They are recording.

Yes.

Oh, hopefully we are recording and the all is picking us up.

So the light on.

The latest line is it's just the like giving me an indication of the captain lines.

Does anybody else want design guidelines?

Okay.

Okay.

I think I have an extent with me.

We have any person.

I think something just for clearly.

Yeah, I think we should have transcript.

Can you do the transcript on just to make sure it was exactly try?

Let me try here.

So maybe we can remove them.

So we're still like that piece.

Oh, you think that's so cool.

I think it's test.

I guess it's coming.

Well everybody, we're waiting on a technical issue just for a second here, but um, if we can please have it quiet in the room.

Okay.

Welcome everybody to the June 23rd 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 to the front of the room and clearly state your name?

Uh yes, Vice Chair Poyer.

Thank you, Chair Saster.

I'd like to make a motion to extend the 15-minute comment period to cover all seven people that are signed up on our list so that we don't run out of difficult time before they all speak.

And we have a second from Commissioner Kessler.

Any further thoughts?

Okay.

Commissioners, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Any abstentions?

Okay, passes unanimously.

All speakers will be accommodated for the open comment period.

With that, we'll our first speaker please state your name and go ahead.

Hi, my name is Barry Crowney, as most of you know.

Um, I carefully read how Henderson's proposed a item 5A, which would change the nature of probably the most important part of the downtown historic district by surrounding the original buildings for larger and much more modern buildings and changing the visual effect and being in an old wonderful architectural area, replacing it with a much more modern street with just some buildings from the past.

I do not support this change to the viewing experience, which also includes the ability to look at the uh May Oclumba building from Broadway.

Um the current proposal clearly violates standard number nine of the standards for rehabilitation regarding the spatial relationships that characterize the property.

Um as to the size, scale, proportion.

Um, and the uh massing of the property in the and its environment.

It's very important because the massing is definitely violated.

Um standard two is also violated in the spatial relationships that characterize property.

The HPHD can and should reject the proposal with the Olmsted Bank proposed.

We also looked at um how far away it was in the end.

Molly's point has always been if from a distance and and if you're close by, if the viewing experience substantially changed to the building, it shouldn't you reject it.

She said that over and over and over again when you're with the Olmstead bank.

And uh bank again uses a slightly better material, it's a little more compatible than what we're doing now, is putting a mud ultra modern building, which is actually modeled after a non-contributing building uh from the uh you know uh in the district.

And so they're using a non-contributing building to sort of modify that rather than having something that's a little more compatible with the the nature of of the landmarking.

So I'm just hoping that uh I mean that that you vote against it.

Molly and the staff can have their own opinions, but as commissioners you can and should you your own judgments as to the merit and nature of their recommendations, but please reject these additions as a lessening of the historical viewing of landmarks in this area should not be included.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Skolnik.

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

You'll have four minutes.

Thank you.

Thanks, Kevin Red Ms.

Like Mount Raisin Rochester.

Um, I just want to commend the HBC for basically voting no on every time we've had this type of discussion come up, not just for this landmark district, but for the hot fellows building, Breckenridge building, and the bank building.

We call it a landmark district for a reason because it's an entire building.

It's not a historic facade district.

And that's inevitably that's what is being asked to become is to become a facade with a modern building attached to the back half of it.

And I hope you take the time to really read through and realize that these are the last 19th century buildings in the city of Rochester.

It's last.

You know, it's it's not something to overlook.

And we created this historic landmark district with a lot of work, and I hate to see over you basically with the plan that's being put forward.

You're making a roadmap for any other developer to basically end it.

You they'll just follow up, they'll just keep you know what part of the no do you not understand?

You know, this is the third time that Mr.

Anderson's come before the HPC.

And the next time and twice to the city council, and the next time is going to be the sixth sixth overall time if he goes to the city council after if you vote no tonight.

It's it's frustrating to watch this happen.

We have so little of historic buildings left in Rochester.

They've all been to us.

I sat here, I got here half hour early, and I was remembering what was there all through this whole neighborhood.

You know, the park studios, the right way, radio TV, Buckeye Liquor, Sunrise Sunrise.

All the Victorian homes that were back here, you know.

I mean, it's just I walk through the city and it's it's it's it's all now, guys.

And this is the last of it, and we're asking to tear the back half of it off and put a modern building in its place.

So I hope you took the time to read through this packet and really understand what this developers are asking for.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Reynolds.

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

And you who is that?

I don't know who's next.

Um we have Chris Allen sign on.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Chris Allen.

I have lived here in Rochester for over 50 years.

My mother founded Channel.

I have seen quite a lot of changes in my time here.

And I personally was just appalled when I found out about it last night or basically 2 a.m.

this morning and decided I just needed to come to this meeting to let you know that it's really important to preserve and protect the heritage of Rochester.

Without it, we will be lost.

We will not know our past history, where we are now, and what is guiding us toward the future.

So I am voting, I'm asking you to please do not how to develop a common put incongruent architecture on what was an absolutely beautiful part of our history.

It's really important to preserve it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Allen.

Uh the next speaker we have signed up is Kevin Lund.

Um I'll go because uh Kevin might still be arriving yet.

He says pressing.

Well, John Creasel, you're you're the next one signed up after that.

Okay.

Thank you for this opportunity.

I would like to say to all of you, you have institutional knowledge, you have wisdom.

Use it wise wisely.

When we leave this community, where do we go to look for charm, to look for substance?

It certainly is not in the city of Rochester, Red Wing, Hastings, Winona, uh, Duluth, uh, uh areas outside of here.

Why is that?

Because we continue to dismantle our charm.

I encourage all of you to not approve of this project as it is put forward by Mr.

Henderson.

To have a project such as this in the heart of our city of the 19th century, does not enhance the space as it is currently projected.

That particular facility needs to enhance this the surrounding spaces that it's invited within those other historic buildings.

It is not to detract from it.

Now, my main concern if this project moves ahead.

Um, I've already said I hope you don't approve it.

Um, the outcome of that will be the rising real estate taxes of the surrounding buildings, which will be a domino effect.

There will be fewer businesses being able to occupy those spaces, which will lead to further demolition.

So say goodbye to what remains that might draw people to this community.

Another thing I would like to say is without getting feedback from Hippolyta would be very premature.

So walk, don't run.

There is no urgency for this.

But understand your charge has nothing to do with that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Creasel.

Will the next speaker please step forward?

And you have Lucy Creasel.

Good evening.

Thank you so much for this opportunity.

My name is Lucy Creasel.

Um, I'm here tonight with a hat as a small business owner in the historic district.

Um what I just want to say, like this area, which many and people in the room and beyond worked really hard to landmark as a district as landmarked because it is socially, economically, and culturally significant.

And it made me think about like asking myself the question what is being vital?

Like what does that mean to be a vital entity in this downtown area?

Just as last weekend on Saturday, I had a couple come in who um is leaving Massachusetts, and they said we looked at Washington State, we looked at Vermont, we looked at the Carolinas, we chose Rochester.

They chose to move here, and I asked them why.

And they said, because there's an antiquarian bookstore.

They used to know my boss.

They also said, because I can take an art class.

I can go to a gallery right around the corner because of this hub right here.

So they moved here because the historic district is um is the compass, is it is a compass, has the capacity to further be a compass for people who are visiting and who live here.

And um, so I just wanted to emphasize that.

I thought that was really cool.

And those of us on the block, I've spoken with a lot of my neighbors, many, um, a couple of them rent um our tenants from the um person who is proposing this project.

And we we pride ourselves in offering third places, safe spaces, interesting places, unique places, places that are not rec replicable, um, and where people can find their tribe or however you want to call it.

Um, I believe that the proposal is um out of scale and and out of character and kind of out of touch with what that is we're trying to create there, and it does destroy the um the district feel overall.

So, what does that mean?

Those of us as business owners are worried about being displaced.

Where would we go from here?

Where could we afford something else to still do something creative that is so high risk?

And that's where um one of my neighbors said, well, what are the alternatives?

So, what are the alternatives?

I would ask all of you and your expertise and your experience in these fields to really help us all think outside the box.

Like what are property tax incentives, rent relief programs in this for this very small district.

What can we do to make it possible for people who own these buildings to focus on living and creating and building versus some, I mean, yes, there's logistics, um, but make it easier to survive there.

And I would also just propose to the person who owns these buildings if you know, um, if if you don't have the passion to maintain these specific buildings, um, maybe consider selling them to someone else.

Maybe there's a way we can incentivize someone who doesn't have the same capital, um, but there's some tax relief opportunity to make it viable for someone who really wants to be in this distinct postage stamp area of integrity um to belong there.

So just to emphasize um just because this is a third proposal, um, I don't think third time is the charm.

I think there's a lot of work to be done.

This doesn't quite fit.

I'm all for adaptive reuse and imagination and tasteful collaboration.

And I would just encourage you all to um use your best judgment on the nature and feel of this area.

And let's think outside the box together and thank you for your expertise and for your time.

Thank you, Ms.

Kriesel.

Um, next up, Barb Hudson, please step forward.

Hello, I'm Barb Hudson, and I appreciate all the business owners that have spoke up today and Rochester citizens.

Um I support their efforts, and I won't repeat uh everything that's been said.

But my comments this evening are concerning the public comment letter, or rather the personal opinion letter that has been included in tonight's agenda packet.

I'm extremely disheartened that the community development staff thought it prudent to include one person's personal opinion into the written public record that significantly undervalues the contributions of Rochester citizens and neighborhood groups that support the mission and the purpose of this commission, and that is to safeguard the heritage of this city by encouraging the preservation of historic properties and to protect Rochester's unique character as it relates to its own history.

These citizens and neighborhood groups possess the same attributes as each of the appointed heritage preservation commissioners because they too are Rochester citizens who have demonstrated an interest and expertise in historic preservation.

This is a must that is stated in the UDC statute as your appointment requires.

This person or business owner clearly needs education from this commission as well as from the community development staff regarding the formal process, Secretary of Interior Standards, and criteria used to determine whether or not a property needs all of the qualifications for landmark designation to give this person or business owner the credence to undermine the responsibilities of the HBC, citizen and neighborhood groups dedicated to preserving Rochester's history and heritage by due process does not reflect your mission and purpose.

Many of us are wondering why what was the intent of including this letter into the written public record.

If I write a letter into the HBC, will it be posted to the agenda?

Did the city staff follow up with informational letter to this person to educate them in the formal process followed by the HBC?

Whatever the intent of including this letter was in the packet, it has made us more determined than ever to preserve and protect Rochester's remaining historical properties for the future generations who have no voice now, but will appreciate current facilitation, our current facilitation and dedication.

It takes a great deal of fortitude for Rochester citizens to come before this commission to attend these meetings month after month, year after year.

I have been told by the HBC every year since 2013 that Indian Heights Park will soon be up for landmark review.

Last January it was number one on your list.

In March, we were told that we would hear if the HBC was awarded a grant for cultural eligibility study by June.

There is no mention of it from staff in May, and it's not on this month's agenda either.

So if the HBC is capitulating with citizens and neighborhood groups, Indian Heights is not benefited thus far.

But I will continue the effort I started way back in 2010 as long as it takes.

Bravo.

Thank you, Barbara.

Um we have no more speakers on the list.

However, uh, an email came into the commission shortly before the meeting and after discussing with coordinator Patterson Lungren and attorney Carlson.

I'll read it now into the record.

This is from Maggie Panetta.

She says to me.

There also was one sent to coordinator Peterson Lungren and reads the same.

Hi, Ben.

We are just now hearing that there's a proposal on the table today that includes treatome at 309 Broadway for our space to be converted into student housing lobby.

I'm extremely disappointed that just now is the first we are hearing about this, and tenants have not been consulted about the spaces.

We have heard through a KTTC article and are out of town for work for a number of reasons outside of our own interests.

We are against this approval and feel it deserves a larger conversation at City Council when the owners likely appeal.

This includes reasons we've stated in the past about the effect of massive construction on all surrounding businesses, but I've included our previous letter for reference.

I would also like to note that since the last proposal we have been very agreeable to the building owner.

We agreed to a 60% rent increase with a three-year agreement to continue increasing.

We are committed to staying as long as possible.

Please include this in the public comment if possible and make available to the commissioner.

Thank you.

Maggie Panetta, designer, muralist, event manager, owner of Popsark Theater and Treaton.

I will not read the attached letter that was sent to City Council last year, and that was included in the event.

With that, we are concluding the public open comment period.

And this meeting of the Rochester of HPC is called to order on June 23rd, 2026 at 526 p.m.

Commissioner Bodeker.

Present.

Commissioner Connell.

Commissioner Gowden.

Present.

Commissioner Kessler.

Present.

Commissioner Muchler.

Present.

Commissioner Poyer.

Here.

Commissioner Schabel.

Here.

Commissioner Tater.

Present.

Commissioner Wasmer.

Present.

And Chair Zastro is present.

At this time, I was told we have a couple of interns.

I don't know if staff wanted to briefly introduce the interns in the room, but we can take a second to do that.

I think one is present.

So yeah, I would just note that we have Elise Strickland here, uh, who just finished her software at UNC Champel Hill Chapel Hill in uh North Carolina.

Uh she's interning actually with uh Heather Cochran in legislative affairs, but has some interest in planning, zoning, potential legal career.

So um Elise is here tonight, uh observing HBC.

Thank you and welcome.

Okay, the order of the agenda is in our packets and on the screen.

Are there any corrections or objections to the order of the agenda as presented?

Yes, Commissioner Poyer.

Thank you, Chair.

I make a motion to strike uh item 7b from the agenda.

We have a motion from Commissioner Poyer to strike item 7B.

It is the letter to HPC.

One more time.

We have a motion from Commissioner Poyer to strike item 7B, the letter to HPC.

Okay, hearing on seconds.

Okay, seconded by Commissioner Schable.

Um any further discussion, Commissioner Poyer.

Uh yeah, I um I just like to add that uh this is a basically a public comment, and we don't address public comment directly.

Commissioners do have an opportunity in other business if they want to bring out the discussion.

And I think commissioners, if they want to discuss this letter, have that same opportunity, and that it doesn't need to be on the agenda.

Commissioner Schable, any further thoughts?

I seconded simply to have a discussion.

