Okay, hopefully she's gonna that will work out of your recording recording events, which she started.

Yes, everyone, yes.

I think so.

Okay, I think we're ready.

Okay, hello and welcome everybody to the May 19th 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.

Will the first speaker please step forward?

We're gonna have you up here in front of this uh table and state.

Oh but uh state your name, make sure you're signed in on the sheet, and then you will have four minutes.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um I have a bunch of things to talk about, so I'll just start.

Uh number one, I was hoping for a list of the priorities for the HPC to look at the potential the potential list and move it forward because we have you haven't worked with that many committees this year.

I mean, I'm in the uh individual buildings this year, so I was just hoping you could have that list ready for this meeting.

I don't know what happened to it.

Hopefully, Molly can talk about it later in the meeting.

Um I was also hoping for a review of the Rochester participation in the COG certified local government program.

This would give us 30 to 40,000 a year on in grant if we belong to it, and it would mean more staff working on it, more contractors could do it, and we could move things forward a little bit better, and we wouldn't be 10 years behind or more.

Um I was I was also hoping that um Molly would give a status report uh on when all of these things will be implemented.

Um I know later in the meeting we're gonna be talking about uh lords and at the uh March 18th, 2024 City Council meeting, the council called for Mail to build a 34th linear park with features um from the uh saved artifacts, including both external and internal ones into a park honoring lords and uh not only with a few artifacts but with a much higher number to really honor Lords and the building that was uh demolished and to help mayor because Mount Mail basically promised that we want to help them to do what they promised they would do, and hopefully you'll pass a resolution to do that.

Uh on the awards committee issue.

Um, I'm just I think that if you I think you should do it within the HPC.

I don't think you should farm it out to other people uh be a staff or other organizations.

I think it'd be too cumbersome to set that up and work with it on a continuing basis.

So I would hope that you wouldn't do that and just leave it within the realm of HPC and the people around HPC and not go all over the place working to sort of combine it with other groups.

Uh I just think that's a way again way too cumbersome.

Anyway, good luck tonight.

There's a lot of mutant.

Hopefully, you can get something to approve and pass.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Skullnik.

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

Hello, my name is Bart Hudson.

I have been um giving some presentations uh in the community about Indian Heist Park.

And some of the questions I've gotten from the community is what can we do to help uh promote the landmark status of Indian Heights Park.

And the questions that I've gotten, I really don't know how to answer them.

Um they want to know if they should contact you, the members of the Heritage Preservation Commission.

If they should contact a city council.

So I'm looking for direction from the Heritage Preservation Commission on what to tell them.

Um, they'd be happy to call you if someone wants to be a spokesperson to for them.

I can forward their names and emails or phone numbers to you, or I can uh take those calls.

I just don't know what answers to give them.

Um, I've gotten some questions from the people at History Center as well.

So if you can just give me some direction, I know that we have heard that there's been some grant funding applied for.

Um, they've asked me where we stand with that.

I'm not able to give them any information on that.

So if you could help me give them some information on that as a community spokesperson for landmarking that park, I would appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Hudson.

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

John Cresel for now.

Uh I would just like to first uh uh Harry Skolak had to say uh encouraging this commission to either follow their resolution, an action plan, quite frankly, speaking frankly to hold uh mail's feet to the fire as it relates to you, is opportune.

So probably for a reason.

So in any case, to incorporate the storyline of the artifacts of of Leward's high school, certainly with uh Sisters of St.

Francis, uh, to be able to tell the story for those that come after us, otherwise it's it's just me minutia.

There is a sale pending so that that person, as soon as the sale goes through with earnest money, could say, gee, I didn't know it was a strike.

Really?

It's a story.

It's fallen through the cracks of not only this commission, but the committee that has come before this commission.

So I'm gonna hear again say there needs to be an action plan to get the strew paint facility uh as a minimum on a process list, otherwise you'll see it all be demolished in two to three years.

No question whatsoever is being taken away from him because of taxes uh and assessments, and there's a sale that's pending that will meet you at the demo ball.

There needs to be an action plan or say goodbye to that mid-century strew paint facility.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Creasel.

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

I'm not going to share much, but in Jim Frost, and I'm here on behalf of myself and all of my neighbors on the country park commission.

Now it's growth as negative consequences on the quality of life continuously for people that live nearby.

On those rare occasions when Mail makes a promise that makes our life better, they should be encouraged to actually do what they promised.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Frost.

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

Are there any remaining speakers?

Any remaining speakers?

Yes.

All right.

Hearing none, we will close the public open comment period.

Uh this meeting of the Rochester Heritage Preservation Commission is called to order on May 19th, 2026 at 5.13 p.m.

Now call the roll.

Commissioner Bodeker here.

Commissioner Connell.

Present.

Commissioner Gandhi.

Present.

Commissioner Kessler.

Present.

Commissioner Mutchler.

Commissioner Boyer.

Here.

Commissioner Schable.

Commissioner Tater.

Here.

Commissioner Wassermer.

Here.

And Chair's Astro is present.

The order of the agenda was in our packets and it's on the screen.

Are there any corrections or objections to the order of the agenda as presented in our packets or on the screen?

Are there any corrections or objections to the order of the agenda as presented in our packets or on the screen?

Hearing none, the order of the agenda is approved by unanimous consent.

Moving on to agenda item four, the consent agenda, the minutes from April 28th.

Those minutes are available on the city website, and that link was included in our packet.

Are there any corrections or objections to the minutes as linked on the city website and included in our packets?

There are any corrections or objections to the minutes as linked on the city website and included in our packets.

Hearing none, the minutes from the April 28th meeting are approved by unanimous consent.

Moving on to agenda item five, uh, certificate of appropriateness window replacements at 421 9th Avenue Southwest.

Coordinator Patterson Lungren, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the Heritage Preservation Commission.

Um we have a request for certificate of appropriateness for a home on Pill Hill in the Pill Hill Historic District.

Um address 421 Ninth Avenue Southwest.

And um the request is to um the requested alteration is to um replace some of the windows with new window inserts.

Um the property is a tutor revival um built in 1936.

Uh information in your packet um was included on the history of the property and um also in the uh application for the window permit.

Um basically what they're asking for is approval to switch out four windows on the front of the house and one in the rear.

Um the four in the front are living room.

You can see on the photo there.

Um it's a series of four and in that bay window area.

And the one in the back is not even visible from the street.

So um I have provided the Secretary of Interior Standards.

If you'd like to talk through any of these or cite any of these, I can come back to this.

Um, however, I have given you a recommended motion for approval um to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the window inserts, um, stating that the minimal changes in materials feature spaces, things and spatial relationships um mean that it leaks adopted design guidelines and secretary of interior standards.

But I took that language from the last approval that we did for window inserts.

So I will leave it there unless somebody needs wants me to go back to Secretary of Interior Standards for rehab.

Um I guess I would request that because I would like to see in whatever the motion is um a citate the citation of some or all or okay.

Um I'm gonna just actually go back.

So I do say the meet the standards, but I don't say the numbers.

So but okay, I just want to make sure you understand.

I would I would that would be good.

Thank you so much.

Okay, yeah.

Are there any questions for coordinator at Patterson Lundgren from the commission?

Yeah, Commissioner Schable.

The last meeting where we work with uh Ryan representative on a similar project or similar style home.

He shared that he found the process.

Um frustrating to go through.

I'm wondering if this project occurred after or simultaneous with that one.

If you can share anything from your side about how the back and forth went uh with Ryan signs, and it seems like things have uh improved.

There's going to be a lot of need for community education and professional education going through this process now that more properties are landmarked.

So I'm wondering from your perspective how this process went.

Um, so this application was submitted within the last um month, uh within the last few weeks after the item one.

Um, and this one um they submitted it through email um with uh the the packet that you received the application packet that you received in your agenda packet for tonight.

Um I actually the recommended motion that I have is the motion that I think Commissioner Stable, you made at that meeting where you approved the window inserts for that past home, which was just down the street from this one.

Um so there wasn't as much back and forth because I think you know I made kind of an assumption that you probably would approve this as you did the last one, and so I used that as sort of precedence setting.

Um he did not ask the same kinds of questions about why and what needed to be done.

Um so yeah, I think it certainly went smoother um because we probably had a sense that the commission might look favorably on the request.

Okay, and so because we had that past meeting, I had the conversations um discussing the reasons why we supported the motion, it made your review of the project equity correctly.

