Historic Resources Commission - Regular Meeting

days.

Testing, testing.

I'll call the meeting to order then. This is an officially scheduled meeting of the Historic Resources Commission of the City of Albany. We welcome all those viewing on YouTube and in attendance here this evening. If any comments, anyone who's registered to make a comment, we just request that it be kept to the topic at hand under the jurisdiction of the HRC, as well as limiting it to three minutes in duration for the interest of everyone present. This evening, we have myself, John Myers, the chair of the commission, Commissioner McEnany, Commissioner Garrity, Commissioner Kaplan, Commissioner Hacker, Christopher Wellman from the City Preservation Planner is at the control board this evening, and we are honored to have Brad Glass, the Director of Planning, here in attendance as well in this meeting. We have, as I understand it, just one item on the agenda. 29 South Ferry Street application has been temporarily withdrawn, and we will be reviewing that at a later date, presumably. So on the agenda this evening, we have 45 2nd Avenue in the South End, Groesbeckville District, and this is the presentation related to the efforts to comply with what was in the documentation that we put together at the last meeting when demolition was approved with the conditions of doing the utmost salvage to the cornice and other documentation of the building. So someone from the land bank is here this evening to describe steps that they have gone through and the investigations that they have performed related to particularly the cornice so that we are kept informed. I don't believe there's anything for us to decide since the decision has already been made.

Yeah, so, Jason, do you have your hand up?

And then, as always, just state your name. I'm Jason Chacoin.

representing the Albany County Way, I think. Yeah, thank you.

What's your last name, Jason?

Chacoin, it's C-H-I-C-O-I-N-E.

So at the last meeting, the Historic Resources Commission approved the motion with the conditions that prior to demolition, the applicant documented photographic structure. Documentation must include the architecture the City of Albany planning staff for record retention. And the applicant must coordinate with the Historic Albany Foundation regarding potential historic salvage and to the best of the applicant's ability must determine the feasibility of salvaging and storing of the historic cornice with the understanding that it will be part of a future development and that the applicant must provide that determination to the Historic Resources Commission at a future meeting prior to the demolition of the structure.

So Jason, if you want to. Yeah, I guess I'll start on that. We started this process by reaching out to Historic Albany and getting their recommendations. So I met their warehouse manager on site. He said that he's done a lot of salvage experience. And this is summarized. He sent me an email summarizing what he told me when we were at the site. So I sent that over. But just to quickly summarize, he said that because the structure's wooden, because the cornice is wooden, and the way that it was attached to the building, it could not be repurposed for a building facade. He recommended that it be salvaged in small sections. So he was recommending corbel to corbel, so roughly like four feet, four foot sections. We're just trying to salvage it as best we can. He wasn't sure if all of it was going to hold up, but he thought that was the best method for doing so. He said that he could be on site when the salvage is taking place, so anything that is salvageable would be donated to Historic Albany.

And then his other recommendation is that this could be reused in the building somehow

not as the facade, but some way decorative in the building. So he said he's done this in the past where he's built, I think he said like a mirror frame or something, something that could be repurposed into the property. Historic Balmy provided recommendations for demo salvage crews. One of them was WPMT construction. The land bank currently has a contract demolition projects unrelated to 45 Second Ave. So we asked them if we could amend that contract to include 45 Second Ave. They were agreeable to that, so we have a proposal for them so that they can do the work. So they have a proposal for the demolition, but also the corn is salvaged. we'd be working off the recommendations from the store evolving on how to remove cornice.

And that was that process.

I also sent Chris the documentation of the building. We took more external pictures when I was there on site, and I think that So I believe that fulfills what we were asked to do.

Yeah, so they supplied us with more external images focusing on all facades that are visible from the public right-of-way. We also have drone imagery provided by Sam Wells up the roof, as well as it was circulated in the packet. narrative of the site as well. And then Jason, we had talked also about some of the, you had looked at some of the documentation you submitted to SHPO. You were gonna review all this and you would produce a little more of that if needed.

Yeah, I referenced the building inventory form from SHPO when I was putting this together so that has some of that detail in there. Yeah, I was trying to find as much info as I could on this building.