I am interested in um uh commissioner and attorney Carlson's opinion on this.

It is in my recollection that we typically do not receive letters from the public and hear them during the open comments.

So I'd like to hear more about the policy about that.

Okay, um coordinator Patterson Lember.

And Chair, I would just say I don't think the time is now.

I think if if we want to have a discussion about the letter, um the time would do that is is in other business.

Otherwise, if if it's removed, then there's no discussion.

So I think I think the motion is just to remove it.

I I don't I didn't hear anything else about I think it's just my understanding of the motion is to remove it from the agenda.

Okay, fair.

Uh any commissioners, any other concerns or questions about removing item 7b, the letter to the HPC.

Okay, we can proceed to a vote.

All in favor of striking item 7b from the agenda, say aye.

Aye, aye.

All opposed.

We have a roll call.

Sure, we can do a roll call.

Thank you, uh, Secretary Schable.

Um the motion is to strike item 7B, letter addressed to the HPC.

Commissioner Bodeker.

Commissioner Gottman.

Pardon.

Commissioner Kessler.

No.

Commissioner Mushler.

Aye.

Commissioner Poyer.

Aye.

Commissioner Schable.

Nay.

Commissioner Tater.

Aye.

Commissioner uh and Chair Zastro votes aye.

So we have five eyes to strike, two nays with an abstention from Commissioner Bodaker.

Item 7B is struck from the agenda.

So now before us, um, approval of the consent agenda with item seven be struck.

Do I have a motion?

Uh move approval on the consent agenda.

Motion to approve the consent agenda by Commissioner Poyer, seconded by Commissioner Tater.

Any other thoughts?

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, it is approved unanimously.

The minutes, agenda item 4a.

The minutes from the May 19th meeting are available on the city website.

The link was included in the packet.

Are there any corrections or objections to the minutes as linked in the agenda packet and on the website?

Are there any corrections or objections to the minutes as linked in the agenda packet and on the website?

Hearing none, the minutes from May 19th are approved by unanimous consent.

We are now on to agenda item 5A, the certificate of appropriateness for 311 South Broadway.

Coordinator Patterson Longridge.

Yeah, just catches up.

Okay, so we have two certificates of appropriateness that we're looking at tonight.

And the first one is for 309 through 317 Broadway Avenue.

But before we get into that, I just want to talk a little bit about certificates of appropriateness and certificates of appropriateness when it's a major alteration.

Comes to the HPC for a decision.

The table that you see on the screen here, we've looked at this in the past.

Typically myself under the direction of the community development director.

We do review these at a public meeting, but not a public hearing.

No public hearing is required.

So just kind of grounding us in that.

And at the city council, then there is a public hearing.

So just to kind of ground us in that in that process.

So certificate of appropriateness is a request for additions to three individual buildings.

They're addressed as one of them is 309 South Broadway.

And then the next one is the Bach Music Building 315 and 317.

All of these buildings are considered and were designated as part of the historic district as contributing properties to the historic district.

The proposal again is for additions to the rear of the property.

All of the facades will be maintained.

And I'll get into more about that with a little more detail here.

So location of the property.

So you see it on the map here.

And the location of the project is in the red line.

So it would be the rear and then up above of the existing buildings.

Each individual floor was provided.

Typically, we don't look at interiors, so this is a little unusual, but I'm using this both because it was in the packet, but also because I think it helps to understand sort of the level of alteration that's being proposed.

This is the first floor plan, and you see the double-dashed red line, which is to the rear of the main pain furniture building.

The proposal is to remove that.

Let me orient you to this as well here.

So to the right, you would have Broadway Avenue.

And the building at the top is 309 Broadway.

So 309 Broadway pain furniture, the two different addresses.

The existing wall would be removed.

The building would be shortened.

This is Black Music Building.

This would remain as existing.

To the back is proposed a courtyard, which is kind of an enclosed courtyard.

There's some images there.

And only the facade would remain.

Now the storefront would be altered.

We'll get into that.

We'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute.

I've got a question on this.

Yeah.

Would the height of these retail spaces be altered at all?

No.

The uh, well, at least that's not part of the project, it's not part of the proposal.

Now, when applications come forward to you, we only review um projects that impact the exterior of the building.

So if there's interior work that is requested at a later time that's not part of this, um, then that might not come to you.

Quick make a note, commissioners, if there are any questions, please hold them and direct it to the chair.

Thank you.

Um, so the second floor um shows that you actually have a two-story courtyard in the rear.

Again, this is um, and you'll see on the next level where this is where the um primary edition would be up above this.

Um sorry, 309 um Broadway would um would be altered on the interior.

It says open to below.

So basically what you would do is you come in on the first floor and then come up, elevator and stairs, and then have access to these upper level apartments in paid furniture.

Um, you have to come use the back deck or use the other entrances to get into the Bach Music Building.

Those are um maintained as separate buildings as they are currently.

Uh so third floor, this is where the actual addition starts.

Um, and now you see um towards the top here.

This is the elevator structure, the um elevator stair tower, um, which again, this is 309.

Here you see um the uh representation of the parapet of the pain furniture building, which would be maintained.

So that kind of orients you again to pain furniture building.

Um these are the roofs, the existing roofs of those buildings, which would be maintained.

Again, uh the back side of pane is removed, and this is the primary, the main tower apartments.

So this is the third floor.

Um, this is repeated for the most part um in all of the levels upward.

And it's a proposal for seven stories, so um five additional stories to what's there now.

Um now I want to talk a little bit about some of the guidelines that we have.

Um so you know that you've adopted the Secretary of Interior standards as well as the local design guidelines, which um I distributed early today, and then you also have that available uh at your at the desk here if you need it.

Um in the packet, I also provided some additional guidelines.

So again, we've only adopted for our standards, the Secretary of Interior Standards and the design guidelines.

The additional guidelines provided by the National Park Service and the Secretary of Interior help you to make decisions about how you interpret those standards.

So we're really focused on the Secretary of Interior Standards.

Um, but I did provide you some of these documents, and in particular, I want to point out a couple of things in those additional guidelines that I provided.

So one of them is uh um a web page that is part of the National Park Service.

Um these are specifically for tax credit projects.

Um so anytime somebody is doing a project with a national registered property, um, there's some guidance here for new constructions within the boundaries of a historic property.

Now, when you talk about boundaries of a historic property, um, that could be a site, or in our case it's it's the historic district.

So we're not thinking just about how this project would impact the individual buildings that it's associated with on those addresses.

We're also looking about how it fits within the historic district.

And indeed, within that, um within that document or within that web page, it talks about how when visible and close proximity to historic buildings, the new construction must be subordinate to these buildings.

Um and then it goes on to say that the limitations on the size, scale, and design of new construction may be less critical the further it is located from the historic buildings.

Um the second one that I provided uh was a technical um preservation study, I think is what the TPS stands for.

Um, and again, rooftop additions.

So um it states that there are a number of ways to make the distinction between the old and new, and that's one of the standards that we'll get into here, um, including uh through setbacks by changing the materials of the new addition, by altering the pattern of windows openings, or by simply um, or by simplifying the surface ornamentation on the new addition.

So as we get into the Secretary of Interior standards, kind of keep that guideline in mind.

Um, and then finally, preservation brief 14, um, which was one of the longer documents, um, basically, you know, states that within rehabilitation, which is one of our standards, the one that we typically use for review, uh, the focus on new additions is to ensure that they preserve the character of historic buildings.

A new addition should preserve significant historic material, be compatible, and be differentiated from the historic buildings.

Okay, so there's some of the guidelines.

There was a lot to those documents.

Hopefully, you had a chance to read through it.

Um, but I wanted to um the reason I included them was specifically um to provide some of some of this material.

So the image that you see here, um, they're not exactly the same angle.

Um, obviously you can see uh the um the aerial photo, which is from a Google um Earth view, um shows what's currently there.

Um, and then the uh the drawing um is a study in massing provided by the applicant.

Notice that um what's not shown here um actually are additional buildings um on each side.

So our historic district, and if you remember from the image that I showed previously, the historic district um comes around and does include the back side here of this pro of this block.

This is a really unusual circumstance, and there was a lot of discussion when the district was designated.

Should we be including these back buildings?

You know, does this district um does it have the historic integrity because of these modern buildings?

A lot of discussion about that, um, and ultimately the city council did decide to adopt the historic district with those um with those buildings with that 318 um behind and the hue also, which which was added um before the district was designated.

It provides a context that's a little bit different from a lot of historic properties and a lot of historic districts.

So our situation is a little bit different than many where we see a proposal uh for a rooftop addition.

So I went through each of the Secretary of Interior standards, and I'm providing that on the screen here.

Um as I go through these standards and review them as I went through them and reviewed them and considered it.

Um I think that the case can be made that each of these standards is indeed met.

Now my recommendation to you is based on my analysis.

Um of course have the ability to make a decision different from what I'm recommending.

Um I would recommend that you have findings of fact or that you at least cite some reason, uh, some reasons as to why it, you know, if you choose to make a motion to deny this, um, and we can talk through that.

But I'm going to go through each of the standards and show some additional imagery as we go through this, just to kind of show what I'm what I'm talking about here.

So property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that requires minimal changes to distinctive materials features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

Um the first part of that is yes, right?

It's a mixed use, the historically were mixed use.

Um it will be continuation of that.

Um distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

Um in an image here in a minute, we're going to talk about where those distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships are.

Um, and I'm saying that primarily they are along Broadway Avenue.

That is where you experience as you know, as a human, you experience the historic district in this area from Broadway Avenue.

Um changes to the spatial districts, sorry, spatial relationships.

Um, yes, there is an alteration which will change the spatial relationship between this property and the surrounding property.

So that is true.

Um, I think the question is, you know, is it minimal enough, right?

Is it minimal or not?

Um my comment would be that it that I think it could be considered minimal again because of the context of the surrounding buildings.

So, right, the new addition is smaller and does not expand beyond the height and width boundaries of 318, um, which is to the rear of this.

Secretary of Interior Standard Number Two, historic character of the property will be retained and preserved, as stated in that um preservation brief number 14.

Um, this is one of the things that really is critical.

Is the historic character of the property retained and preserved?

Um, is removal of distinctive materials or alterations or features of spaces, spatial relationships that characterize the property.

Um, is that happening or can it be avoided?

So the kind of primary character for these buildings are the facades on Broadway Avenue.

Um, yes, you know, there are brick walls in the back in the alley.

Um, and that does have its own special kind of unique character.

Um, but typically those are spaces when um, you know, when there's a request for adaptive reuse, those are the spaces that are used for additions.

Um the historic features of the facades are being preserved.

The storefront at 309, we will be rebuilt rehabilitated, removing the infill that was um put in place approximately 15 years ago.

That was um uh from what I could tell from Google Street View, that was um right before Big Brads opened.

Um taking a look at right where are the character-defining features of these buildings in terms of how you experience the historic district.

Um in the upper left-hand corner, uh, the entirety of the facades of both um the pain furniture building and the Bach Music Building will be preserved.

Um it is the storefront that would be changed in 309.

So this upper level, right?

This facade would also be preserved.

Um, as shown in the submittal.

Um, this is kind of a mashup that I did just to kind of give you a better idea of what's being preserved, um, what's being changed, what's being added.

Moving on with the Secretary of Interior standards.

Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use changes that create a false sense of historical development, um, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties will not be undertaken.

So taking pieces from other buildings that maybe have some architectural character to them and adding them is um is not to be undertaking.

Um that's actually why one of the buildings in our district um is non-contributing that's not happening here.

So changes that have occurred to the district during the period of significance are being maintained.

Period of significance is up to the 1960s.

Um, the rehabilitation of facade 309 um again is a rebuildation of that storefront, um, which was altered approximately 15 years ago.

Um, and um, and then the design that's being uh proposed is more contemporary in these new spaces, in particular in the rear of the building, um, which is the alley facing area.

So this is not um conjectural, this is not trying to look like it's historic.

This is um the new space, this is the new addition.

Um, and it's uh um kind of creating a unique area there for um the residents that would occupy occupy this building.

Secretary of Interior Standards four and five changes to a property that have acquired acquired historic significance in their own white right will be retained and preserved.

Um there are changes that have occurred to um both pain furniture building and Bach music building um that occurred within the period of significance, and that is those are being preserved under this project.

Distinct materials features, finishes, and construction techniques, um, examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

Um again, those distinctive spaces that face Broadway are where really most of that material is, um, most if not all of that material.

Um the HPC did approve a project the end of last summer, um, where the exterior rear wall of um part of this, the Bach Music Building, um, that has already undergone a rehabilitation.

So there isn't much left in terms of features, finishes, techniques on the rear side of this property.

Six, seven, and eight really don't have much bearing on this project.

No character-defining historic features are being removed or replaced in the project under six.

No such chemical physical treatments.

That's often pertinent when there's something like a um sandblasting or paint removal is being proposed.

Archaeological resources will be protected in place if such resources must be disturbed.

I wouldn't anticipate finding much of any significance because of the amount of change that's has occurred in these areas over time with construction reconstruction of the alley and parking surfaces in the rear.

There may be some small items, and certainly if that's a concern, that could be a condition.

You know, if you choose to approve this.

Again, those materials features and spatial relationships that provide the character to these properties along Broadway is not being destroyed.

Spatial relationship between the property and its neighbors and the broader historic district is indeed being altered, right?

So we're not saying that it's not being altered, it is.

This side you see the uh elevator tower a little bit more.

That's um pushed forward a little bit further than the other parts of the addition.

Um I think setback between the facade of 309 and the elevator tower is over 40 feet.

Um the other ones, I believe, are somewhere around 80 feet.

And then here again, the final uh Secretary of Interior standard for rehabilitation.

New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would not be um would be unimpaired.

So I think that you can have a finding.

I think that it's valid to have a finding that that really the essential form and integrity of the historic properties are being um preserved again along Broadway Avenue.

So I am making a recommended recommended, I'm sorry, a recommendation, um, a recommended motion um to approve the requested certificate of appropriateness for the seven-story addition to the rear properties located at 309 through 317 Broadway, South Broadway.

Um that would include the storefront rehabilitation of 309 Broadway as detailed in the application packet.

