsement uh or comments on your part, not to belabor things, but um four categories, just your comments.

I'm sorry, I apologize.

No, go ahead.

Uh the the two that we uh would would would like to, if you will, drop are the infill project, which uh the definition was eligible projects incorporated in the new building landscaping or feature into existing historic fabric of a street neighborhood or district, utilizing both new and old elements in a way that is respectful of any of and in harmony with the surrounding historic fabric.

And then the other was the uh the Lewis Hill Award for Individu Achievement.

So we feel as though the stewardship award encompasses what was uh originally designed for that award.

So or could be either or.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any thoughts?

Uh Commissioner Motler, you have the floor.

Um, thank you for putting that together and reviewing the categories.

I think um I previously sent an email to um to um cities to see what their process was.

Um, and I think the way that I interpreted it from them that they kind of had those categories and depending on what they solicited or what feedback they got, you didn't have to give an award out to every category every year, but just depending on what feedback was received.

Um I do think that having it during the historic preservation month is a good way to do it.

And if that means maybe next year, depending on timeline, I'd be supportive, but um definitely up to up to you guys.

Yeah, thank you.

We did discuss that um we're not gonna hand out an award if it if we didn't feel like there was a very strong candidate.

And I also maybe differ a little.

Um, I would like to kick this off in May, since May is preservation month, but that doesn't mean we have to start making decisions, just that yes, we're going to bring back the awards.

Here are the categories, but that doesn't mean we have to like immediately start processing.

But I do think May is the perfect time to say that we we appreciate the preservation efforts in the county in the city, and we we would like to let people know in the preservation month that we're gonna bring it back.

Absolutely the kickoff, yes, but um, we're not gonna have this all wrapped up in awards ready to give up by the end of the month.

So thank you.

Uh Commissioner Poyer.

Uh I agree with your your categories of reducing it to four.

And I also agree with the um suggestion that we don't need to award everyone every year.

Um so yeah, look forward to to your proposal and uh um hopefully we have something yeah, we can vote on next month.

Thank you, Commissioner Poyer.

Um, really quickly, Commissioner Kessler.

Yeah.

Um I just want to be sure I understood, right?

It sounded like with our first round of awards we wanted to do the last five years.

It was just a suggestion.

Okay.

Umte years seems uh uh a lot.

I I agree.

I think five years makes sense.

Um and I think just kind of going off of that.

Uming that, like, let's say hypothetically we wait until next year to do the awards.

We do six years of awards the past five years, and then this current year.

Um, I think that would give people some additional time to first off be knowledgeable about the fact that this award exists, um, get nominated, and then also gives you as a subcommittee additional time to review multiple years' worth.

Um, where maybe in future years we could start that nomination process later in the year.

Thank you, Commissioner Kessler.

Uh, coordinator Patterson Lungren, I saw you raise your hand.

Yeah, yeah.

I would like to suggest that maybe at least maybe for the first year we hold off on looking at awarding projects, right?

And instead focus on kind of two of those categories are sort of focused on people, right?

What people are doing out in the community, and two of them are kind of focused on projects um in terms of you know, awarding a project that um, you know, meets well, and that's kind of the question, what criteria is it meeting?

But the reason I'm suggesting this is because I think we should have some discussion about whether or not um that conflicts with your role for certificates of appropriateness.

And I don't know that it will, like we might come up with a way that we feel really comfortable, you know, that there is no conflict, but I think that probably we need to have some discussion about about that.

Um I think you know, remember that the awards were previously given out by a committee that didn't have that official role, didn't have any official role.

So um I just worry a little bit.

Worries too strong of a word.

I just want to make sure that the way that we're doing this doesn't conflict with what we're what your role is, your official role in designating properties and then um reviewing certificates of appropriateness and alterations.

Thank you, coordinator Patterson Lundgren.

I I understand that concern and I I would also like some answers to that if we do go down that road.

