City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

He's on there.

No. Please rise as you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Welcome, everybody, to our August 17th regular city council meeting. We have a quite packed agenda, and we have opportunities for many members of the public to speak. So we are going to start our meeting as we always do with our open comment period, and this is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on items that we will not be taking up publicly. testimony during a public hearing later in the agenda. During open comment, members of the public have up to two minutes to speak for a total of 20 minutes. However, the council is able to suspend our rules and open that up if we need to. I will be keeping track through two methods. One, the stoplight here in front of me and you, the speaker, and the digital clock on the wall that will be to your right. And I request that each speaker be concise to allow as many people to speak during the designated time as possible. Participants are also encouraged to limit comments generally to topics that are within the scope and jurisdiction of the Council's ability to affect policy. Council members and staff do not respond directly to your comments during public comment, but will instead follow up on any specific requests separately. If you have any materials to share with the Council, you may give them to the City Clerk, who is to my right there, Anne Casel, to distribute and you will be invited up to speak in the order in which you signed up and we will start with Mr. Jared Lucker. And, Gerald, you may have to push that till it turns green. There you go. Okay.

Jared Lucker, resident of Rochester. Good evening, Mayor Norton, council members, fellow citizens, and distinguished guests. I want to speak with you tonight about the proposal for additions of student housing to the historic Broadway district. which would affect Tree Dome, Art Heads Emporium, Steam Cafe, and many other retail businesses located on Broadway. When I take into account the recommendations of the Heritage Preservation Commission, the existing businesses, the planned development, the incredible amount of road construction currently, the voices of the business owners in the area, and the nature of the project, I ask that you respectfully decline the request. When it comes to preserving Rochester's history, it is important that we not only consider the economic implications of such preservations, but the character of the city and the meaning it has not only to everyday citizens, but those who currently occupy the buildings. While I agree there is a need for student housing, when I consider all the factors, I do not believe this is the appropriate project, and there are other viable alternatives that must be considered. analyzed and discussed with the larger public. We must preserve not only our historic district, but the arts and the character of our city, as well as consider the deleterious effects more construction may have on existing businesses and the pressure they are already under, not to mention disruptions to already limited parking. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Lockhart. And I just want to be clear to folks that Mr. Lucker spoke to item G1. There will be a separate hearing under G1. So if you signed up on the blue sheet and you want to speak to item G1, which is the appeal to the Historic Preservation Committee's denial of certificate of appropriateness, You may want to be on this sheet, and when we do get to public hearings, not that I'm encouraging you to do it, you will have five minutes at a public hearing. I'm not encouraging people to take five minutes, but you will have more time during that. So just to be clear, and I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Lucker, so we will continue with open comment period with Jess Garcia. I will put you on that sheet. Thank you. Next, we have Carol Ann Loomis.

Hi, I'm Caroline Loomis. I would like to thank the mayor for giving us this opportunity to look at this again. I am talking about the H.2 Willow Creek feasibility study. Both the reports narratives from September 25th and this one focus on connecting people to the jobs, food sources and school, which sounds lovely, but truly this feasibility reports sole focus and one track plan is the connection to the sports complex. not connecting the people to these important community needs since those plans are unfunded at this time. So I please ask the council to vote nay on accepting the report and nay on the Segment 1C, Alternative A, which divides my family's property and look at how we can connect the people's needs first, then add the sports complex after, which again can be done without Segment 1C, Alternative A.

Thank you. Next we have Jesse Loomis.

Hi, I'm Jesse Loomis, talking about the Willow Creek Bike Project as well. I believe, Pat, you guys all got a copy of this. Why are we trying to... cut through the middle of our property when we have all these other alternatives. And according to Dylan over here, who at the beginning of us, when we talked, he was going to do the feasibility studies on all these routes we discussed, which none of them were done except for one. We don't understand why now you guys own the other side of the highway buying license. You have the dike that goes around the Whistlebinkies Pond. You have the ability to go on... all the properties, easements and everything you already own, following 52 down and going on the west side of the bridge, coming under, going around the pond, and in your last... little branch you had coming off that would connect you down to Whistlebinkies. You could bring all that in, cut out all this bike path on the east side of that creek, which you're worried about the bridge. You don't have to make a bridge. You can come under here and your little branch that would come back to the sports complex can all be done in one shot. You don't have to build this whole bike path here, which will bring you to all the communities down here, the school, Whistlebinkies, Channel One. It'll bring you, I mean, if you can see it as the red line on your map here. But there's no reason to come through the middle of our property for this bike path when there's any other alternative. I mean, at the end of the day, it comes down to there's no reason to take something from somebody that does not want to give it if there's any other alternative. At the end of the day, it's not voting for a bike path, it's voting to steal from people that aren't willing to sell something. So that's the most I can say about it. But there's ungodly opportunities with all the current bike paths you got. This is the quickest route to get you to the ones you already have established.

Thank you, Mr. Loomis. Next, we have Michelle Girlsberger. Thanks. G1? I'll put you down for G1. Jacqueline Johnson.

Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Jacqueline Johnson. I'm the managing director of Rochester Civic Theater and a board member of Minnesota Citizens for the Arts and a member of the Rochester Arts and Culture Strategic Plan Steering Committee. I'm here in support of the proposed council action to fund an arts and culture ALTS & CULTURE ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY FOR ROCHESTER. ACROSS MINNESOTA, ARTS & CULTURE REPRESENTS A $13.8 BILLION INDUSTRY. IN 2024, THE NONPROFIT ARTS & CULTURE SECTOR IN REGION 10, WHICH INCLUDES ROCHESTER, GENERATED MORE THAN $86.8 MILLION IN ECONOMIC IMPACT And across the state, the average arts attendees spend more than $33 beyond the price of admission on restaurants, hotels, gas, shopping, and other local businesses. But statewide and region 10 data only tells us part of the story. We need a clear Rochester-specific picture of this sector's economic impact. That's what this study will provide. The findings will be a community resource for strategic planning and future advocacy. This study can identify opportunities for growth and investment, inform decisions by arts organizations, by businesses, tourism partners, funders, and the city. An arts and culture economic impact study also perfectly complements the experience Rochester study through the Minnesota Tourism Center, giving our community a more complete picture of how arts, culture, entertainment, and attractions contribute to Rochester's economy. This investment is one piece of a much larger effort from the Rochester Arts and Culture Strategic Plan Steering Committee, supported by active research, data, and countless volunteer hours. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next we have Rylan Wolf.

Good afternoon. I would like to voice my support for Ms. Jacqueline's wish for the advancement of Rochester's art culture. Otherwise, I feel like my points have been spoken for already eloquently enough, and I would like to give up my time. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Wolfe. Next, we have Stephanie Kylan.

Good evening, my name is Stephanie Kylan and I am here representing the Arts and Cultural Strategic Plans Steering Committee and speaking in support of tonight's council-initiated action item to fund an economic impact study for this sector. The Arts and Cultural Strategic Planning Steering Committee was created to formally identify the needs and challenges within Rochester's arts and cultural landscape through a community research process with broad representation from across the sector. Our goal is to find solutions and create a long-range strategic plan for a thriving arts and cultural landscape. Over the last year, 80 arts and cultural, arts and cultural organizations have participated in our process and our steering committee represents 12 organizations from both nonprofit and for-profit arts and cultural sectors. We are structured to include participation from new groups at any point within our process. I became a member of the steering committee through my work at Rochester Symphony. Last spring, this project was accepted into the Chris Nelson Community-Based Research Program at the University of Minnesota, also known as CURA. The program supports community-based initiatives like ours at no cost. Along with methods such as stakeholder mapping and focus groups, an important next step is to conduct an economic impact study. While all the work so far has been conducted through volunteer hours and through CURA resources, the economic impact study is one piece of the research that we cannot conduct ourselves. And the unique nature of our group and our strategic planning focus make us ineligible for many grants and other funding opportunities that we've explored. Funding this study through council-initiated action will allow us to continue moving forward at a critical point in our process. The current conversations and questions about what we are doing in Rochester that impacts our arts and cultural landscape make this work especially timely. The next step in our process could not be more beneficial than it is right now. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Ms. Garvin. Next, we have Terry Kinsey.

Members of the Rochester City Council, Mayor Norton, and members of the Rochester community, I'm Teri Goss Kinsey, Ward 5 resident and chair of the Rochester Sustainability and Resiliency Commission. On behalf of the commission, I am here to express our support in advancing the community-focused sustainability pilot programs that will be discussed at this meeting. The commission recognizes the extensive community engagement effort completed by city staff during the natural gas franchise fee discussion. Commissioners were also highly engaged in that process and appreciated the emphasis on transparency, affordability, and visible community benefit. Community feedback reflected strong interest in local investment that reduce household energy costs, support renters and lower income households, and contribute to Rochester's broader sustainability and greenhouse gas reduction goals through practical community centered action. The programs that you will discuss will do just that. Our Commission discussions emphasize the importance of developing visible community-centered pilot programs that residents can directly experience and have clear and measurable outcomes. These programs need to be accessible to renters and households that may not traditionally benefit from existing rebate or incentive programs. In conclusion, the Commission believes these pilot programs provide an opportunity to demonstrate measurable community benefit, such as reduce cost, strengthen public understanding and trust, expand community participation in local climate actions, and inform future sustainability and resiliency investments within the City of Rochester. THE SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCY COMMISSION APPRECIATES COUNCIL'S CONTINUED LEADERSHIP IN EXPLORING SUSTAINABILITY FUNDING AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT STRATEGIES. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

Good evening. I'm Amy Cockett. I live at 716 28th Street in Rochester, Northwest. I am also a member of the League of Men Voters. The League of Men Voters is a national, state, and local organization, always nonpartisan. We defend democracy, empower voters, but we also study issues and then take stands. One of the issues that we've studied thoroughly is the environment. Our position on that is the League of Men Voters supports action by appropriate levels of government to encourage the use of renewable resources in energy conservation through funding for research and development, financial incentives, rate-setting policies, and mandatory standards. The League urges you to fund the Sustainability Commission's pilot program request tonight found in number H3. We also remind you of one of your adopted 26-27 recommended budget strategic priorities, which is responsible environmental stewardship. And your budget program says... of these strategic priorities, we will focus our resources and initiatives to drive progress in this area. And here is your chance. H3, please vote yes tonight, and I will free up my seat and go home and watch you online.

Thank you, Ms. Cockett. Next up, we have Nels Pearson.

Hey, good evening, City Council and Mayor Norton. I'm Nels Pearson. I am a candidate running for Minnesota Senate District 24, just here tonight by way of introduction. And as always, appreciate the hard work that you all do for the City of Rochester. I have been up and running as a candidate since May, and in that time we've attended city council and township meetings in 24 jurisdictions. We'll be wrapping that up this week and completing our final township meeting to have attended a township meeting in each of the townships that I hope to represent moving forward. So I always just want to thank everything that you do. I always tell a story about our neighbors in Farmington Township and how when one superintendent's giving the roads report, Another superintendent says, well, how are the Johnson's doing with the repaving of the roads? And they reply, well, they're waving at me again. And so you as city council people, you get to deal with that every day. You see it more personally in the grocery stores and you, you, you live with us, you are amongst us and it's, certainly something that I don't take lightly and appreciate the service that you provide. I just always ask that should I be so fortunate to be elected that you would be my eyes on those township roads and in the city of Rochester and the grocery stores letting me know if there's any issues or problems that the state is causing that would prevent anyone from waving at us again. So thank you so much for the time and have a great evening.

Thank you, Mr. Pearson. Next we have Kyle Pike.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, esteemed members of the Rochester City Council. I come to you tonight on less grave circumstances than January, so I'll be a little walked back from that. But I come here to speak on behalf of my friends and neighbors to advocate for local businesses. And you'll have to forgive me, I'm not as prepared as I was in January. But for generations, the city of Rochester has relied heavily on small businesses, which are and will continue to serve as the lifeblood of this city. As you are well aware, many thousands of Rochester area residents work or operate small businesses in various parts of Olmstead County, and we all rely on one another to help keep our local businesses thriving and successful. Although the overprivileged and lordly members of its board of directors are today scarcely likely to admit it, even the illustrious Mayo Clinic and St. Mary's Hospital were once a small business practice operating right on what was then Zumbro Street and what is today Second Street. These corporate overlords could forsake the entirety of my hometown for greed and profit and sleep soundly for their evil. Many thousands of their staffers, doctors, nurses, and employees trample upon the backs of hometown kids like me without even thinking twice of the pillaging they do to the businesses, neighborhoods, and former heritable architectural spaces they demolish and level in the name of corporate profitable greed. Each one of you need to wake up to the reality of obnoxious construction noise and cluttered city streets that bury the rotting bones of what was once my hometown. You have all had a helping hand in corrupting Rochester into a corporate money funnel. for the only and biggest game in a town built now around an allegedly not-for-profit medical industry that mutated out of what was begun as an altruistic investment in the millers, farmers, and laborers who built this city. Thank you, Mr. Pike.

Next up, that concludes our open comment period. And I am going to say this again when we do have our public hearings. And I didn't say anything during open comment. But we have 40 people that are signed up for G1. And applause will just take away time from people's presentation. So please just be respectful to all speakers and remain silent in between the speakers. Thank you. With that, I will call on Clerk Kasel to call the roll.

Good evening. Council Member Keene.

Here.

Council Member Miller.

Here.

Council Member Wall.

Here.

Council Member Fredericks. Here. Council Member Palmer. Here. Council Member Doering. Here. Council President Shubring.

Here.

Mayor Norton. Present.

Thank you. Next up we have our city administrators report. Administrator Zelms, please take it away.

Thank you. Council President, Mayor, members of the council, lots of members of the community that are here today. I just wanted to start off, as I always do, with thanking all of our teammates for acting with respect, integrity, safety, and excellence in mind in everything that they do. Out of respect for the many speakers that are forthcoming, I will zip through this. We do have our final two forward concerts coming up this Wednesday, the 19th, at White Oaks Park, Rains with JoJo Green. And next Wednesday, August 26th, Me Like Bees with Scorched Waves will be at Cook Park. They'll start at 5.30 and go until about 7.45 p.m. So be happy to join everyone there. Also, we are looking for feedback about the Silver Lake Skate Park expansion. So if that's something that you're interested in, there will be opportunity for feedback. That started last week. There's a brief online survey, and that is running through Friday, August 28th. You can find it on rochestermn.gov to take the survey. There is a press release there. It's also on our social media. We are nearing the end of summer, so I'm sorry to say. The closing dates for pools and beaches as well as splash pads, Silver Lake Pool closed yesterday. Soldiers Field Aquatic Center will close on Sunday, August 23rd. And beaches splash pads will be open through Monday, September 7th, which is Labor Day. So enjoy that while it lasts. Our last item on this agenda is about alternate side parking and snow. So it's coming quickly. Story time at White Oaks Park. White Oaks Park will be getting a lot of action this week. So August 21st on Friday, 9.30 a.m. to 10. The Rochester Public Library is hosting a story time. Bring your blankets and whatever else you need. Story time is going to be canceled if there is bad weather. But again, that will be at White Oaks Park on August 21st. Now we'll turn it over to the mayor.