Um there was some discussion back and forth right up until the packet needed to go out last week as to um whether or not any of the other facades were being um proposed for alteration, and I got the clarification that they're not.

Um so um it's just the addition and then um the the change of storefront at 309 that would be approved.

So I will stop allow for questions.

I can go back to slides if you want to see particular images um and talk through these issues or go through and look at Secretary of Interior Standard.

Thank you, coordinator Peterson Lungridge.

Commissioners, any questions for staff?

Uh yes, Commissioner Schable What was significant about this project that caused you to favor um approving the certificate of appropriateness compared to uh the old Olmstead bank.

And I don't know what staff's position was on that, but I know the prior commissions uh deny those certificate appropriateness and yeah, so for Olmstead County Bank, um the um the project that was approved was approved by city council prior to the district being designated.

So it was actually approved by city council at that point.

Um that is one um kind of one baseline that I am that I do have in mind.

Um I believe that when we're looking at um, let me just back up here and look at Secretary of Interior standard.

Um the compatibility um let's see.

Sorry, can't find it.

Um the level of change, how much change is how much change are we willing to allow in the historic district?

Um the fact that city council did approve, now that was a while ago, and it was before it was a designated district.

I think kind of established a sense of um a desire to allow for a certain amount of change.

Now the rehabilitation standards do allow for change.

It's up to us as a community to make the determination about how much change, right?

And as we go through each of these standards and read kind of the plain language of what they say, like does this meet them or not?

Is this too much change or does or is this is this alteration?

Is this level of alteration allowed within the standards as we you commission as you um as you determine it for our community?

Does that answer your question?

And so did this commission deny the motion and then it was appealed in city council.

So that would happen.

Are you talking about Olmstead County Bank?

Yeah.

So what happened was um that was the first certificate of appropriateness.

We didn't even have that process established yet.

Um, so that had to be created by city council to allow for um for the commission and the council and staff to even look at a project before a permit uh building permit was submitted.

So we were creating sort of new territory there.

It was appealed and the city council approved it.

Okay.

Yep.

Thank you, coordinator Patterson Longer.

We have Commissioner Flooder.

I'm out of curiosity, how many apartments are there?

I think 50 some.

If I'm if I'm remembering correctly.

So floors three through seven would have what one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, no, seven, um floors three through seven, and then eight on the second floor of the existing buildings.

And then what a combination center made for additional parking.

Um so parking is nothing that we um look at here.

That's under the underlying zoning.

That's something that would be handled when um the applicant applies for a site development plan in SDP.

With the floor plan that was presented, it was kind of odd.

So yeah, so um, so what they are showing for parking is these spaces in the rear.

I think there's like eight ones, we would be four, five, six, seven, eight, probably not here because of ingress regress.

Um, but yeah, that will be confirmed during the um during the zoning review process that they meet those standards.

Thank you.

Thank you, coordinator Patterson Langer.

Commissioner Board.

Thank you.

Coordinator Patterson Langren, we rejected a proposal on these same properties a little more than a year ago.

And at that time you had recommended us rejecting that approval.

So I just want to go through what has changed.

Um thing is we've gone from 11 stories to seven, correct?

Correct.

And has the setback increased as well?

How much has it?

Yeah, so um 309, the property at 309, that was um that tower was shown all the way up to the front.

Um, let me just get to an image here so we can so um the elevator tower was actually incorporated into this space.

This would have been completely demolished, um, which is why when it was reviewed last year, they also had to apply for removal of the property from the historic district, right?

So glass tower was all the way forward.

Um, it was taller, it was taller than 318.

Um, the rest of the building was set back by I think about 10, 10 to 12 feet, if I remember correctly.

Again, this is um if I'm looking at the um the measurements correctly, I think it's about 80 three set back.

Okay.

And there's been a back and forth between community development and the property owner during that year.

Can you maybe sum up how maybe the direction community development is given the property owner during that time?

Yes, I think that um, and actually from the beginning of discussion, I think um, even before the last submittal was, you know, this is a different context in terms of um many historic districts.

You've got the existing building in the rear.

Um, my advice was that it probably wouldn't get approved unless um it was seen almost more as an addition to the 318 building, and that's where I advised um any study or any um consideration to to be designed more as an addition from a design standpoint um to that building rather than as something that has a strong presence on Broadway.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, coordinator Paterson Lundgren.

Um, I saw Commissioner Kessler Sand first last time.

Do you still have a question?

Um no, several comments.

So we 18 didn't exist.

Would you still have a common piece?

Probably not.

Yeah, probably not.

And more boys.

Um, so do we know how much of 309 million uh reason would be main after um based on the plans that have been submitted, it really is that facade now.

Um back to original or to an earlier image here.

Uh nope, sorry, it's further.

Um the way these buildings were built historically, um, depending on when they were constructed and what was already constructed next door, you've got some different kind of things happening here.

Looking at it, I'm not sure exactly sort of where this building ends and where the next building begins, right?

So but what I have said and what I believe is shown here is that this entire thing will this entire part of the facade will remain, and I believe and that is to include the CORDIS.

Um this may need to be kind of shorn up and rebuilt.

Um I don't know that is something that would have to be determined by an architect or an engineer.

Um, but it you can see that it's really kind of built into the next building.

So I don't even know where that property boundary is.

That certainly the intention is that both sides of the facade um would remain.

It's just the facade insert.

Um and if that's a concern, I would recommend um making that a condition if that's something that is a concern or something that you want to make sure um is clear.

Yes, Commissioner Watson.

Um thank you, Molly.

Um could you help me understand?

So for me, the spatial relationship part and the statement that the new addition um would be subordinate to the previous.

I have a really hard time when I look at that, and there's five stories, and I understand that it's set back.

It's a significant further uh pushback than the first time, but I when I look at that, I that's what I see like for me spatially, it's not at all like uh you know not taking over the the historical nature.

I wonder if you could just explain a little bit why um you feel like that your reasoning was.

Yeah, because I don't believe that it has to be necessarily subordinate just to the properties that are of the state address.

I believe that it's subordinate to the historic district as a whole.

And that's why 318 becomes part of the equation.

Thank you.

Commissioner Tater, we'll make certain that I understand this is the third time that this application has come to us.

So um it's the third time that there's been a request for an addition to these properties.

It's been a different application, a different specific request each time.

Okay.

Um the status of the properties also changed between the first and the second um request.

Okay, and then all these times on this proposal that you find that it needs the guidelines.

Um so this is the first time that I'm recommending.

Yeah, that it could be present.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, just one of the answers to yes.

Um, yes, Commissioner Poyer.

Yeah, I'd uh I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules um for this entire meeting.

Both um the applicant for this item and the following item for certificate of appropriateness are present, and I think it would aid the commission to be able to be able to ask the applicants any questions.

So my motion is to provide 10 minutes of questions and answers from the commission to the applicants, both on this item and the next item.

We have a motion from Commissioner Poyer to suspend the rules for both item uh 5A and 5B to allow for 10 minutes of question and answer from the applicants.

Seconded by Commissioner Kessler.

Um Commissioner Poyer, any further thoughts?

Uh no, I think it speaks for itself.

Ask a point of clarification.

One second, Commissioner Kessler.

Any thoughts?

I I have several questions I would like to ask them at least this one.

So of the of the motion.

No, of the oh, okay.

Um clarification on the on the motion before.

Thank you.

So is this allowing us time to discuss or simply ask questions?

This would be simply as stated, it would be allowing us as commissioners to ask questions and have answers from the applicants for both item 5A and 5B.

Any other thoughts or questions on the motion before us?

Okay, the motion before us again is a motion to suspend the rules for both item 5A and 5B to allow for 10 minutes of question and answer with the applicants.

Um we will do a roll call for this one, I think.

Um Commissioner Bodeker.

Commissioner Connell.

Commissioner Gandhi.

Hi.

Commissioner Mutchler.

Aye.

Commissioner Boyer.

Aye.

Commissioner Schapel.

Hi.

Commissioner Tater.

All right.

And Commissioner Zaspro will vote.

Okay.

So it passes with one May from Commissioner Bodeker.

And then was that correct?

Did you say name?

Yes.

You did say okay.

So then it passes unanimous.

Okay.

I do have some questions for staffers.

So before we move on to that, I'd like to finish up with staff questions.

So Peterson Lundgren on, if you could go to slide 13.

Is it slide 13?

That's what it's showing up.

Okay.

Okay.

So it looks like roughly one half of the pane building and you know, or parcel there, and roughly two-thirds of 309 are going to be removed.

Yeah.

That that seems like a pretty substantial removal of both properties.

How is this not um requiring a demolition?

I guess yeah.

So in conversations with the building official, when there is a proposal um to select removal, right?

That can be done under a building permit, and that is done under a building permit.

And that's um that's what was determined with conversation with the building official.

Okay.

Um and along with that, I'm I'm kind of curious.

So you said that you think that the removal of that amount of those two buildings, and then the addition that we're seeing here.

I'm I guess I'm still struggling with understanding how you how this is viewed as subordinate to the original structures.

And yeah, if I understand you're saying it's because the non-contributing building behind it is what you're basing that off of.

Yes, so I'm not saying that.

Well, there's a couple of things, right?

Subordinate how subordinate in size, definitely not subordinate in size to the existing properties that it's addressed, right?

So no, it's not subordinate in size.

Um, but that's not the only kind of um part of subordination that the guidelines talk about.

Remember that we're now talking, we're into the guidelines, what the guidelines say.

Um, and so um subordinate in design, right?

Something that's a little more simple, something that um doesn't kind of take the attention away from um from the historic properties.

And again, it's not just about the individual properties, it's about when we look at changes to a property in an historic district, we're looking at how the alteration impacts both that individual building as well as the district.

And in this case, um, and it's it's a little unusual, but in this case, I think I think the case can be made that um that because it is um set back and smaller than 318 that it can be considered subordinate um to the historic district to the to the surroundings.

I have a hang on one second, I still have a few other questions here.

Um so today I actually I I walked multiple blocks around there to try and just visually imagine it and see what I was seeing on the ground as it is now.

And I'm I'm also curious the public realm would be the sidewalk on third board, the the alleyway behind it.

I actually ran into a gentleman who was back there who lived in the area.

He said that routinely people pass through um on that sidewalk and it's actually made thoroughfare during Thursdays uh on first.

So I'm I'm curious um why you chose not to include those as historic features, the other sides of the building in this case when the alleyway is something that is used as a thoroughfare uh routine.

Yeah, so I think um here, minimal change.

That was the word I was looking for earlier.

Um the distinctive materials or alterations and features that characterize the property, right?

So what what are the um what are the spaces that characterize the property?

What are um what are the elements um for why these are contributing buildings to the historic district?

Um well there's kind of a certain you know uniqueness and grittiness to a to a brick building, and and you have that in the rear of the pain furniture building and 309.

I would say those are not the spaces that characterize the historic nature of this of these properties or make it contributing to the historic district, make them contributing to the historic district.

Those are secondary spaces.

So I noticed the windows on the rear of the pain furniture building as well as the two next to it.

Both seem to be character defining.

And I think if we had those windows come before us, it would be something we would probably hear for a certificate of appropriateness, probably even a major alteration for those windows.

So that's my concern and question, I guess, again, is I think if this project was smaller, say the windows on the rear, I would still see that coming before us as a major alteration.

So again, help me understand how from the public realm, those are visible.

And I think in that circumstance, it would be a historic feature we would be considering it, probably having deliberations on.

So again, can you help me understand how this is distinctly different?

Yeah.

So again, rehabilitation allows for alterations to even historic features.

It's about what are the character defining features.

Um I think that some of the past past few months, the decisions of the HPC regarding um window replacement has also kind of given me an indication of where we are as a community with that, that indeed, you know, original windows aren't necessarily um something that we're gonna hold back with proposed alteration.

Okay.

Um establishing sort of precedence, and it's it's a layered right there.

These are layered things that have happened um, you know, over time, um, where we're basing decisions on.

Yeah.

So I guess just to wrap up my question, you know.

My understanding is that you're not considering the alleyway view or the view from third or fourth um as far as the impact to the district.

So like it truly is just the view of the facade in your recommendation.

No, I think that um, sorry, let me get to that.

I think that um actually there are several views that I'm considering.

Um in particular, um, right?

So this is an angle, right?

We can't, I guess I didn't ask for um views from all, you know, a 360 all views, um, but you can kind of see how it's going to be from Fourth Street, um, even though it's at an angle here primarily along Broadway.

Um, and then from the other side as well.

Um, so yes, I think that um you will be able to see the addition from Ford Street and from Third Street.

Um, but again, what level of impact does it have to the character-defining features?

And that's yeah, that that's that's that was my evaluation is based on that.

And I have one more and then I'll go to you.

So I I'm concerned.

So slide 22, I was trying to check if you could go to slide 20.

Oh, that's us, right there.

Okay, perfect.

Um, so on the street there, um, and by land lab, which is also in the district and kind of around, we can see the plumber building.

This is in the street a little further, but if you back up by Lynn Lab, you can barely very clearly see the plumber building, McKayler sign, Kayla building.

Um, and uh to me, I would interpret that as a distinct feature of the historic district, that those other prominent buildings are visible in the language of uh the Secretary of the Interior talking about the effect of this on the landscape.

Can you help me understand how this view is that we only have a rendering, but it looks like we won't be able to see those um other iconic buildings from this view, right?

Right.

And so I'm curious.

Um, that's kind of as people are going north on Broadway, and so they are welcome to town, and that's a view that I think is very recognizable.

Can you help me understand how in your perspective this wouldn't affect the landscape of the district?

Well, I'm not saying that it wouldn't affect it, right?

It's a question to what extent and whether or not that falls within what's allowed in historic rehabilitation.

Um the you know, the question or the the comment about the plumber building, yes, you can see a very small portion of it from here.

Um there are some there's some language in the guidelines that talk about preserving um view sheds, for example.

So if you are in a situation, I'm gonna say like a historic battlefield, let's say, um, which is not an area that I've been very expert at.

Um, but if you have a situation where the historic district itself um and the character of it relies on that view shed, then that would be a much bigger concern to me.

Um the plumber building certainly is within the period of significance, but I don't see it as being um even that view of it, I don't see it as really contributing to the historic district.

I mean, you can see the top of it from you know, well, and sure.

