Heritage Preservation Commission City Hall Council Chambers Regular Meeting July 27, 2021 05:00 PM . PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN IN-PERSON MEETING AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE EXPECTED TO ATTEND IN PERSON, UNLESS MEDICALLY UNABLE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE THE OPTION TO CALL IN TO PARTICIPATE +1 347-352-4853 PHONE CONFERENCE ID: 768 760 243# OR REQUEST A MEETING INVITATION LINK BY CONTACTING [email protected] . ACCESS TO CITY HALL AFTER 5:15PM WILL BE AVAILABLE ONLY VIA THE ROTUNDA DOORS. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SET AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES 3.1. June 22, 2021 Meeting Minutes-Draft 4. PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY This is an opportunity for the public to provide comments to the Commission regarding items not on the agenda. The public has up to four minutes to provide comments. The Commission will not discuss or take action on them. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.A. None 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.A. Challenged Property – Trinity Lutheran Church 6.A.1. Trinity Church 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.A. Red Owl & Time Theater 7.A.1. Red Owl Heritage Preservation Commission Agenda Tuesday, July 27, 2021 Page 2 of 2 8. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 8.A. Challenged Property – Zumbro Lutheran Church 8.B. Challendged Property-Christ United Methodist Church 8.C. Request from Mayor’s office for update/verification of contact info 8.D. Historic Integrity Matrix 8.D.1. Other Business 8.E. Update on Olmsted County Bank & Trust 8.F. Proposed Downtown Landmark District Update 8.G. City Council Updates 9. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS 10. ADJOURNMENT 3.1 Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes Regular meeting (Virtual) June 22, 2021 – 5pm DISCLAIMER: Meeting minutes herein area a summarization of meeting procedures, not a verbatim transcription. These meeting minutes will not be official until approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. There is no recording of this meeting. Members Present: Barbara Hudson, Barry Skolnick, Christine Schultze, Nancy Bergner, Mark Carlson, Adaheid Mestad (arrived at 5:02), Jeff Fague, Thomas Meilander, (arrived at 5:04) and Gail Eadie (arrived at 5:10, having had technical difficulties getting into the meeting). Members Absent:, None Staff: Ms. Molly Patterson-Lundgren, Urban Design & Heritage Preservation Coordinator; Mr. Brent Carlsen, City Attorney. Call to Order: Quorum present. Agenda adoption: Motion by Commissioner Hudson to adopt agenda as presented, second by Commissioner Skolnick. Approved 5-0. Acceptance of minutes: April 27th – Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Bergner. Second by Commissioner Carlson. Approved 5-0. Commissioner Mestad entered the meeting May 25th – Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Carlson. Second by Commissioner Hudson. Approved 5-0. Commissioner Mestad abstained, being absent from that meeting. Commissioners Fague and Meilander entered the meeting Public Comment Opportunity: No one from the public spoke. Public Hearings: None. New Business: None. Communication: June 22, 2021 Meeting Minutes-Draft (Approve Minutes) Old Business: Ms. Patterson-Lundgren provided an update on the request to remove Potential Landmark Designation for property located at 303 6 Ave SW, the Holt/ McGill House, continued from the April 26 commission meeting. She informed the Commission that the property no longer belonged to the applicant and therefore the application was no longer valid. Ms. Patterson-Lundgren provided an update on the additional information, as requested by the Commission, which was provided in the agenda packet. Chair Schultze asked if any there was any action being requested. Ms. Patterson-Lundgren indicated she would like to know if the Commission would like to continue to consider this for landmark in the future or remove the potential landmark designation. It 1 Packet Pg. 3 3.1 was agreed that the eligibility form should be completed and that the new property owner should be contacted but that there was no hurry or specific time line for this. Ms. Patterson-Lundgren provided an update on the City Council action from June 21st regarding the proposed change to the Heritage Preservation Ordinance. She explained that the Council accepted the recommendation and instructed the City Attorney’s office to proceed in completing the ordinance and bring it for a first reading. A second reading will also be required and will likely happen in August. Chair Schultze asked about the request from Council person Campion regarding a way to better calculate and document on determining landmark eligibility. Ms. Patterson-Lundgren explained that he asked about determining historic integrity and that she had already started to create matrix to look at this, documenting what is already being considered for integrity. Commissioner Hudson asked how this would be applied to their process. Patterson-Lundgren indicated that she would continue to do the