Thank you, administrators. Mayor Norton, take it away.

Great. I have a couple announcements as well. First, on Friday, so it's passed, I wanted to note that it was National Emergency Management Awareness Month. So we had the city hall lights done green for them and was a nice follow-up to the practice run we did, the emergency management run that we did over at Century High School a week ago. So that was good timing for that. We want to recognize them for all they do. We have the town hall that we're hosting called Getting Around Town. It's about all modes of transportation in Rochester. It will be Thursday, August 20th, this week, from 6 to 7.30, and we moved the location. We've been holding them at RCTC, but with the start of the school year, we're going to move it over to John Marshall's Cafeteria. So... Please feel free to pop up there. And I'm requesting the council, if you're available, some of you are, some of you aren't, to pop up. It's really nice to have you at the tables when folks have their discussions. It's really helpful. So looking forward to that. We're looking at showing on September 10th. We don't have the location identified. We're confirming the one that we thought we had. We've moved this event called 9-11 Reclaiming Ground Zero. This will be the 20th anniversary of 9-11, and some folks have done a documentary about it. But it's not just about 9-11 and what happened. That is covered in it. But it really is about how New York City responded using community engagement. And so... We would encourage you to come. We'll have more information as we have a location and we'll do some publicity about it. So we'd love to have you at that. I will be doing, we, the Parks Department, and I will be doing my last tree planting. And for those of you that don't know, Ardell started this when he was mayor, where he did tree plantings regularly. And I don't know how long he did it during his tenure, but he did it a number of times. And I thought it was a great idea. So I took it up. And so for the last eight years, I have been purchasing and working with the Parks PARKS DEPARTMENT TO PUT IN TEN TREES A YEAR. WE'LL BE DOING A FEW EXTRA THIS YEAR. SO WE WILL BE PUTTING IN OUR 70TH TO 80TH TREES OUT AT CASCADE LAKE. I JUST SELECTED CASCADE LAKE. IT WAS A NEW CITY PARK. IT NEEDED SOME TREE COVER. SO THAT'S WHERE THEY'VE ALL GONE. IT'S BEEN A JOY TO DO. AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME HELP US PLANT TREES ON SEPTEMBER 17TH AT 9 A.M. IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE, WE'LL BE AT CASCADE LAKE PARK TO PUT IN OUR LAST SEVEN. AND THERE WILL BE THREE SPECIAL TREES THAT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED TO HONOR my friend Melissa Hortman and her husband that died this year. So they will be putting in three crabapple trees in honor of them. Also, on Wednesday, September 23rd, we will be hosting the Youth Leadership and Success Summit. It's for high school students. We will be having people in a variety of businesses come talk about their careers, but it is also about leadership and wellness. The students have helped plan this. We will have, if all goes well, the governor and some other folks from up in the Twin Cities, as well as some really wonderful speakers locally, and then folks that will be sharing about their own career choices and how they got there. So that will be a day that students have off school September 23rd and it will start around noonish and go until 7 or 8 in the evening and we'll be at Civic Center and Chateau Theater. Should be fun. Last or one of the last things I have to share I guess is that I want to thank Anna, Eric, Devon, Elizabeth and Chloe listed here. These are local artists who stepped up and you see I took one day because we had a sick day with one of the artists and we provided an art project for all of the summer school kids in the Rochester Public Schools who for whatever reason needed that extra help this summer so we supported the artists. by having them come, and the day I was there was a little simpler. We painted birdhouses because I am not an artist, though I love the arts. So it was wonderful, and those five artists gave their time and talent to our students, and it was fabulous. And lastly, the Sustainability and Resiliency Commission takes part of our policies or our procedures for the city, I guess it's an ordinance, says that we will have a youth member and typically the youth tend to be juniors or seniors and so they go away to college and so we're often having every year a new youth opening. So if you know of any youth who are really interested in sustainability and resiliency, they could go online and apply for that youth position. And we say 16 to 21, I think, for any interested youth. So if you're interested, please go online and apply. And that's all I've got.

Thank you, Mayor. Next up, we have the order of the agenda. Are there any changes to the order of the agenda? I don't see any. I would recommend a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. Moved by Council Member Fredericks and seconded by Council Member... Wall, all in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose say nay, motion passes. Moving on to our consent agenda, I have not received any notice of items to be pulled, is that correct? If not, I'd invite a motion to approve the consent agenda. So moved. Second. Moved by Council Member Fredericks and seconded by Council Member Doering. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Pose say nay. Motion passes. Moving on to our public hearings. We have four public hearings on our agenda this evening. And before we start, as I mentioned, we do have over 40 people signed up for the first public hearing, and so we do have some guidelines for that. First, staff will make a presentation or introduction of the item that we are dealing with, and then if there is an applicant or applicant representative present, they will have up to 10 minutes to discuss the item. AFTER THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES EACH, STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO KEEP COMMENTS BRIEF, CONCISE AND BUILDING ON BUT NOT REPEATING PREVIOUS COMMENTS. PUBLIC CAN BE JOINING US IN PERSON ONLY AS FAR AS PUBLIC TESTIMONY. After all of the people that want to speak during the public hearing have been heard, we will invite the applicant back up for a rebuttal to answer any questions that came up during the public hearing or to make any closing comments about the item. AFTER THAT I WILL INVITE MY COLLEAGUES AND THE MAYOR TO ASK ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND OR THE APPLICANT. SO WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM G1 WHICH IS AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE'S DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 311 BROADWAY EDITION RENOVATION AND WE HAVE IRENE WOODWARD TO MAKE THIS PRESENTATION.

Good evening, Council President, Mayor, members of Council. I'm going to do the introduction for the public hearing. I just wanted to kind of, this is an appeal of a certificate of appropriateness that was heard by the Heritage Preservation Commission. I will kind of go through the different criteria. These are all listed in the packet under the RCA, so I'm just going to highlight a few of those. This is a quasi-judicial. It kind of mirrors a zoning appeal, so all of those different items that we identified in the packet kind of make up our findings of fact for this particular application. Just to note, this was denied by the Heritage Preservation Commission, and they noted that the rehabilitation standards of 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 were not being met. I can repeat those at the end, but just wanted to note them up front as we go through these. And I'm just going to kind of highlight some of these. I know there's a lot of public that wants to also provide comments. So just to note, the applications, when we review for anything that's a certificate of appropriateness, we review it against the rehabilitation standards, but also the city-adopted design guidelines that take into account city priorities that were done by council. So it is the combination of those two documents is how we review each of these different criteria. So to start, really what I wanted to highlight on this is that as we continue to look at this application, it will continue as a mixed use. A majority of commercial space will remain, which really indicates and continues that this is referencing a commercial historic district as it was identified and designated. And the distinctive materials, especially those along Broadway, will remain, and that's a key factor within this. Moving on to the next one, the historic features of the facades are going to continue to be preserved. In addition, the storefront at 309 will be rehabilitated. It had undergone several different iterations over the years and kind of closed in. And as part of this, it will be opened back up and taken into account to look more like a storefront, which was at one time that way, which isn't appropriate as part of the rehabilitation standards. The changes that have occurred within the district, within the period of significance will be maintained along with also noting that the rehabilitation of the facade of 309 and to the alley side of the buildings will utilize more contemporary design, which is consistent. None of the materials being removed qualifies as distinctive materials, features, or finishes. Predominantly that is behind those front facades which are facing Broadway will remain intact and be preserved within this. And that the changes having occurred to already at 311 or 317 within the period of significance will be preserved. So those will be maintained as they are. The other thing to note is that no character-defining features are being removed or replaced in this project. The character-defining features within the historic study that was completed to designate this were all generally along the facades facing Broadway, where those character-defining features that were identified during that and were adopted as part of that historic district study. And wanted to note on this, one of the main things that I think there's been some comments and feedback also from HPC was about the overall massing of the structure. When we look at it, we look at the presence of 318 Commons building mitigates the additional building mass, noting that within the historic district, it's the collective of all of the buildings that were established and designated. So it's not one particular building. it's the overall district that was established. So as we're looking at the overall district, we're looking at the impact of that massing within that district. And with the location of 318, it looks like it kind of aligns with that. And so it will not have an impact on the other buildings. In addition, it has been designed to both compatible and differentiated from the property's historic element, which is the recommendation when we're looking at additions or rehabilitations, especially when we're looking at additions, is that it has it differentiated so that you're not mimicking what is on those front-facing facades that are part of those contributing buildings. And then the last item I just want to quickly note, our properties are being, once again, I've kind of noted a couple of times that it's really looking at those properties being preserved along Broadway as being a key feature of this. And so with that, I will note and I'll just provide the recommendation. This was a staff recommendation that was submitted to HPC. Once again, the HPC voted 62 to deny the certificate of appropriateness. And most of their comments, and I'm just summarizing them, I'm not speaking verbatim for each one of them, was really concerns about the addition would detract from the district, the concerns about setting precedents, and the massing design are not compatible with these buildings or the district. And just wanted to note those. And that is the end of the brief presentation. And I'm happy to answer any questions at the completion of the public hearing.

Thank you, Ms. Woodward. Next up, if the applicant is here, if they can step forward and introduce yourself, and you have up to 10 minutes. How do I advance the slide?

Just the green button? Okay, thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Council President, Council Members. My name is Bob Heist. I'm working with Hal Henderson, Grant Mikuletz, and the GH Investment Group. regarding this 311 Broadway development. What this appeal is about is that HPC denied the request for appropriateness and did so without any factual support, any substantive factual findings. And GH2 did not walk away. They met with the city. The city invited them to continue down this road to find a project that would be compatible with what the city was trying to do in terms of develop the downtown project. district and so after months and multiple meetings and many many communications a Substantially modified proposal was developed and that proposal earned the support of the experts the city development team The properties, we all know what the properties are, so I'm not gonna go into any detail on that. The city has done a good job of outlying that. Quick history, all I would point out is that again, GH2 did not walk away. They were invited by the city to continue this progress, this project, and find a way that they could collaborate together with the development team and come up with solutions to some of the concerns that the initial project raised. And they did that through months and months and hours of communication and collaboration. This is a snapshot of what the differences are. You can see the 309 Broadway, the facade is now being preserved as opposed to full demolition. The storefronts are returned to historic opening. Preserved whole portions of the buildings to be used as apartments. It went from 11 stories to seven stories, which satisfies the massing considerations. There are now setbacks that didn't exist before that satisfy the city development team and the standards and the guidelines. And no change in the designation of the buildings as contributing buildings was required. This is just to give you the visual. The city has it in errors, but you can see the substantial difference in the massing that resulted in the significant changes to the proposal and to the project, which clearly, as the city has determined, falls within the lines of the standards and the expectations. The, I think it's important. I'm not an expert in historical preservation. I'm not an engineer. I'm not an expert in downtown district renovation and remodeling and expansion. I rely on experts. I suspect that nobody here in your, and I don't mean this in any disrespectful way, but are not experts in historical preservation or downtown development. I don't envy the position that you're in. This is outside a lot of people's expertise and it's a hard position to be in to have to make a decision like this. So what do we do? We rely on experts. The city has a team of experts that are devoted and committed to understanding the Secretary of Interior standards in the context of a project like this. They're committed to understanding the UDC in the context of a proposal and a project like this. So what do we do? We rely on what the experts say. And the experts have indicated that this project, this new proposal, substantially modified, comports with, complies with, and adheres to the Secretary of Interior standards, and it adheres to the UDC, the regulations and the codes that apply to a project like this. Just in brief, the HPC's decision was a one-page letter that denied on one, two, five, six, nine and 10 Secretary of Interior standards. And the conclusion was simply not met. No factual support, no factual justification, no basis whatsoever other than not met. To the extent that somebody from the HPC may have submitted some documents to the city council afterwards that weren't provided to us, that were not part of the HPC proceeding, it's outside the scope of the HPC proceeding. It's inappropriate to rely on anything that was provided to the council after that. And certainly if something was provided, we would have liked to have seen it so that we could address it. Not a single factual finding in a quasi-judicial proceeding. Procedurally, we think that's inappropriate and we would ask that the City Council take that into consideration. We look at what's the investment case for this. This isn't theoretical, it's not hypothetical, it's real. The second floor of 311 Broadway hasn't been rented in five years. This is despite over $900,000 being invested in the Payne building. The second floor remains vacant. Right now, ownership is subsidizing tenants. They may not know it, they may not appreciate it, but at $15 a square foot, as opposed to what the market is for that area for between $25 and $35, it's not sustainable. It's not theoretical, it's reality. The math simply doesn't work without this project. There's no realistic path. to recoup any investment in these buildings as they sit today. And that's what makes really an opportunity for the city council to allow for real investment in these buildings to be possible. What's the practical alternatives? Sell the buildings, who's gonna buy these buildings after what they've been through for the past three years in the current condition that they're in? Maintain at a minimum. It's not sustainable. You can keep putting money in to maintain the building, but the rents that are getting paid aren't sufficient to maintain that. So downtown business property owners support this. And we should not have to choose between allowing a property owner to reinvest in historic building and supporting the small businesses that make downtown possible. Why this matters, whether the commission's decision was supported by the findings in the HPC, which it clearly was not because there were no factual findings and what's at stake in the outcome. This is a $23 million investment that's being brought to downtown Rochester. The city development team itself recognizes what brings more business, more residents, more revenue, more vitality for the whole downtown community, not just this block. There's a message beyond this one project. If a developer does everything that they're asked in working with the city, goes to meetings, makes changes, makes revisions, complies with everything that the city wants, and then is told by the HPC, we reject your project because it affects old buildings, it sends a message to development that development in downtown Rochester is not wanted. We would think that this council has the opportunity to send an opposing message today. And that message is that if you work with the city, if you combine and collaborate with the city, and you provide what the city is looking for in compliance with the standards and the regulations, your project should be approved. And for that reason, we're asking that the city council accept the recommendation. The second recommendation now by the experts, the development team, to overturn the HPC's denial, to award the certificate of appropriateness, and to allow this project to go forward. I want to say thank you on behalf of GH2 Investments, Mr. Henderson, and Mr. Michalets. And we have anticipated some questions. So in the slide deck, there are questions and answers. I don't know, how much time do I have left? A minute?

You have a minute and 54 seconds left, but you also will have five minutes after the public hearing to answer questions.