I appreciate the answer.

When I was further back, I took photos.

I you can see it a lot more further back.

So the view here is one view.

If you go back in front of LIMLA, this yeah, you can see the walkway or almost across the street.

Um so it is a concern of mine, but I appreciate your answer.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, thank you for your patience, Commissioner Hesley.

I have a lot of thoughts on this.

Well, let's keep it to for now.

Let's keep it to questions for staff.

We'll we'll keep thoughts or opinions for deliberation.

Okay.

The question I have is when we're looking at a district.

We spoke briefly about the window process.

And then I would like to say, as a commissioner, when we're reviewing windows on a singular property, it yes, we are primarily concerned with the look from the street.

We are wanting to keep that historical integrity from the street.

My understanding about historical district is it's a group spanning multiple blocks.

And alleyways, in my opinion, would be included in things that we consider historically relevant for consideration.

Um, if you can go back to the slide where they have the view of the back, in addition to demolishing a good chunk of the um one of the buildings that is there, it looks like we would also be pretty drastically changing the back view of all of the buildings there.

Is that an accurate understanding of this?

Yes, yep.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Buchler.

Um, depending on how uh things go, would this come up to the city council at all?

So a certificate of appropriateness um for a major alteration um rests with the HPC to make the decision.

If you um choose to deny it, it is appealable to the city council.

Thank you.

Just to clarify that question, the city council will ultimately approve or deny this project.

No, no, I mean I'm not the strike of an appropriateness.

Oh, but the ultimate project is going to go through many other city reviews that will go to the city council.

Nope.

You're telling me that we're going to put a seven-story addition on top of this that won't go to city council.

That's approved at the community development level.

Correct.

Oh, learn something new every day.

Wow.

Would it go through the zoning commission at all?

Um I don't believe it would go through zoning um commission.

It would be done what's called under what's we can't do.

Yeah, okay.

Um, I believe it would go through what's called the site development plan process, which is um done within the community development department.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

So I have one last one.

So um working with consultants for the historic downtown or the yeah, the downtown commercial historic district plan.

Alleyways were a big focal point of that, if I recall.

This from the renderings we have, it looks like it would drastically alter that alleyway, that public right of way.

Have you, I guess trying to think about how to ask this.

How would that impact the whole plan?

Because this seems like a big deviation, yeah.

Yeah, I don't see it as a deviation.

So now I'm gonna put my urban design hat on.

Um, you have actually uh a use that's activating that space, right?

Where um what currently this view um so this is kind of where the Bach Music building is, and there's a a little bit of a tuck in there.

Um oftentimes there's vehicles parked there.

There's some great like unique sort of painting and things that have been done in that space.

Um, but um that's actually what has been um uh recapped in the last year that was approved last summer, that that kind of alcove.

It actually enlarges this and shows that the plan is to do programming there.

It possibly could also be used for the businesses.

I don't know if that's the plan or not.

But actually the way I read this and the way I understand the proposal is that this space will be more activated than it even currently is.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bodeker.

I'm just curious.

How did this come up so fast when it took the homeowner with the replacement with 14 months to get a response?

14 months.

Well, maybe that was uh Commissioner Bodeger.

Let's try and stay um on topic here.

So do you have a specific question about this?

Yeah, it residents invisible first.

Yeah.

So I don't believe that anything took 14 months with a homeowners.

Am I wrong?

14 months.

So I'm gonna screw it.

Let's um I'm gonna kind of say we'll be done with that question.

Please ask specifically something about this project rather than another project.

So the I was understanding this was an open form to ask questions.

So about this project, yes.

There we go.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um, so the application was submitted.

Um, the original application was submitted um within the deadline to get it on the commission.

Um, there were some questions and answers that happened over the last, I'd say two weeks, typically with a certificate of appropriateness.

Um, it's due, I think two weeks and a day prior to the meeting.

Um the application for Windows, at least there was one kind of in the past couple months here um that submitted the material.

Um, I think days before the meeting, right?

So it's just a question of when somebody submits an application, the materials that they provide, the level of details.

If I'm able to review it, um, I do I try really hard to get it to the commission as quickly as possible so that we're not delaying a project.

Yeah, Commissioner Wassmer.

I just appointed clarification.

I'm sorry.

So the outdoor space that like the two-story outdoor space that we're talking about, um, so that would be activated, but that's not going to be public space, right?

That's it says it's enclosed, it's for the residents, right?

Sure.

So it's not public space.

It's uh just one reading that correctly.

Yes, for the tenants in that apartment building, not for public use.

Yeah, I think that so you know what we have to do is read the design and understand it according to submittal.

Um, if you choose to, you know, ask questions of the applicant after this, they might be able to, or they would probably be able to clarify that.

The way I read this design is that it could be it could be either way.

Um, and I think you know, possibly um, you know, possibly even on a day or week, or it could change.

Um, again, that's just my reading of the design, and I'm just trying to find the uh let me get here.

Yeah, so um here again is the site plan.

Um, we've got access from the alley into um into that courtyard.

You've got access from each of the retail spaces into the courtyard.

Um so it you know, it could be programmed either way.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

Any uh last questions for staff from the commission.

Okay, at this time, um, I would invite the applicant to come forward for the 10 minutes if you would like.

The applicant is in the room.

Um good evening, commissioners and uh yeah, like mayor.

Appreciate all your comments.

Um very thorough job presenting it, so I don't know if I had much to add to her comments.

I think the report is very well done.

I think it's uh carefully uh reviewed based on the guidelines and the standards that you're obligated to respond to and address.

So I don't have much other to offer than that.

Um question about the LD activation is a major improvement to the outline.

Um I am an owner, one of our owner of three team commons.

We've tried hard for here to activate that alley, but the modest minimal response for the owners out there trying.

I've got a design that could show you that we presented probably five years ago, trying to get other owners to do what we did at 3 Team Commons, live and accurate that alley.

No response from any of them.

So we're doing our task with this project to kind of enhance that and activate the alley, whatever we can do.

There's pros and cons of it, yeah.

So if you walk that alley, I think you'll notice what I'm saying.

Um there's an activity back there that I think all of us would prefer not to have.

And our goal is to stop that.

Um the alley, let's see, courtyard.

Let's do it.

So very quickly, uh, can you first state your name for the record?

And then I think before we go into presentation, we're going to try to stick some questions and answers as was up with the record.

Yeah, Al Henderson.

I'm going to all right.

One of the developers of the proposal project, as well as one of the developers of owners of the team.

So yeah, happy to get your questions please.

Okay, commissioners, questions.

Commissioner Kessler.

I've got several.

Um the first question I have is that alleyway in the back that is pre proposed as a common space.

Would that be open to the public?

Yes.

Okay.

Um in several messages that I had gotten from citizens concerned about this.

Um and as I saw in the email from Maggie that sounded like property owner or not property owners, but renters were not aware that this was coming here today.

Was there any discussion with them or any sort of heads up that this addition may be happening?

So I think we need to read the people.

We uh we were careful of that, and so all of them don't have um, of course.

I have tenants that are in network levels of these apartments, they're all over it.

I'm really surprised, honestly.

Um, because they're all visas addressed that.

And then this one is just more to have on record.

Um in the proposal, this is being presented to us as potential student housing.

Have you been in with coordination with anybody from UMI?

Well, we have all 13 comments, so we're dealing with Number on a daily basis on that building, and we have a three occasion with it.

Uh it's just not for UNR, it's for WSUR male medical school.

So uh so this would be a privately owned apartment complex gear towards well thing with gear, yeah.

Okay, it could be some converted at some point if necessary.

An earlier question on how many units is 43.

Um are renovated units that are four of them exist, we'd be adding four more in the building.

So there's only 35 of uh new units.

Okay, so just to be crystal clear.

If at some point this wasn't being utilized by students, you would have the opportunity to make this just regular apartment.

Potentially, that's yeah, we we would rather cater to the student.

Okay, but you've noticed it's uh pretty robust, and it's gonna be greater.

So that's our plan.

Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Botchler.

Um, as part of this project, are you doing any kind of I think it wasn't discussed in there, but um like upkeep of the buildings to kind of preserve them over time or things of that nature?

Yeah, the project would definitely require major activation to the facades.

Uh, if you look carefully at it, they need any attention.

So uh yes, I mean it's a new project and it's gonna end up looking on a great point.

Can I object to a question to Molly?

Coordinator Patterson Long Green?

Yes.

Um, coordinator Pastor Lundgren, would those go through a separate certification of appropriateness?

Yes.

Yeah, thank you.

Commissioner Wasser.

Yeah, so I just wanted to follow up on that.

You said there would be major work to the facade.

Well, regulation work is type point, painting, new windows.

Nothing that changes, it is normal payments.

So there would be over, there would be an oversight committee to ensure that nothing historically is altered or changed.

Then it's no longer historic district.

So Commissioner Wasmer will come back to uh Molly or coordinate by selecting.

Yeah, so um anything that's being done to the front front of um three, sorry, 311, 313, 315, 317 would not be approved under this certificate of appropriateness if one's required in the future for the work that's planned, then it would come back to you, right?

Or it would come back to if it's a minor major, right?

It would be reviewed under a separate COA.

Thank you, coordinator Patterson under Commissioners.

Uh, further questions for the applicant.

Yes, Commissioner.

Um, in reviewing the guidelines from the national parks group, typically when we see additions at this large scale, there's some effort to at least take some elements of the existing buildings and incorporate that into the design of the edition.

And here I'm seeing completely different color schemes, completely different design themes, and nothing really tying the buildings together.

Is there room for that to be changed?

Um I think that was mentioned before.

Um, like I said, we have we've had a lot of training by architects working on this.

Um we've got many examples of projects where we've mixed modern with with the old and very successful.

I think you've seen it throughout the country just very successful.

Um most of them are as I'm concerned.

I don't know, but most of them have not makes an analysis of the existing historic structures into new, more minor additions.

So I think the standard pretty clearly state that that isn't, at least from our journey.

And it is not the process they recommend.

I can read the standard to you.

It says the new edition may include simplified architectural features that reflect but do not duplicate similar features on historic buildings.

And typically, when I've looked at historic buildings that do especially well in historic districts, they do try to take some elements to blend a little bit.

Not necessarily duplicate because again, that would go against the standard button here.

Maybe it may have not many than we interpreted it.

Um I don't know what element we would think part of.

Are we going to take a different debris here?

Commissioners, any further questions for the applicant.

The hearing none.

Thank you.

At this point, um, I would invite a motion on item 5A, the certificate of appropriateness for three levels Broadway.

I would like to have some interaction first before I represent um deliberation happens after a motion.

So we we've had time for questions from staff and from the applicant at this point.

We would need a motion on the floor for deliberation.

I make a motion to approve the requested certificate.

The program is for the seven-story addition to the rear of the properties located at 309 to 317 South Broadway, including the storefront rehabilitation of 309 Broadway.

Detailed in the application packet with plans and illustrations dated June 2026.

We have a motion from Commissioner Poyer as stated on the screen, seconded from Commissioner Kitter.

I'll read it one more time.

The motion is to approve the requested certificate of appropriateness for the seven-story addition to the rear of the properties located at 309 through 317 South Broadway, including the storefront rehabilitation of three and I broadway built in the application packet with plans and illustrations stated June 2026.

Commissioner Poyer, um, any further comments?

Thank you.

Yes, yes.

Um this is my third year on the commission, and this is the hardest vote I feel we've had to take.

Um, I've had two people that I respect greatly reach out to me with their opinions on this before.

Um, both gave me the opinions I thought they would, which were diverging, but both made a very good case for um either approval or denial of this motion.

Um I will kind of harken back to a public comment that I want to disagree with that says we have no stake in like the economic um outcome of this.

And I disagree with that.

Our our guidelines say to do this with a reasonable balance between private property interest and the public interest, the review of alterations to designated properties will be considered through the lens of the city foundational principles.

And one of those principles is fiscal responsibility.

Um I credit uh coordinator Patterson Lundgren with a very even-handed thorough presentation of the project.

I think all the issues before are before us, and it's not an easy call.

Um I credit the the property owner for working for an additional year with community development to try to find a plan that's acceptable.

And uh, where I'm going to come down on this is I don't see a reason enough to disagree with the staff recommendation here.

So that's um that's where I stand.

Thank you, Commissioner Poyer.

Commissioner Tater.

Oh, yeah, this game has basically uh it falls apparently within the parameters of the guidelines we're working with, and just being uh downtown frequently, I think the businesses could use a little bit extra people downtown and other reasons is as long as it's following within our guidelines.

I feel confident about to inform.

Thank you, Commissioner Tayer.

Commissioner Wasner?

Just a couple of things.

I'm looking at the city of Rochester's mission statement where it says a city will strive to enhance community pride by improving the physical, environmental, economic, cultural, and social quality of the community.

I think this is a hit to the cultural part of our community.

It also goes on to say it is responsibility to facilitate the preservation of our city's heritage.

And I I do believe when we talk about um whether or not it in uh standard two, uh, the character shall be retained and preserved.

And someone in the opening comments talked about a point areas.

And another comment, we have two blocks basically left.

And in my opinion, putting a modern building on top of what's a beautiful historic block detracts from the pointness and historical preservation and the character.

Um, I hate that it blocks the view.

When you look down, you can't see the plumber building, you can't see the tailor sign.

Um, so to my thinking, and again, I really appreciate all the work that was put into this, and again, a very evenly uh reported on.

Thank you so much.

I personally feel like it doesn't meet the spatial relationships, it doesn't retain the character, it doesn't preserve um the sense of history and what the site brings.

So I I don't I this is a big city, and there's a lot of space, and the one spot it shouldn't be is on the only historic block we have left.

Thank you, Commissioner Wasper.

Uh, Commissioner Kessler.

Yeah, so reading the mission and purpose of our commission, the first thing is to safeguard the heritage of the city by encouraging the preservation of properties that reflect elements of the city's culture, social, economic, political, visual, and architectural history.

Here in this, we hear from the community, and I heard very loudly in my own private messages that this would be a huge deterrent for socialations.

The businesses that are currently there are homes to marginalized communities in alley city, and I think that that is something that we do have to weigh in on this.

Um, going from the visual, losing that site of the collar cowler sign and the plumber building is changing the landscape and the visual view of this historical district.