evaluations but provide more detailed explanation of how historic integrity was reviewed with a continuum of poor to excellent integrity for each of the 7 aspects of historic integrity. Chair Schultze added that it will further help them with what the Commission is already doing in project reviews and designation evaluation. Commissioner Fague left the meeting at 6 pm. Other Items & Announcements: Chair Schultze asked Ms. Patterson-Lundgren to introduce the two readings provided for discussion. She highlight points from the first article, Why Historic Preservation Needs a new Approach”. She asked for thoughts on the readings, what each member found most interesting and if there were any ideas that could be incorporated into our review process, perhaps into the design guidelines that will be created. Commissioner Bergner said she thinks it is important to allow for adaptive reuse of old buildings, new uses that were different than what they were built for. She suggested that perhaps if someone is allowed to tear down a building of significance, they might be required to meet a higher level of standards for designing the replacement development. Commissioner Eadie said she thinks we need to update the tools we use in reviewing proposed alterations. We risk losing the historic property completely if we apply the Secretary of Interior Standards too literally. Commissioner Hudson said she believed the goal of the commission is to protect the historic integrity and the historically significant features of a property, no matter the location of the feature on the property. She equated historic properties in the City to art within a museum. She offered her home town of Chicago as an example of how neighborhoods have generationally maintained historic integrity throughout years of Communication: June 22, 2021 Meeting Minutes-Draft (Approve Minutes) ownership. She said she feels the charming elegance of Rochester 40 years ago, when she first moved here, is gone and knows people who are grieving for the loss of historic properties in the City Commissioner Meilander said he believes one size does not fit all for the reuse of historic buildings and we need to be able to be flexible in our treatment of them. He thinks we need to continue to look at each individual situation Commissioner Mestad said she appreciated the readings and the comments provided so far, particularly regarding the need to see beyond the binary [historic or non-historic] categories. She pointed out how both articles brought people into the equation and that we have a diversity within the community and that 2 Packet Pg. 4 3.1 spectrum needs to be considered during our evaluations. Bringing metrics and standards into our evaluations will help to explain to others how we review things. We need to be able to look at significance of properties through different cultural lenses to be inclusive all members of the community. Commissioner Skolnick said he doesn’t understand what different lenses mean and that what works in Great Britain, [an example for one of the articles] won’t necessarily work in Rochester Minnesota. Rochester has allowed so much to be destroyed, so preserving what is left is really critical. He agrees that we need to be flexible, but is not happy with recent City Council decision nor proud of our last meeting discussion on the Olmsted Bank & Trust Building. Vice-Chair Carlson liked the first article but found the second one too long and out of context with Rochester to be useful. He is not interest in cities that are much larger and outside of the Midwest. He would prefer if reading materials be provided outside of the agenda packet in the future. He would be interested to see information (articles/stories) about successful adaptive reuse of historic properties with additions. Chair Schultze discussed how the Older, Smaller, Better… report supports the retention of these properties, because of the mix of scale and design that they bring to an area. They are a valuable resource in that they help to provide a diversity in how individuals (of diversity) experience a community, neighborhood, or district. She further discussed how the development of scoring sheets with key indicators and measures that consider economic value, including the value of building reuse from a sustainability/resiliency standpoint may help us in making decisions and in communicating the reason behind the decisions made. Chair Schultze also mentioned how the author of the article, Why Historic Preservation Needs a New Approach, is currently with the National Main Street Center, but also served as Director of Sustainability at the National Trust in the past and Seattle-based Preservation Green Lab before that. Ms. Patterson-Lundgren provided an update on the proposed Downtown Landmark District. She indicated that the request for proposals (RFP) for the riverfront small area plan has been drafted and the plan is to bring it to City Council in July. The small area plan will focus on the riverfront area (Red Owl/Time Theater property, parking lot and parking ramp) but also will look for ways that it can be connected to the proposed historic district of 3rd Street and Broadway Avenue.