All right. So let me just take what time I have left. There are no conditions that this approval and this recommendation for approval are subject to. The standards, all that are identified are not supported by any factual findings or any factual support. When you talk about the alley, we're very conscientious of the alley. Hal and Grant have already done things to enhance that alley by consolidating garbage collection for all the business owners in that area. by installing new lights, by installing benches, by installing planters, some of which have been vandalized already with plants being stolen and rocks being pulled out of the planters. But it shows that they're willing to work and do more. And this project, if they're given the opportunity to move it forward, can do so much more to preserve the culture of that alley, actually enhance the culture of that alley by doing some things like this. This just demonstrates the massing This has been done in other cities throughout the United States. You can see a lot of historic buildings have accepted the idea of regenerating with modernization that bring revitalization to a downtown community and a downtown district. So we're not asking the city of Rochester to do something novel or something that hasn't been done. Again, this shows the massing, this tower subordinate to the historic buildings. Professional support, we relied on the former commissioner of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission who supports our project consistent with all the Secretary of Interior standards as the city team and the experts have identified. And if for some reason it needed to be removed, the historic buildings would be preserved in their original state. And this just identifies over five meetings in 2024, six meetings in 2025, and two meetings in 2026, and multiple conversations. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you. We will invite you back up after the public hearing. At this time, I will open the public hearing, and I will go through the list of... Speakers, and a reminder, please remain quiet during the speakers and after the speaker is done. And we will start with Sean Kettelkamp.

Hi there. I'm Sean Kettelkamp, the researcher.

If you could pull the microphone just a little closer.

History Center of Olmstead and the researcher at the History Center of Olmstead County. You know, I just want to say that you all created the historic district and it can't be something that's a hop on, hop off. We changed our mind later. We want to do something different. It's all been set. The historic district is in place. And, you know, when he says that he can't, find anybody to buy those buildings, I think really what it comes down to is what are you going to rent it out for? If you're doing everything specifically for the University of Minnesota Rochester, that's not going to work. I've said it before, the University of Minnesota Rochester should really be the University of Minnesota Mayo because You can't get an English degree or a history degree there. They're only teaching classes for what they want to make workers for them anyhow. My aunt and uncle Jerry and Mary Ellen Kettelkamp lived here for years. They moved to Denver in the late 1960s. And my aunt Mary Ellen's father was the district attorney and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, attorney for the Studebaker family. And it was my aunt Mary Ellen who, when she moved to Denver, ran and was on the city council there, who counseled me on going to the city council, if you had something to say, you should go and don't be afraid. And so, I've tried to keep that in mind. You know, she was on the city council there, but she would come back. My aunt and uncle, Jerry and Mary Ellen, would come back every year. And I always remember in the late 1970s, my mother was talking to her about some issue here in town. And my mother told her that this and that thing was happening. And my aunt said to her, Things happen in Rochester, Minnesota that don't happen anywhere else. And I've always remembered that because it just kind of speaks to... you know, kind of unacceptable behavior. I mean, going for staff recommendations and going to city developers and everything, if they're trying to get you all to vote a certain way, that's unacceptable. And telling the city council how to vote is something that I don't believe should happen. you know, corruption is chic these days, and I just don't want you all to be pushovers for changing your historic district by a building that's so towering that when you're driving down Broadway, you're not gonna be able to see the Kaler Hotel or anything else beyond that. It's not so much really what's happening right there on Broadway in front of that building. It's like coming up there on a car. You're not going to be able to see beyond that. You know, it's just towering over an historic building and a historic district that we all care very much about. And I remember being out at the History Center having to give tours at Maywood and have people come up and want to know where was the downtown Rochester? And you try to explain it to them, and it's very difficult because they all want to rent out to, like I said, the University of Minnesota Rochester. It could be hard to sell that building But depending upon who wants to buy it and what they want to use it for, if they're not going to use it for the university, they have all kinds of great possibilities. So I encourage you, please, to vote no. We don't want any building on top of our historic buildings, and we don't want anything done to our historic district. As little as it is, we're only asking for a millionth the building space in all of Rochester and that apartment thing that they want to build could be built anywhere else. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Next we have Chris Allen.

Good evening. Thank you for having us here. My name is Chris Allen. I'm a 50-year resident of Rochester. I'm the daughter of Marge Allen, who founded Channel One, and I am a professional artist. Grassroots, it's what started Channel One. It's only bigger. It continues to grow. Look at your audience here in attendance tonight. It is the people. It is a grassroots effort to say, no, we want our history. We the people are here to protect and preserve our own history as permanent residents of Rochester, Minnesota. It's a progressive state as a direct result of grassroots efforts. Minnesota is ranked fourth in the country to support and promote the arts, yet Rochester? Rochester artists rank less than 1% in our state. 1%. Think of the growth. Our small art businesses are being threatened by creating an unnecessary change today, proposing to add five floors of student housing onto our haven of historic buildings that have remained throughout the hardworking historians of our downtown neighborhood. Two stories says charm, seven stories says corporate greed. Honestly. Changing our historic neighborhoods downtown would displace and once again would hide the creative, hardworking artists, musicians, performers, writers, and grant writers of the most expensive place to live in Minnesota right now. The vibe is similar to the ripple effect the building of the Civic Center had on the Rochester Art Center. Have you been there? Do you know where it is? Do our visitors know where it is? How much more could it grow? So please have the decency to support alternative businesses that are arts-focused and settled in a well-established downtown location for all of us. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Richard Gill, please. Everyone was so good after the first speaker, and if you do wanna applaud, go out to the lobby. Mr. Gill, go ahead.

Hello, my name is Richard Gill and I'm here to speak specifically about the importance of Tree Dome Records and the need for it to remain open, uninterrupted, which would be impossible if this passes. I'm 46 years old, I grew up in Rochester and graduated high school in 1998. So I was around during the Money Magazine Best City in America days and as an artistic teenager during that time, I can say that it was anything but that for us. We would hang out in public spaces like the Galleria or the Peace Plaza and get harassed or ticketed by security guards and police officers just for existing in those spots. The same thing happened during the live music shows at the Playmore Ballroom, harassed by the owners even though we went to spend money there. It was not an ideal situation and it made us all extremely bitter and untrusting of the people and positions of power in the city. In 2003, I left Rochester and when I moved back a few years ago, I saw a much different city. There were multiple venues that hosted original live music, and there was a vibrant arts and music community. On this particular stretch of Broadway that we're talking about, there was a coffee shop, an art store, and a record store, and all these places welcomed the youth with open arms. The point I'm trying to make is that the impact Tree Dome has on the community goes beyond dollars and cents. In a place like Rochester that, when you're young, seems to only care about the Mayo Clinic and catering to the over 60 population, Tree Dome is a place for the youth to go for live music and community events. Kids have taken prom and senior pictures at Tree Dome. Bands have formed in that store. Friendships and relationships have started there. I met one of the very most important people in my life because of that storefront. It's important to this community. It's more than just four walls and some crates of records. It's a cultural and community hub for this city. I would hate for the next generation of young people to miss out on that at the expense of more apartments, for the next generation to grow up the way my friends and I did, bitter and untrusting of the people in positions of power in the city, feeling like their best interests are not being considered. They've already lost one place with the closing of thesis. Don't let them lose this place too, even for the amount of time it takes to renovate a building. Thank you, Mr. Gill. Next up we have Charlie Miller.

Good evening, Council President Shubring, Mayor Norton, and members of the Council. My name is Charlie. I'm here tonight to ask you to deny the appeal for item G1 and uphold the Historic Preservation Commission's decision. I'd like to speak from a slightly different perspective than others here tonight. I'm relatively new to Rochester. I moved here with my two teenager sons to receive ongoing medical care from the Mayo Clinic last summer. When I arrived here, we didn't know anyone or have any community. I didn't have a network of people or a sense of where I belonged yet. The businesses in these historic buildings changed that for me. Through these businesses, from attending zine scene and open mic nights at Cafe Steam and painting classes at Art Heads to attending concerts at Tree Dome, I found my people, I found employment, I found music, art, friendship, and a sense of belonging. The community that I built here over the past year is directly connected to these spaces. And I think that's something that can be easy to overlook when we talk about historic preservation. We aren't just preserving old buildings. We're preserving the places where people built lives. These spaces give small businesses, artists, musicians, and community members somewhere to gather and create something together. They contribute to the character of Rochester in a way that a new development simply can't replicate overnight. I'd also like to note that a huge part of the community spaces these businesses provide is the safe, welcoming environment they create for my teenagers and for Rochester's youth as a whole. Almost weekly, I have the privilege of witnessing close to 100 of our youth and young people gather at Tree Dome to enjoy live music together. As a parent, I can't name nor imagine another space that feels as wholesome, inclusive, and safe for our youth on a Friday night. These spaces give young people a place to belong, connect with one another, and experience their communities in a way that's incredibly meaningful. I moved here only a year ago, and these businesses help make Rochester feel like a home. I hope we'll make decisions that allow future residents to have that same opportunity to arrive here not knowing anyone and find a community waiting for them. Please deny the appeal for items G1 and uphold the Historical Preservation Commission's decision. Thank you for your time.

Thanks, Ms. Miller. Next up, we have Riggs Repking.

Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Riggs Repking. I'm a Rochester small business owner, resident and homeowner, and I'd like to ask you guys to reject this proposal. I wanna be very clear. I am not opposed to housing, especially for students, and I am not opposed to development. I'm opposed to destroying Rochester's history when there are other places to build. These South Broadway buildings date back to the late 19th century. They are a part of Rochester's architectural and commercial history, and once they are gone, they are gone forever. But they are also more than just old buildings. These spaces have become important parts of Rochester's art and creative community. They provide places for artists and creative businesses to work, gather, and contribute to the character of downtown. That community is part of what makes these buildings valuable today, not just what happened in them 100 years ago. The Federal Secretary of Interior's standard for historic properties, found in 36 CFR Part 68, emphasizes preserving historic materials and features, minimizing changes to historic buildings, and avoiding alterations that destroy the character and make history property significant. These principles are consistent with Rochester's own heritage preservation policies, which recognize the preservation of historically significant properties as being in the public interest. I understand that facades may stay similar, but these buildings are more than just that. So I have to ask, why are we willing to make an exception here? This is not the first time we've had this conversation. This is, by my understanding, the fourth time a proposal has come before the council about these changes. At what point do we stop changing small pieces of the proposal? and recognize that the fundamental problems remain the same. Changing the number of units, changing the design, and making other small adjustments doesn't change what is being asked of you tonight to approve a development that comes at the expense of historic buildings. I don't believe we need to make that trade. Look around downtown Rochester. There's construction happening everywhere. New apartment buildings continue to go up, and there are vacant, underutilized lots throughout and around downtown where new housing can be built without destroying 19th century buildings. We can have both. We can build housing for these students and we can preserve history. What we cannot do is demolish or fundamentally alter historical buildings and then decide years later that we wish we had protected them. If this council approves this proposal after four separate hearings and repeated revisions, what precedent does that establish for the next historical property? What does historic prevention actually mean if a developer can simply keep modifying a proposal until the preservation concerns are worn down? These buildings have survived well over a century. I am asking you not to be the council that decides they won't make it another century. Please reject this proposal and require development to happen in a way that allows Rochester to grow without erasing history, art, and character that makes our downtown unique. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rep King. Next, we have Kevin Ewig.

Good evening, council members. Thank you for your service. And Mayor Norton, I first knew you as PTA president. Thank you for serving children, for serving this community, for representing our state, and at a national level and international level, your service has been phenomenal. I came to Rochester in 1989 to teach at Gage. I was a brand new teacher. My first grade that I taught was sixth grade, which was kind of a nightmare for me. But we managed, and one of the sections that I taught was Minnesota and Rochester history. And we went to the history center to learn about the tornado that wiped out most of Rochester. August 1st, 21st, about this time of year, 1883, most of this town was wiped out. The historical buildings are gone. There's photographs and drawings of it, but what remains in downtown Rochester are a few historical buildings. For the sake of our children and their understanding of the history of this town and this community, I urge you to veto or to deny this permit and keep those buildings in place as they are for the sake of the children, for their sense of history, for the sense of the artist community that is there, I, in my retirement, have become an artist, a woodworker, a cabinetmaker, and a carver. I appreciate art heads and all the buildings in that block, but I also appreciate the historical nature of those buildings. As a carpenter, woodworker, I appreciate the stone, red brick, not steel and glass, but the brick and the stained glass on those storefronts add so much to what this town has already lost. So please don't let a second tornado wipe out the few buildings we have left. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Igweke. Next we have Santiago Cantu. Cantu. That was correct. Thank you.

Good afternoon, the mayor and the council, the city council. Quick apologies, my throat is not exactly where I would like it to be, but this was an issue that was important to me, and so here I am anyhow. So my name is Santiago. I moved here to Rochester about a year ago or so with my wonderful partner, Phoenix, We came here looking for new work. We came here looking for a new culture and a new life. And so far, we have very happily found it. And a big part of that was because of the institutions that we have in our historic district, the arts and the life and the youth and just every part of the energy that really fills us up and allows us to live and allows us to feel like we have a home. I, because I don't have as much of an experience living here and because I'm a relatively recent resident, I want to save some of the more technical aspects of this kind of conversation to more experienced residents, to the small business owners who are impacted. What I really want to speak to is my role as a resident and your role as you are deciding on this. First, I want to speak to your role specifically, particularly in the kind of decision that I think you should be making and that really you are entrusted to be making. I think that there are three big principles that really underpin this type of discussion. I think the first is a recognition that this is not a decision on the actual certificate of appropriateness itself. That has already been delegated. That has already been decided by the previous historic preservation committee. This is about an appeal to that. And so I would ask you, first and foremost, to go towards the past precedent. There are going to be lots of arguments that are made about why it still does not satisfy the historical guidelines for the heritage and for the heritage preservation. But even if you don't necessarily buy all of them and think, well, maybe there's an argument to be made there. If there is any amount of doubt, I implore you to go back to the precedent that has already been established by the initial committee when they said, no, this does not go by our guidelines. We will not allow this to stand. As someone before me had already said, this has been delegated multiple times, multiple times the same decision has been reached. I would implore you to reach the same. But second is I think it's important to recognize that in terms of a lot of the economic developments that could be brought by this, by a lot of the money and investments that the applicant has been speaking to, this is not a unique issue to just this district. There are many opportunities to be building new housing, to be getting new investments. This is not about whether we want our city to grow, whether we want more money into it. It's whether we want these specific apartments and these specific developments in this specific area. And so I would ask you to look first and foremost to the impact it will have on this area specifically, to the impact it will have on the small businesses that will be impacted by its construction that will lose a lot of the valuable people that are going towards it, that are giving them this money. money that are relying on it for community and for gathering and for the enrichment that these historical places bring them. I would implore you to look to that first and foremost. And finally, I would like you to look to your commitment and the commitment that you have, not just to the people in this room, but to the 120,000 people that stand outside of it. The people who directly rely on the type of culture that these types of areas bring. who are finding themselves, just like me, somebody who was able to find a new life, who's able to find a sense of community, who's able to find a place where they wanted to be, where they wanted to grow, where they wanted to stay, where they wanted to give back into the community and to give more personal investment into these places. This doesn't come just because I so happen to live in this area. It's because when I first moved to Rochester, Art Heads was one of the first places that I went to and made a couple of friends and thought, wow, maybe I can find people like me. It's because as a music lover, I was able to go and frequent to the vinyls in Treedom and attend their live concerts and see just how much vitality there was and see how much love other people had for the city and for the spaces that are found in this city. And I was able to think, man, this could actually be just a wonderful place to live. But you don't get that with simple housing developments. You don't get that with just looking at financial amounts and looking at money amounts that are going in and out of people's pockets. You look at that by hearing your constituents, by listening to the voices that have already spoken here now and that will continue to speak well after I'm done. who are imploring you the same thing. Don't give up on this city. Don't give up on the things that give it life, that make it a place that's worth living in. And please, because of that, I implore you, uphold the precedent, uphold the denial for the certificate of appropriateness. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Canto. Next, we have Gabriel Mesparan.