And this is on page four of the package.

Chris, can you read to us what the approval, what the letter of action specifically said?

Motion to approve with conditions was prior to the demolition, the applicant must properly document and photograph the structure. The documentation must include a site narrative, architectural description, and photographs of all facades. And documentation must be submitted to the City of Albany planning staff for records retention. The applicant must coordinate with the Historic Albany Foundation regarding potential historic salvage. And the third condition was to the best of the applicant's ability, they must determine the feasibility of the salvaging and storage of the historic cornice with the understanding that it will be utilized, or that it will be part of a future redevelopment. The applicant must provide this determination to the Historic Resources Commission at a future meeting prior to the demolition of the structure. And that was, you had made the motion, Commissioner Gary had seconded, and it passed five days ago.

So almost the middle part It feels as it's a challenging situation and you did a great job doing your understanding of what we wanted. So thank you for that. It doesn't feel to me to be in the spirit of what we would have hoped happened. And so could you read those last?

Sure. So the applicant must coordinate with the Historic Albany Foundation regarding potential historic salvage. And then the other condition was? To the best of the applicant's ability, they must determine the feasibility of the salvaging and storage of the historic cornice with the understanding that it will be part of a future redevelopment. The applicant must provide this determination to the Historic Resources Commission at a future meeting prior to demolition of the structure.

So the first of those said,

I don't remember if the first of those said as practical or what was that? They must determine the feasibility, or sorry, to the best of the applicant's ability, they must determine the feasibility of the salvaging and storage of the historic cornice.

Okay. So I guess what we'd say is the applicant has said it's not feasible. And that ability to make that determination seems to fit under the

Yeah, under that provision with them coordinating with Historic Albany. Okay, so now the second one. Yeah. With the understanding that it will be part of a future redevelopment. And then that section or the last part of it?

So I guess here's my concern, and then we can kind of go back and look at the language and you'll tell us what your thoughts are. But it doesn't feel like it fits the spirit of what we were trying to achieve. And I don't know if we had known it was wood and not metal. I'm not sure how our conversation would have gone. It might not have gone any differently. It's just a different demolition and salvage effort. But it doesn't fit the spirit of the hope of we're going to lose a building. How can it be part of a rebuilding? maybe the assumption is that it was part of the facade but it as a salvaged little salvaged element doesn't it doesn't again it doesn't fit the spirit of what I thought we were hoping would happen I think the word that's missing is intact apparently there's five pieces of

So that what would happen is that it would be broken into five pieces, but at no point does it say, and then would be put back together again, putting it on a new building or a repurposed building. Instead, the materials will be broken apart an accurate description.

I think so.

It sounds like it, yeah. Again, it's a difficult situation. We'll work through this, but again, it both is of concern because it doesn't feel like it met the intent of our conversations, number one.

Would it have met our intention if all of this is true and it's difficult to move and da-da-da-da-da, probably difficult to storage too, but they didn't say that. there was a phrase, and will be reassigned at a later date at a different location. That's not there. Correct. And when we talk that in some cases we've recycled them somewhere in the building, like in a mirror frame, that's far away from what I think was the intent. Thank you.

That was what I was trying to get at.

The missing element is the one that I think all of us understand there's a lot of weight involved in it. It's unwieldy. There's a storage problem, et cetera, et cetera. And probably that's understandable and allowable. But on the other hand, the reassigned together in the same pieces in another usable way, I think that's the way we would have understood it, knowing that there could be difficulties.

The wooden cornice goes across the front of the side. It's quite large.

I'm certain if anyone who tries to take it apart is going to lose some elements of it. It won't come down entirely, but yeah, I still think it could be done.

I think the other part, for the next time this comes in a different context, is having been part of reassembling buildings, as others have. is unless the intent is to do that early on and the documentation supports, okay, we have 14 of these, here's unit type A, number one, number two, number three, number four, so that even in the deconstruction process, you have enough information to reasonably guide you through reconstruction. And we didn't get to that. So when it comes back, or the next time or whatever, if that's the intent, that might be also helpful to consider is not just the documentation of the building, which we did as part of the demo of the loss of the building, but the kind of, not to belabor it, but a technical plan to assist in the reconstruction. But we didn't do that. Can you zoom, zoom, zoom into that bottom middle?