Yes, yes, right, because you've had the finding in the past, which is why I gave you the same uh motion to make with with the findings that you had at that time.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other thoughts or questions regarding the application?

None, I would invite a motion.

I'll make the motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for window insert replacements as proposed within minimal changes in materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships in meets adapted design guidelines in this Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Muchler.

We're going with the commission and seconded by Commissioner Tater.

Uh, Commissioner Muchler, anything to add?

Um, from reviewing the um the window placements, and it seems like there wouldn't be big changes to the exterior of the um the home, and it would be an improvement to keep it a livable space.

So I um support the motion.

Commissioner Tater, yeah.

Thank you.

Any further deliberation on the motion before us?

So again, the motion is uh motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for window insert replacements as proposed with minimal changes in materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

It meets adopted design guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.

Um we'll do, I think, uh a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Any abstentions passes unanimous.

Okay, moving on.

There are no public hearings.

Uh other business agenda item 77A, heritage preservation commission request for information, old Lord's high school site.

Coordinator Patterson Lunger, you have the floor.

Um, yes, I gave you the information in your packet and have um giving you the dates of when decisions were made on this property um and by whom.

So the property was placed on the historic inventory or the potential landmark list.

Um I think it was no, I think it was the inventory at that time that's called um in February 20, uh February 26th of 2019.

Um the HPC placed the property on the historic inventory.

Um, and then um uh Mayo Clinic who owned the property requested that it be removed from that um in order that they could get a demolition permit.

Um the HBC held a public hearing in February of 2024, and um made a recommendation to the city council to designate a portion of the building, the oldest portion, which is was from 1941.

Um a few weeks later, the city council held their public hearing um and then made the decision not to designate the property and they removed it from the historic inventory, and that um allowed for the demolition permit to be approved by the city.

So I've actually given you the motion here that city council made at the time.

Um that's in your packet as well as on your screen.

That is all I have, unless you have a question with one of the commissioners, any questions for staff.

Commissioner Butter, thank you, Chair Sastro.

So this feels like a tricky thing here because it's not a historic, it's the building's goal.

So it is kind of on our jurisdiction.

Um we do have a commitment from Mayo that was made to this commission as well as to the city council.

And we have a neighborhood that's very upset.

Um we've got in some indication.

I don't I don't know we trust that that Mayo isn't living up to their promises.

Um what's the role for the HPC in this?

And also um, I guess this I've got I've got a follow-up question.

Yeah, there really isn't anything there is no role.

There's nothing in the UDC in the code in anything that establishes this commission that gives you a role in taking action here.

Okay.

Where are we in terms of city approvals that still need to happen for the construction of the logistics warehouse along with the park that the city council or city staff, whatever could um come back to this agreement?

Is there any is there anything?

Yes, yep.

So um it's being handled through a site development plan, which is uh a zoning function within the unified development code.

Authorization is given given to community development to um to make the decisions on approvals for that.

We have not approved the um the final site development plan or SDP yet.

Um, and we're working with Mayo on the designs of the park.

Um, and I think I mean I can add a little bit of that can give a little bit more about the current status.

Yeah, so the process has been a little bit I know we're all in a small room, but for the sake of the record, can you just take anybody?

Sure, certainly sorry about that.

Um Irene would wrote I'm the community development director with the city.

Um so I can give a little bit more context um as we've moved through the site development plan process.

It's been a little bit out of the ordinary with some of these um Mayo projects, partially because there's a need to kind of move some things forward while other things are been and needed to be further reviewed.

Um, and so we entered into what we refer to as a site development plan agreement with Mayo.

Um so that allowed for some approvals to happen, but also recognizing some aspects would need additional work.

Um, and one of those items would be the landscape plan for um the West Logistics or Granger Building.

Um, and and part of that agreement process lays out timelines and when they need to submit those things.

Um so currently, I believe it's the end of June.

I forgot the exact date, but they have to submit that landscape plan to us.

And so there has been ongoing conversations between the city and Mayo and hearing from the neighborhood and what does that plan look like?

It hasn't actually officially been submitted to the city for our technical review.

Um it needs to be submitted by that date, doesn't mean it has to be approved by the end of June.

So there could still be some back and forth once we receive it.

We don't have a set date of like it will be in on this because Mayo is still further refining it.

Um and we keep having conversations with Mayo.

We understand the motion that was made by council, and that is really for the community development department to make sure that that um is showing up there and there's communication obviously from city council and keeping them updated along with this process.

Um, there was a study session, was that last month?

Um, kind of walking through some of the process with the Mayo project as well as there were some updates on the city council walking tour last week in terms of that project as well.

So I would say has it fully been submitted for us to actually review there's a process in place for us to kind of do that.

Um it would be eventually part of the site development plan and then we would need to document anything that they are doing as we kind of move forward as well.

So I would just say that we are continuing to have conversations with Mayo, and they have not officially submitted it to us, so they're still working through some of that as well.

Okay.

Is ultimately is this a staff approval for that point or is city council approved the the site development?

The site development plan approval as identified in the unified development code rests with community development.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Commissioner Schable.

Um so I would push back against uh the statement that this is not within HPC's review.

Uh while we are not involved in the site development plan, we're not going to be reviewing or approving the site development plan.

You know, part of our role is to safeguard city heritage and encourage preservation.

Uh to enhance you know the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest in the city through attention to historic properties to promote preservation and continued use of historic properties for the education and general welfare of the people of the city, to foster civic pride in the beauty and notable accomplishments of the past, and provide educational opportunities for heritage preservation.

Uh yeah, this is part of our mission and purpose.

And so talking about what will uh Mayo Clinic do with these artifacts that they've saved.

How will those be featured in the park?

I think that is something that if we wish to make a resolution, essentially a public statement of what we the commission believe in, or we would like to see happen.

Thank you, Commissioner Schable.

We'll go to Commissioner Kessler, and then I saw your hand as well after.

Um I absolutely agree with with your comments.

Um it go ahead.

I'm sorry, you recognize the issue.

Well, yeah.

So we'll we'll start with you, Commissioner Kessler, and then we'll go over to Commissioner Wasper.

Um do we have any sort of inventory of the artifacts that were recovered from the Lord's High School when it was demolished.

No, we we don't have that.

I'm curious as to why we don't have something like that when we were considering it for heritage preservation.

Um, because I do think we do have to urge you to review the items that were preserved or were preserved and potentially landmarking that was.

So Steph, I'll let you, I guess, explain how that proceeded after the council.

So the council, again, in March of 2024, not only chose not to designate it, but removed it from the historic inventory.

That took any protection away from the property.

They took it from the property, but why couldn't the individual artifacts be added to the new list?

Well, they weren't that wasn't part of the process.

Yeah, I'm just asking the quickly here.

So yeah, um, we we can um add artifacts and things like that.

However, it would have to go through the process kind of again, or they would have had to simultaneously gone through the process, that didn't happen.

So when the building was removed, we would have had to essentially start over with the artifacts.

So there isn't those really weren't ever started on the HPO path.

Just thinking out loud, if we are looking for a way for us to have any sort of weigh-in on this and ensuring that city council encourages Mayo to move forward with the promise that they gave the Cutsky community.

I think it would be imperative for us to look into potentially getting a list of those card facts and putting them potentially on the historical inventory if they are of historical interest.

Just my two cents.

Um Commissioner Wasmer, if you were up next to you.

Yeah, um, I was just gonna reiterate uh about our role.

So I'm still after five months, not really sure what power and what role we have, to be very honest with everybody.

Um we were asked uh about designating the Lord High School, and we said the 1941 part, it was disregarded.

So okay, but that doesn't mean I mean, then you say it ends there, but I kind of agree our role is to help preserve and bring attention and light to our historic heritage and preservation.

I I sort of feel like where's our power?

What do we do?

Sorry, that was my um editorial there.

But I I do think that if it's in writing and it was said that this is what they were going to do.

I think we have and we have something in front of us, but I think we have to do to do it at the very least, make a statement that this was promised.

This is part of the heritage of our city and the preservation of our city.

You need to follow through with it.

I mean, that's that's my strongly worded opinion that if this was the deal that was made, then there has to be some accountability for the people that made the deal.

And so I I absolutely agree with making um a statement um supporting the agreement that was made that the park would be made.

Thank you, Commissioner Wasmer, and I'll quickly um answer.

So that our our authority is in the UDC.

Um, and yeah, I think I have it.