Good evening, Council. My name is Gabriel McSparran. I am 23 years old. And approximately one year and two months ago, I moved from Sioux City, Iowa to Rochester after graduating with honors and an Associates of Applied Sciences degree in engineering. Currently, I work in broadcast engineering. But over the past year, I have cultivated a range of experiences in fields related to mechanical engineering, IT administration, and construction. I'm by all means what is now considered a high-skill worker, if there is such a thing. I bring all of this up to illustrate one of the biggest problems that Iowa is currently facing economically at the moment, and that is the continued phenomenon of young skilled workers moving elsewhere after graduating, not only for better career opportunities, but also in search of more vibrant culture and a stronger sense of community within the cities that they live in. Iowa is currently being bled dry by private contracting and luxury housing firms who decimate small businesses in order to build luxury apartments and student housing that no one in the state can even afford. And personally, I see what's happening between Iowa and Minnesota mirrored on a smaller scale between Rochester and the Twin Cities. I myself, and I know I'm not alone in this, have already started to consider moving due to what I perceive to be this city's hostility and carelessness towards the vibrant, culture-oriented small businesses that serve this community. The most recent example of this hostility and carelessness being the completely unnecessary and utterly avoidable closure of Thesis Beer Project on Second Street Southwest. The continued reconstruction and renovation of every single small business and building space in town in order to create student housing and luxury apartments is not only economically short-sighted, it continues to solidify Rochester as a simple tourist destination for those from out of state who only wish to visit the city to seek medical care at the Mayo Clinic. While this practice may be may bring negligible profits for the companies leasing these properties in the short term. In the long term, it will only cause younger skilled workers such as myself to want to look elsewhere for community-oriented culture and work opportunities. If this renovation is approved, it not only sets a dangerous precedent for the disregard of small businesses in Rochester and the communities that they build, but it also sends a message to younger educated people that the communities and cultures that are important to them are not important and do not matter to this council. I'm just one example of someone who will look elsewhere for community and work opportunities if this practice of kicking out vibrant small businesses continues. Now, taking all of that into consideration, I humbly ask that this council deny the appeal for item G.1 and uphold the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny the certificate of appropriateness for an addition to the project at 309-317 Broadway Avenue. Please allow these businesses to keep their respective building spaces so that they can continue to maintain Grow and nurture the communities and cultures that contribute to the economic growth that the city needs to maintain In order to keep the people who want to live here living here. Thank you.

Thank you next we have Tyler on Hey everyone

This is a pleasure having the chance to be in front of you all. I'm usually stuck in the back recording this, so I appreciate your time tonight. I'm here as a stakeholder in a downtown business, and I've spent the last, what, three years now dragging my family from Ohio to Tucson, all over the country, everywhere across the Midwest, looking for unique businesses, shops, art supply stores, and curating ideas that we could bring back to Rochester, something that we maybe didn't have here. And along the way, without even trying, we always ended up in these small towns, historic districts, time and time again. And that color and vibrancy was always so important. And any time of day that we might have gotten there, there was always something going on. People walking around, shops bustling, et cetera, et cetera. And we definitely wanted to bring that back in some way here. And we saw that it worked everywhere else. If you've ever had a chance to be in downtown Hastings near the bridge or in Park Rapids. It's always an epicenter. It's a diamond. It's a gem. It's a magnet. It attracts people who are either passing through town or are on their way elsewhere. I brought this book with me because my small sliver part of our business downtown was to curate a gift shop, something that was reminiscent of some of the old vintage junk you might find as a tourist in an old gift shop. And I had put together a museum of... Minnesota history, Rochester history is on one shelf. We got a huge case of Red Owl stuff to celebrate entrepreneurship on Broadway. And we've had nearly 1,000 people sign in from Paris, Florida, New York, California, Texas, everywhere. And what's amazing about this is that it's always a conversation starter. And we get people towards the end of the line in the block Late evening on a Saturday, a lot of things are closed. They've had their meal. And they're having the worst time of their life visiting Mayo and going through that experience. And we're kind of at the end of the block for retail, and they always stop in. And we always say we use the word linger because they linger because they want a conversation that doesn't remind them of anything else going on in their lives at the moment. And there's nothing else that can... really replace that experience and I know that businesses come and businesses go and I don't understand why we aren't using this moment in time to save this little gem that we have downtown, this magnet that does attract people when they leave Mayo's ecosystem. They always end up down there just wandering around even without a mission. And I hope we can use this moment here to really continue a conversation about why subsidizing a perfect little section of what's left, why subsidizing something like that would be bad to keep it affordable for small businesses. This new building is grays and glass and whites. It's dead color and people don't notice it. They don't see it in the same way. And I just hope that you'll vote in favor of this appeal tonight, not based on maybe your friendships or any personal texts you might have received or the idea that this can't be supported and maintained and sustained in any which way. So I appreciate your time tonight and thank you. I'll pass on the next.

Next we have Leah B.

Hi, I'm Leah P. That was my husband, Tyler. We actually met at 317 South Broadway, and our first kiss was in the cove where these buildings might be built. Well, I hope you all are well. Good to see your faces again. I feel fortunate to be a steward of a property on this block. My mom and I, she's here too, my mom and I were just talking about the golden hour downtown, and if you haven't experienced it, I highly recommend. An hour or so before the sun begins to set, it cuts through the top of our buildings, it bounces off the street, across the street, and then that sunshine comes right into our windows in the west, and for like 15 to 20 minutes, The whole room is golden, and it feels like magic, and it's a good reminder of one of the many reasons that we're in that exact location. My understanding is that this proposal violates multiple preservation guidelines, and I trust that you've all read over these standards, as we all have. I trust the judgment of the HPC members, the experts, and I sincerely hope you do as well. They are an unbiased organization appointed by the mayor and this council. The guidelines presented are not just downtown specific, as you know. These guidelines are set for all across our country. The decision that you make tonight can set a precedent for what rules will be broken all across our city, and as the third largest city in Minnesota, it can really set a precedent for our state. Tonight, you're hearing other voices, perspectives, and my request is that you all listen and decide with a sound mind. My ask is that you deny this appeal for a modern tower, And the financial status is not what you're voting on this evening. And landlords set the rent cost for their tenants. I like to think that the people who inhabited these buildings 100 years ago also experienced that golden sunshine. And I hope that future generations after I'm gone will as well. Thank you for listening to your communities. Appreciate all of you.

Thank you. Next, we have Barry Skolnick.

Hi, my name is Barry Skolnick. I know you all know me, and this is probably one of the most difficult.

Mr. Skolnick, if you can get closer to the microphone there, just that works. My name is Barry. And we can bring it down if you want. There we go.

Is that okay? Yep. My name is Barry Skolnick. You all know me. This is one of the most difficult speeches I've had because I care so much about it. And I was with the original group with Mark Bilderbeck that helped design the HPC and the whole district. And I really don't want to see it ruined. I was so concerned about it and what the staff, the city staff was proposing that I called SHPO and spoke to Michael Koop who is probably recognized as one of the most outstanding authorities for preservation and for the standards. And he looked at it and he said, this can't be. There's no way does this qualify as meeting the standards. It doesn't. And he said, and I can quote him on it. And I've asked other people to call. And Ben Zastrow also spoke to him. And I think Ben already sent you some kind of an email about it. And it's very clear that the HPC is not violating the standards. Coop is one of the national experts in it. And he said that HPC was right on the money and believes in it totally. So it's not like all the experts are against HPC. And HPC are your legal experts in a sense. They're the ones who the mayor and the other person pointed out, the mayor and the city council approved as their legal representatives. And the criteria, the interior standards criteria are the most important things. And by the way, one of the prior speakers made a mistake. The UMR is not behind Howe's proposal. I checked with the chancellor's office there, and they specifically said they have nothing to do with Howe's proposal whatsoever. They didn't ask for it, and they're not working with him on it. So they have nothing to do with it. There are other students who could be involved with, but it's not UMR students. at least not anywhere now, maybe someday, but not now. So anyone who thinks that is wrong. So they shouldn't be criticized for it, but they also were not behind it whatsoever. The other thing that you should know is that within the districts there are things called non-contributing buildings and contributing buildings. The contributing buildings are the ones that are worthy of landmarking. And the buildings on that block are all contributing buildings. The building that Hal owns or was involved with on the next block, that's non-contributing. So yes, it looks like that building, but as Shippo will tell you, when you put a non-contributing addition on top of a contributing building, you ruin the district. because you don't want to include non-participating, non-contributing objects and larger things on top of your landmarks. That's suicide in terms of keeping a landmark district. If there's issues about how much money, yes, we need to have some look at the economics of the district and there should be a study session on that and we should talk about that. And I fully agree with that. But as far as saying that these don't meet the standards, I mean, the HPC felt that it met the standards. And again, SHPO feels it meets the standards. And they're the State Historical Preservation Office. So they don't agree with Molly and Irene. So there are differences of opinion there. But it's very clear that you only have to miss one standard. You don't have to have a majority. Even one standard, and standard nine is very clear that this is a bulky object, but much bigger and out of sync with the rest of the objects. And it wouldn't be a contributing a part of the district. So it's non-contributing. You don't want to increase non-participating bulk. And Hal said he wants this to set a precedent for the rest of Rochester. Yeah, he's right. A precedent would be you destroy the district by you don't think that other developers are going to come along and try to build more on top of the district, yeah, they'll destroy it. Is that what you want? Then go right ahead. I suggest what you do is have a meeting, approve the HPC thing, and don't change, don't approve House proposal, but what you should do is try to sort of meet amongst each other to try to come up with ways of economically improving the buildings downtown and how to get incentives, tax abatements and stuff like that. That's what you should be doing and in my opinion please, please don't deny the HPC decision and stick with that.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Skolnick. Next we have Vanna Passy.

Hi everyone. My name is Vanna. Okay. Thank you. I was here the last two meetings.

You can move it down a little bit. There we go. Just like that.

Oh, my gosh.

There we go. Perfect.

All right. Okay. My name is Vanna. I've been here I think the last two meetings that we've talked about this. I spoke to you in May of 2025 and so did my children. I work at Art Heads Emporium, which currently occupies 319 and 321, and previously we were in 317. I have a lot of love for 317. I raised my children there. My frontal lobe finished developing there, I think, and I met a lot of people in our community in there. As a parent, I have emotional ties to this space, the block. My latest experience, I think it was Friday night, August 7th, I pulled up into the front of all these buildings. I think it was about 10 PM. I went to visit Leah and Tyler after their shift, to my surprise. The curb was littered with what looked like teenagers or young adults. I can't say for sure. I was confused. I found out it was because of Tree Dome and their events. As a mother of two, basically, teenagers, it's comforting to see a space that is not alcohol-centered for these young people. They're off their phones, sitting on the curb, having real-life relationships and experiences. Please don't threaten to take moments like this away from all of our kids. The modern world seems to view new as better, old as weak. I know that to be untrue. New is empty and old is full of stories. Perspective is important when we talk about these historic buildings. I'm trying to see the perspective from seven stories high. Who does that serve? Students and only the students? What about my community that is already here? The people that have spoke to you, that have called you, that have emailed you, It doesn't serve the community that already exists. We are the people who spend our time and money in these places. We are the people who work there. We are the people who interact with the locals and the non-locals and the existing students. We know the bizarre quirks on that block. We understand the value and the impact on the community and those that are visiting. We understand it all more than you could possibly know. It's very intimate. To insist on not protecting and preserving the historic district is so out of touch. A seven story building on downtown Broadway is so out of touch. I heard the term out of touch wealth just recently and it hasn't left my mind. I ask you to trust in this community and the HPC. No means no. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Luna Snater.

Good evening, my name is Luna, I'm 14 years old, and I've spoken about this not once, not twice, but three times now, and I'm here tonight with my family and friends, and I've grown up with the historic district. People have spoken about the community, that's been built, the story behind these buildings, and the charm these spaces bring to Rochester, but nothing seems to stick. I know it's not easy for you to decide what's next for these spaces, but please listen to your community. If we continue to gut Rochester of these meaningful places, Rochester will become bland and lifeless, and I truly believe no one here tonight wants that for our city. It is worth taking care of what we already have rather than having to modernize and strip a joy from Rochester. Just imagine yourself traveling to an entirely new city. Ask yourself, is it the dull apartments that make you feel connected, or is it the small businesses that make you feel a part of something bigger than yourself? I guess it depends on what you value in life. Thank you for listening. I hope to never have to talk to you about this again.

Thank you, Ms. Snader. Next we have Phoenix Snader.

Hello again, I'm Phoenix. I'm 12 years old. I'm here to preserve the historic district. You probably remember me from the other two times I did this. I don't really know what to say. Building 317 isn't just a structure of bricks. This is more than half my childhood. I watched them open the building 317, I watched them close it. But I'm not gonna see it tear down, especially not for overpriced apartments that are modernizing historic buildings. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Next we have Elida Kostner.