I'm going to try to get a head-on picture.

It's a special skill that Aaron has, Chris.

I just asked for a front view. Was the expectation that cornice would go on the new building? We didn't get that far.

or some new building.

But apparently the warehouse person at the store already doesn't think it can be that.

That's what he explained. He explained that because of how it's attached and due to how it's deteriorated that he doesn't think it would be able to be reassembled or reused externally on a building just because it's too far down.

I don't know the current manager and I don't know what their construction is. Yeah, I don't know what his construction experience is for each other. They have a lot of different backgrounds.

I just have to think about, like, okay, the insurance involved. Can you start a public foundation? Sure. Does it take down? I don't know. I mean, I'm going to be this way with that one.

Yeah. Well, there's nine panels. It's certainly weathered.

I'd say medium condition didn't go on, but it still stands a chance to do.

Is all the detailing the same on the side elevation?

Yeah, it repeats. So at a minimum, in the mode of could this be reused as part of a future building, you've got, not bays, but

sections we have four sections here and then programming running down the side so you've got plenty of plenty of pieces to right if you lost half of it it still would be a good thing yes yeah yeah i mean i don't want to say it like that but yeah and with historic albany store it that's what they said okay so that's a possibility if somebody is looking for

I think there's buildings that could use them.

Yeah. Yeah, maybe you could make it happen.

I'm aware of many, but yeah.

Yeah, but then we would have a different, I mean, it's a tricky discussion as Brad was starting to ask. Like, would we use it on a, would you use it on a careful reconstruction? Yeah, because then the whole thing is trying to be a careful reconstruction. Would you use it as a modern building, as a... Flair? I don't know. Would you use it on a building in a whole other neighborhood where that wasn't what you had? Probably not.

Would you use it?

Oh, would one.

Okay. So it could be anybody, you're saying?

Oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, those are just questions. Would one.

I have, I'm sorry I'm late. I had very bad traffic on the Northway, and I missed the meeting where this was decided, so I don't want to butt in, but I have sort of a point of order question that I'm sure has already been discussed, but what's our jurisdiction over where a salvage piece of a demolished building in a historic district can go and what can be done with it?

So within this case, to the best of their ability with the understanding that it will be part of a future redevelopment and so within in terms of like this this is a presentation as I've stated you know the motion was passed last meeting so there is no action item before In a general sense, the utilization of historic salvage in the city is done as we've seen with railings, windows, doors, things like that. And so in terms of the reuse of the material in an item, as long as it produces code-compliant historic resource overlay sections of the code-compliant results, then it could be approved.

So the proposal is that it be donated to Historic Albany, but are we discussing?

I'm not sure, that's a really good question. Would you read the last sentence again? Sure.

Well, it's not the last sentence of the portion or what I just mentioned? Because the last section is the applicant must provide this determination to the Historic Resources Commission at a future meeting prior to the demolition of the structure. Not that one. Okay, the one before that. Thank you. So to the best of the applicant's ability, they must determine the feasibility of the salvaging and storage of the historic cornice with the understanding that it will be part of a future redevelopment.

So determine the feasibility with an understanding.

Okay. Is there an important word there that must be done?

I don't think. I mean, it's just like, wasn't it the Wellington cornice that came down, the historic Albany stored for, I don't know, 20 years, or 10 years, and then it got put back? Oh, does anybody remember? Yes. Yeah, right? The cornice of the Wellington Hotel was stored at the historic Albany.

Yeah, the new building was actually, a few stores were taken off.

Yeah, but then the cornice was put back on the, is that what we're asking? Because that's what I'm just not clear of, because the proposal is that Therefore, it is highly advisable that the corners be donated to Historic Albany. So are we putting a condition on the donation to Historic Albany that it be... So are we just questioning whether it should be donated to Historic Albany, or are we asking for the land bank to continue owning it in Historic Albany to hold it?

Until, yeah, I think until it can be used as a building, on a building, instead of...