Um a couple other thoughts I have.

Um I I think going back multiple years might be a little bit laborious and it might be beneficial to just add a category called the legacy award, where you simply uh each year we look at or or accept nominations for uh anything that occurred in a certain time frame, five, 10 years that perhaps uh was overlooked in the past.

And that way if somebody wanted to submit a nomination, they could, but it also wouldn't belabor the process or require a huge amount of effort to look back over all the things that have gone down.

Um I also think we could four is to me, I think even a lot for where we are at as a commission.

I would love to be there, but I do think um I would love to see this program be something that's easily sustainable by future commissions and committees.

And so perhaps even whittling that down to two plus a legacy or even one plus a legacy, I think would really allow for ample opportunity um to make a recognition each year, but also not really, you know, burden uh a small committee uh of an already kind of burdened commission.

Those are just my thoughts, but thank you so much for the time and effort you've put into this.

Um whatever you bring forward, again, we trust you and we look forward to hearing your recommendation when you're ready uh for the vote.

Thank you.

Okay, any final thoughts on that?

I think we're ready to move on.

Um we have nothing else.

Do you have coordinator Patterson Lungren?

Um the calendar.

I I think commissioners maybe have a few updates we want to talk about for other business, but I don't know if you want to go first.

Um, you know, I realized as I was um setting up and didn't get a chance to add to this slide.

Um, I had to change my slides as well to meet all of those accessibility requirements.

So I missed the fact that I usually have the next date um for our next meeting.

And I believe our next meeting is actually um a little out of sync.

I don't think it's I think we moved it away from the fourth Tuesday of the month because of the Memorial Day holiday.

Um, due to that fact, this room is not available and I don't have the date.

I don't know.

May 19th.

Um the 19th.

Is that right?

That sounds yep, the 19th.

Um, so this room will not be available on that date.

Um, I've talked to pardon me.

I've talked to Chair's Astra about that and you know, where where would we like to meet?

Um, I think we both agree that room 104 in the city hall wing of this of this facility is a good choice.

Um, the only caveat I would put to that is if we are expecting a large group or if we have a public hearing, especially if there's a public hearing where we're expecting kind of a lot of people, I'm not sure that room is very conducive to that.

Um, so we might want to kind of hold off on making a final decision until we know what's on the agenda.

I guess that's my my thought.

Um but yeah, I think tentatively to be looking for it um in what's called room 104 here in this facility on the 19th.

Um I don't have anything else, but I know there were some other things um at Chair Sastral that you had questions about or thank you.

And and we can be in touch about 104.

I think even if we have a large group, um today we had a large group, but it was I think 10.

So I think even if we have a large group 104 would probably work.

Uh I don't know that we've ever been that overwhelmed by public interest in heritage preservation.

It would be great.

Um, but I I think we can probably we'll just be in touch, but I think we can probably plan on that.

Um so I have a few requests for next uh May meeting.

Uh, we did hear from six people that spoke in favor of um uh some sort of statement from the commission uh regarding the Lord's Park property.

Um I would like to see a discussion uh next meeting with that that would include the legislative um actions and history that taken by the city on that property leading up to that decision by council, um, as well as I guess any other relevant information.

And I guess I would like to hear from commissioners uh what your interest would be as we discuss that to potentially approve either a statement uh from the commission, a letter from the chair, or a request to staff to have something added to the agenda.

I think those are kind of our three approaches.

Commissioner Wasmer.

I would absolutely agree that I think this is something that we as a commission need to address.

I would be very curious to see if it's you know publicly accessible.

I'd like to see what the agreement was, what the statement was from Mayo.

Um I I do think it's our due diligence to follow through on that.

And if there is a promise made, I think a promise needs to be kept.

And uh particularly speaking to artifacts and that barrier between the neighborhood and a warehouse, I I commend the people for coming forward and bringing that up because I think that's a very important thing.

And I do think as a commission, it's something we should address.