Hello, Council. My name is Elida Kessler, and I'm here to share my thoughts as a private citizen, not on behalf of any of the boards, commissions, or organizations that I am in association with. That said, I am involved in our LGBTQIA S2 plus community, the art community, and I have a deep interest in historical preservation. I HOPE ALL OF YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WATCH THE HPC MEETING FROM JUNE WHERE THIS PROPOSAL WAS DENIED BECAUSE IT DID NOT MEET SIX OF THE TEN CRITERIA LAID OUT BY THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS. IF THE DEVELOPERS HAD ACTUALLY LISTENED TO THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHY THE COMMISSION CITED THESE SIX CRITERIA. HERE'S A SUMMARY OF THE HPC'S FINDINGS. The removal of one-third of the space from the back of several buildings and the modernization of the alleyway violate standards 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10 and the fact that it significantly alters the spaces of these buildings and the spatial relationships of these buildings with the rest of the district and city. This includes but is not limited to the view shed of the Kaler and Plummer building from the corner of Broadway and 4th Avenue. Standard 10 specifies that if the new addition were to be removed, the historic building would be returned to its original state. The removal of one-third of the back of several buildings makes that impossible. The number of floors being added to this proposal violates Standard 6, as it adds five additional levels when the standard limit for historical building this size is two. The proposed materials, height, and size violate standard nine as it makes no effort to be compatible with the historical buildings. The standards across the country say that it may not duplicate the original style, but must be compatible in style, materials, colors, and must not overshadow the original building. These are national standards that we should abide by. These are standards that are applied to the historic district, and when applied, encompasses more than just the face of these buildings. The HPC weighed every part of this proposal heavily. For the developers to state that they were denied without factual reasoning is plainly incorrect. It's staff that failed to give reasoning for the HPC discussion, and that's a staff issue, not an HPC issue. To overturn the HPC's expertise is a clear disservice to every citizen in our city and a blatant disregard for the importance of historical preservation. Additionally, in reviewing the DEI impact of this The city failed to account specifically for the LGBTQ community, who would be hit hard by this proposal. Tree Dome would have to move because their space would be turned into a lobby. They are the only mid-sized stage for musicians in town. The back side of Threshold Arts would be demolished, eliminating their gallery space. Both of these businesses frequently highlight women and queer individuals. These businesses and Cafe Steam are also all places where queer events and display queer art. I am disappointed that this perspective was excluded from the evaluation. I appreciate your time and your consideration and I hope you uphold the HPC's decision to deny this proposal.

Thank you. Next we have Sarah Hutchinson. Hutchinson.

Oh, gosh. Hey, guys. OK. I'm Sarah Hutchison. I lived here for 18 years. I moved. I live in the cities now, but I'm here because this kind of sucks. I want you guys to think about a time where you felt like you didn't really fit in to the world. Maybe you had a hobby or an interest that just wasn't something you felt like you could pursue, or you felt like you couldn't express yourself in the exact way that you wanted to. I hope that if you've ever felt this way, you were at some point provided with or you eventually found a place or a person or a thing that allowed you to express that feeling. And I hope that the experience of expressing your true self allowed you to feel more confident in the person that you are. As a teenager, I was lucky enough to be supported in this exact way by people who run and occupy the very businesses that this appeal threatens. These places, Tree Dome, Cafe Steam, Art Heads Emporium, are run by passionate, creative people who have been providing spaces for people like me to explore my passions and my creativity and express the thing that makes me different. When I was 14, Luna's age, I was given the opportunity to perform at the inaugural Rochester Music Festival, an event aimed at providing a stage for young musicians and artists. I was eager and absolutely horrified, getting on a stage that felt way too big for me. But that day, fear and awe truly changed my life, and it opened a door to a version of myself that was itching to get out. This opportunity to share my passion with people who cared about me was invaluable. And the community members who supported that festival are the same people that are so deeply invested in the artistic heart of Rochester. That first festival took place at the Wicked Moose, like on the south side of town. In 2018, that building was demolished, and they put an apartment building there. On the corner of First Avenue and 4th Street, just down the road from here, there used to be an art gallery. When I was a teenager, I played my first show with a real band in the back of that building. It was New Year's Eve. All of my friends were there. We laughed and we danced and we listened to real music performed by real people who cared so deeply about the community that was being created. I think of that night fondly, and without it, I wouldn't be the person that I am today. This gallery closed, and the building that C4 occupied was eventually torn down to create, you guessed it, an apartment building. You must understand that creative and cultural institutions are what make Rochester special, interesting, and a meaningful place for all of us. I've only been around for 26 years, but I've seen so many music venues and community gathering spaces disappear from Rochester. Because so many of you only care about making Rochester big and shiny to people who don't live here, but maybe one day might live here. You must understand that this is much bigger than any opportunity for profit. Your actions, your choice to put small business owners and their vibrant, interesting neighbors needs second. And apartment buildings, road construction, and corporate entities needs first has made you all look really bad. On the Destination Medical Center's website, there's an introductory video that provides insight to the DMC's vision for Rochester. This is a quote from that video. Destination Medical Center and the Mayo Clinic are working together to transform Rochester into a city that offers hope, health, and healing to everybody who comes in. This hope and health and healing that you are all aspiring to must not only come in the form of a new hospital building. Hope comes from acknowledging and affirming that the work of existing communities is important and a vital part of this town's future. Healing comes from giving people a place to gather. Newcomers and young people in Rochester need a place to meet, a place to get to know one another, they need creative outlets, and they need a place where they can feel a sense of community. We all know that no matter what direction you go, your choice will have a real lasting impact on the way that Rochester will look and feel in the future. If you want that impact to be that you approved the construction of a bunch of apartment buildings and parking lots and parking garages, then sure, so be it. And if this is the case, I hope that when you sit and reflect on your actions many years into the future, when there are no cultural, creative, or artistic institutions left because you literally tore them all down, you'll have fun in your house all by yourself, no community to engage with, and I hope that you'll be willing to take responsibility for it. But I know that at your core, you are all good and caring people. I know that you want the best for Rochester, just like all of us. And you have the potential to maintain and support the places that people meet, where people laugh and cry and smile and share stories and become closer to one another. I hope that you see that the people of Rochester, and specifically young people, are worthy of places where they can share their passions and their interests. And I hope that you see that they are deserving of a place where they can be themselves.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Joel Campos.

Mayor Norton, Kent City Council. Hi. As a nine-year resident of Rochester, I find myself to love the community and the pacing it offers, whether it be getting good-to-do groceries, a drive to meet friends, maybe at a local music show like Tree Dome, Thesis Beer Project, or even get coffee at Steam Cafe. I mention these because they hold a place in my heart due to my old hometown not upholding to these standards. I believe other community members I've come to know or just seen around are urging that you take away this place we call home. After many years, many of us finally found that home inside a record store that is ran by amazing people. As a musician, it's difficult to find places that will accept not just one, but many genres and forms of life to perform for others live. Tree Dome has been that place for many musicians, and they are greeted with love and cheers every time they showcase their talents. It sounded to me and many others that this is being considered to be taken away. For many, this is all we have since not everyone gets the privilege to be a part of the Mayo Clinic staff or government members within the state of Minnesota. As an educator as well, please think of the youth that will be affected by your decisions. Not many places here in Rochester are accessible to many of the youth who want the chance to finally be a part of community. Tree Dome offers that more compared to any other program provided by the city of Rochester. Please consider preserving the arts and music life here in Rochester to give myself and other community members the feeling of grabbing that vinyl record like it was the 60s. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next we have Zoe Dubin. Dubin.

Hello. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. So good evening, Mayor Norton and members of the council. I am Zoe Dubin, a researcher and a recent resident of Rochester. When I moved here two years ago, the first thing I heard about Rochester was that I will leave. I will work here two to three years and then I will realize that I want arts and culture and a space for dancing and music and I will leave. I asked my father, who grew up here and spent his youth here and then moved out as soon as he possibly could, what he used to do as a child and a teenager in Rochester, and his answer was drive to the cities. Since moving here, though, I don't agree. I've actually found an amazing art community at Art Heads. I founded the Monthly Zine Scene, an art club at Cafe Steam downtown. And I've been recently able to throw Rochester's first zine festival, which was spread across historic downtown, including Tree Dome, which really lovely opened their doors for us to have this beautiful event that brought together local artists. With the extensive construction that's been closing down all of these local businesses and all of these art spaces, I respectfully ask that the council follow the advice of the HPC and preserve historic downtown.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Eric Strangeland.

Well, thank you for having me here. And don't worry, everybody adds an R to my last name. But, yeah, you know, I only learned about this.

Oh, I did. Yes, you did. That's okay. Stainland. Sorry.

Yeah, it's okay. It was a professional conference where my name tag had the R on it. The person was like, I'm so sorry. But, anyway, but, yeah, I learned about this, what, two days ago. I've been a resident here for seven years, and in that time I keep on thinking to myself, I should go to a city council meeting, but, yeah. Yeah, I guess I finally learned about something. I was like, yeah, I need to go. But yeah, I saw during the beginning of the meeting here, you were showing all the kids in summer school doing all that art stuff. And you said you appreciate the arts. And I mean, I believe most people here know the importance of it. And it's like one of those things where, you know, every weekend, actually the previous person speaking was talking about like, oh, you know, going up the city, stuff like that. And, you know, when I first moved here, I thought like, oh, you know, Twin Cities are only an hour, hour and a half drive away. And I thought I was going to be driving up there all the time. But because of the downtown here, it's like, well, why would I do that? You know, there's plenty of stuff to do here. But, you know. I go downtown a bunch. I go to Tree Dome. I see a bunch of shows there. And the thing is, I feel like I'm the old guy in there. Because there's so many kids. There's a bunch of kids. That's where the kids go when they wait to hear music, right? I go there. I do a bunch of painting. I paint a lot of people. If you ever go to Kathy's, I have a bunch of little paintings above the beer cooler. But it's like that area. You know, there were people, too, speaking to wanting to do some initiative about, you know, looking into the culture and the art. Well, it's like that block, that section of buildings, that is where the culture is. That's where the art is. And I know that, and again, I don't know who the people are who were presenting for this appeal. You know, I'm sure they're very fine people. They live productive lives. But, you know, when they come here and they talk about, like, wanting to, you know, what is it, rescue or reinvigorate or whatever the word, rehabilitate. That's right. They want to rehabilitate people. 309, and they keep on calling it 309. Well, 309 has a business that has a name in it. It's Tree Dome, which, I mean, they show the slide where it was showing like, oh, you know, the people have covered this, right? It was almost like a wave of the hand. And I know in their presentation, too, they were talking about like, oh, this construction is going to be done in a manner that's not going to be disruptive. And it's like, well, just take our word for it. And as many people have said before that this is kind of in the wake of Thesis, which is another kind of smaller music venue shutting down, I really don't think it would be good to to be overturning the denial to letting the appeal go through. And I believe, in my heart of hearts, I think all of you value the arts and culture. And I'm just, again, coming here short notice. This is supposed to be the first day of my vacation. And I just came here because I really believe that all of you All of you have the best intentions in your heart, and I wanna speak to that. And thank you for having us here. And again, one other thing they said is all the small business owners support this. Well, where are all the small business owners that are supporting this today? I mean, I've heard multiple small business owners, but none of them are in favor of this. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Stanglin. Next we have Nick Duncanson.

Hello. Plenty of people before me and I'm sure after me are going to speak on this better than I am but I'm here because I thought this was very important. This is my first city council meeting I've ever been to. I found it really funny that there were some concert announcements included in the PowerPoint before this meeting. So I can see that everyone here knows how important local music and culture is. And I think that denying this appeal is the way to hold onto that music and that culture. I understand the need for housing, but this is not the way to go about it. Building apartments that are for students isn't a good idea if those students will have absolutely nothing to do when the culture of Broadway dies. They'll go downstairs and there'll be nothing there for them to do. I'm sure, you know, the people who are for this are going to say that these businesses are going to survive through this and be fine, but I don't think that's going to be the case. We've seen that with thesis closing. Rochester is not a city in the Rust Belt that needs revitalizing. Its vitality is already here. We don't need to add on to these historic buildings if the lifeblood of the city is already in them. I'm from St. Cloud. I've only lived here a year. Every time I tell someone I'm from St. Cloud, they kind of go, oh, sorry. St. Cloud wishes they had our scene, and I want to keep ours. They had to build a millions of dollars amphitheater to build up a scene of music and culture. We don't need to spend millions to build that. We already have a scene that we should be fostering, not suffocating. Watching Thesis go has been disheartening, and I don't want that to keep happening to these great places. If these businesses are forced to shut down, which we have seen happen, then I fear for the culture and identity of Rochester. If Steam Cafe becomes Starbucks, Tie Pop becomes an Applebee's, and Tree Dome becomes an insurance office, how excited will those living here be to go to Broadway? The facades are not what is important. I don't want to live in a town that looks like it has culture. I want to live in a town that actually has the culture. I met all of my new friends here since moving here last year in this block, essentially, and I hope that many more friendships can be made here as well. Please deny this appeal. Thank you. Next we have Ethan Slowlos.

Shoals. I'm sorry. Shoals. Sorry for that. No worries. Go ahead.

Over a year ago, I and many others came to speak at City Council as Hal Henderson tried for the third time to convert historical buildings into student housing. Tens of Rochester residents came and spoke long into the evening about how important it is for Rochester to preserve these historical buildings and how destroying them not only deals major blows to the art and music community here in Rochester by kicking their current tenants out, but also destroys parts of Rochester's history. And over a year later, we are back again as Hal Henderson tries to appeal the decision made by the city council. It concerns me that the Department of Community Development is recommending that City Council reverse the appeal. There are direct violations of the standards of rehabilitation it says this project is adhering to, relevant sections such as Section 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, etc., Section 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Section 10. 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 be unimpaired. This project requests that one building is completely destroyed in order to complete a lobby area for the student housing, leaving nothing but its facade. Furthermore, it builds up against the rooftops of Cathy's and Taphouse and destroys multiple historic buildings, all for the sake of 35 apartments. Not only are these drastic changes, but they are not changes that would be easily reversed. Kevin Lund pointed out in 2023 during the second hearing about this that two of the buildings affected in this project were used as a community space following a tornado in 1883 with Dr. W.W. Mayo and Sister Mary Alfred present, meaning there are direct ties to Mayo's history. We need to keep these buildings. The current residents of the buildings affected by this project are thriving businesses that serve the younger members of this community. With the recent announcement of Thesis Beer Project closing, Tree Dome is one of the only places for Maiden in Rochester that does live music regularly and has hosted local artists, musicians from out of state, and even some musicians from overseas. Threshold Arts has allowed many Minnesotan artists the opportunity for more people to see and purchase their art than they normally would by themselves. Cafe Steam has become a major place for many people to hang out with friends and relax and study in a time where third spaces are being attacked more and more nationwide as shown here in this very meeting. This building project greatly impacts the music and art communities who will ironically probably be living in some of these proposed apartments. It also sets dangerous precedent where any historic building can be altered or destroyed for future projects. This only benefits Hal Henderson, who allegedly resorted to practices such as predatory rent increases when some of these business owners spoke out last year. raising rent by up to $1,000 and resulting in some of them not wanting to come here tonight out of fear of further retaliation. And while we're at it, how will this construction affect the 317, a building currently housed by Solar Flow, a soon-to-open wellness spa that, according to its blog on its website, is housed by Hal Henderson's son, Ryan Henderson? Will that be altered at all, or will they be conveniently untouched? In 2023, during his second attempt at demolishing these buildings, he cited difficulties in the upkeep. If it costs so much to do so, why did he spend money doing the upkeep on Solar Flow? Clearly, there's plenty of money for upkeep if he's putting in the updates needed to accommodate saunas, cryotherapy, light therapy, etc. for his son's business. Why not spread the wealth instead of intentionally letting these buildings rot? City Council, you have denied this three times, and it's time to do it a fourth. What message will you send to your citizens tonight? That you care about the arts and the history of Rochester, or that you care about the arts and history of Rochester only until something more commercially and economically valuable becomes available to replace it? Whatever message you send, I ask that everybody here remember it in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Eli French.