And I think that we would be doing a disservice to the larger city by removing that.

Um, to go more into the guidelines specifically, um, the to quote again, the national preservation.

Um it says that it should not.

I apologize if we can scroll a little bit.

Um historical buildings must be clearly identifiable and its physical integrity must not be compromised by the new addition by losing a third or more of part of one of these buildings.

I believe that we are not sustaining the physical integrity of at least one of the buildings in this block.

Um, further down when looking at dense environments.

I and I appreciate the context from you, um, about how blending it with the surrounding buildings does give a case for potentially approving this, but I would make the argument that if we approve it here, what's going to make it so we can't do this across the street on the other side of Broadway.

Are we setting a precedent as a commission that adding additions to the end or the back side that don't match in any wake-feer form to the existing buildings is appropriate for this space for this particular historical district?

Um, and there was one more thing I wanted to quote in here, and I apologize again sort of to try to find the right thing.

Um looking at the design guidelines for compatible new additions to historical building says new additions must preserve significant historical material features and form, and it must be compatible but differentiated from historical buildings to achieve this.

It is necessary to carefully consider the placement and location of the addition, the size, scale, and mass when planning the addition.

I think that the size of this edition greatly overstates the existing historical building.

I think that removing part of the building is I mean that just isn't something that we should be considering, especially when looking at it from a district standpoint.

If we were looking at this from a housing standpoint, I think we would be very hesitant and would likely vote no to removing any portion of a historical building in our Pill Pill district.

Um so I'm I'm very hesitant to move forward with approving this motion with that there.

Thank you, Commissioner Kessler.

And I believe I saw Commissioner Gandhi's hand up next.

Um guess what and you know for me it's more or less all the same reasons, and I one of the biggest reasons for the recommendation is just because we have CD.

So that we cannot move.

So then this it is just stating the presidents that you know, just because we have one building, we are going for the next one, and then it would print here.

And again, yeah, uh seven stories, it's too big, and it's it's completely looking to view the whole the most of the historic district.

And yeah, and yeah, in my opinion, we are just maintaining the facade that's it.

Well, it's not the preservation, and it's just we have preserving the facades.

So I am unfortunately not going to go with the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Gowney.

I believe I saw another hand, I'm not sure.

Okay, Commissioner Schable.

I uh sympathize with the downtown property owners.

I think at every meeting, we hear that it is a struggle.

Uh, that is unfortunately beyond our purview for the most part.

City council, upon our recommendation, or this commission's recommendation designated this part of town as a historic district.

And I agree with the other comments that have been made that our decision here tonight creates a roadmap for future development, and that we're going to continue to see applications for uh additional stories atop the historic buildings, and as long as the facade stays the same.

And now we have this second layer that's modern, um, maybe historic, who knows what it'll look like.

But this small strip of Broadway that has the historic low rise buildings, the facade.

That's that was that original part of downtown that we have already lost a significant part of.

And so now I oppose the addition.

Now, when I look at NPS preservation brief 14, in my opinion, the new edition is not compatible, it's not harmonious in scale, proportion, materials and color, it's not inconspicuous, it's not subordinate to the historic buildings or the districts, because I agree the site line is important.

Anyone traveling up and down Broadway is going to see the skyline and see the other buildings surrounding it.

And that this addition overpowers the historic form.

Uh you know, it measurably alters the proportions.

Uh, and is simply not compatible.

It is differentiated too far, in my opinion, with such modern materials that are so different from the historic materials from those first level buildings.

And so, for those reasons, I cannot approve this project this certificate of appropriateness.

Thank you, Commissioner Schable.

Any other comments?

Um, I think then I'll I'll take this point to chime in.

I agree with um what I'm overwhelmingly hearing from my fellow commissioners.

Uh, I have serious concerns about this setting a very dangerous precedent.

I do not believe that it is subordinate to the original structures.

I believe it drastically alters the district.

I feel like this also is development by displacement in that it's going to put pressure on the surrounding businesses and likely move them out or you know, cause them to close.

And I'm concerned just as much about the long-term health of our downtown as I am with making sure our current businesses are not pushed out in a rush to just push projects through.

So I very much appreciate uh the efforts by the applicants and staff.

I can tell they work very hard on this.

Um that said, I think in this district, this is not the right project for me to support.

I think elsewhere in downtown, this would be outstanding.

Uh I had similar concerns and thoughts with Olmstead Bank and those three buildings a while back.

It's not that it's a bad idea.

I think there's some fantastic ideas, but this is our district that we we have to preserve.

Uh so for those reasons, I also cannot support this today.

Um, but I would encourage the applicant applicant to continue to pursue um something that may fit the district and still um help them forward as well.

Are there any other thoughts from commissioners before we move to a vote?

And for this one, we'll do a um roll call as well.

Commissioner Bodeker, nay.

Commissioner Gandhi, nay, commissioner Kessler, nay, commissioner Mutchler, nay, Commissioner Poyer, aye.

Commissioner Schable.

Nay.

Commissioner Tater.

All right.

And chair votes nay.

So six nays and two ayes.

Uh the motion fails.

And we will move on to agenda item five B.

Thank you.

So you haven't taken any action.

Right.

Um, the motion was few approve and you denied the approval.

Okay.

Um, but I think you haven't denied it.

Okay, which I think you need to deny formally.

Okay.

Yeah.

So at this point, there's no action taken.

Okay.

So thank you for the clarification.

Um, sorry, that was a very long discussion.

I um, but yes, so we would need um a motion stating what our action is.

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

Motions to deny the request the certificate of appropriateness for the seven-story edition for the rear of the properties located at 309 to 317 South Broadway, including the storefront rehabilitation of 309 Broadway at detailed in the application packet, the plans and illustrations, date June 2000 folks.

Okay, we we have a motion and I would um ask for clarification if you may on I guess why you would so can you state if there are standards that you believe are not met?

Size, scale, proportion.

Um I appreciate that.

We've got to be very very technical here as a commission.

So compromise, in my opinion.

What design that's referred to numbers.

What you know, Molly went through all 10 of the design guidelines.

I think it would if you I think what commissioner just just to make the record clear, I think what commissioner better's motion is is a motion to deny pursuant to staff's facts and findings, but staff's facts and findings were to approve, so that can get quite confusing because all of the staff's facts in the report lean towards approval.

So I think we just need some clarification on which factors, design guidelines you feel have not been set.

Thank you, Attorney Carlson.

And I'll chime in page seven of the design guidelines that were passed down the um secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation.

So I would invite you to um, if you wish, since you made the motion and and your secondary agree to remake the motion while stating specifically which points you you believe are not met.

Uh I believe that uh point uh point one, uh the property will be used as historically uh to be given or point one under the secretary and through standards for pre-habilitation.

So use it was as it was historically or to be given the new use that requires minimal change to the distinctive materials features spaces or spatial relationships.

Um I would suggest, but this is your motion.

I would suggest that you state all that you believe are not met, just for complete clarity of the motion before us.

Sure.

So in addition to one and two, uh let's go with the um distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of uh craftsmanship that characterize the property property will be preserved.

And uh deteriorated historic features uh that will be repaired rather than replaced nine spatial relationships for new additions, exteriors alterations or related new construction work.

Um will destroy the historic material speech participation relationship to characterize the property.

The new work uh would differentiate from the old and will be uh compatible with historic materials, feature sizes and scales uh and uh maps you can protect the integrity of the property in its environment.

Well not the same number nine and okay which one do nine and ten or we can read the entire well you don't need to read it the number of nine number so good okay so I got one two and nine that's all I really say nine, ten okay ten.

You did read five and six.

Are you including five and six or not?

I am including five and six.

Okay, so the motion before us by commissioner bodiger is a motion to deny the request of certificate of appropriateness for the seven-story addition to the rear of the properties located at 309 to 317 South Broadway, including the storefront rehabilitation of 309 Broadway is detailed in the application packet with plans and illustrations dated June 2026, supported by uh the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 not being met.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And Commissioner Gandhi, does your second to his motion still stand?

Yes.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Commissioner Shable.

Or the reason I had in favor of the motion to deny.

So again, that's relying on NPS preservation brief 14.

Do not believe that the project is compatible for all the reasons I listed before.

Thank you, Commissioner Shable.

Commissioner Kessler?

Likewise for myself.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any further questions or not questions, comments, sorry, from the commission?

Okay, at this point with the motion before us as stated on the screen, supported by one, two, five, six, nine, and ten not being met, but we're going to move to a vote.

And now I will do a roll call.

And again, this is the motion to deny.

Commissioner Bodaker.

Yes.

Commissioner Gandhi.

Aye.

Commissioner Kessler.

Aye.

Commissioner Mochler.

Aye.

Commissioner Poyer.

Nay.

Commissioner Schable.

Aye.

Commissioner Tater.

Nay.

Chair Zastro votes aye.

So six to two.

This passes with the two mays, the Commissioner Hoyer, and Commissioner Tater.

Okay, now moving on to agenda item 5B.

Certificate of appropriateness alteration of signs at 501 North Broadway.

Okay.

Good question.

I'll I'll ask the commission.

Does anybody need a break?

Should we recess?

I'm hearing from one commissioner.

Any other commissioners?

I guess we'll I'll put take a vote.

Sorry, we haven't taken a break.

I don't know ever since I've been on.

Yeah.

I think US chair can you I think US chair can determine and help.

Thank you.

So yeah, we'll do a five-minute recess.

It's 701.

So we should be recording again.

Okay.

Thank you, everybody.

Um, recess is adjourned, and we are back in session at seven or nine.

So agenda item five B Certificate of Appropriateness alteration of signs at five oh one North Broadway.

And I apologize because I'm not seeing on my screen what's on the big screen.

Let me just make sure getting that pulled up.

Just got the one screen, and I get these layers.

Okay.

So the request for five oh one Broadway North.

Um, is that the first certificate of appropriate to appropriateness to remote the clock?

Um, and gift that to others, and also to replace the wrap on the paint can sign.

Um, this was a fairly short um cover uh staff report that I provided to you simply because we just addressed this property last month.

Um, as many of you will recall that last month um you placed this property on the historic inventory, which is kind of the precursor to landmarking a property.

Um, you did that with um by adopting um uh some phase one reports that were provided um to you.

So um that did identify the features, and even within the motion that was made and approved last month, um, both the paint can sign and the clock sign um were mentioned as features that you were looking to protect um by putting the property on the inventory.

Um, okay, that's why I can't.

Sorry.

Um, let me just try and share again.

I apologize.

Nope.

Yeah.

For some reason, when I start sharing, like let me try this.

Okay.

And I don't know why I have that on the way.

Well, I can't see it right now.

So that's where just a second here.

Is it like a duplicate screen?

Yeah, I've got the multiple screens that are.

Yeah, now you're on the screen.

Oh, right here.

Okay, now I'm up there.

Okay.

Okay.

Of course, I don't know.

Well, um, now it's sharing my screen.

I apologize, folks.

Okay.

Oh no, not for beginning.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um, no, no, it is on the beginning slide.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you for your patience there.

Okay.

So as I was saying, the property was placed on the historic inventory last month by the commission.

Um, properties that are on the historic inventory um do require um review and approval through a certificate of appropriateness.

Um, and that is under this section of the UDC, 6200 040 C4.

So the section that talks about identification and inventory, um subsection E, placement of the historic property on the inventory for partial demolitions or alterations where proposed projects impact the character defining features of the property, only such alterations which will not destroy the historic integrity of the property will be approved.

So a minor uh so certificate of appropriateness, minor alterations are we reviewed by staff.

Because of the way the motion was made and approved last month with um both the paint can and the clock being cited as contributing features.

Um we could we felt like we could not make that judgment call as staff um whether or not the removal and the modification of the paint can sign would destroy the historic integrity of the property.

Therefore, as staff, we've kicked it to the HPC as a major alteration.

Okay.

So that's why we're here tonight um to um to talk through this.

Um I think um, and I apologize, I'm now seeing too that I didn't get a slide with my um uh proposed uh recommendation to approve.

Um again, even though it is a certificate of appropriateness, this property has not gone through that entire process of determining eligibility, what are the character defining features?

Um and so I really didn't think it was I really can't even get into the level of detail um to review the certificate of appropriateness to determine if it meets the standards.

So I'm really just bringing it to you to make the determination.

I think some of the factors which I did uh identify in my um in my staff report include the fact that the property did sell shortly after you placed this on the historic inventory.

Um so we have new property owners, it's no longer Struve's paint.

Um, and that is of course why they're looking to remove that clock because it has the Struve's name on it.

Um I think that it should be noted that um they don't intend to um uh to um to ruin the clock or or scrap it or throw it away.

Um they're indicating that they do want to give it to somebody who would be interested in keeping it, either um the Stroop family or possibly um somebody else who would maintain it and keep it um, you know, for um for posterity and you know, possibly for use somewhere else in the future.

Um I think that the wrap on the paint can sign, um that is you know, we saw last month as we reviewed the history of this property that has changed many times over.

Um such signs, that's very typical to change out the message.

Um that's actually something that um from a sign perspective.

Um, you know, if you're if you're allowed to have a sign from a First Amendment standpoint, you're allowed to change out the messaging on that sign.

Um so I do recommend that that get approved as well.

Kind of a short, a short one.

I know the property owner applicant is in the room.

So if you have questions for her, um uh because you've suspended the rules, you can ask for for um uh to answer questions.

So I do make a recommendation, and I apologize, I don't have it on the screen.

I do make a recommendation um that you approve this certificate of appropriateness to change out the paint can uh sign wrap and to allow for removal of the clock.

Thank you, coordinator Peterson Lang.

Uh Commissioners, any questions for staff?

Uh Commissioner Kessler.

I know that this is a very different task from certificate that we're appropriate as just because of the quick turnaround um and the fact that these are more accessories to a building versus a property itself.

Um with that, have we as a commission seen something like this before where we have had somebody request to remove part of a property or an artifact from a property and preserve that in a different way?

Um so I think the biggest difference is that this property is not actually landmarked, right?

It's just on the inventory.

You haven't gone through that process of really clarifying what the what the characteristic features are, right?

I mean, even though it was indicated last month in the motion, we haven't really vetted that and gone through public hearing and everything to ascertain and clarify that.