So it would be under section 60.200.040 um three.

So and that's where it kind of lays out what we are and what authority we have.

So then I guess trying to interpret that and work through that would be up to us.

But um, for the future, I guess anytime you want to reference it or any other commissioner, I would recommend you going to the UEC and reading that to kind of help guide where we're at and whether you can vote.

Uh any other oh, coordinate representing going.

Okay, Commissioner Poyer.

Thank you.

Um I would like to make a suggestion um as to how we what we do next.

I'm not making this motion right now, but I would suggest we make a motion that would authorize the chair to write a letter to the city council expressing our view on the park and the projects.

And also any of us can go at any time to the city council public comment.

We only represent ourselves.

I was suggest that if the chair would like to make public comment that we authorize him to do that on behalf of the commission rather than just on his own as an old individual, if that makes sense.

So what what exactly we want to recommend?

I think is is still we're still kind of working through that, but that's kind of my sense of um and I talked before the meeting with with the chair as well.

Um it was his thoughts.

So that's uh in terms of telling the city council what to do.

We were our advisory commission, so we can advise and uh um we just need to come to an agreement as to what that advice should be.

Thank you, Commissioner Poyer.

Uh yes, Attorney Carlson.

Good evening, everyone crossing city attorney's office.

I would just add that um, if the HPC is considered going down one of those two avenues that you'd be specific as to what your concerns are.

Um I don't think I've at least heard a lot of specificity.

Are we worried about it not being 33 feet wide?

Are we worried about the number or the character of artifacts or what what is concerning to the HPC about um what the motion was and uh I just I'm not clear as to what the actual specific concerns are.

So I would just ask that um the HBC articulate um what its concerns are specifically.

Thank you, Turner Carlson.

Um go ahead if you um I guess I'm just wondering um, are the artifacts from the school uh in the possession of the city or Mayo Clinic?

Do we know that?

Yeah, yeah.

Mayo Clinic owned the building, removed the pieces of the building, and they have those in their possession.

Okay, okay.

And they've been talking to us about how they're gonna incorporate them and okay.

So um, I guess there's that's a suggestion.

Maybe uh maybe we could reach out directly to Mayo Clinic just to see the artifacts, you know, in person, I guess.

Oh no, but yeah, just suggest sure.

Um yeah, go ahead.

Um I would just note that the the artifacts and we have been working with Mayo Clinic and Captain Conversations, they own those artifacts and they've been going through that process, and we've been having those meetings back and forth as community development kind of has to work through some of this.

Um the other piece that I feel like I just also want to note as we kind of went through the site development plan agreement process um that was a little bit different is that we actually require that Mayo provide a bond or a guarantee that whatever is part of the landscape plan gets built to that extent.

And if it doesn't, then the city would actually complete it.

So there's another piece that we kind of added through this process that wasn't typical for some of that as a way to make sure that these improvements are completed and that we will hold that until everything is complete.

Thank you, Director McGord.

Um any other commissioners?

Okay, Commissioner Poyer.

Oh, sorry.

Actually, no, I said we would come back to you.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, I do believe that the commission can issue public statements and can encourage preservation.

Um, I also would say that we need to be mindful about right what we're requesting, that there be some kind of consensus of it.

And also at this point, um we don't know what Mayo Clinic is going to do.

Uh I understand that there are concerns about what may happen, but there is also a process through uh the development team to review and approve and continue to have those conversations with Mayo Clinic.

Uh and so I I would not want to issue some kind of statement scolding Mayo Clinic when there hasn't been any action taken.

We haven't seen a proposal from them.

We were really disappointed that you didn't include more artifacts.

Um and so I would just be mindful of you know, at this stage.

We're simply asking them to keep a promise that they've made.

Thank you, Commissioner Shable.

Commissioner Board.

Commission, a question for Director Woodward.

Um just kind of confirming what you already said.

So we'll know a lot more by the end of June in terms of this.

They are required to submit the landscape plan.

I mean, I they have part we've had conversations with Mayo pretty regularly.

They have heard the feedback, they recognize there's this balance within the park that they're it's adjacent to a neighborhood and there's interest there.

There's recognizing what was Lord's, there's also recognizing that there will be male employees and mail patients using this park.

And so they're trying to accomplish all of that in this linear park and recognize that they need to kind of they've heard the feedback.

I've also shared, like we're hearing these things.

How are we going to make these adjustments?

And they are still kind of going through that process as well.

So it's not that there's still this ongoing back and forth that until they actually submit it too for us to actually review and go through the technical review of here's all of these elements, what you and making sure that aligns with our site development plan requirements as well, and what they've also committed to with this motion, the city council, and those are things that we have to make sure that are followed and go through that process.

Okay.

When will that it's it has to be submitted to you by the NHU?

When will the public be able to see that or is that so once it's actually submitted, it's a public document.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any further questions for staff?

Commissioner Kessler.

Will there be enough time for us to review that as a commission and potentially speak to city council between receiving that um that kind of finalized proposal and city council voting on it to approve it?

So city council will sorry, to my right.

I didn't think that no, no, uh, so the review of that site development plan is solely the responsibility of the community development department.

Um, and that is outlined as the process within the unified development code.

So it is not going back to council for their review, and it would not come back to the heritage preservation commission either.

Any further questions from the commission?

If not, I have a few thoughts on this.

So I think um part of what we're doing here, and by giving the public the opportunity to comment, is we are vocalizing you know, concerns of the commission, the public is vocalizing their concerns, and I think community development is very aware of those by being in the room hearing those concerns.

So I think we've already accomplished uh one goal there by vocalizing those and making sure they know our concerns, the community's concerns.

Um, I think I agree with what attorney Carlson said.

Uh, should we want to have any sort of statement or letter written?

Um, I would really like uh I would say some substantial guidance from the commission.

So I know that I'm writing what is the collective will of the commission to express.

Um so if we do go that route, I would be looking for uh guidance there from you.

Um I have a question for uh coordinator Patterson Lunger, maybe Director Woodward.

Um so the 30-foot park that was agreed upon, I know now it's being billed um often in the papers as a 43-foot park that includes the public right-of-way.

Uh, have they taken ownership of the public right-of-way, or is this you know how much of that park, I guess, is actual land that would fulfill essentially the 30-foot park commitment?

Yeah, they have not taken ownership of the right-of-way.

We haven't vacated the city, have not vacated any right of way in that location.

I think I mean you've probably seen the most recent site plan.

The 30 feet, I believe is their property, and 40 feet includes public right-of-way, which basically the park includes both of those spaces.

Yeah, we're not necessarily vacating it.

There's gonna probably be an agreement that they maintain all of that, including that right away to extend, but there is um on their property as well, is where the park is gonna be.

So from the curb, right?

My understanding is from the curb to where the park is is 43 feet.

So, how much of that, I guess, what is currently and will be owned by Mayo Calemity.

Like how much of that is the right of way, I guess, and how much is private property.

I would have to look on a plan.

I don't have it in front of me.

I believe that's around the 30 feet, and the but the park basically goes across both their property and the and the right of way into the right way where you would have trees planting strip boulevard sidewalk, right?

They're designing that whole space from the from the um curb to their building.

I guess my my thought comes from being a homeowner.

Um, if I were to install a rain garden in the right of way and promise to maintain it, that you know, is kind of what we're talking about here.

It seems like while it would still be the city's right of way.

Um, I would love to call that a park and have you know, have some of the I don't know how that goes with donating a park as well.

So I'm I guess I'm curious how much are we actually at or above 30 feet of private land?

Um, and this may, you know, be really getting into minutia, or are we at, say 27 feet plus the right employee.

I would have to look, but I I would also note that when it was before city council and they were showing it, I think they were also including the right-of-way when the 30 foot was anticipated at that time based on what was shown at that meeting.

So I think what Mayo has been working is how can we they shifted their building over additional to expand that area since those discussions.

So I think it was always envisioned that it would include some of that right-of-way.

There will obviously be a maintenance agreement and an agreement with the city to for them to maintain that space as opposed to the city maintaining it and a few other things that we'll have to go through as we're finalizing our process and entitlement process.

Okay, so to my understanding, we don't know how much of that is public right away and how much is private.

We haven't seen the actual technical drawing hasn't been submitted, which should have all those measurements.

It's based on kind of, I think Mayo has shared the 43 foot.

It's not that we have a plan in our possession at the moment.

So that will be once the plan is out, we'll be able to know.