Hi, my name is Eli French. I've lived in Rochester my whole life. I actually grew up down the road from the Dorothy Day House. I watched downtown grow, but beforehand there wasn't much to do here. I remember the most fun I had was going to the Apache Mall and trying to bug the security officers to see how quickly we could get kicked out. after we would just walk around downtown and kind of snake through the alleyways and try to avoid anyone that we didn't want seeing us. It's not like that anymore. I get to go down there and I get to hold my head high, I get to hold my chest out, and I get to walk wherever I feel like I need to to feel loved and supported. Being a part of the queer community here is, I feel like my silence says enough on that. It's gotten better significantly, but it's still It still tears us apart regularly. I also currently live down the road from Thesis. I see it every day. I drive past it every single day. I am trapped in my neighborhood. I have one way out. I can take a right and go the completely opposite direction towards Byron, or I can take a left and maybe, maybe make it downtown or to my job on time. Watching it suffocate has been disheartening, heartbreaking, And it scares me because for the first time, I want to stay in Rochester. For the first time, I don't want to run away. And for the first time, I want to fight for this place. I want to fight for the community that I've seen built. And I hope that you guys will make the right decision to deny this and to protect the community that we have built and that we have fought for because we do deserve it as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Veronica Starfall.

Hello again. We met, I think it was like what, six months ago. Same thing over again. Why are we here again?

Honestly.

Anyways. My question for them, do they know how many vacancies we currently have? What the rent prices are like for these vacant buildings? There is a lot literally right beside where they want to build that they could build on instead. Why are we trying to currently destroy perfectly good businesses that bring in culture, tourism, everything like that? Why are we currently trying to destroy that? rather than build up on it. I'm very energetic right now. The whole reason I decided to stay in Rochester is because of the historical district. I found a place I could be myself, to enjoy the tea that I get there, the music, the venues I've been to, the art that I see. And it has given me a place to stay. And if we continue to destroy our local businesses for the sake of the students or even the doctors, are they going to want to stay because they won't have anything to do? Because I'm thinking about leaving myself because there's nothing to do here because it's being choked. over and over again, and it saddens me because I love this city. I have been here three years, and I want to stay. But if there is nothing to do here, why would I? I have met some people I would consider my best friends at thesis, but I can no longer go there because it's been choked. I can't go enjoy the music that I really enjoyed there. The last Punktoberfest, which is a yearly thing Thesis held, it would have hours of music. And I have only gotten to go to one, but now I won't get to go to any more after that. Another question is, where would the businesses go? Do we just abandon the local businesses for student housing? Do we not help them, subsidize them to go somewhere else if we're going to kick them out of their basically rightful place to be? I do have a main question. Why are we here again? This is the fourth time. Why are we even considering listening to a person who does not know how to take no for an answer? Over and over again, the fourth time at this point, why can he just not accept no? And I feel it's prime real estate. He can make lots of money there. Other than that, I do hope you stick to the decision that has been made by the HPC, and I hope you all enjoy your local businesses more.

Thank you. Next, we have BJ Gangstead-Burks.

My folks, thank you for holding this today and for listening to your constituents and to our emotions. And I hope you felt them as I've felt them. sitting in the back row, listening to my friends and friends of my friends who I've never seen but can tell that I've met them one time at a show at Thesis or at Tree Dome, or maybe one of them taught me how to sew at Art Heads. And hearing the emotion in our voices as we stand here and shake and plead for our businesses to stay alive. I heard about the closing of Thesis. two weeks ago, and my coworker told me that, and I had to take a 30-minute break from work to mourn, which might sound very dramatic, but I can't imagine what it would do to all of our youth today to lose multiple of these businesses at once. These places where we get to go to enjoy art and culture and get to know more people and love more people and find new friendships, it's been a truly wonderful place to be. I feel that we have two emotions in this room, and one of them is love for this city, for Rochester, for wanting to make it a better place, for wanting to keep the things that make it unique and special and make it reminiscent of the city that parents grew up in, grandparents grew up in, your children will grow up in. And then I feel there is one of contempt. from those people in the back over there who could not bother to be here for the Pledge of Allegiance, who could not bother to be here for the entirety of our speeches, who cannot bother to even listen to us with a shred of emotion or kindness, who will smile in contempt at you as you turn to look at them whenever something damning is said. They do not care for us, they do not care for you, they do not care for your decisions. They do not care for the people you appointed, calling them quasi-governmental. They are real people that you appointed, they made a decision. These people cannot accept no for an answer, and I feel it is because they've had too much money to have had no for an answer too many times in their lives. We all know what it's like to have no for an answer. And that's why we're here today, because we care about this. And we really, really want you to make the decision that prioritizes the children, the teenagers that will bump up into you as they're enjoying the music, completely alcohol-free, just living lives. when your seniors will come and teach new people how to mend their clothing in art heads, when you get to have a nice coffee and meet new people from out of state who are visiting the Mayo Clinic who just want to have a conversation with a real person, people who are studying, students in the cafe. They'll certainly be there. I met some of them today. It's so important to have these businesses. It's so important to have local businesses and places where fathers can take their daughters to listen to music together and places where people can make these memories. These are all real things that I've experienced. I've only lived here for a year and I care so much about it. I really beg you to uphold the decision that the Historical Preservation Committee has made and to please listen to those experts that everyone around me, everyone who has spoken here today has brought up They know what they're talking about. They care like you care. That's why you work here.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Connor Johnson.

Hello, Mayor Norton and members of the city council. I'm here to speak with you on a personal level, asking you to reject the G1.1 appeal and protect the small downtown businesses. I am a student at Gustavus Adolphus College. I am a chemistry major. And I live in Manorville, which is a great historical town. and with an amazing community. And that community is highlighted by the new Tuesdays in the Park music concert series, which I just want to highlight. I would like to someday move into Rochester and work at Mayo, but I'm not feeling very inclined to because I am seeing how these small businesses are being treated. I started going to Tree Dome a couple years ago. And I met some of my closest friends there. I go there with my closest friends. I've met so many amazing people there. And it's going to sound crazy to say, I've heard people that I know even say that some of the best nights of their lives have been at a tree dome show. I see students over at Cafe Steam from UMR. And I just think... I believe that the soul of a city is in its small businesses and in its arts. And I'm also a musician, so it hits hard when I see the music scene and the art scene being hit by... by profits, basically. I love Mayo. I think it is a great hospital, obviously. But the heart of any city is in its arts, its small businesses. When I go to college and I tell people that I'm from around Rochester, They say, oh yeah, that's the place with mayo in it. And that's great that we're known for such a great thing. However, I always tell them about Tree Dome and I tell them about Cafe Steam. And I talk about my experiences there. And I tell them, hey, you should come around and come to a show sometime. That would be awesome. Because I love it so much. And I love Rochester as a city. I want it to be... When I go and tell people about Rochester at my college, I want to be able to be proud of Rochester. And I want to be able to tell them that I don't want Rochester to be known as just the Mayo City. I want it to be known as a place that supports small businesses, supports the arts. And I don't want us to be known for a place that is aggressive towards the arts and pushes it out for money. One final thing I want to add is that I do have friends at UMR. And UMR is a great school. They talk about how great the school is, but I've also heard complaints that there's not much to do. And we have to realize that UMR students are also part of our community. And community members deserve to have places where they can gather, they can make connections. Tree Dome is also a great place for people who are under 21. And I think that we just deserve, as a community, to have these small town businesses. And I think that these apartment developments could be, we could find an alternative solution because housing is important, but I think community is much more important for a city. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Gage Sandin. Sandin.

Hello, I am Gage Sandin. I am asking you please to not go through with this appeal. I have attended Tree Dome for many years just like Connor has and many other people have here too. And I have seen amazing things, some of the best conversations. It's a cultural center. It's a place where art is freely shared and expressed. I can't imagine Rochester without it. Because for many years growing up around here, I didn't even know what to do in Rochester. There was, I don't know, go to Walmart and walk around, not buy anything, leave. That was one thing. And then I found Tree Dome and I found a place where I felt important. I felt the importance of the city more than just mayo and the money. I've seen many bands form. My sister is in a band who formed through Tree Dome and gained a platform because of it. And I can't imagine what she'd be doing without Tree Dome. I've been to many other places also with the music scene. I go up to Minneapolis all the time to experience it, but it is... nowhere near as special as what we have in Rochester. I can go to Tree Dome and I can recognize everyone there. I can talk to them about anything where other places that's not quite the same. And I feel like we need to protect this. We need to protect the people who have found a community and safety within Tree Dome and Art Heads Emporium and Cafe STEAM. really implore you, please do not go through with this appeal. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Brian Dean.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. I'm Brian. I live in Ward 6. It's great that Rochester is a growing city, and improving infrastructure and building new housing is doubtless a necessary part of that growth. But every time a new crane goes up in the city, it should not leave wake of destruction. Thesis Beer plans on closing its doors by the end of the year, citing a 50% drop in business since the Second Street construction began. Red Cow and other Second Street businesses have also reported significant losses and shop owners along the corridor point to lost parking and blocked sidewalks as customers simply can't visit the area. We're watching that same story play out twice. Construction has already cost us thesis, now a redevelopment decision could cost us the 300 block of Broadway as well. These are businesses that actually make downtown worth visiting. When I go downtown, it's to buy a record at Tree Dome, grab coffee at Cafe Steam, find a book at Diatom, purchase or view some art at Threshold, or make some art at Art Heads. DOWNTOWN ROCHESTER IS ALREADY STARTING TO FEEL LIKE A GHOST TOWN AND THIS VOTE DECIDES WHETHER WE LOSE ONE MORE BLOCK OF IT. I'M ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S DECISION. ROCHESTER DOESN'T HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN GROWTH OF DOWNTOWN, OF A DOWNTOWN WORTH VISITING BUT TONIGHT'S VOTE IS EXACTLY THAT KIND OF CHOICE AND I'D URGE YOU TO CHOOSE THE LATTER. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE JEAN PROCOTT.

Good evening. Thank you for listening to all of us. It's really important and I'm grateful. I'm Jean Procott. I am Rochester's Poet Laureate. I was appointed by the city in 2024 by many of you on this panel. As a representative of our arts community, I find it vital that I offer my insight to the appeal. Let's see.

So I'm here talking as the Poet Laureate, but also as a public school teacher.

The argument that the facades will be preserved and that most street-level businesses will remain after construction is in bad faith. The word preserved means many things. Here, preserved means buildings and social architecture. The word investment also works twofold, and I encourage investment in people over profit. In August 2024, I was in Washington DC representing Rochester among 20 Poets Laureate from the United States. Introducing Rochester was an interesting task to those Poets Laureate who only know us as home of Mayo Clinic. When I spoke about our arts scene, I was discussing the exact businesses on Broadway that would be impacted if not closed because of this appeal to the decision. These businesses keep people in our city, as you've heard tonight. They are where we gather to feel safe. They are where we can express individuality. They are open to our minority populations when they otherwise have experienced oppression directly in Rochester. They served our immigrant community during Operation Metro Surge. And they have literally, literally saved lives. Sacrificing these businesses would be losing what myself and our poets and musicians and artists and many of my students fight to prove. Arts are what pull people together in times of celebration and vulnerability. Even temporarily losing this camaraderie does not only make our city less interesting, it makes us less safe. It makes us lonely. It says stay home. It tells us that we don't matter. This appeal operates under the guise that upward development will make Rochester's downtown more robust. I reject this premise, especially from a developer who knows that business proximity and shared patrons are necessary for success. I never visit STEAM without walking through Diatom, Arthead's Threshold, and Tree Dome. Even a temporary closure of Broadway will suck the breath from them. Already downtown's orange signs, cranes, and broken concrete are preventing any activity other than business in that space. As a poet, I will not point out that, well I'll point out the obvious that that's working metaphorically too. Stepping into my other role, I would like to speak to you as a teacher. In my 10th grade class, I teach the play A Raisin in the Sun, written by Lorraine Hansberry, and it is about redlining in 1960s Chicago. To set that play up, I often talk about what Rochester means to them and the value of living in a neighborhood that makes you feel welcome. I've taught this unit for 10 years, and every time when I ask the students to use adjectives that define Rochester, they come up with boring. I've had to ban that word. They're teenagers, so it's not unexpected, but I really have had to prevent them from saying boring in class. I always push back on that observation by describing the opportunities that the Broadway businesses offer. I tell students that Cafe Steam offers an open mic where they get to have a voice beyond centuries' walls. When Art Head holds a zine event, I begin class with an announcement to go if they can. I tell them about our poetry readings at the Chateau and Griot. I hang art from local artists that I purchase at Threshold. I talk about my record collection and Tree Dome. I shared about four times when Diatom Books opened, the most adorable little closet of a bookstore. And last time I was there, Lucy, the owner, told me that she had seen a freshman from Century multiple times who was always walking out with a stack of new old books. It was an English teacher's dream. It is hard to believe that I need to argue for the preservation of the city and the culture of my city and that the third largest city in a state that is the most arts-funded state in the Union would consider disrupting our most unique spaces for seven floors of a towering milquetoast skyline. I'm proud to see that many Rochesterians are here to stand up for our small businesses. I'm asking, as I'm guessing you've figured out, for a vote to deny the appeal. It does not hold up the interior standards, it doesn't fit into the historic vision plan, and it sets a dangerous precedent that would discourage any new independent businesses to take shape in our landscape. I'm here as a teacher for my students, and I'm running out of time, so it's just like a lecture in class. And I'm sorry I didn't read a poem, but thank you for listening to all of us.

Thank you. Next we have Connor Quartrun.

Well, my name is Connor Quatran. I am now 22. And to give you some back story on myself, I was born and raised here and I went to school in Cassin. And I had a teacher who had a class called Genius Hour where you were to come up with a Shark Tank product and you did basically the whole class making the project. And my project was this brand called Seamless. And the vision at its time was just for clothing, but then it turned into skateboarding. And as you can tell with the community how important skateboarding is, especially with the expansion of the skate park, There is going to be more people coming into this town for the skate park just in itself. And Tree Dome isn't just a music record store. It's now a skate shop. And it's the only one, really, that sells used skate goods because there's Zoomies and there's The Garden. And none of those places will sell my product. um the garden is a professionally only um you know supporting of local brands um you have to be a professional skateboarder to actually have your things in there and thank you rich and charlie for taking me in and supporting my vision and my dream because no one else would and they are the only people that will and if you approve this They will be gone, and I have nothing. I have nothing. And it's not just that. It's that this will help the community in the sense of that I use my brand to build events and to support the local scene as much as I possibly can. I put out videos to try to encourage people to just keep skateboarding. Skateboarding is a very important thing. It helps people not just connect with the community, but also with sobriety and challenging and athleticism exercise. I don't have to get into it. You already know. But it's not just skateboarding that's important here. It's also the scene of people that come together that make Rochester, Rochester. And it's not just the people who are already here. It's the people that are coming in like... you know, even celebrities. Just yesterday, David Arquette from the Scream series was directing inside of Kathy's bar. This scene, if you change the look, no one will care. I mean, this will be influenced onto people generations to come. This isn't just the now, this is... you know, for the future generation of our community. And I understand that I don't know specifics on the building and everything like that, so the choice is yours here. And you know the importance of the community. But just know that this country is built on dreams. And this place is the biggest supporter of dreams that I have ever seen in my entire life. And these people make this town. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Next we have Amy Gerritsen.