What was mentioned? It may not even be architectural.

It might have been before you got here, like a frame of a mirror, for example. Okay, yeah. Like Marilyn was like, that's not really what we were going for in our motion that we did last meeting. We're thinking more it should be reused as a building, but I don't think we really stipulated.

I think we were relieved because we were so supportive of your project, we were relieved to find I was relieved to find a potential solution. Right. And I knew it wasn't going to be easy, and I wasn't sure what you'd come back and tell us. Right. But you did such support.

We're not saying it should go on the new building here. We're saying it should go on a building. I think so. But that it's owned by the land bank, or it's owned by Historic Albany, because the materials talk about donating it to Historic Albany. Are we putting a restriction on the corn? And I'm just going back to the Wellington because that was very specific. This cornice is held in trust for this building. And so if it's being, I'm just playing this out, if we're saying land bank, you must hold this cornice and put it on a future new construction, that's one thing. If we're donating it to Historic Albany and then putting a restriction on it, that feels a little different and both feel like Philosophically, the building's gone. The cornice is being reused. Do we really care if it's used for a mirror or some new building? It's all just fanciful at this point. It's building art. It's not really the historic cornice. So why do we care what they do with it as long as it's salvaged?

I think that's what we're trying to grapple with.

That's a very good point. No, that's definitely a good point. And then I guess my question was, what's our jurisdiction, because legally this feels kind of, if we're talking about the building and now the building's gone, where's our, that's why I go back to the Wellington, the Wellington was still intact, so we had a reason at the time, not me, but other, but this is, the building's gone, so are we allowed to say this legally?

As that I will say, I'm unsure. The structure, the new redevelopment of the structure will in a source district. So we will see this site again with a different building. And the discussions that you guys could have discussions about cornice profile and style then as well if you're looking for similar cornice styles to be recreated or something like that. That's a discussion you guys could have. In terms of what's before you guys today, it is the land bank is fulfilling their requirement to present that according to their determinations of their feasibility and their salvage that it can't be reused. Again, in the spirit of what maybe the Commission was hoping for, but that they did, you know, under a good faith effort provide feasibility and salvage as determined by historic quality.

I'm going to try that too bad or otherwise we came to a conclusion when we saw this before that said this cornice should be reused and we went that's that was what we kind of said and so yes there's a lot of i agree with you a lot of discussion as to what does that mean in what way is it appropriate etc etc And that's worth talking about, but maybe not here, because we've already said we want this cornish to be available for reuse. So we've already said that.

If you want it saved, it should be architecturally useful. One place might need only three sections of it, another might need more.

I have no problem getting there very easily. That was the intent. Saved. And again, how many sections does it need to come down in? How do you facilitate that it will be able to be reused? How do you log the catalog, the components? Where is it going? Okay, those are the questions that go with that, but we already said this should be reused.

On a building?

On a building.

Okay, so that was the key point. You said it should be used on a building, not for a mirror or for anything, but that it shall be put, the condition is that it be reused as a cornice on a building. That's where I, that was the...

It was clearly, no, I think it was clearly the intent.

Okay. I don't know if we said it.

I don't know the words that we used. It was stated that way. Okay. It wasn't exactly stated that way. It was, I think, the tenor of the discussion was that, you know, any elements of it that can be reused would be good as a cornice, or guide the design of a cornice, for a building that replaces this site. But I think having the components available for reassembly, depending upon how they come down, and as Jack says, if you've got five bays on one side and four bays on the front, out of all of those nine bays, you're probably gonna have enough components conceivably to put it on the front of a building that goes on this site. It's not probably gonna be enough complete to wrap the corner the way this one did. So it will evoke a different feel than the original building did. But a new building's gonna evoke a different feel anyhow. So it needs to be consistent with the new building and the design of it. It doesn't want to look like some Versace thing pasted on the building. It's kind of falsely historical.

And I won't be surprised that when the new design that is proposed for the development project, that some effort from the land bank, the architect, and or us will ask about some traditional bay treatment so all of a sudden we don't feel like we have 40 foot long or 60 foot long, whatever it might be, structure. So it will be, from a design standpoint, it will be feasible to use this.