It should have all of those measurements on that plan.

Okay.

Um, and then I guess the last one is not really so much a question, but a thought to the commission.

Um, so the artifacts do exist and we have the ability to add objects to the inventory.

So if that were of interest to the commission, I think we it would be within our purview to consider um, you know, requesting some sort of phase one information to then add those to the inventory.

Um, that would be potentially something we could do.

And then, you know, those individual objects could potentially be landmarked as well.

Um I don't know if there's interest in that, but that that does seem to be a thought that could be possible as well.

Um are there any further thoughts or questions from the commission?

Yes, Commissioner Mutchler.

Um honestly thank you, um Director Woodward for all your comments.

And I think, well, from my perspective, I think you have good intent for um reviewing that STP to make sure it's meeting kind of those um established um things in the motion that was um made in 2024.

Um so I would suggest maybe could we get get that um information presented maybe at our next um commission meeting, just so we can review it as a group, but like um maybe not obviously you you will have you but just so that we'd be able to see it because we have many questions and I don't know if that's the best way to go about, but so I guess I'll I'll just ask and it sounds like um a few of the you know this kind of lines up with I think what commissioner Kessler was asking would be possible for us to have an update on the site plan um when it comes out, would that be within reason to have an update on that?

I would say that the document becomes public once it's submitted.

I don't necessarily think it would happen before your next meeting based on just general conversation, and I don't know when it will be submitted.

So I hate to promise that it would be at the next meeting.

Some of this is also really dependent on when Mayo actually submits it and as they're going through that process.

So I don't have like we're submitting it this day at this point.

Um, I think there can be a shared update, but it's also just be you know clear of how that approval process happened.

We're we're happy to share that this is what was submitted, and there could still be back and forth once it's submitted as well, because we often have that with some plans as well.

So there could be a little bit, but once it's submitted as a public document, we could certainly share that.

My my thought would be then we might be able to have a discussion where we can specifically ask, you know, okay, with this, what is the size of the park in the private land, you know, how many artifacts potentially um are we aware of that were preserved?

Um you know, I think some of those questions might be a little more answerable when we know, or how many do they plan to use, so on and so forth.

Um, whereas right now I think we're all kind of speculating and wondering and unsure.

Any other thoughts, commissioners?

I would just can I just make a look of like um yes, and I understand there's some interest in that, but I also just want to be kind of clear on the expectation and role of the HPC.

It's just providing like we are the ones that are within community involvement and have to make that approval.

And so, like through that process, and we have heard feedback all along in terms of like we're following what the city council motioned and everything else.

So I think we're happy to share it and inform, but it's not necessarily then to provide additional feedback because at that point we also have to really go through our review process.

Thank you.

Yes, and and I agree with that.

Um, it would just be in my perspective, informational.

Should we wish to um have some sort of advisory statement come out?

We have we would have something concrete to go off of what is now I don't know that we do.

Commissioners, any final thoughts.

I would just like to say part of the theory.

Is we had a lot of community members come in and speak very passionately about protecting their neighborhood and uh getting what was promised to them.

And for me personally, that's part of the reason um that I think it's important that we address it, and then we do not have any saying anything, just because citizens come here to make appeals, and we're here to listen.

So yeah.

I guess I'll my final thought on this is I would I would be interested in um knowing what artifact artifacts exist.

Um I would be interested in potentially having a phase one of those.

Um that's just my personal opinion.

Um, but I guess at this point, I would I'm curious if anyone has a motion um on any of this, or if we don't have one.

Yes, Commissioner Poyer.

Thank you, Chair.

I just got a question for attorney Carlson on your artifacts for public role.

Um so these are all objects, which are different than properties that are permanent properties, and they're they're owned by a private organization.

Um would we have any authority to start a phase one study of someone's private objects unless they wanted us to?

I I think the answer is yes.

Okay, I don't think the answer is yes.

Um I guess I would defer to Molly for the rest at least as long as at least one of those criteria for landmarking the property, um the HBC makes a finding that at least one of the landmarking criteria have been met for that particular object.

Okay, all right, thank you.

So I had and we'll be talking more about that in our next agenda item.

So any thoughts or motions.

Any final thoughts or motions.

Hearing none, we will move on to agenda item 7B.

Stroop paint shop and signs, coordinator Patterson Lungren, you have the floor.

So at the last meeting, um, you did ask if I would put together phase one reports.

Um, and as I understood it, um, provide you the phase one report for strokes paint shop, um, which is the building or the physical property, um, which we already had a phase one on that.

Um, and then further a phase one report for um the clock and the can of paint spine.

So um, this is all under one agenda item, but I did do three separate phase one reports.

And um I'll first talk just a little bit about sort of where this um authority comes from for you.

Um, so in section um in the UDC Heritage Preservation overlay 6240 Cot four, um, it talks about the end in pardon me, the identification and inventory of properties.

So um, and basically it says that um that you can take this action if you have a phase one report, um, and you can um place a uh property.

I'll go back to property in a minute here, but you can place a property on the historic inventory um by um I believe it's a by motion mistaken.

Um so um it just has to have the phase one report, and I highly recommend that the phase one report indicates, you know, what um historic significance the property might meet, um, and whether or not it has um likely has historic integrity.

So again, on the screen is is that section of the code that gives you that authority.

Remember that when we talk about properties, and we talk about this within our landmark program, and I'm going to use that term landmark program to be inclusive of the research that's done on the properties, including historic context and how they fit within that, the historic inventory, which is an action that you take.

And that's our kind of historic landmark program, finalizing with the treatment of historic properties that have been landmarked.

That process or that kind of five four or five-step process is actually outlined in the Secretary of an Interior Standards for Preservation Planning.

And when we updated the city code, um, even before we brought it into the UDC, um, we took that concept of those four or five steps and really spelled it out, right?

So keep that in mind that these are these steps that we follow.

And depending on the properties we're talking about, we're sort of in different parts of that process.

So in this case, we're at the very beginning, or we're at the second stage, we're basing some of these decisions based on context and research that's been done.

Um let's see here.

I'm sorry, I think my slides may have gotten mixed up.

I had some problems today.

I think that's a copy of.

Oh, this is indeed what I need.

So again from section 6200 040C um 0.4, the HP, and this is where this is where it gives you the authority.

The HPC may place a property on the historic property inventory following the process detailed, and then it gives you another section, which I also have on the right of the screen.

Um, when a phase one survey documenting how the property meets one or more of the criteria um to support the designation and 60.20040c.5 are the eight criteria for significance, right?

So a lot of kind of internal references there, but um again, that that gives you that.

So um, in terms of the process itself, again, it's by majority vote.

So you're making a motion, it would be a majority vote.

I do want to kind of caution you that um that this is encumbering these properties.

So you yes, you have the authority under this, but um section four of that same uh subsection four of that same section, right after saying that you can do this by majority vote.

Um, a property owner can ask for removing the property from the inventory.

Um, but their request for removal, um, they must provide evidence that the property does not meet the criteria.

So that's something that you know it it puts a kind of burden on them, right?

Um if they don't have an understanding, they probably would have to hire a consultant.

That's what Mayo Clinic was done when they asked for removal of the property, right?

They hired a consultant.

So I wouldn't take this lightly.

I think this is something to keep in mind that you are putting you are encumbering these properties with some requirements.

Um you can make the decision again by a vote, a majority vote to remove it, and a property owner can appeal your decision if if you do put a property on the historic inventory.

So I'm gonna talk a little bit more now about um Strooves itself, the um the building and the two signs.

I'm sorry, can we hold on a second?

Yeah, I just want to make sure I understand the process.

Sure.

So in order for us to get the a building or artifact onto the historical property inventory, we have to go through a phase one survey.

Correct.

Okay.

In reading the UDC, in order for us to landmark a property, we only have to meet one of the eight criteria.

It does not say anything about us needing to meet a phase one.

Correct.

So that's the that's the second step.

Okay, right.

So I'm just confirming.

If we find in phase one, which we have for many of our inventory properties, if we find that it meets one of these eight criteria, we can then bring it forward to get landmark without having to do an additional in-depth survey at the national registry level.

I would I I cannot recommend that.

Yeah, I'm just I'm saying, I mean, you just said that it would be on the property owner at this point to say that it is not historically relevant.

I'm going to use sort of white courts and so really quickly, Commissioner Kessler.

Um I guess I'll ask, can we maybe save that for a second?