Hello. In 2025, I spoke on this topic on behalf of Ms. Maggie Panetta and Mr. Nate Nelson, owners of Tree Dome Records and Creative Studio and a wonderful skateboard shop. And tonight I have come with a statement from Mr. Nelson and Ms. Panetta again that I would like to share with you. They write, dear city council, we are writing as the owners of Treedom, the vinyl record store and all ages music venue at 309 South Broadway to uphold the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission and deny the appeal for the proposed development on South Broadway. There should be no comparison to previous proposals for development on this block because each proposal has had the same outcome. Disruptions and displacement that cannot be undone, historic properties forever changed, and construction. Our location at 309 is set for nearly full demolition in this proposal when no other efforts have been made to renovate the property. I will move down to share a few more excerpts from this letter. They want to take a moment to share how TREATM brings attention to this district at a larger scale. Earlier this year, we received a backing small businesses grant from Main Street America and American Express, a growth and innovation grant specifically for businesses in historic districts with strong community impact. TREEDOM was one of only 400 recipients nationwide and only eight in Minnesota. Mr. Nelson and Ms. Panetta include this fact because affecting the historic property status would affect small businesses like theirs, the ability to apply for these grants, to pay their fair market rate, to building owners such as Hal. So you see how these things, they are tied together. LAST YEAR WHEN THE COUNCIL WAS LAST APPROACHED ABOUT THIS PROJECT, MUCH TIME WAS GIVEN TO THE IDEA THAT BUSINESSES ON OUR BLOCK WERE ONLY THERE FOR SWEETHEART RENT DEALS AND THAT WITHOUT RENT INCREASES THE BUILDINGS WOULD BECOME ECONOMICALLY INVIABLE. SHORTLY AFTER LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING REGARDING THIS PROPERTY, We entered into a new three-year rental agreement for the space, but with a rent increase of nearly 100% over those three years and a 60% increase already instated. We felt that the new rate and term was a fair adjustment to support the building, but at a pace we were only able to manage by making significant changes. THE IMPORTANT THING TO US WAS REMAINING IN THAT SPACE, NOT JUST FOR LOCATION, BUT BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF THESE COMMUNITY SPACES. OUR MUSIC SCENE IS ABOUT TO UNDERGO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WITHOUT THESIS BEER PROJECT, ROCHESTER THA, CHANGES TO THE CHATEAU, MAKING IT CRITICAL FOR US TO MAINTAIN OUR SPACE AND KEEP ROCHESTER'S MUSICAL LEGACY ALIVE. The full version of this letter, I believe, was emailed to council members. I do have a full version of the letter, including different historical photographs of the property and photos taken at TREATM events. And so that is my conclusion of representing the owners of TREATM. myself, Amy, I just want to say I am so proud of all of these young people who got up here tonight to speak. It's certainly not easy to approach the council and talk about these very large and meaningful adult issues that can be hard to navigate and hard to understand. I know IT'S HARD TO BE A PROPERTY OWNER. I DON'T THINK THAT MR. HENDERSON IS THIS EVIL PERSON. IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT. And just simply this appeal really should be denied. It was already denied by the HPC, and I just have not seen evidence within that large multi-page proposal. Gosh, I can't remember how many pages it was. I did read the whole thing.

Thank you, Ms. Gerritsen.

Yes, so thank you very much, and thank you, council.

And may I present the letter to- Yeah, and if you give that to the city clerk,

I certainly will. Thank you so much for your time.

So we are on our final page. I have seven more folks that have signed up. After the seven people speak, I will ask if there is anyone else who wishes to speak. So if you're thinking about wanting to speak, I think if you can let our... Someone from our city clerk staff know that so that we are very efficient in getting those folks on the list. After the last person speaks, I will close the public hearing and we will take a 10-minute break. So with that, I'm on the last page. I have seven signed up. And the next person is Andrew Knopf.

All right, good evening, Mayor Norton, City Council, Council President Schubring. I have essentially six takeaways that I kinda wanna talk about here relative to agenda item G1. I agree with the HBC's majority viewpoint that the proposed addition and rehabilitation violates several standards and the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for treatment of historic buildings. and support the denial of the COA. Key takeaway number two. While the city and the applicant did their due diligence and provided significant information relative to the project, I believe that city staffers at the Community Development Committee got their decision wrong in initially recommending a COA in three reasons for that. The interpretation of the standards referenced was very narrow and highlighted certain aspects of the proposal that supported a narrative while disregarding or minimized others. The Community Development Committee did not consider the full scope of the project, especially relative to other cultural and historical landmarks in the city and their views of said landmarks. We've heard a little bit about this, namely the view shed and spatial relationships of the Plummer Building and the Kaler sign. The Community Development Committee consistently used conjecture and opinion to reach its decision to recommend a COA approval, which is in direct contradiction to the modus operandi of this process. The third takeaway I have here is in my professional capacity as a small business owner, I do a significant amount of computer-aided design, that would be CAD work, that's drafting of ground plans, sections, elevations, perspectives, basically what you saw in the submittal. When I reviewed all the documents that were in the submittal, there were several things that were missing from these drawings. There were key annotations that were missing. There were dimensions that were missing. There was, sorry, there was not north stamps to orient somebody looking at the drawings. The drawings omit built architecture, such as sidewalks, roads, trees, and alleyways. The drawings lack proper use of line weights, which are different thicknesses of lines, to make drawings easier to understand. And they do not include any use of color to graphically explain architectural elements. Additionally, beyond the drawings, the renderings are also inefficient. The renderings do not show in any existing detail of the architectural components in the area that would ideally be included to adjudicate the project in totality, including architecture of the Cathy's Rooftop and views of both the Plummer Building and the Kahler sign. Lastly, in this regard, the use of white model boxes to show other existing architectural components minimizes the viewer's ability to see how the proposed edition specifically violates the spatial relationships found, spatial relationship language, excuse me, found in standards two and nine. So from a professional perspective and a drafting perspective, I just think we have a lot of issues with what was submitted here. Key finding number four, nowhere in the administrative record, which is referenced by the applicant in the appeal multiple times, nowhere in that record did I see any indication that the applicant engaged the business owning tenants about this proposal or engaged the public, which I do not think shows a good faith effort. And just a couple more for you here in my minute and a half remaining. I was very surprised, I would say maybe even shocked, that a private developer or property owner can go directly to a small city department and if things go their way, could potentially have a massive landscaping altering construction project approved with virtually no tenant, community, or public input. That seems undemocratic, and that seems deceptive. And finally, I also think it's very surprising and shocking that the community development department process does not include any public hearings for community to offer input. That seems disingenuous and egregious, and I hope in the future the council can address specifically items five and six. Thanks for your time, have a great night. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next we have Dillith Alverson.

Dillith? I probably messed up your name.

It's Danielson for the record.

Dan, where's the D in there? Okay, go ahead.

My name is Dylan. I'm 27 years old. Most of my life has been spent in and around here. I spent a lot of days at the Mayo R&R as a kid, graduated from RCTC. I worked two jobs here and I have to commute about 40 minutes to do anything. So Rochester is effectively my home. This city has one of the greatest music and arts community that I've ever seen easily in Minnesota or anywhere else for that matter. So we want to preserve what little joy we still have left. And I'm going to point a little thread here, so bear with me. But the average person is struggling to get by. A conservative estimate tells us about 25% of American families live paycheck to paycheck. Productivity increases. Wages remain mostly stagnant. We have an affordability crisis. and economic inequality and mobility is now worse than it was in the Gilded Age. All that to say, in a deeply inequitable society, one where face-to-face human interaction is less common than in generations past, where we live more alienated and isolated lives, people need to feel like they're a part of something that matters, something beyond ourselves at the bare minimum. Local businesses in general, and our arts community in particular, give so many of us our belonging. It's a huge part of our identity. Unfortunately, not only the average person's wallet being plundered, but our cultural institutions and third spaces have been under attack by corporate interests for decades. It's nothing new, and we need to wholly reject it at every turn or risk ceding even more ground to people who don't have any of our interests at heart. What good is more apartments if the average person will struggle to afford it? And what good is a city if there are no spaces for us to belong? What's the point of working if we can't immerse ourselves in the world around us when we're off the clock? Our local businesses matter. Without them, we're a monotonous corporate slopscape. We've become just another soulless, copy-paste city where you can get the same Chipotle bowl you get in Florida, the same Walmart you can get in Washington State, and drive the same god-awful strode you would in Terre Haute, Indiana. We're losing Thesis Beer Project, and that's already too steep of a price for me to pay. We're Rochester, and that means something to me. The arts are not just commercial. They're essential. These aren't just businesses. They're cultural pillars to us. Tree Dome, Cafe Steam, Threshold, they're essential. Tree Dome is a wonderful place, me and so many others go to for concerts. I performed at Cafe Steam in 2024 for Thaw Fest, and it's our closest thing to a third place that I can think of. Threshold and Art Heads, they welcome me without judgment. We can't afford the cost of losing functional, and mind you, commercially viable businesses and let them be eaten alive by disinterested capital. Artistic fulfillment and collective purpose supersedes private interests now and forever. We work to live, not live to work, and we require communal spaces. To put it plainly, me and many others don't believe that this is a community development. All we see is the acceleration of community collapse. Given that these businesses are not shutting down naturally, I think there's no other way to phrase it. Someone earlier called it suicide. I would beg to differ. It's not mince words. I think it's a form of cultural homicide. These places are all we have. We have all these nice sayings like people over profit and all that abstract idealist language isn't for nothing. But these people are in front of you. They're real. They're here. people watching outside, people in their homes. So self-serving short-term gain for one man is never ever worth the human cost that's right in front of you. Three failures should be enough to strike out, but let's make something clear, we're all here today again to reject every attempt to destroy our irreplaceable arts community. We will again if and when we need to. I hope you make the right choice.

Thank you. Next we have John Creasel.

Goodness. Madam Mayor, Mr. President, members of the council, I've been going to city council meetings since approximately 1964, when the city of Rochester rejected, given the piece of property that now is a parking lot where Kmart is, the Graham Arena. Been going there since, here again, since 64. This is epic for me tonight. I'm exuberant. I'm more exuberant than I've ever been in my life because of the people that have spoken here tonight. This gives me hope, so much hope, because attending all these city council meetings has been a drag. It's been an embarrassment because our city has freely given away its soul. It's even doing it more so now with the help of TIF money, with the help of outside landlords that could care less about the fabric of this particular community. It's being discovered by outside money so that it can turn into something that in the future the youth will leave this community because there's nothing here, there's nothing here of uniqueness. So here again, I'm given hope for the first time since about 1964. I thank everybody that came here before me because maybe some of you will stay here in the future. My family has been here for six generations. I don't know what that means. I guess it means that there was hope someplace along the way so they would stay here again for a few more generations. But the vision is in your hands. If you lack the vision and do not understand the fabric of a community and what a community is, the youth will come here for some training and then they will leave. because this is a bland, sterile community. Let us not be that way in the future. I ask you to deny the project as put forth again for the, what is it, the fourth time by Hal and his team? The commission, HPC, who are the experts, not city staff, have given you their findings. Now I will ask you this, do experts contact other experts? As I understand it, the experts here within the city council did not contact Mr. Koop. So why would they not seek another expert in the state of Minnesota? It's a phone call away. That negates their ability to even be called experts. The experts are HPC. They are a commission. They're advisory to you. You take their word over city staff. They are not the experts. Now I want to touch on a few points that Bob Heiss, I believe, said. If I'm not mistaken, I think there were some incorrect details there. He said downtown business owners support this. He asked for data and facts. Where are those data and facts? He said development is not wanted. Really? Where's that data and where are those facts? Maybe we got too many cranes around here. I don't know. There are, if I'm not mistaken, the Mayo Clinic has 31 surface parking lots that are yet to be developed. We have other land available to be developed. It's development ready.

Collect some tax base from that.

And I believe Bob mentioned that the alley has been enhanced. Really? I've been to many studies over the years where we talked about enhancing alleys. He also said that they enhanced the alley by, I guess, creating comments dealing with a waste stream. If this project takes place, people are not going to walk through that alley. It's not going to be an inviting space. Put yourself in a car coming from the south, driving north. What are you going to see? Are you going to be invited into a community that welcomes you? Thank you very much for your time, and the vision is yours. Thank you, Mr. Creasel.

Thank you very much. Lucy Creasel.

You just said my name, right?

Yes, I did. Lucy Creasel.