Right. I mean, these components would be available to reuse in a new cornice on this building if it's of the kind of proportion of a townhouse that we normally see. where we ask for cornices and ask for different profiles, but they're modern interpretations of a cornice. Here we have an opportunity to reuse components, not duplicate it in its entirety, but duplicate components of it with original material. So it's kind of a gift to the building.

So if we were consistent with that with that additional detail that you just provided. Talk to us about the salvage portion again.

So the applicant must coordinate with the historic Albany Foundation regarding potential historic salvage. That was also in reference to the prior noted discussions regarding both exterior and interior salvage, which Jason, I know that you also have been working with Historic Albany for some of that. And then again, to the best of the applicant's ability, they must determine the feasibility of the salvaging and storage of the historic cornice, but the understanding that it will be part of a future redevelopment, the applicant must provide this determination to the Historic Resources Commission at a future meeting prior to the demolition of the structure.

So Marco had said that he didn't from Mr. Galbany that he doesn't think that it can be reused on the exterior of a building. And it sounds like there's questions about that. So I guess my question is, are we going to say this cornice just must be used on the exterior of the building and have that condition?

Well, it goes further. We don't know, Marco. In that parent, the recommendation outlined in this email states that the cornish should be removed in four foot sections. Okay, so that makes sense to me. So okay, let's take that cornish down carefully in four foot sections. Now, I think perhaps what we're saying here is that we don't want it donated to Historic Albany Foundation. That's maybe at the core of what's problematic. It's yours. and it's yours to hopefully be reused.

We're asking Historic Albany to hold it for the land bank.

It's only one option. That's the land bank's choice. Where do they want to hold it? We don't want to donate it and have it go away.

That's my question.

They don't have a warehouse.

You can make an arrangement with them, but we don't want to donate it to Historic Albany.

That's kind of the crux of my question. who owns this cornice, and if we're saying a condition is that it be reused, well then it sounds like we're saying to the land bank, please carefully salvage this following those.

Try to reuse it in the future on some other building for reconstruction or renovation.

Have you talked to the demolition company that's gonna demo the building about the cornice? And whether or not they particularly could maybe Move it from the building or sections of it? They've been to the site.

I haven't talked to them in detail about it other than providing the recommendation that historic quality provided. So that's the basis for their quote for the salvage was based on that recommendation.

I mean, can we make a request that an attempt be made on the corns to remove them in some way?

Or pass that. We've said remove it. reuse we've got some comment here that seems a little bit mixed no we can't reuse it oh yes we can take it down in four foot sections relative to trying to design a solution on if I were the architect on this project of course I'm not and you said okay we've got these four foot sections that you'll be incorporating I'd say Okay, I don't really care if they're four foot or eight feet, right? As long as I know what they are and how to use them. So I don't mind that they're four feet. It'd be a lot easier long-term for everybody if they were larger, but we don't know the equipment for demo. We don't know storage requirements for longer pieces or shorter pieces, but that's Jason's to solve. We don't want it to go to historic, donated to historic Albany to become... A mirror.

Mirrors.

Right.

But they can hold it for the land bank. That's their agreement. Right. That's their... That's up to them, right? Or somewhere else. Right.

My only concern, observation, just as a...

from listening to the conditions, it's clear listening to you what your intent was, but I'm not sure how enforceable that is under the actual language of what was read. Now I'm sure the land bank hears your intent, but in terms of the enforceability, it doesn't specify what building it needs to be put on. And then if they don't choose it to put on this building here, then how do we see that through in a future building? And then if it's in pieces, too, is it feasible to put that? That's something I don't know. So I think... Yes, the land part, yes, but the other part... Maybe we haven't reflected fully accurately in the conditions, but I think because of that, I think we can encourage the land bank to explore this further and make an attempt to facilitate reuse of the cornice on this building, but I don't know that we can make them do that based on

Along with that, we had discussion, so the motion had occurred during the discussion about the motion. There was also the question of if in the proposed reconstruction, would we be seeking full cornice reconstruction, which was noted that it would be pretty big, maybe unreasonable to request that on the new construction, depending, could be cost prohibitive or notes that were made and so it was a friendly recommendation but was not really a condition of that aspect either so again there's the spirit of the motion the land bank here's you guys as well the amount of the corn is reused and things like that on the new construction maybe just could also as well as be a discussion for once we have plans for what that'll be along with that

What is it that we need to do in this hearing?