Let's let Coordinator Patterson Lumber finish and we can return to this.

Yeah.

And I'm sorry, did Attorney Carlson did you have something?

I would just say I think maybe we're talking about adding something potentially to an inventory.

Right.

Versus outright landmarking at this point.

I don't necessarily want the commission to sort of confuse the two at this stage of the game.

Yes.

So yeah, so you have to hold a public hearing to consider.

I would say that if you held a public hearing and made a decision based on a phase one, that's an inappropriate that's not appropriate because you haven't it hasn't been fully that hasn't been fully evaluated with a phase one.

But I just want to clarify that according to our UDC, there is nothing saying that we need to do additional correct.

Okay.

Yeah.

So we could hypothetically like says something based off of the phase one.

I believe it says an eligibility report.

So I guess I I would, you know, I would have to historical properties under consideration for landmark designation must have maintained historical integrity based on location design setting, materials, workmanship, clealing, and association.

Additionally, such properties shall meet at least one of the following eight criteria.

And then there's a section that is referred to in the section you're reading, and it's going to be in like 60 point, maybe 600, um, where it talks about the process that the HPC goes through to designate.

Um and that might have some further requirement.

I would have to go back and look at that for sure.

I believe the eligibility report might be mentioned in that.

All right, thank you.

Yeah.

Um so yeah, so the phase one is intended for you to do um without a public hearing, right?

Um, so Struve's paint shop.

Um, what I found was that um, so first of all, the the phase one report that was completed by the consultant back in 2014, um, indicated that it was circuit 1920 built.

Um and I was able to get into building permits and find that that was not the case.

Um the the building was actually built in a couple of different phases.

And let's see if my cursor works on the screen.

I think it does.

Yeah.

So um, of course, I didn't work on my screen, so this building right here, up to this point, the front of it was built in um the permit was issued in 1950.

Um, and then I found uh um a newspaper clipping from 1953, um, a want ad indicating that the back building was for sale.

So they were about ready to move into that front building.

Um we don't know, I haven't been able to find out when the back portion was built.

Um, that it's two-story, um, but you'll notice that it's a little bit lower than the front portion.

And there's a photo here coming up that shows historically um that back building.

And then the top portion, which is referred to as the penthouse um permit was issued in 1961 for that edition.

So basically it was built in three different phases.

Um here is that photo.

Um, this is from the Strove family, and um Chairs Astro um had some had some of these resources from when they did the um the lower town neighborhood history.

Um they've identified it as 1948, which fits within what I was finding for um both newspaper um advertisements for for the paint shop and also for um uh uh city directory.

Um I couldn't find much on the business before like 1948.

Originally it was called Brum and Strove.

Um, and Brum was actually um associated with the grocery store that was in at the same location previous to the paint store.

So there's a history there, um, which I gave you a little bit in your um in the update to the phase one.

Um and in that update, I gave you again all of the dates and and information um not complete and I didn't give you you know as much of the illustrations of the clippings and that kind of thing.

Again, that's what comes in an eligibility study.

So um, so this portion was built first.

Uh we don't know when.

Um, and then in 1950, um, on the same day the building permit was issued for this new building, the demolition permit was issued for the old grocery store.

There are some photos of the grocery store which are likely in that location prior to 1950.

Again, that would be something that would be included in an eligibility study.

So we do have the drawings, which is really nice.

We don't always have those in the historic archives for the building permits.

Paul, and it indicated that the property owner who by this time was Kenneth Strove, he um his partnership had ended by 1950, and he was just moving forward with the paint shop.

And that's that's kind of those are the slides that I have for the building itself.

I think that you know, originally the consultant who did the phase one indicated that they did not recommend that the building was eligible uh under any of the criteria.

And I did not um I did not change that.

I did not provide um any additional thoughts on that, but certainly um these phase one reports that I'm giving you, um, you know, you haven't adopted them.

So I think that this is not on the inventory.

I think that if you do think that it needs criteria, we can cite that within the phase one.

Um could cite that if you if you wanted to list this building on the inventory.

Um, how about I go through and finish and talk about the signs as well, and then we can talk about if you want to approach each of those three items, those three properties individually.

So the clock is next, and the stripes certainly had photos.

They have one from 1955.

They've attributed to 1955, and one from 19, I'm sorry, one from 1956.

Um, the clock's shown in both of those.

That's later for the paint can, actually.

Um, so the the clock, um, you know, according to the family history was present by 1956.

Um, I think probably the most telling, and I think the kind of the most exciting piece of information that I found regarding the clock is this little ad from February of 1957.

And this is kind of what I was looking for, right?

This idea that there's an object here that really sort of is being used to sell the location of the shop to really um to really landmark it, right?

So um when you get to the big clock on North Broadway, that's us.

And you know, stroke paint shot.

Um, so we know that the clock was there.

I'll go back to this image here when we talk about the paint can um, because of course it doesn't show the the paint can sign.

The clock has been modified, not by very much.

Um, you'll notice that in the original image on the left-hand side, the letters are freestanding.

There's no backing behind them.

Um, and most of the images that we have of the clock throughout throughout the different eras show it that way.

By the time it was um and it was refurbished, basically, um, I do have that in the in the report.

Um, in the early or the late 2010s, um, that's when it seems to have changed, and they sort of put this, they extended the main box of the clock cabinets and the letters now have that backing.

I think that it looks very different in terms of color, but for the most part, it's really just the paint colors that change.

Um, at least that's possibility.

Um, I think here again is one of the things that would be different if we were to do an eligibility study on this.

I would want to talk to the stroke family, ask them the history of the clock, find out um if uh there was a permits pulled for um uh for the electric work when the clock was removed and placed back.

Um, see if anybody at that company is around, if there's records of what was done to change the clock so that we have a better understanding of the historic integrity of the of the object.

So that is what I have on the clock.

And then the paints, uh, the paint can sign, and of course, here you can see the clock as well.

Um again, the image on the far left is attributed by the family to 1956.

Um, the year prior, there's an image of the building without the without the paint can.

So we can assume that it was placed around that time, although I will refer back to the ad, the ad from 1957.

I find it really kind of puzzling that they would place an ad and point to the clock as being the way to find them if they also had this huge paint can on the top of their building.

So I question a little bit the dates.

Um it's within years, it's not a big deal.

Um I did look at newspaper, I've I searched newspapers to try and find, I could not find any similar thing for the for the canopy sign.

Um, but here's a nice kind of illustration of how it changed over time.

Um certainly it's within, you know, the kind of the historic 50-year period.

Um, both the paint can as well as the clock and the building are all within that um kind of rule of thumb 50-year period.

So I think I'll stop there.

Um, you had a lot more information in your packet.

Um, I will point to the cover agenda item for this, and I did provide you a link to define that.

Um, it's in the second paragraph um book preservation brief number 25 that talks about historic signs.

Um, and so that gives you a lot of context about historic signs and how preservation of signs is kind of reviewed and evaluated.

Um, but the other thing I gave you a link to is um a guide on how to evaluate properties for designation.

And again, that's from the National Park Service.

Um, I've gone through that process in the past.

I can refer you to past HPC meetings if you want to go through and review and under have a better understanding of that.

Um we're not required to follow that, but um, you know, but we we have by policy followed best practices.

And so um to use that there's a lot of good information um to understand how one looks at an object versus how one looks at a building versus how one looks at a structure, for example.

So um kind of have to read that understanding that it's not all directly related to our program, but it still is very helpful in understanding how to review these different types of properties and how to review.

I think it's it's also one of the really good sources in how to review and understand historic integrity of different types of properties that have different levels of different types of significance.

So I'll stop there and go back.

Um different images if you want, um, or we can talk more about the content of the of the phase one reports.

Thank you, coordinator Betterson.

Uh questions from the commission.

We'll start with Commissioner Kessler.

Yeah, something I noticed in both of the phase one inventories for the um both the paint can and the clock is that they list its location as being part of why it is historically relevant or historical.

And so just kind of wondering how that plays into the fact that the building itself may not meet the historical requirements for the project.

Yeah, that's so um so in the phase one report, and actually in the eligibility reports too, you start with um doing really solidly where's this item located, where's this property located, um, including address and legal description?

So that's its current location.

Um when you start to look at historic integrity and the idea of an object in particular being relocated, that's when you start to have to consider okay, is removing this sign from this building.

Does that it certainly affects its historic integrity?

Does it affect it to the point where it's no longer eligible for landmark listing?