Um so I think that's the biggest difference.

Um have we, I think I'm just thinking about it.

Have we received um an application for this type of project in the past?

Um I'm nothing is coming to mind, and I don't know if some of the other commissioners who have been on the commission for a longer period of time um have a similar and remember anything.

I don't recall anything.

Okay, yes.

And then my follow-up question is was there any potential discussion of making adjustments to the clock, similarly to changing a wrap on the paint can um to potentially rebrand sure things of that nature.

Sure, and still preserve the yeah, um that has not been discussed.

I didn't get into much discuss of discussion with the applicant.

They asked me what they needed to do um in order to to do what they're requesting.

I said we need to bring it to HPC for approval.

So Commissioner Grania, sorry again.

Um I think I just had this similar question about the cloak.

So we'll have to get more if they might have been mindful that they're going to do it.

I mean, instead of thinking of something similar or maybe modifying control for yeah, I that hasn't been part of discussion.

Commissioners, any further questions for staff.

The hearing none at this point, um, I would invite the applicant if you would like to make them up.

Please just state your name uh for the record.

Hi, Nicole Pearson.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

Yes, uh Commissioner Wasmart.

Are you willing to tell us what you're going to do in this space?

Absolutely.

Um I am born and raised in Rochester.

I'm an architect and designer.

Um so my design business will be housed in there.

And I'm continuing the everything, the business of the Stroves.

I've been working for with them for about eight months on the transition.

I know this isn't how this commission works.

I sat on queued previous to this, um, but it was their wish that if we did not want the clock, that they could have it.

It's actually in the purchase agreement, so it gets a little messy.

But um, so yeah, it'll be it's it's um Pearson and Co is on the front window.

We'll keep carrying the same brands, um, store number four so you've been operating since June 1st together, all of us.

So thank you.

Commissioners, any further questions for the Anthony?

Yes, Commissioner Boschler.

Uh, could you go into a little bit of what you're planning for the paint can if you if you're willing?

Yeah, the paint can, I would love to just do Pearson and Call.

We've also been studying the history.

Um it's it's anecdotal, but we've invested a lot in in historic properties like hands-on type.

I mean, this is really my husband involves old stuff, so it's you know, we're not the kind of people that are gonna come and scrape things apart.

But um, every year paint companies do a color of the year.

We've talked about doing that.

So it could be something that was done annually, or um, you know, there were times where like you guys have seen it, it was rainbow colored at one point, which was really cool.

I feel it's really in keeping with what has always done with the paint and then it's sort of changed with the times but um yeah I would just say Pearson and co I think is what our intention is right now just to make that switch over a little more prominent for the community.

So thank you.

Commissioner Poir thank you have your hand up thanks.

So I guess I see it for your business the problem with the clock is that it has a name screws on it.

So it it would seem like like the paint can was an easy solution you just do a new wrap and you got your name with the clock putting Pearson and code modifying that clock to do that I don't know if you've thought about that that almost seems technically ladders and kind of investigated everything.

And as you can see there's a lot of signage on the building that um has the stream's name on it.

So um from an architectural standpoint I find the fact that the point and the corner of the building is completely concealed is I I don't like the heaviness of the clock.

I mean it's again I know that's not how this commission makes decisions but um I just find it takes away from some of the past photos I've seen I mean I would love to go back to some of the old style windows that were in with the horizontal yeah like that too.

But just just to my technical question is you you couldn't feasibly change that to say Pearson and code and keep the clock with your business name that not not really that's always thank you.

And Commissioner Kessler If you were to approve removing the clock would you put something else for a different clock in that space or is it remain just that corner just curiosity about it.

I think it depends on how everything comes off it's it's a heavy structure and it's been there for a long time.

Again I would prefer just to see the corner of the building for true than to go back to some of the older style awnings even down the road um but thank you.

Any further questions hearing none thank you maybe seated got one more question for staff okay commissioner poyer question yeah this is unusual because it's just on the inventory and not the landlord didn't this is a loaded question but um so we haven't done the study to determine the historic any of that right um and the way our the way our backlog is we're we're probably talking years and years and years before this would pop up onto your priorities.

Does it uh when when an owner of a property on the inventory requests action is that kind of boost them up the like if if they wanted to demolish it would that then like happen with Old Lord High School would then it come to the top of the queue or yes right if they actually requested approval of demolition you can do that a couple different ways then it would automatically yeah then it's an actual official request official application that we have to okay address.

But this is different because it's just two objects um this is different no this is an official request so we do have to address it right it's their official um application for right for removal with old word high school we had we took it through the landmark process because of the demolition of because of the demolition or we're not doing that here.

Yeah I um I omitted it um but this same section 6200 040 c four one right this is two I omitted one E1 that section of the ordinance says for full demolition and then says a property has to be removed from the inventory before demolition can be approved.

Right yeah right we're in a different scenario and commissioner shape to clarify an inventory property we're assuming for this and and based on our discussion of the last meeting the clock and the paint can or character defining features and so this is the partial demolition or alteration um the the UDC states that only such alterations which will not destroy the historic integrity of the property will be approved.

So to approve the certificate of appropriateness we would be saying that remove the clock replace the wrap does not destroy the historic integrity.

partial demolition or alteration um the the udc states that only such alterations which will not destroy the historic integrity of the property will be approved so to approve the certificate of appropriateness we would be saying that uh remove the clock replace the wrap does not destroy the historic integrity um you you can do it that way i think the other part is that um so only such alterations which will not distort destroy the historic integrity the property will be approved such permit reviews shall be pursuant to 6500 zero six zero d that's for minor alterations that's the staff level approval right so what we're what i what we're saying is that we can't approve it that way because right to the right i don't there's some issues with the way this is written right i've struggled with this language from a long time ago um i think that um i don't uh yeah i think that you can either decide that the commission can make a decision to approve a certificate certificate of appropriateness um destroying the historic integrity uh it's yeah i apologize it's it's the language just really doesn't um it's cumbersome so yeah um i do want to point this sorry if you want to point out section 60 500 050 um for a which is the procedure for removing properties from the inventory um so the property order may request removal of their property from the inventory by providing evidence that the property does not meet criteria for designation as a landmark property i think because we have a procedure written down on how to remove something from the inventory list and because the clock itself is from the inventory list this is something we may need to consider um in part of this discussion but i'm wondering what your thoughts are on that i think that that would be an alternative for them to to make the request to remove it from the inventory um but we have this section which just linked out for some reason I'm not sure why I'm still seeing it on my screen try turning the TV back on uh thank you um right so one avenue has to do with our inventory and landmarking process right to remove it from the inventory or completely and and we're actually going to get into this in a later agenda item here and talk more about this what they're requesting is approval to alter their property given its current status as being on the historic inventory um I don't think it would be appropriate to require them to to come back and ask for removal that's my opinion commissioner wasmer thank you um have there been significant changes to the clock there have yes it's not is it not like the original original yes um I had a really short discussion with um the Ken Scruve Bruce sorry that was his father's name um with Bruce Struve um a couple days after you placed it on the inventory to make sure he understood what was happening and that he was aware of of all of this um and he did tell me at the time that there were some major changes that were made you know when the clock was put back up so um whether that item as an object or as a feature of the historic building has historic integrity is very questionable in my mind right that's the other reason I think that that you can approve this all right thank you.

Commissioners any further questions for staff hearing none I would accept a motion to have language we don't and I apologize I I forgot to do that.

Okay I will make a motion to approve the certificate appropriateness to um to remove the clock um screwed and to rewrap the paint can okay we have a motion from commissioner poyer seconded by commissioner Gandhi to remove the clock and rebrand the paint can um I will ask Commissioner Boyer if you would like to include further language in his state I know we don't have something on the screen but it is stated on our agenda here that same sentence and then it goes as requested in submitted application.

Yes okay um would would you if you want to would you state I just want to make sure that's what we're what you're making no book do you want me to restate the whole motion it's um so on the agenda the main I don't know if you have that on your I do I'm trying to do this in lieu of not having it show up on this screen here.

Okay, I will make a motion to recommend approval of the requested certificate of appropriateness to allow removal of the clock and rebranding of the paint sand can sign cover as requested by the applicant.

Okay.

And then Commissioner Ghani does your second still standing.

Okay.

Commissioner Poyer.

Thank you.

I'll I'll go first on the paint can.

I think that should be a no-brainer.

It's been rebranded time and time again.

And uh they should be able to do that.

So the clock is the stickier question.

Um there's a couple of reasons why I think we should approve this.

Um one, we we haven't landmarked this property.

So we haven't done the study.

We haven't established the historical integrity of a clock that has changed many times.

Um as far as the property rights of the owner, um, they can be allowed to call their company what they want.

And I feel uncomfortable forcing them to maintain a clock that has a name that's not their company anymore.

Also, I mean they'll just I'll just leave it done.

Thank you, Commissioner Poyer.

Commissioner Ghani.

Yeah, well, the paint, I would say, I have the same thing.

Nobody knows because um it's just the change of formula she know, object remains just for the donation.

So you can make no sense.

And about the in 2006, isn't it?

So there is no historic value in my opinion, any functional and anyway.

So thank you, Commissioner Ghani.

I thought I saw a hand somewhere else, no.

Any other commissioners wish to speak?

Okay.

At this point, um, the motion before us is approving the removal of the clock and rebranding of the paint can sign as requested and submitted application.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Any abstentions passes unanimous.

There are no public hearings today, so we're moving on to agenda item seven, seven a requested information, certified local government program coordinator Patterson Lindbergh, and I'll turn it over to you.

Okay, so um, I did provide you um in the packet with um a document that goes into detail about the certified local government program.

Um lit to this in my packet.

So um as um as we've talked about a little bit in the past, um the certified local government or CLG, um, this is a partnership between um state, local, and national um preservation organizations.

Um it is administered jointly between um the the federal government under the National Park Service um and the state preservation office or SHIPO.

So there are benefits um to becoming a certified local government, and this is something that we actually um looked at initially when I um was hired as preservation coordinator back in 2019.

Um previous to that, there hadn't been a staff person um with kind of the expertise.

It was more um somebody who was a planner who um you know provided mostly uh kind of clerical assistance to the commission.

Um so when I came in and we had some discussions, we talked about should we become a CLG?

Um and initially um we you know we were going to pursue that.

So we did um as we modified first the preservation ordinance and then um incorporated that language into the unified development code.

Um we always had this in mind um to become a CLG.

So a lot of the code um and a lot of our kind of best when I refer to best practices.

Um that's what I'm referring to is some of the standards of the CLG.

So the benefits include um opening up an opportunity for some grants.

Um the state of Minnesota actually is really unique in that um we have state grants um that are available to folks, even not certified local governments.

That's through the Minnesota Historical Society.

It's funded um through the legacy amendment that was done several years ago now.

Um a lot of maybe even well, a lot of the programs or projects that we could get funded through CLG could also be funded through um uh through the um the legacy funding.

So I think one of the things that's important to know is that there's a 30% match required for CLG grants and no bricks and mortar projects would meet.

So you can actually do like rehab projects with that funding.

Technical expertise is also provided by the SHIPO.

And these are the two kind of benefits that are highlighted in the procedures manual.

Previous to coming to Rochester, I've worked for other communities that are CLGs.

And so I was always used to going to the SHIPO for technical advice, and they've always been very open even since I've been here, even without us being a CLG.

So really, well, that's a stated benefit.

We really have access to that.

Michael Coop with SHIPO has always been very open to having conversations and talking through issues.

And I actually did talk to him last week about this, and you know, had some conversations about whether or not we would meet CLG requirements.

So kind of there's one area of requirement that he and I really focused on that I ultimately he agreed with me that we're not meeting this requirement and indicated that we would have to make changes to the ordinance if we were to want to pursue CLG status.

So this is from page um four of the manual.

And I've highlighted on the right-hand side just so that if you are following along, you can look on the page.

So the requirements are the local government must enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties.

Okay.

So that's kind of the first requirement A.

And actually, even above the highlighted, it says the preservation act purpose of the SHIL CLG program.

The act defines designation as the identification and registration of properties for protection that meet criteria established by the state or local for significant history and prehistoric resources within the jurisdiction of the local government.

We've got our criteria, we set it up that way so that we could eventually need this.

We have our local criteria, which must be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for identification and registration.

And then at the bottom, because this is going to become part of the discussion here, the process for local designation must provide for public comment.

Okay.

So now I'm going to talk about the um sorry, the um identification and registration as detailed in the Secretary of Interior Standards, right?

That last part of that middle quote, consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for identification and registration.

So the Department of Interior has standards which we've adopted for the treatment of historic properties.

They also have standards for professional professional standards for people who are historic architects for architectural historians.

And then they have this section that's called preservation planning, and it is a process, right, that organizes preservation activities.

This is a direct quote from their webpage, including the identification, evaluation, registration, and the treatment of historic properties in a logical sequence.

So the requirements in this document are referring to what the Secretary of Interior stand, the Secretary of Interior calls preservation planning.

The standards for planning discuss the relationship among these activities.

Well, remaining activity standards consider how each activity should be carried out.

Okay, so now I'm going to talk a little bit about how we do or don't actually meet this.

So some reason I have that in there.

And what you see, I'm going to skip the first box on the left for a minute.

They use the term registration.

We use designation and treatment of historic properties.

What we did when we updated the code as we were starting to prepare for possibly becoming a certified local government, is we organized again according to that logical process that the Secretary of Interior provides.

And these four different um sort of uh steps in the process are um within the UDC under those sections that are provided there.

Um we didn't follow exactly one of the things that we felt like was really important at the time that we wrote rewrote the language of um the old preservation code was to maintain some of the verbiage so that people didn't get too confused.

So, like we continued to use the term designation instead of registration.

Um we have a couple of different sections that talk about process.

Um, so designation or registration is actually in a couple of different sections, but it's all covered within the UDC.

Um, and then the Secretary of Interior Standards for Preservation Planning also, before they get into those steps, talks about um what we loosely refer to as research and documentation.

They really focus in on historic context.

The idea that um that historic information has been um researched, that we have identified these historic contexts so that we can use that in our process for evaluation.