So we're in a public meeting, and this was just for the presentation of the applicant's good faith ability to produce a document noting feasibility of salvage. So it was a condition to reappear, present the salvage information and feasibility of it as you guys have requested.

And we don't need to make any kind of a motion?

No, there's no motions to be made.

So where are you going? This is just a discussion. This is just talking.

Yes, this is good versus chatting.

Talking, discussing over, you know.

So we could have lots of opinions, but it doesn't really, you know, to your point.

And as Brad said, the enforceability aspect is, you know, I noted it was to the applicant's ability and the feasibility of the ability. That was what the presentation is really on. Outside of that is just, you know, you guys are voicing what you're hoping to of the site and the construction of the new structure.

And at this point, this is a sidewalk level feasibility. The real feasibility comes in when you get up there with a pry bar and start pulling it apart and see how deteriorated it actually is. So I think there may be a second reporting that once we've said, okay, this idea of cutting it into four foot sections, we agree with what sort of all being said, it can come down in those sections to the extent that it can be brought down intact. And again, it all depends on what they find when they're up there and start doing it. So the second reporting might be, okay, this is what happened when we started removing the cornice. This is the actual condition that has been determined And there's another feasibility of can it be put back together? And then the question is where it goes when it gets put back together.

Jason, just for transparency's sake, is it your intent as of now to attempt to salvage the corners of the building? You know, as we're not salvage and preservation experts, we are relying on the recommendation from the store of Albany And, you know, we want to make, you know, we're trying to thread the needle between, you know, working on development but also working on preservation and salvage. So it's, you know, there's some challenges here. I think, you know, we want to follow the HRC's recommendations, of course. So I think I agree with what you were saying, that we're going to know a lot more information once We're up there, you know, the crew is up there attempting the salvage, so it's going to really determine a lot.

But the crew will be up there attempting the salvage? Yes.

Yeah, they have a lift that they would use to get up there and attempt the salvage. Yeah, I think we, you know, a lot of it is we're trying to figure out what condition it will be in after the salvage. And, yeah. Because we see a lot of demolitions and they just take the whole thing down in 20 minutes. So I just wanted to make sure that that didn't happen.

Right. Their proposal was to spend a day on the salvage and removal. So this would be before the demolition. So, yeah.

I guess it depends on how long it takes, potentially two days. We haven't planned out the schedule for when that's going to take place, but it would be before the demonstration, obviously.

So FYI is, yeah, they'll go there and it'll come down beautifully in sections and you'll have the perfect place to start, et cetera, et cetera. At the other end of the spectrum is how do somebody who works on historic buildings deal with this dilemma. I got this thing and I'd like to replicate it. So some dimensions as best you can. I don't know that your salvage crew isn't really going to get dimensions, but at a minimum saving sections and elements And also they probably can get some close-up photos. Even the demo guys have their phones in their pocket. So that'll be really useful to have. It's kind of at the worst case. And then to save each type of component.

Right. Because in reality, it may come down as a whole series of component pieces rather than an intact chunk of cornice. Right.

Actually, what they can do for you, which would be very helpful, is at least they can get, because you'll have each component, this is the worst case, you'll have each component and they can give you the dimension between the corals. Okay. And then scale. Of course, you'll have the elements, but you'll, yeah, at a minimum.

Which also, Jason, I will provide all of these in a written form for you. Yeah, yeah. It's good to have the notes, but I know that.

We'll have a good written summary.

Good luck with the written summary.

Well, thanks, Jason.

Yes, thank you. We sincerely appreciate the efforts going to and the research that's being done to kind of fulfill this unique requirement or request.

I appreciate it. There's some, we have, the land bank has some urgency because the site 47 Second Ave is currently, is going to start construction soon. So we wanted to really get this moving so it's,

nothing happens to the site prior to an actual demolition. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you.