Those are the questions that you'll that you ask that um that are addressed a little more deeply in a in an eligibility report.

Um when you do an evaluation, you look at the current situation.

So even if there's knowledge that it's going to be relocated, um, you know, you certainly can take that into account, but you look at kind of the the what is currently there.

Um, and I think the clock is actually kind of a good example of that, where you know, the paint could probably be removed or certainly could be repainted to look like it did historically, right?

That's why I say it has actually pretty strong um pretty strong historic integrity, even though the design of it has changed really structurally, all that's well, we'd have to we'd have to do more research to find out, but it just looking at it, it could be that all that's changed is that that little bit added to the top.

Um, you know, and it could be restored.

Um, but you look at its current its current status, its current um yeah, how it currently exists.

Yeah.

Does that answer your question?

Like I understand that the for example, this clock itself could be restored altered to look like the original.

But I would say, as like a Rochester citizen, if I saw that clock over by the corn tower, it's not as historically important as when it resided here on thing.

It's lost its integrity of location and settings.

Exactly.

So that's where I'm kind of, you know, yes, the building may not technically meet our standards, but does that mean because these two items, like if it were a singular item, I think it would be maybe a different conversation, but we're looking at two historical artifacts on this building.

Is that then make that building eligible for landmark status because of the importance it plays with?

Yeah, so those are the things that we'd want to uh that's what would happen in ineligibility is to really examine that.

Um, how do these how does the building and the signs kind of interact with each other?

Um and I think again, you know, I relied on the original phase one for the building and only provided the additional information that I found as I was doing research.

Um, so that we had that things like the date, you know, that's really important for you to have the actual date.

That's correct.

Um, but that's where where we'd have to look at that um and determine, you know, if with these signs it actually um, for example, if the building were to remain with both signs, the historic integrity of um pardon me, I have to look again.

Um the feeling, right?

The feeling and the context of it being a paint store remains.

Now could somebody you know, right?

It's again, it's just paint or it's just wrap.

Um, and that's where signs in particular get to be kind of sticky because what happens if a different use comes into this building and and they don't want to have a huge paint can on top of their on top of their roof, right?

Now, if we've designated they have to go work with us, but um but but that's that's harder than a window feature, right?

Or a you know, a wall that has a brick pattern or something like that.

Um so those are things, those are things that will that will impact whether or not ultimately, you know, I would recommend designation um in terms of looking at it holistically.

Thank you, coordinator Peterson Andrew any other questions.

Um I have one.

So uh the original phase one for the building was done in 2014, we're 12 years later.

Um just from walking the area frequently, I don't see much that has changed.

The windows and doors are sited, and I think this commission, um, those of us sitting here presently kind of set a precedent with Phil Hill that were willing to um be somewhat flexible on modern windows, uh not totally altering the integrity of a building.

Uh so I guess has there been any information in the last 14 years that confirms um that this really would not be a strong candidate the building.

Honestly, I really didn't look at it that closely because um my understanding was that you um just wanted phase one when I it was just bringing you the original phase one and you know, giving you the update based on what I found as I was researching the other items.

So I guess I'm not looked very closely yet.

Building permits, things like it looks very similar.

The the shell and and core, I believe is the terminology we're trying to move towards here.

Um looks strikingly similar the whole way through to me.

Uh and what I read in the study was essentially that you know, from the 2014 study was the windows and doors were why they weren't a fan of it at the time.

So have there been permits that you're aware of in since 2014 that affected the show and course.

So the city of Rochester actually did not have building permits required for windows, and I would say probably doors as well until very recently.

So that wouldn't be that wouldn't be in the permit file.

Um the the permit files are not complete.

Um there was no building permit file for number five Fifth Avenue, which is that back building.

Um they're just really sparse, and so it kind of is a hit and miss.

I think just to clarify specifically I mean since 2014 has any work been done.

I think there's been some electrical work and you know um furnace roofing maybe um that I found.

Yeah.

Not like the walls have been moved or anything on the exterior that the brick work.

You know and I didn't even look at the more current building permits.

I just looked at the ones that were in the historic laser fiche.

So I I guess my my opinion then and I'm I'll be curious here what the commission thinks is I think there's still study to be done and I would be in favor of personally I think we could move all of these forward in order to have that more robust eligibility report done for all three um but I I guess I would like to hear what what the commission thinks and see if we have a motion uh Commissioner Wasmer.

I can't make a motion but I would certainly agree that I think it's got a lot of merit.

I think the three things separated from one another the paint can, the clock and the building nothing well that's a stretch but I think the three need to stay together to your point seeing a paint can somewhere else it doesn't have the same uh integrity or the same meaning to our history and I absolutely think that there um should be some more investigation into this this is a very unique building and if we know that you know the change is coming eminently it sounds like I would hate to see another you know luxury condo building there before we did our due diligence to to research its history.

Thank you Commissioner Walksmary yes uh commissioner Kessler I'd like to make a motion to add the stream building paint can and clock onto the historical inventory list.

We have a motion to add the strew building clock and paint can to the list we have a second also seconded by Commissioner Connell.

Commissioner Kessler you have floor yeah I I agree with Commissioner Rasner that the three together is really what makes that kind of historical and being near that area where I like that something I drive past on a very regular basis and it's something to me that stands out as a citizen of Rochester as kind of like a quirky little historical piece.

And because of that I think that keeping the three of them together is critical in maintaining that historical lens but I also agree that more needs to be done before we move it onto the official landmarking list um which is why I'd like to put it on the inventory.

Thank you Commissioner Kessler Commissioner Connell you seconded the motion do you have anything to add um nothing to add um being agreed okay commissioner poyer thank you chair uh I agree completely on that the three should stand together.

I think landmarking the paint can and the clock and not the building doesn't make any sense um the those lose their integrity if they're in a different location um I'm gonna disagree on the on the building we've had a phase one study um I think we've already made a determination on that and uh so I'm gonna I'm gonna oppose this motion um I also think in terms of I I do love the clock and the paint can but that that really is going to restrict the owner to have a paint can up there um the future owner and honestly it just doesn't look like a a paint shop is viable um in our current market in that location here that's what I would guess but uh um so I would be voting no commissioner Schable I don't like the commission of being in a position where we learn that there is some development in the city and now we are trying to decide on very quick basis should we move this to inventory an inventory that we are struggling to get through as is so that we can put restrictions on the property owner while we find time to look at this property and see if it should be landmarked uh you know the property owner through representatives has expressed concern about this the property owner is in control of the sale of their building and could ask to keep the sign and the paint can to make sure that they're not raised if the property is on the inventory that's still very limited protections it's it's uh limitation on demolition uh and I would suspect that simply removing the sign and the can do not rise to the level of demolition and those could be destroyed without it ever coming to our attention again and would have an effect I think on whether there's any significance at all to the property.

And those could be destroyed without it ever coming to our attention again.

And would have an effect, I think, on whether there's any significance at all to the property.

So it's a commission were to move forward by moving this to the inventory.

We I would say we would need to feel confident that we could move forward with landmarking.

When I look at the NPS briefs and the information provided in these phase one studies, I question whether this would meet that landmark criteria.

Now there's some issues with the building and modifications that have been made to it.

The shape of the clock is still there, but it's been totally repainted.

Um the can is changed over time as well.

And when I look at the NPS briefs, you know, they talk about these when you're looking at signs.

Yeah, this is a landmark of the community.

Uh and maybe if we were to get feedback from the community, it would absolutely meet that.

I but you know, based on what I've heard, I don't know.

You know, most of the newspaper clippings are advertisements.

And so of course they're going to talk about how great it is, and everybody knows it.

So that's how they're getting their message out.

But beyond just advertising that business, you know, does it mean something to the broader community?

Now that's that's the level I would think a sign needs to reach.

And I just don't know that this meets that, and I don't want to uh the commission to ruin any goodwill that it has with the community by rushing to uh put something on an inventory if we're not going to be able later to prove and say yes, no, this was worth it, this will make that landmark status.

So I think we need to be mindful of that as well.

Thank you, Commissioner Shable.

Uh Commissioner Wassmer.

I said a clarifying question.

Um if we I sort of agree with your bots that this the study's old, maybe it needs another rebook, but could we if the commission decided to at least put it on the inventory?

Do we then have the opportunity to say, well, we studied it, we don't agree, and now we're going to take it off the inventory.

That's our prerogative.

Okay, I just want to be concerned by that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Wassermer.