Okay, so far, this is all um working out in and meets the Secretary of Interior standards, but there's an issue with our UDC language, and um again, the SHIPO indicated that we would have to look at making a change to this if we want to become a uh certified local government CLG, and it's the language that we were just talking about first roves for stroke, the this the clock and the painting can.

So the um inventory and identification and inventory, if the HPC determines that um, let's see.

Oh, that it should be removed.

And I apologize, I think I copied the wrong section.

Um if the HPC determines that a property should be added to an inventory or removed, I think that was in a different subsection.

I apologize.

I see now I have for removed.

Um, but it shall be done by a majority vote, right?

So as we did last month by motion, by majority vote, you place the property on the historic inventory.

Umce the property is placed on the inventory, right?

So for alterations, um it has to come back for approval.

So the issue is that what happens is we skip two parts of the process in between placing a property on the inventory and making decisions about alterations.

We skip, and the biggest issue is that we don't have a public hearing, we don't give the property owner notification before it gets placed on the inventory.

Um we don't go through and make a determination about which of the criteria does or doesn't meet.

We try to, right?

I mean, we did that last month and we we documented that as best we could, but without having that history, and we found tonight, right?

Does it have historic integrity?

If you don't go through the full process, right, you can't make that determination and you don't have that documentation, you haven't done it in a process that is um um open for public to comment, open for the property owner to participate.

Um, and that's why it doesn't meet um, sorry, that's why it does not meet the Secretary of Interior standards for the planning process.

So that's why we don't meet the requirements of CLG.

Um, it has to have a public hearing, but if we discussed it here, these are open, would it just mean there'd be more back and forth between people in the room, or is it the public statements at the beginning wouldn't be announced?

They have to be more engagement.

Yeah, a public hearing actually also requires notification.

Um, definitely has the property owner um as part of the process as being aware of what's happening.

Um you might recall last month's packet um had the information, but there was no um clear indication that we were going to be considering whether or not to put it on the inventory.

You had asked me for phase one reports, which I brought you.

Our ordinance allows you to do this, right?

We followed our ordinance, it doesn't meet the level for us to be a CLG.

Commissioner, oh sorry, Attorney Carlson, would you like to weigh in on that?

Yeah, just just remind the commission of the differences between a public meeting and a public hearing.

So tonight, for example, we're having a public meeting with an open comment period where members of the public can come.

Right.

A public hearing, in addition to the note, the specific notification requirements, um, gives the applicant 10 minutes, uh, and then it gives members of the public each five minutes to speak, and then the applicant gets five additional minutes in rebuttal to sort of address comments uh that may have been that have come in from the public.

So it's a little bit more of a formal process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Carlson.

And before I go to other commissioners for questions, um, coordinator Patterson Long Room question I have on slide 31 where we're still.

Yeah, it may have actually been the same that was on the slide you are at the bottom.

The process uh for local designation must provide for public comment.

So does it say public hearing elsewhere, or or are we interpreting that public comment to mean public here?

Yeah, I think that's a really good question.

So I would have to, I highlighted that because it was all on that page, like that is required.

Um, and that's for designation, right?

So, and that's where it starts to become.

Oops, apologize.

Right.

Well, we do have a public hearing for designation.

The problem is is that we jump over those steps and then get to treatment, right?

So um, sorry, went back and forth here.

It's to be a CLG.

Now we're meeting our local law, we're meeting probably the technicality of the state law, but what we're not needing is this higher level of what's become required to become a certified local government, must be consistent with Secretary of Interior standards for identification and registration, and their standards are right, it's a process, it's a logical sequence.

We're jumping over parts of that sequence, and when we make decisions about a certificate of appropriateness or an alteration of a property that has just been placed on the inventory.

Okay, so there may be other issues.

Um, I really only had a chance, you know.

I talked to Michael, um, Mr.

Coop about that one in particular.

There's probably some other things that we'd need to talk about, but um from what my conversation with him, you know, my feeling was that it's a non-starter unless we address this.

So um, I saw a number of hands.

I'll try to do the best in order.

I think I saw Commissioner Gandhi, and then I think lawyer, but Commissioner Dani.

Um, so he's 50 of CLV.

So do you think this is the right uh process to uh for us to follow uh because um you know the public hearing and you know the notification wellness and we won't give them a chance that would be the right thing to do the for example, you know, last week we knew the globe was modified multiple time sure.

I think do I think that this is the right process to follow?

Yes, right, and that's why it was laid out this way in the in the UDC.

So the problem isn't that we don't have this process, the problem is that when a property, so the purpose of identification and inventory is to establish a list of properties that you're going to possibly consider, right?

There's there's some additional kind of nomenclature here that if we continue to consider pursuing CLG, we're gonna have to kind of get over some of these things and and and possibly change some of our definitions.

Inventory um under the National Park Service or Secretary of Interior.

Inventory also includes all of the properties that were looked at, possibly like in your context studies, right?

It's all of those properties.

The idea is that you do an inventory of properties within your community and you start to figure out sort of how they fit within the history of of your community.

You figure out what is it, what are the patterns of significance, right?

What we've done is we've taken that inventory um step, and we've said, okay, now we're actually going to put requirements on after we put it on the inventory.

We're actually, and it and you might remember I even used this word, we're encumbering the properties with additional requirements under the secretary.

Sorry, under the standards for um preservation planning.

The idea with an inventory is that it is a list, it is a documentation of the properties that you have identified, right?

It's not intended to be encumbering to those properties.

That's the issue.

Um we we have talked about removing that language.

It was actually brought to the city council, I think in 2024.

The commission um did not support the language change.

We hadn't gotten into this level of detail, right?

I've we've talked about this many times at the commission.

Um, and now we're really getting into the crux of why I've recommended that we remove that requirement.

Um the the council followed the commission's um recommendation and chose to keep that language in there.

So I mean, again, we're operating within our legal um standards that we've established by ordinance.

It's just that this is one, there might be other issues that we'd have to overcome as well.

But this is, I think the big one if we want to pursue certified local government.

Thank you, coordinator.

And before we go to questions, I'll just um the reason this came up, commissioners, it's been brought up by community members.

Um, there's potentially additional funding available to us to do studies and things like that.

However, what it means is and has come up in the past is the protections on our inventory likely would be challenged, you know, somehow.

And I think that's what coordinator Patterson Lundgren is explaining is that right now when we put a property on the inventory, it's protected from demolition without another public hearing.

So, in order to proceed with this and be fully congruent with what what their workflow is, we would have to alter our language in the UDC, and that would potentially remove the protections of our current 70 inventory properties and then every property thereafter.

So, as a commission, you know, understanding what this program is, we have to weigh do we want to alter potentially our local procedure to gain the benefits of the state CLG inclusion, knowing that we have our our backlog, and that's where this question came from and why it was brought for months now by the community members to myself and why I've asked coordinator Patterson Lumber to explain the program and kind of what's going on.

So, with that said, I would go back to any further questions.

And I saw Commissioner Wasmer and then she I would provide some context.

Okay that I think would be helpful.

Okay, Commissioner Son, go ahead.

I'm sorry to jump in, but um this is my second term on the commission.

And so part of the context, Molly's right, we discussed this a lot, and the idea is the previously everything was on the inventory, and there's just always been this backlog.

Commission itself was created very, very late.

It hasn't been dedicated staff.

We have part-time knowledge is fantastic, but there's not been a lot of resources from the city to help go through the properties.

And so as the EDC was adopted, and we're trying to standardize what the commission has done in the past was to err on the side of caution.

We don't have the resources to landmark or not landmark everything.

So we're gonna create this special subset, this inventory that gives us this last chance.

Property owner is going to demolish it, property owner is going to make a significant change, and now we get to come forward and say, okay, now we have to pay attention.

Are we going to landmark it or not?

So it's it's sort of in our back pocket, it's emergency use.

That's why it exists.

And I think Chair Zastra, you framed it really well.

It's a question of additional funding is available, but we have to be willing to give up some control.

And so there could potentially be some loss of those properties because that was an LPU anyway.

Thank you, Commissioner Shable.

Commissioner Poyer, do you have more to add?

Yeah, I well, I I've had a question throughout this.

I I understood the way Chairs Astro described it, but I had a hard time following during the presentation of where the issue is in the in the CLG documentation.

Yeah.

Because it's it's because what you point out had to do with public hearings, and we're not that's not the that's not the issue with the protection on the inventory.

So I'd like to see where these requirements does it conflict with what we do.

Right.

So it's it's in this middle section that's highlighted.

Okay.

So the identification and registration of the properties, right?

Have to meet our crank, have to meet the established criteria, which we have.

It's that it's the bold.

Our process for identification and registration has to meet or be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for identification and registration.

So what you're saying is that the Secretary of Institute Secretary of Interior Standards for Identification Registration prohibit the type of protection that we're providing for properties on the inventory.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

Well, I'm saying that what it requires, right, is a logical sequence.

Right.

This is the logical sequence, which includes identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment in that sequence.

But I would argue that we do follow identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment in a logical sequence.

And I'm not following where we deviate from that.

Yeah.

So it's when we jump over evaluation and designation and start to talk about how we're going to regulate treatment of historic properties when they haven't actually been designated.

They've just been placed on the inventory.

So the answer, so the question I asked Secretary of Interior standards prohibits the type of protection we're providing to properties on the inventory.

I think the answer to that is yes.

I'd say what you're saying is true that that because we go to treatment too early, that we're violent.

Is that is that I would say prohibition might be too strong of a word.

I would say it's not consistent, it's inconsistent, right?

And so will the SHIPO, will the state preservation office enter into an agreement with us into this three-way partnership.

They're the ones who make that determination in conversation with the CLG coordinator at the SHIPO.

He's indicated this is problematic.

Okay.

So SHIPO does not like how Shippo has said this is inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for preservation planning.

Thank you.

That's very clear point.

Sorry.

Okay.

And Commissioner Walsh.

So I don't want to beat a dead horse here.

Um so it would have positive implications because it would give us a clear path.

We would get a lot more resources, take a little bit off Marley's plate, a little bit, but the biggest concern is does it mean then that that massive list that we have on the inventory is no longer on the inventory.

We'd have to go back and do that process for each one, or is it sort of grandfathered in?

We have it on our inventory, and now moving forward, we have a new process to follow.

Because if we have to redo everything, then it's I don't think it's worth it.

So the inventory is what it's intended to be under the preservation planning standard.

Right.

A list, it's an inventory, right?

Right.

You can't it's the inconsistency is encumbering the properties on your inventory with treatment standards with requirements.

That's the inconsistency.

So we could still have an inventory.

We still should have an inventory, right?

Right.

That's part of the process.

It's that you shouldn't you shouldn't be regulating properties that are on the inventory that haven't gone through evaluation or designation or registration.

That's good to join this.

If we requested apply, if we requested and applied and they approve, then I just want to clarify they would like our inventory is accepted.

They we wouldn't have to start over from scratch for acceptance of our inventory list.

I believe sure.

So I I think the inventory would remain, but the current protection protections that the properties on the inventory have would no longer be there.

Thank you.

That clarifies that well, and and to be clear, I think the question is if we didn't do that ahead of time, would they approve our application to be part of this program?

Thank you.

I'll just throw into in 2024 that was the UDC language request that was brought up and the commission did not support at that time, and council did not support it at that time, but it was it removed the protections of the inventory, and that's why there was the opposition was the concern of what about these 70 or whatever it was at that time.

What about these properties that are in the inventory?

And that was the concern.

So we would be facing likely the same concern if we were to alter the UDC to fit this language.

That that would likely lose those protections.

Commissioner Kessler.

So because we put the strew clock and bucket on the inventory list, they had to come here today to do a CA COA.

If we had not put them on the inventory list, or if this protection that we have written in our UBC was not there, they would have been able to make the alterations without having to come here.

So that's where I think coming back to uh chairs astros.

It's this question of do we remove the protections from the inventory list so that we can join SHIPO in this um whatnot, or do we continue the process that we have?

Yeah, please please take your seat.

Thank you.

Um, or do we continue with the process we have, knowing that we have a lot of backlog and that getting through the eligibility reports, public hearings, and those processes is going to take us at this great decades.

So and to chime in a concern last time was um not just alterations, but demolitions, because those those also a demolition requests wouldn't wouldn't need to come to us for an inventory property.

So the concern was all of those.

And if you look at them, there are some amazing properties.

I think we all really hope and wish we can get to and have a thorough review.

And that was the concern at that time was not just removing the clock, but potentially removing the entire build.

Right.

Um I think you know at the end of the um the manual is a model local government certification agreement.

So again, part of becoming a CLG is having this agreement with the state, and um it's not clear to me the exact process.

There's a request that's made from the city.

Um, and that would be, you know, if we continue to pursue it, that would be something else that I would talk about, like what that process is.

But um, right, there's a there's an agreement that's signed between the city and the SHIPO.

Um once you become a CLG.

So uh Commissioner Shabin?

So question you talked about how the resources available to these certified local governments.

It comes in the form of technical expertise and grants available in a competitive process.

Can you give us an example of what practically what would that look like for the grants?

Uh how would that affect us getting through the list?

So right in this concern of 70 properties, right?

How and when could we rely on their expertise in their grants to start doing focusing on those 70 days?

You know, try to pick the vulnerable ones or you know, the ones that we think are we want to focus on.

Do you have any insight into what that would actually look like?

It's been a while since I've done an application for CLG grants.

Um it's it's um let's see, projects that are eligible are at least national register, no national and local.

I did ask Michael that so local registration is eligible.

Um reuse studies.

So, like if you have a property that you're trying to figure out how to how do we use historic property, those are eligible.

Um maybe education.

Um, I'm thinking about a past grant that I got.

I can't remember if that was legacy or um I think I think it's just once a year.

I'd have to find out how many times you can apply or how many times the CLG grants are open for application.

Um it is a competitive process.

So you're competing against all of the other CLGs in the state.

Um, no, when I say competitive, that doesn't mean like it's you know tooth and nail, like really, you know, I don't know.

Um it takes an application, it takes that takes time that takes research.

Umce you're granted the funds, it takes administration that takes time.

Um you have to go through a process if you're hiring a consultant.

Typically, you have to go through a procurement process that means probably federal standards, actually, since these are federal funds.

Um those are things I have to look more into, but but yeah, it's not simply asking for the money and being given it.