Thank you, Commissioner Wassmery.

Um, yes, Commissioner Poyer.

Thank you.

So that was Lord High Old Lord High School was my first meeting.

And uh I I think it was probably your third meeting or something like that.

We were the only two on there.

And they they gave that as a selling point, this part.

We didn't ask them about it.

We that was something they brought up as as a big deal.

And I also attended the city council meeting where they they again further um brought it up and then as as was said in public comment, uh council member Wall um press them for to make a a commitment on that.

So I would be interested in what was agreed to there and any recommendation we can make to city council to to make sure that happens.

Um I think that would be a good item to discuss at our next meeting.

Thank you, Commissioner Poyer.

Um, yeah, I would just agree that that was either my first or my second meeting.

It was um something that I think the whole commission was united in the the vote was divided because of an amendment and which portions of the school it's kind of complex, but in general, I think the whole commission wanted to see landmarking.

And so I know that's it's a long story, and that's where I think having that legislative history, knowing what meetings um this was brought up, but just so commissioners can be aware.

And then I also want to just restate we are an advisory commission in this capacity.

So this would either be a statement, a letter, or request um put on the agenda for council to address these concerns, but we can't direct staff.

Uh, we certainly can't direct Mayo.

Um we're limited, but this would be an option for us to address it and get the word out.

Uh yes, Commissioner Mudgler.

Yeah, I think with the um the public and what they're saying and the options you provided, um, Chairs Astro, I I would be supportive of um based on uh what we get like the history of it, um, supporting an agenda or to seek an agenda on the city council as one of the options.

Uh with that, coordinator Patterson Lungren, can you maybe remind us when we request something to be added uh for council discussion, what that process would look like between us and staff.

Um that's a really good question.

And I'm not sure myself what that process looks like.

I know that that was brought up um in the training earlier this year for um new commissioner members and for existing commission members.

Um staff and departments have a process where we submit through an online, you know, or not an online portal, but a portal that we as city teammates have access to something called uh it's an RCA or request for council action.

Um it's the same process that we use to create your packets.

So it's that cover page.

Um, and then it's all of the attachments that go in there.

Um, and I don't know, I know that it was stated at that training that that commissions can do that, and I'm not sure like who proves that.

And I'm not sure like who proves that typically the city administrator has the final approval for at least when it comes from staff for for city council agenda.

So that's something that I'll have to find out.

Thank you.

I I do believe it that it's also mentioned in the uh board and commission policy packet.

And perhaps if we get into this further attorney Carlson can advise us a little further on yeah.

Any other thoughts from the commission I I'll just say lastly if if we do have this ready for next meeting I think I would like to see maybe a two pronged approach so maybe a request for something to be added as well as um a request for a letter either from the president or just a a motion of a statement we approve um because requesting something to get on the agenda could take weeks or months even potentially if there's hang ups.

So I I would like to be in favor of at least a two prong approach with that.

Okay the other one that I wanted to bring up here was um today the post Bolton announced uh another near city block you know whole block demolition happening in lower town the 500 block uh between North Broadway and First Avenue uh that currently uh some people will know it as a Struve block.

Um I would like for the commission to have at next meeting the opportunity to request um a phase one study for the Struve building in Paint CAN or and or Paint can I guess I don't have enough information regarding the building or the CAN or both but I would at least like to request that process but I think that would need to be a joint vote by the commission so I would like to just kind of give a heads up that I would like that discussed and and a motion made for that at next meeting.

Do any other commissioners have any thoughts regarding that okay any other business at all from any commissioners and I did not have somebody for a history fact this month if you would like to be the one to share in a future meeting please find me after the meeting and I can get you set up other than that we have nothing else left but to have a motion to adjourn.

So moved the second motion to adjourn by Commissioner Poyer seconded by Commissioner Bodeker all in favor say aye.

Any opposed all right we are adjourned together we want to the same church I uh know a great