Um, Commissioner Pork.

So if we added the bill, if we added all three to the inventory, and the owner wanted to dispose of the clock and the paint can.

There's no permits involved with those, right?

Would that what would protection with those two options?

That's a good question.

Um yeah, I'm not sure if a building permit would be required, a permit would be required for removing the signage.

Um typically not.

Okay, thank you.

Um, Commissioner Powell.

Um, could a separate motion.

Can a motion a motion be the word to separate the building as the individual building as one motion and then brought a second motion, have the clock and the paint can.

That's not the motion.

Yes, motions can be amended or withdrawn, and a new motion can be submitted that that is possible.

Just to just give the owner some type of choice in regards to what regards to what he would like to do with the building.

I guess.

Thank you, Commissioner Connelly.

Um Commissioner Kessler.

I'd like to make the point that even with us putting it on the historical inventory, it does not mean that they cannot demolish it.

It just means that they have to go through an extra group.

And I think we I mean, we literally just had a discussion about how Lords met multiple items on how is a historically relevant building and was still voted to be demolished by city council.

So just kind of remembering that we are just an advisory group and that us putting it on the inventory list doesn't automatically mean that it can't be altered or demolished.

I'd also like to put out there that last meeting, I put out a proposal on how to get us caught up on our backlog of buildings.

And I am hoping to get that in front of you all next meeting for a vote if that were to be adopted, brought to city council and adopted and so forth.

We would have a plan to have our existing inventory and space for additional items on the inventory to be completely caught up in seven years, which would eliminate that concern that you brought up.

Um Commissioner Shable about the fact that yes, we do have a long list in our inventory that we have been slow to move through, but there is that in motion at this point that to be considered.

Thank you, Commissioner Kessler.

Um I'll chime in here um to Commissioner Schabel's point.

Uh I do understand we have a tremendous backlog.

We have you know raised the issue many times.

We've discussed it uh throughout every year I've been on the commission.

Um, I I would disagree a little though in that we should not as a commission do what is in our authority because we don't have the staff to push through the list or other limitations.

Um I would hate to be in a position where we are fearful of doing our job and fulfilling our charge because of limitations um that ultimately if council wanted to, we could have um, you know, we could have more staffing, we could have this prioritized, we could get through it.

Um so I I guess I don't agree that we should be looking at things and saying let's not do that because we have a backlog.

Um I think the bad backlog is a separate issue that we all would love to see solved, and I don't want that to really drive our decisions.

Um so any other thoughts?

Um, yes, Attorney Carlson.

Um maybe just one point of clarification.

I think um in the phase one or the building itself.

Um it specifically says um I just want to make sure that we're identifying the criteria that we think the building itself meets in order to add this to the inventory because the UDC makes clear that we need to identify one of the criteria.

I believe the face one says it does not have historic significance.

I think Molly identified face or criteria five for the clock and potentially criteria five and eight for the sign.

So I assume those are the criteria you're relying on for this the clock and the paint can, but I would like to hear um what criteria you think for building needs in order to add this to the inventory.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's and that's where I was asking the question about because both the clock and the paint can list the site of Fifth Street or the Fifth Avenue, um, whichever I have in front of me as part of its historical relevance.

And so removing it from that property is essentially devaluing some of the historical importance of those items, which is why I opted to put all three together and why I was asking about that.

Thank you, Commissioner Kessler.

I would suggest I, you know, seeing criteria eight here, it's location scale, other physical characteristics representing an establishment familiar visual feature uh or neighborhood, a district, the community or the city.

Um, I I see that as being very familiar and an established feature of the neighborhood.

Um, I I think there could be other criteria, but I guess I would look for um perhaps an amendment to include that uh or a yeah, an amendment to include, I guess, whatever criteria the commission believes the building would fit yes, Mr.

Chair, just just to make this process as um clear as possible.

I would recommend that that come from Commissioner Kessler because she made the motion.

I would um whatever she um recommends, I would uh then want to ask Commissioner Clown to make sure that his second still stands.

And if it does, then I think all of the discussion we've had the last 20 minutes or so it is fine.

We're just sort of clarifying the record.

Okay, so um attorney Carlson, just to clarify your clarification, would you be looking for an amended motion or just simply stating this as a fact?

I think that the motion is is to add the um to add the building, the clock and the paint can to the inventory.

And then just wanting potentially call Commissioner Kessler to clarify her motion and articulate what factors for each of those three things she's relying on.

Okay, thank you.

I would agree.

So Commissioner Kessler.

Yes, I would like to make a motion to add this group building based on uh landmark property um devaluation criteria eight for its location and other physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature for the neighborhood.

Um the paint can on five, which is distinguishing characteristic of the period or its form, along with eight, and the clock also citing criteria five and eight onto the historical inventory list.

Commissioner Connell, with those clarifications, does your second still stand?

Yes.

Okay.

So we have the motion um to add to the inventory the strew building on criteria five and the clock and sign, both of those were five and eight, correct?

Uh the street building was eight.

Sorry, I miss stated.

Okay.

That's okay.

Strew building was eight, and then the can and clock were five and eight.

Okay.

Um, so I think we have very thoroughly deliberated this and we are ready to move to a vote.

Um for this one, I think I will call the roll just so we are clear on the filter.

So Commissioner Bodaker.

Yes.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Connell.

Uh.

Okay.

Commissioner Gandhi.

Aye.

Commissioner Kessler.

Aye.

Commissioner Muschler.

Aye.

Commissioner Poyer.

Nay.

Commissioner Schable.

Nay.

Commissioner Tater.

Uh, and Chairs Astro votes aye.

So we have one, two, three, four, five, six ayes, and um three nays.

Motion passes.

Okay, we are two other business agenda item seven C HPC awards.

Uh, coordinator Patterson Lundgren, I want you introduce the item.

Yes.

Um, I will actually hand it over to the committee of Commissioner Bodecker and Commissioner Wassmer.

Um I took their items pretty much verbatim, or like maybe simplified a couple of things, but um, yes, they have provided um some recommendations uh for the award process um and the categories.

And I do have up on the screen um the categories, and then I have a separate, a second slide that talks about their suggested process, nomination and selection process um and the method of recognizing um folks who uh win an award, folks or projects who win an award.

Um I'll let you take over from here and thank you.

So uh we did meet and we narrowed it down to uh to three awards uh to or simplify the process.

Um one being the public history ambassador award, which is is listed there, you could certainly read that.

Uh yeah, number two would be the community education and engagement award, and uh number three would be the historic restoration or rehabilitation.

So we'd add this they haven't done this for already a decade, so we didn't want to jump in and have like 10 different awards to give away one and bit simple and um based on feedback that we get nominations, then potentially let it grow, but we don't want to create this giant list of 10 awards and then have five people or groups nominated.

So we wanted to to have very specific awards to start with, um, and then sort of go from there.

The only one that has a specific time on it is the historic restoration and rehabilitation because we haven't done this in over a decade that we thought we could vote bash to the previous decade.

That's the only part, maybe sticking a little back in zone, but um you want to keep it simple.

Thank you, Commissioner Wasmer and Commissioner Podaker.

Um Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, I have a few here.

Um, so to start our original motion made in March.

Um we the charge we gave you, it should establish a program that could include, so it doesn't have to, but it could include a statement of the awards program purpose, including the authority by which the HBC administers the program.

We had reference section 60.200.040 C3B6.

I believe that's the education and informational aspect.

And then the parameters, I think you've covered.

So I I guess I'm curious, we don't have a statement of purpose or reference to that authority in what's presented.

I would really like to see that kind of in, you know, it all in one package essentially that we vote on.

And then my other thought would be the selection process.

The language there is is a little too wide open for me, I think.

So it's uh review from the committee to select up to two choices with larger committee, possibly including people or agencies outside HPC.

I think we could leave that as just stating that uh the selection process would be reviewed by the committee selecting.

I would I would like to see probably find like a single finalist for each category that then is voted upon.

Um I'm curious when you say the larger committee, including people or agencies outside of HBC.

Can you I guess clarify what you're looking for there?

Looking at like conflict of interest on our part because we vote on things that move forward or don't move forward.

And so our question was are we a conflict of interest if we choose the winners of a like that was our yeah, I believe that was what brought up last month about a conflict of interest with this.

So somebody said they were going to check on it.

I don't know if it was viable if we asked someone from outside this committee to even have one voice on there.