That that definitely is not the case.

Commissioner Gandhi.

So the dealing will be have, I'm sure that the community must be thinking too when they want to join this.

Do you know data is thinking successfully have done so?

So um there have been other communities that have had to deal with this issue, and I know Michael Coop has worked with them.

Um I think um, you know, I think the question is like, does the program is it consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards, right?

Are they are they talking about I I don't know.

I I guess I'm not aware of any that have overcome that issue.

So yeah.

Um, you know, the CLG program, I mean, things change over time.

I think just because somebody has been a CLG in the past, the point is is that they're gonna make a decision about whether or not they're gonna enter into the agreement with us based on the way they currently do the program.

So I don't know that it matters if other communities have been allowed to do different things in the past, quite frankly.

This is what they're telling me now, is that our process is not consistent with the preservation planning standard.

Okay, yeah.

Coordinator Peterson, uh, quickly, can you just help me understand, I guess, what the current appetite um on the staff side is for something like this?

Is this something that should we continue to pursue the staff see value in this?

At this point, no.

I I um myself and Irene both um feel like we already have access to the legacy funds.

Um without going through this extra process.

Those are available, those are also competitive.

Um we're talking, we're gonna talk about one here on the update.

Um, but again, the amount of time and effort it takes to put a grant together, to administer that grant, right?

To do all the reports that are required.

There's all of those things.

It it isn't just the money to spend on a consultant, right?

That's not that's not what our issues are with the inventory.

It's not just that.

That's part of it, but it's not just that.

Um I think that you know, I'm not opposed to us becoming a CLG.

Every other community that I've worked with and worked for as a preservation specialist, a planner, a preservationist for them.

We have been CLGs, so I'm very familiar with the requirements and process.

Um, but as I said, I already have access to the technical difficulty or the technical assistance, right?

I reach out to them and they help me.

Um, maybe they maybe if a CLG were to, you know, be asking for assistance, maybe he would put me to the back of the line.

But he always returns my calls.

So I don't know if uh hang on.

Well, we have Commissioner Wasser and then we'll come to you.

All right, just very quickly.

I the other thing is the grants are 30% match.

So we where's that money gonna come from?

And it seems like Molly has access to everything we need, and while it would be a really nice thing to do, it sounds like this like the city's not pushing for it.

There's Minnesota Historical Society grants, which are pretty good.

We have one of the best in the state with that regard.

And I'm I just worry about 30% match on some stuff.

There's a lot to come up with.

And I think it seems like an awful lot of work, and I don't feel like there's a strong push that we need to do this with Allen or the city.

So that's just my sense.

Thank you, Commissioner Wasner.

Commissioner Tater.

Uh with your connection, basically, if we didn't have you here doing that, would we be better set up in the future if we had that going without the other connections to the CLG status?

Um, I mean, my experience has always been that SHIPO is open to any local government that has adopted their ordinance um under the under the state statute, which is what we've done.

So and maybe it's different from for our SHIPO than for other states.

I don't know because I've really only worked in Minnesota.

I have heard from other people who've worked with in other states, different experiences.

So SHIPOs do vary across different states, but I mean I just I feel like they're very open to right.

They they take phone calls from our public.

So I think that's yeah.

Commissioners, any final questions?

Thank you, coordinator Patterson Lundrin, for all of that information and for answering so many questions on the information.

Yeah, it's it's complex, right?

It's complex and um I don't expect, like I've said to when you when you come on, you're not expected to be the experts, right?

That's why they've hired this position because I have that experience and I have the understanding of Secretary of Interior standards.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on um to updates.

So sorry, uh oh, it's listed different on the agenda.

Yeah, so yeah, moving on to the graduate building site awards.

Uh coordinator Patterson.

Yeah.

Um, and I apologize, this wasn't on the agenda that got sent out.

I realized that I hadn't um I hadn't followed up on this, but I did intend for it to be on our updates under other business.

Um I placed it separately, I guess.

So um last month you asked me to follow up on um what is being planned for the old Lourdes site.

Um there's going to be a presentation, actually, the community development director and um somebody from Mayo will be giving this to city council on July 6th.

And um, so I recommend that you either attend or watch the recording afterwards.

Um we continue to have discussions with Mayo about how they're designing that property of what they're including.

Um we have not been given a submittal yet.

We have had meetings where they show us images.

Um, I know that many of those images have also been shown.

Um they've been engaging with Cutski Park.

Um I don't have anything more than what's um than that right now.

So July 6th is when it when it'll be provided at C Council.

Thank you.

And uh for clarification for the rest of the commission, was um the list of artifacts requested from Mayo?

Yes.

So we did tell Mayo that you had made the request.

Um we have not been given an inventory.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any further questions?

Okay, moving on to updates, um Indian Heights.

Indian Heights, um we did not get the grant.

We were denied the grant, unfortunately.

Um really I'm really disappointed.

Um I was telling uh Commissioner Wasmer because she applies for some similar grants.

There's much like the manual for CLG that we went over, there's a much thicker manual for um for grants.

And um the comments that I received back, they were asking questions that they were asking us to go into details on things that are not addressed in the manual.

So um I had no idea that they would be asking questions on clarifications about um participation with the Dakota community.

Um I indicated in the grant application.

I can make this available if anybody's interested too.

Um I indicated that you know we were working with the grads group, which is greater um Greater Rochester Area Dakota supporters.

Um, I had an email support from them.

Um I indicated that we were working with them and we would be you know entering into doing some additional oral history that hadn't been determined because we hadn't selected a consultant.

I wanted to find a consultant who had experience in that.

Um, and we're not required to have a consultant selected prior to applying.

So um I was really disappointed and really frustrated with with the denial.

Um, so we've got a couple of options, and I'm continuing to have conversations with Valerie Gamares, who is the representative from GRADS.

Um, including do we move forward just with local designation?

Um, do we apply again for national register designation?

Again, the purpose of that is to have um the full eligibility done by a consultant.

Um that then we can use that material to do a local designation.

Um the park department is actually um, and I don't have the timing on this.

I know they're they're working to get everything set.

They didn't actually have all of the funding either, so they were hoping for this to be able to offset some of their um gap and funding.

Um they are planning to do some additional oral history uh collection with the Dakota community um to create the interpretive signage that have long been planned um for the site.

Um the park department is actually um and I don't have the timing on this I know they're they're working to get everything set they didn't actually have all of the funding either so they were hoping for this to be able to offset some of their um gap and funding um they are planning to do some additional oral history uh collection with the Dakota community um to create the interpretive signage that have long been planned um for the site so um i will be participating in those discussions as I'm able um hopefully be you know invited to sit at the table and listen and record and um and then take that material to be able to do our eligibility evaluation thank you um I'll I'll follow up question there what sort of timeline does that put us on yeah so the grants um open quarterly there's a grant open there's a deadline here coming up in July which I can't make um because they've asked me to reach out to um I apologize I don't have the name it's the statewide organization um uh the native um indigenous community um oh sorry quickly sorry can you help I'm there's a a statewide organization um that um interacts with the indigenous community it's got like a DD page for a blue guide yeah yeah um they've asked me to reach out to these folks which I'd have to figure out how to do that I think they're part of Minnesota Historical Society or they're related to it it would just take some more work to really do that so July is not going to work October is a possibility um otherwise the next one I believe would then be January of next year okay thank you commissioners any further questions on Indian heights commissioner shable I'd simply note that given the current political environments and availability of federal grant funds any if you received any indication that that was creating issues or why we didn't get the grants and I the local designation is better than that sure yeah this is actually state funds that we applied for so it's not federal right federal yeah so that was under CLT okay anything further moving on to the awards program update and um a an email was passed out or it's not email but a sheet was passed out um this was Commissioner Commissioner Wasper Commissioner Bodekirk.

We're reviewing the uh video from the last meeting one no no I'm okay here it is been requested that we uh develop a statement purpose which uh is up underneath the uh screen for you to you um I did go ahead and uh re and I go ahead and read out the uh yeah for the uh board process if you will so um well any suggestions on that uh feedback inside fine site four side for you provide at this point so um this got a little worry um but I wanted to try to encompass everything that I've been requested so thank you Commissioner Bodiger um I I stimulate I think it's great um we're not taking any action today but commissioners since you have a printed copy feel free to review this um if you've reviewed it already and have comments feel free to give them but otherwise in the coming weeks uh you can email Commissioner Bodeker Commissioner Wasmer any thoughts and then am I correct in understanding that you hope to bring this to us next month for a final approval correct okay perfect thank you so much for I'd be ready okay we are to any further updates are you through everything yes realizing that I forgot to include a couple things on the on the main agenda before it was published I wanted to make sure that there were other things other updates things that we talk about their questions um and then that leads into upcoming meetings if there are things that you want to address.

I think just two comments I'll make very quickly so it's brought up by Commissioner Schable earlier um letters to the commission and how we should wish to handle them I agree and that was you know we're we're doing a lot here but I agree we should probably have some sort of procedure for that um I don't know that we need a whole discussion but I think uh Commissioner Shable do you have thoughts to share maybe well I was trying to look in the UDC if there's any kind of guidelines um what is a public comment what kind of you know expectation or rights or uh options are available to the public um didn't really find a whole lot other than when there's a public hearing there will be a notice of hearing which will give specific instructions about how comments will be received um yeah I sympathetic to the the public that does regularly attend these meetings they are here they are present they are involved

Um didn't really find a whole lot other than when there's a public hearing, there will be a notice of hearing which will give specific instructions about how comments will be received.

Um sympathetic to the the public that does regularly attend these meetings, they are here, they are present, they are involved.

Um and so I don't know that I'm too keen on the idea of individuals sending letters for it to be published, and now it's an action item.

I think it's appropriate for members of the public to reach out to the commissioners through the designated leads to let their um thoughts be known.

I heard that in many meetings from other commissioners, you know.

I've heard you know from concerned citizens, you know, there's been this outreach to me, so now I'm sharing it.

Uh so that seems more appropriate and in line with what we've had in the past.

And then of course, if it's just a simple letter, you know, there's so much context that's missing, it's hard.

It's hard to really have discussion about it when we're only getting one side of the story, and of course we don't have notice for other people to be involved and offer their comments too.

So uh so in short, I'm not too keen on the idea of just a letter to the commission or development how that however that came before us, that becoming an action item without there being some kind of broader notice to the public that this is something that we're going to talk about.

Um rather than just responding to a specific letter.

Thank you, Commissioner Schable.

So perhaps maybe just as kind of a standing procedure when letters come in, because they will come to coordinator Patterson on Gren, uh, I guess should we just be giving sort of without a vote, but just unofficial advice uh to just move it on to the commission.

Is that yeah, I guess I'll ask attorney Carlson legally, does that sound sound to you?

I I would I would just say a couple of things.

This particular one came in sort of after the last meeting, but before the attack it was published for tonight.

So similar, you know.

So what the what you read, what the chair read into the record tonight was something that was received after the packet had been published, and somebody that wasn't able to make it here tonight because they're out of town.

Um so typically we do accept those as part of public comment and whether that means reading it into the record, whether that means distributing a copy to each member and include it in the minutes.

Um, so that's maybe part of the record.

Um that's fine.

This was a little bit unique, and I I don't want to speak for Molly, but I think this was addressed to the HPC uh as a as a as a body.

Um, and I don't think Molly was asking for any type of discussion or vote or anything like that.

That's why it says no action is suggested.

It was just more or less an FYI for the benefit of the HPC.

So we weren't, I don't think she was asking for any discussion on tonight at all.

So it maybe appeared a little bit strange on the agenda, but I think it was just sort of a situation where we didn't really know what else to do up there.

So thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Carls.

Commissioner Kessler.

Um I'm wondering, it did it hit the agenda because it was addressed to the entire HPC and because of um the open meeting law that we have where I'm assuming that it threw all of us on an email chain forwarding this, that that would be breaking that open meeting requirement.

And so was this your solution to kind of working around that to make sure that we got it, but also we're in line with what our laws say.

Uh if I could weigh on that.

Um, no, that wouldn't break open meeting law.

City council gets emails all the time that go to all of them.

The process they use is they do uh their addresses are email addresses are on there, their blind carbon copied so that a reply all won't initiate an open meeting violation.

So the open meeting violation would be if we were discussing amount with a quorum amongst ourselves, not information provided to us.

So emails can be sent to the whole um commission.

Thank you.

Commissioner Schable.

So what I'm hearing, it sounds like for better or worse, there's not a whole lot of letters from the public to the agency.

This is the word.

All right.

So that's well.

I I think then the that you know that's that was appropriate, that made sense.

yourself not information provided to us so and emails can be sent to the whole um commission thank you commissioner shable so what i'm hearing it sounds like for better or worse there's not a whole lot of letters from the public all right so that's well i i i think then the that you know that's that was appropriate that made sense um i suppose if we were receiving loads of letters it it'd be worth having another conversation but i i understand the dilemma that you were in and i i certainly do not want to discourage public comments i am sympathetic to the individuals who they want to be here but for some reason they can attend in uh in person um so this unique scenario okay thank you for the contest okay thank you any further questions um regarding that um the last one i'll mention is so we will for a while we're doing the history fact of the month uh been very busy and i know all of you have been as well i don't have one uh i guess at this point i'll ask if anybody would like to do next month i can take your name down now otherwise um i'll just maybe try and send some emails out and see if we can get some volunteers commissioner wasper i can do it great so i'll put you down for for july and then after that we'll just same thing if you want to volunteer please reach out otherwise maybe i can just start a rotation and ask if if you'd be willing to share uh i have nothing further any other commissioners have anything further um i think they're down to just the next meeting notice then yep um so the next meeting is scheduled for july 28th we will be back in city council chambers um unless something changes tuesdays are officially a county day for the board and commission and council chambers so if something at the county sorry if the county needs that room they will bump us um just so that you're aware of that but they know our upcoming schedule and I think we've covered I don't think it's until November that we are run into a conflict so thank you coordinator Patterson Lundry and I'll say thank you for everything this is a very long meeting I really appreciate all the uh staff both of you all of you commissioners thank you so much um with that I will accept the motion to adjourn by commissioner bodeker seconded by commissioner poyer all in favor say aye both say nay all right we are adjourned