Who decided we didn't figure out we didn't need to do anything? That was great.

I think I said that. But I think they told us.

and we presented this information in response to what we requested. That's what we've done. And that is the only item today.

Okay. So what happened to the middle?

It was just, well, so public meeting items don't have public comment periods, really, because it's just a presentation.

Oh, so he couldn't come.

No, he's attending. Oh, okay. Because he can attend. But in terms of The other item was just requested to be rescinded off the agenda.

The other item was what?

It was withdrawn from the agenda. Oh, the mural. Yeah. Yeah, they had reached out to me yesterday. So it's not an item of discussion for tonight.

No, there's a lot to talk about around murals, especially on what I assume was an original exterior wall. Sometimes we see them where buildings have been lost adjacent but I think the mural regardless of its content or design it's a little bit challenging in a situation like this and we could go back to the whole question of reversibility which often we don't have to deal with because we're looking at a building that wasn't originally exposed, that wasn't exposed. And that has a interesting technical content of, okay, well, how would you remove the mural in the future if it was reversible or maybe just paint over it, maybe you would just consider it. Yeah, wasn't it already painted? Yeah, you'd just paint over it.

It looks like it was, I thought I saw that the side of the building was already painted.

Yeah.

Yeah, it looks like it's already painted. So.

I guess so often the murals we see are, they're not as prominent on a part of the building. Like even remember all the discussions on the Lionheart mural, and it was such an important entry into the city, but it was not an original wall, and this feels different. This feels like a real impact on a very intact historic building.

I think it's just plain inappropriate.

But it's not on the agenda, so we don't have to do anything here. Right, so I can't talk about it.

We can talk about it.

So we don't really, you know, still wander into a legal quagmire here. We have to do it the next time the count's up.

Actually, there was a long piece written about, that our attorney wrote to us about murals, a couple years ago. In the jurisdiction, wasn't it?

Yeah, it's in the packet. Yeah, there was very clear guidance in the packet. That'll be provided when the mural appears again, and we'll have all of that again for you guys.

Okay, great. Are there any other items to come before us this evening?

No, I don't think so. Next week, the Pine Hills Land Development Agency, they did not, they made it look like there was no historic importance when in fact they're all HR eligible. I will mention that to it. Would you want company of that maybe? Sure. That would be nice. Let me know. In regards to the south, the northeast corner.

Has there been a National Register eligibility determination made on those buildings?

I don't know the status of it, but I know it would do that. They are eligible.

They have officially been determined.

As a district? Survey. It's not listed, but I believe it's eligible.

I'll look on Chris. So has the SHPO, though, determined national register eligibility? Or can we, as in CLG, determine national register eligibility? We can do local. Can we determine local? Is that what you're saying, that it's locally eligible?

So we did a reconnaissance. areas potentially deemed eligible for listing on the National Register was the St. Rose, the former St. Rose campus. I think that speaks to eligibility, but I don't know how the formal... We haven't gone to the point of actually doing a listing or anything like that. We did get a quote for services for that, but being that the county owns the entire property, it's sort of a...

typically needed the property owner's support and things of that nature.

So we've certainly conveyed to them that that's an opportunity.

But if it has that eligibility determination, that's good enough. That's equivalent to the designation for the purposes of making sure that the proper reviews are done.

That's my understanding. Yeah, the state or by... Well, that's what I'm saying.

It has to have an official SHPO determination and National Register eligibility. So it sounds like...

I can check and let you guys know if a DOE has been done or not yet on it.

And if it hasn't, can we submit for a DOE? Because SHPO needs, in my experience, they need a trigger to make that official determination. if the consultant said, in the reconnaissance survey, said they think this is potentially eligible, but didn't submit that to...

They have to report. Let's confirm whether or not it's already a determination. Okay, yeah. And then go from there.

Okay.

I'll check that, and then remember, company going to any of these things, just, you guys cannot congregate. Please do not congregate.

We'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

We'll adjourn.

So moved. Second? Vote? Aye. We'll adjourn. All right.

It's beautiful. It's beautiful. I'm still angry at everyone watching that.