I mean, we're fine if it if it's this, but we just wanted to avoid any kind of conflict of interest where we might be looked at as favorites or something to I don't even lend more credibility to it, that's all it was.

But if the the commission is comfortable with us just making the decision.

I think maybe kind of first.

Um, I think my concern was if somehow a project was awarded that maybe you know, maybe it's part of a phase, or maybe it was a fairly recent approval.

I just I that's where I wanted to make sure that um, and and maybe there can be some criteria written around how um how old rewardy is chosen, especially for that project to make sure that there isn't you know that there's that there's enough of an arm's length away from whatever decisions the HBC has made about that project.

Um, I think that was that was kind of what I was getting to.

Um and I was just trying to you know brainstorm like is there some scenario where you know you're in the like in the midst of reviewing a project and it's up for an award and there's some sort of conflict there, right?

Like how do we make sure that that that doesn't happen?

That's so I'll kind of tack on to that.

So in point three for your historic uh restoration or rehabilitation, you say a project from the previous decade.

Most of us um you know, senior members have been on here three or four years or so.

So I think there is room if we're looking at projects from the previous decade where um maybe some added language just make us a little more comfortable, maybe five to ten years.

That also gives projects time to maybe mature and see if they have staying power in the community.

Just just a thought.

Yeah.

Commissioners, any other thoughts regarding the awards program proposal before us.

Uh Commissioner Shable.

Um, I really like the awards categories.

So thank you so much for your work and putting this together.

I think these are um they're three very distinct award categories.

Uh and so I'm interested to see uh you know what kind of nominations we get from public and you know, see things that we wouldn't otherwise see.

Um yeah, I think with the nomination process, um public outreach will be a big part of that, and I'm sure that'll probably change from time to time, but making sure that we have a good way of getting information out to the public.

Uh and part of that will also I think need to be making sure that we have specific criteria of information that needs to be presented to us to make sure it's not just oh this random person or place or thing, and now we are trying to figure out okay.

Well, what is so special about that?

Making sure that uh nominators know here's what we expect you to provide to us.

Um then of course we can the committee can go from there uh with additional work for the select and process.

Uh I think it makes sense for the committee to narrow down.

I like the idea of options being presented to the commission for us to vote uh at large and and have that on a public uh as part of a public conversation and public hearing.

Uh I do think it will be cumbersome if we try to include other people.

And I didn't check the EDC.

I don't know if that goes beyond our authority to get those people involved, but that's how I think public outreach will come in through the nomination process and then the public hearing itself.

So we'll still have input from the public.

Um so those were the only comments I have, but uh yeah, excited about this.

So thank you again for your work.

Thank you, Commissioner Schable.

Any other commissioners?

Um, so I guess my final thought is I think there are only a few cleanups to be had, but I think they're also important enough that I would I would personally like to see this go back to committee for final revision and then come back to us.

I think trying to piece together the wording right now.

Um I guess my concern that would be are we still going to make an announcement prior to the end of the month about preservation month and this is impossible.

Do you expect to have a statement together?

I think it makes sense that even if we just meant the announcement that we're we're bringing back the preservation awards, May is National Preservation Month, and and look we look forward to um receiving nominations more in vote to come.

It only that legitimizes the reason for the awards.

It doesn't matter to the community that follows specifically on in May for a reason, and we don't think you don't have to.

Or if we just want the announcement to go over.

Well, I'll I'll speak to that.

Did you have a did you want to you go first?

Go ahead.

So I think that's a great idea, especially for the education component, because since it is heritage preservation month, we could and should, in my opinion, really capitalize on that.

Um so I think it would be valuable for a statement to go out to really hook the public, but we might have to keep it kind of bare bones since we're still working on solidifying the actual program.

Yeah, so I think I told you last month that um our comms department was working on a press release um for um for preservation month.

Um, and I think I think I have until tomorrow to get that finalized with them.

So um I'm I will try and get just that basic statement of you know HPC has decided to bring back preservation awards kind of as part of that, if if that's what the three awards with then more information to come to get people thinking on, or do you think that's too much right away?

I would hesitate to do that since we we as a commission haven't adopted those categories yet.

Um so uh I think it would be helpful to have maybe a motion stating that we are kind of authorizing a statement and sending this at the same time sending the plan back to committee for future um vote and I will help you with that or just need to get started on that.

So next week Commissioner Poyer.

I'll go ahead and make a motion and feel free to correct me if someone has better use.

I make a motion that we authorize the committee to announce the creation of a HPC awards program, um, maybe with an additional noting that uh May is heritage preservation month.

Okay, we have a motion to authorize the committee to make an announcement that the hair that the heritage preservation awards committee is bringing back the awards with a note that it may is heritage preservation month.

Do we have a second?

Okay, moved by Commissioner Poyer, seconded by Commissioner Gandhi.

Any further deliberation?

Okay, we'll move to uh a voice vote here.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

It carries unanimous.

Thank you for your hard work on it.

Do you have any?

I think that is all of the items that we had on the agenda.

Okay.

All right.

So our next meeting will be June 23rd, back in this room again.

Um couple questions you wanted me to mention.

So it's come up from the public uh asking about the certified local governments and SHIPO grants.

Would you be able to present um information on that at next meeting, just what that is and and maybe how that could affect our work, just so we're informed of those.

Yes, I will gather that information and um assuming we are overloaded with applications.

Plan to do that at the next meeting.

Okay, thank you.

And Commissioner Kessler, um, you had mentioned bringing back your item.

Um do some just shorter period between meetings.

I was not able to meet with Molly to get staff feedback and get that fully implemented into the proposal from last month.

Um so I do plan to get that information into an updated proposal for us to make the UN vote on hopefully at our next meeting.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Kessler.

Also, um, we've heard again Indian Heights specifically who to talk to.

Do you uh coordinator Patterson Wundering have maybe guidance as to who the public can reach out to specifically regarding the process that Indian Heights is is in?

Um, and I apologize I was prepping for the meeting as um as the public is speaking during open comment, but yes, absolutely.

If there's a question about the process for landmarking, um I would be the person for them to reach out to.

Um we are waiting to hear back on the grant application.

Um, and I did have a chance to look and check on that date again.

I think it's in June that they announce um uh whether or not grants are approved for the small grant by the MNH.

Yes, yeah.

The small legacy.

June.

So hopefully I'll have um a report back on the the results of the grant application at the next meeting.

Okay, so that could substantially inform us on the process and where that will head.

Okay, thank you so much for that.

Um I have so I guess I will request, if possible, could you reach out and see if there is a list of artifacts from Lords?

Um, because those would have come likely from the original building or the second building, which already had phase one reports and had been you know recommended.

So I don't know that there would be a whole lot of work to be done to discover the history on those since it's probably already documented and referenced in those original reports, if it's say the scroll work or you know capstones or things like that, they're probably already referenced.

So if possible, um, just so we know if there is a desire to move those um through a phase one and then to add to the inventory.

Okay.

Yeah, we can ask.

I just a correct thing.

Um we can certainly ask, but I don't think there's a requirement that they actually share that information with us.

So I just wanted to state that that it is their technically private property.

Yes.

So I just figured, you know, if if everyone's at the table in good faith, it's worth it to ask in that way because I just wanted to clarify that expectation.

So any other final business or thoughts from the commission.

I have then our history fact that we'll go through very briefly here.

And this is uh the 1850s in Rochester during this period of a fierce rivalry existed between the two Rochesters.

There was Upper Town and Lower Town.

This division set the tone for decades to come, with upper town at times antagonizing lower town and attempts to cripple it financially.

One such instance was retold by the Rochester Post on September 6th, 1895, referring back to the 1850s in an article recounting the early settlement days, and it reads as follows.

At another time a dispute arose over the roads leading to the upper and lower parts of town, and in the night, the upper town partisans felling a large tree, hauled it across the lower town road, thus diverting the stream of immigrants for the time to the upper part.

It is possible that this instance of rivalry may in part account for the earlier building up of the part of town nearest College Street.

So our downtown commercial historic district and some of the areas nearby may have been uh at a result of uh an act of sabotage by blocking the roads actually.

So that is our history fact from the Rochester Post of the 1820s.

Um all that's left now would be a motion and a second to adjourn.

Make a motion to adjourn.

All second.

Moved by Commissioner Poyer, seconded by Commissioner uh Muchler.

Aye.

Any opposed we're adjourned.

Yeah it gets uh like a talk to motion.