Number 34. I've been counting. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you for your time. Good to see all your faces. My name is Lucy. I'm the owner of Diatom Books, located 319-321, which shares a brick wall with the adjacent buildings in question. Its only entrance is via the alleyway, which is very unique, between 3rd and 4th. I'm a second-generation business owner in the historic district With the familiar family antiques business being an anchor and steward of the district for 50 ish years on historic third so My business, John's business, as well as many small, unique, quirky enterprises that are located in contributing buildings would be directly affected by this proposal in a multitude of ways. Some who haven't been mentioned tonight, Cathy's, Taphouse, Threshold Arts, Soliflow, Rach the Artist, Lucky's, Bitter and Poor, The Guerin, Smoke Shop, Historic Francis Apartments, Typop, those are also all businesses which are loved and coveted in this corridor. Keep in mind that the alleyway is the lifeblood of all of these businesses. even to include the non-contributing complex of 318 Commons. So I know waste isn't pretty, but it definitely is part of this ecosystem, and I see it all the time. I don't feel as though the west side of these buildings has been discussed enough as being appropriate and essential for these businesses to function. So why do people stay in Rochester? I can't even turn around because I'll... Yeah, whoo! Because, you know, everybody said it in this room, right? Like, the wind is in our sails. We've already won because we have this community here. But I just wanted to share some of the things people have said to me, just testimonies over just being open nine months. Our senses are overwhelmed. This is a place of solace in between our appointments. This is where I take my family when they visit. I made my first true friend here. How you experience this part of town makes you want to stay, right? We know this is true. You already know this, you've heard all the testimonies tonight from all of these incredible articulate neighbors. This district and this neighborhood is vibrant and animated and the historic district's soul is our ballast. So when you hear and repeat tonight, I love X, I love Y, I love going to this music thing, it's not even just affection, it's this need for safe, inspiring third places that are human scale in size and in soul, okay? And there's a lot of names for it. It can be your tribe, your respite, the spirit, softness, culture, connection, but it's all the same thing. We've heard it tonight, pride for this downtown neighborhood. I just want to briefly touch on how this is an unnecessary development and just touch on state historic preservation office should have been consulted, still needs to be considered. These have always been commercial buildings, standard one, the view shed to include adjacent contributing buildings, standard two. You've heard these all before, okay? And just to the applicant, regardless of the amount of hours and accommodations and discussions and effort, that does not equal that a home run has been hit here. Third time isn't the charm. It's not right. It's not right for this place. So when I'm thinking about, you know, are we going to see, are we going to get what we see here? I'm not sure. I loved one of the last speakers talking about I feel like the insufficient responses to the standards, to the violated standards, not just one, okay, but six, and that there is a sense of not good faith by not directly addressing these concerns from community members. So when we're, especially when we're engaging community history, right? There's a level of responsibility to the stewardship of history that is not just our own. It's other people who have been in the room tonight and who aren't in the room tonight who share stories about this block that is so essential and there's a responsibility there. Both staff and the applicant have acted out of step with the UDC preservation standards in addition to undermining the expertise of the commissioners who serve on our HPC. Please do not deny these findings. Please uphold the denial. In with the old, let us not lose our imaginations of what we can create here. I was a Main Street grant recipient, so were many others, and a lot of money has been invested into this community already, also into the Downtown Commercial Historic District, which is our future history. So I just ask you, this is really hard work, we would all agree, and at the end of the day, it's always worth it. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. And but, you know, they are readers. They're artists and they're musicians. And they are also chronically at a loss for things to do in Rochester that are age appropriate and safe. Treadom is the only business in town that they are actually excited to go to with me and spend time together as a family digging through bins looking for albums. The records we buy there together give us something to talk about and connect on long after we leave the shop. I can honestly say this business has helped my family stay bonded through the teenage years, and that's a challenge, right? I've also found freedom to be a safe space for my kids to hang out at, something that, by the way, we did not have when I was a teenager here. It is the only venue in town where they can spend an evening with their friends listening to live music and not be around people drinking and all that comes with that. Hundreds of kids attend shows at TREATM on a regular basis. When they are there, they actually put away their phones and engage with music and the atmosphere while enjoying each other's company. And if you have teenagers, you know that this is an increasingly rare phenomenon. If this is replaced with apartments, there's literally nowhere else in town that these kids can go that will fill the same need that they have. I've also attended multiple community events at these businesses. They actively support local artists like my husband, and it gives them a space to share themselves with their work. Developers care about getting a return for their investors, but the city residents will be the ones that pay the cost if we lose this space to development. The construction of the apartments alone would do these businesses in. Losing these spaces would mean more than losing a coffee shop or an art shop and a record store. They are cultural cornerstones in a company town where most downtown public spaces are not actually for the residents of Rochester. Rochester cannot survive on Mayo alone. And people may move here to work at the hospital, but it's places like Tree Dome, Art Heads, and Cafe Steam that get them to stay. Please vote to deny the appeal and protect these important spaces for our community and for our kids.

Thank you. Next we have Jess Garcia.

Good evening. Council President Shubring, members of the City Council, Mayor Norton, my name is Jess Garcia. I'm a Ward 4 resident and mayoral candidate who cares for and frequents these historic businesses we're all trying to protect tonight. We have all been watching in horror as businesses in our city have been struggling and or closing down for the last few months seeking clear and direct help from City Hall. Do not let these businesses be the next casualties. You have the opportunity to show up for them, for all of us, by denying this appeal. Upholding the denial of the certificate of appropriateness as determined by our Local Heritage Preservation Commission will signal to the community that you care about what is important to us. It will signal to small business owners that you value them. It will signal to building owners that they cannot treat their tenants the way they reportedly do and expect to be rewarded for it by us offering them more business. When the requester of this appeal is someone I'm told accepts rent payments from tenants while allowing buildings to fall and disrepair after it's repeatedly brought to his attention and some other issues you heard from other speakers before me, that is very concerning. When the outlined standards by the Secretary of the Interior are not followed, as the HPC outlined, which they're now trying to discredit, that's also concerning. It does not seem this project has the best interests of Rochester residents or small business tenants in mind. That is made particularly apparent when the apartments they hope to build would be housing students that would want to be able to access the businesses targeted and made vulnerable by this project. And these young people who spoke before me are all confirming these businesses are what will attract and keep them here. So city leaders, I believe that if you have the courage today to preserve the historic district you helped create, you will help to maintain the vibrancy of downtown. You will ensure the culture and community created on that block can flourish and expand outward. You will be helping to maintain a city culture that preserves our heritage and uplifts the everyday resident and small business owner over corporate interests. So I urge you, deny this appeal. It is not good for our historic downtown. It is not good for our small business community. It is not good for the people of our city. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next we have Michelle Gersberger. Is she still here? Oh, yeah, okay. Okay, next we have Kristen Meyer.

Hello.

Thank you all for listening to me. This is my first City Hall meeting, so I'm a little nervous. First of all, I'd like to say that it's just amazing all of the businesses in this block that are available to young people. Where I grew up, we had a TCBY and a Perkins. And so, it's wonderful. They know, obviously, what they have. and it needs to stay where it is. Seven years ago, I bought my dream home in Rochester, a 97-year-old home that all the people who lived in it before me took excellent care of, and I intend to do the same. I don't consider myself an owner of this home. I consider myself a caretaker, and that's what all of us are of Rochester and the buildings and businesses and history we have here. And I would just like everyone to consider that for the future. Would you like a future with, you know, these giant, oh, good Lord. Sorry. Unfeeling, you know, I don't even know the words. It's just, it's not what's fair to Rochester and our history and the people who live here. So thank you for listening to me.

Thank you. Next we have Nick Novotny.

All right. Thanks for listening to everybody today. I am a small business owner. I'm a co-owner of My Town, My Music and the festival director of the Rochester Thought Music Festival that ran from 2019 to 2026. And the heart of our festival was in this historic district. The incredible businesses that opened their doors to us as a company to bring thousands of musicians over the years of the event. It just speaks to the character of people that run these businesses and operate and hold these buildings. And I think it's so crucial to having this vibrant arts and music scene. We've worked with thousands of musicians that we've brought to Rochester for the first time. And the first thing they tell us about is how special this district truly is in the shape that it's in right now. We hear from folks all over the country when they come here of, oh, I went to Cafe Steam. I had the best latte of my life. I went and saw some crazy record I haven't seen in 20 years at Tree Dome. It's all of these little things that add to these very crucial third spaces that make our city very unique, and it gives people a reason to come back. That's, I think, the biggest thing. Anytime we worked with anybody that came through the festival and spent time in this district, The next question I got was, how do I get back? How do I come back? I think if we were to impact this area, you would be having less people asking that question. And I think that's a very dangerous situation that could happen if this building goes through. Another note that I just cannot not touch on, there is, and it was mentioned before, there's so much pride with the folks that have come up and spoke, especially the young folks in our community that are standing up for their music, their arts, their creative spaces, their spaces where they feel safe. IN A WORLD THAT SEEMINGLY TRIES TO MAKE IT HARDER AND HARDER TO FEEL SAFE EVERY SINGLE DAY. SO I THINK THE BIG POINT TO TAKE IS PLEASE DO STAND UP TO WHAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION SAID AND KEEP THESE BUILDINGS INTACT. IT IS THE HEARTBEAT OF OUR ARTS COMMUNITY. IT'S THE HEARTBEAT OF OUR CREATIVE ECONOMY HERE. AND THAT RIPPLES ALL THE WAY THROUGHOUT TO THE EDGES OF THE CITY. SO, YEAH, THANKS.

THANK YOU, MR. NAVATNI. Next up we have Andy Smith.

Mayor Norton, city council members, and very hardworking city staff that sits here as well. You guys know me. I've talked to all of you many times. My name is Andy Smith. I am the state representative for this district in the Minnesota House, and I'm here on wearing many different hats. The one is, of course, small business owner. I want to come and defend my fellow small business owners. Two, as someone who loves the arts and who has tried to add to the arts in this city and has been so grateful for those who have added to that arts community, but I do feel that I also am here a bit in my official capacity as the representative of this district and this people because I have heard about this particular issue and this vote a lot. And I'm happy to be here to tell you this. The Rochester people are optimistic. They're wonderful people. We all love Rochester. We're excited about the future of our city. But I do think that there is a growing suspicion with the people of Rochester that that future is going to be guided not by what is best for the vast majority of people of Rochester, what will make their lives better, more enjoyable, more fulfilled, but rather by landlords, executives, and corporations. And I can't honestly think of a better example of why people have that fear than the idea that to revitalize downtown, we would have to mortally injure the part of our downtown that is most alive. And we know it's the most alive because of what we heard tonight. You heard from kids. You heard from the parents of those kids. You heard from people who have been here, their family has been here for 50-ish years, to people who moved here this year, to a couple of people who haven't even moved here yet but are excited to move to Rochester eventually because of places like this downtown. Thank you for listening to these voices. I'm happy to add mine to the loud chorus that asks you please deny this appeal. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes all the people that have signed up. I will ask, is there anyone else wishing to be heard on this item before the public hearing? Anyone else wishing to be heard on this item? Please come forward, state your name, and you have up to five minutes, but you don't have to use it.

No worries, I'll try not to.

Did you already speak on this?

No, I was here earlier. I was for the public's, the open speech session. Okay, very good. Well, I'm Rylan Wolf. I am the aforementioned UMR student of this area. I want to say that my time at UMR as a student has been very fun and enriching. However, the greatest sentiment that I have heard amongst my fellow UMR students has been, there is nothing to do here. I have had many UMR friends who have transferred to other schools because they have found no fulfillment. I watched just down the street as a building was turned to rubble and it became the laughing stock of the school because it was charmingly hid behind a chicken wire fence with fake vines. I would also like to mention that the establishments at this sector, being mainly Tree Dome and Cafe Steam, are places where my classmates work at and where we have a lot of fun. Many days we go to Cafe Steam to study and I remember the many frustrating nights of my classmates as they tried to hammer in the concept of bone layers. And then after we had our time at Cafe Steam where my friends shook and threatened to throw coffee in my face as they could not get the point across, we went to Tree Dome to go have a night where we sung and laughed and worked off the previous stress. I'm in my third year of nursing school and I'm also currently a healthcare provider. When I think about Rochester and I think about the greatness that our healthcare industry is here, I also think about how I want our patients to not only remember the walls of their hospital room, but also the culture of this city and the art that is a part of it. And as everybody knows, there's already way too much construction in Rochester, and I would like to ask, why add more now? Thank you for your time, and I hope you will make the right choice again, as you have three times before.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. This is a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this item, please identify yourself and... And you have up to five minutes. You don't have to use them.

Yeah, well, okay. I am Emily Felos. I am a community member. I work in many places around town in the community. And all I have to say is, echoing everybody else's statements, obviously, that block is very important. I've seen... firsthand what another person was describing, just dozens of teens out on the sidewalk during breaks between music, enjoying the one place that's not age-restricted, there's no alcohol, that sort of thing. And personally, sometimes if I'm having a rough day, it's the middle of winter, which you know how winters are here, sometimes knowing that there's something happening at Tree Dome is what gets me up and moving and going out when normally I wouldn't be DOING ANYTHING DOWNTOWN I ALWAYS GO TO THE BUSINESSES NEXT DOOR, BUY SOMETHING THERE. IT'S A GREAT LITTLE BLOCK AND IT'S ONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS CITY.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO BE HEARD STEP FORWARD PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF. YOU HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES.

Hi, I'm Liam McCarron. I'm a newish resident here. I moved here about two years ago from Queens, New York. A lot busier than here. Huge vibrant art scene. I've worked in the scene over in New York for many years. I worked for both acts, big and small. And I saw how important it was for those communities to come together. And I sadly was forced to move out of the city that I called home my entire life because it was just getting too expensive and just unlivable due to all these developments of rent going up and just hard for me to live in that place. So I moved to Rochester. And... As soon as I came here, whenever I tell someone where I'm from, they always have the same answer whenever I tell them I'm from New York. They say, why? Why are you here? It's boring. There's nothing to do. There's so many other places you could be. Why did you choose here? And I always do the joke, oh, it's cheaper, et cetera. But I really found in the short time here, I found a really close community. And I guess I've discovered the whole thing of Midwest kindness and Minnesota nice firsthand. And I've seen that these communities, especially in places like Steam and places like Tree Dome, they're kind of the only place I really have a whole lot of fun here. I find myself... with my friends that I met here, and I asked them, hey, is there anything you want to do? And most of the time, we're always sending each other on Instagram posts of concerts they're doing at Tree Dome. We're always talking to each other about, you know, let's just go to Steam, you know, read a book and have a good time there. We don't even have to talk to each other. And to see that these communities are getting crushed by these developers that force me not only out of my home in New York, but force me out of my apartment here in downtown myself, because they're tearing down to make more luxury apartments in these fancy apartments further downtown. It's just heartbreaking to see a city that when I moved here, I saw I had so much opportunity and could have just, it felt like a city that was just rising, rising. And now I'm like, it's crumbling. It's just so quick. I thought it was, you know, going to get so big. So I just really want to see this place succeed because it is my home, and these are the places that, as everyone seems to agree, make you want to stay. And if they're gone, I don't know. I don't know if there's going to be a whole lot of reasons for me to stay around here. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for stepping up. This is a public hearing, and anyone else wishing to be heard, please step forward, state your name, and you have up to five minutes.

Good evening. My name is Chris Kanepke. I'm just a guy. I'm just a person who lives in Ward 1. And I just felt compelled to come to this meeting, and I've sat out in the lobby for the last three hours. For me, a perfect weekend day, I have two young daughters. I have an 11 and an 8-year-old. We would go to the library, and then we'd go to Cafe Steam, and I'd get a night howler to wake up. And we would go to the different districts, the different buildings that are being impacted by tonight's hearing. And for me, that's a perfect Saturday. And I'm really going to miss that if that goes away. But what I have to comment on as a lifelong Rochester resident and sitting out there during these last three hours is this community is given me so much pride and I can't quite, um, overstate watching the, the youth, just the people with passion come up and talk about this. And it gives me so much pride in the things that they're doing here. Um, and for me, it would be bad to lose that perfect Saturday, but for them, um, quite the community. Um, and I, I am so grateful and I don't know if you were aware of this community that was here, but I am so glad to, Hear them speak their support and their passion and I really appreciate that and I don't want to take any of your time Thank you.

Thank you. This is a public hearing if you wish to be heard on this item Please step forward state your name and you have up to five minutes

Hi, I'm Lucy Rasmussen. I have been a very thorough member of this community that these businesses have provided for me. I have learned so much about music. I've discovered so much, so many new people in this community. I have... discovered myself really as who I am as a person. And to think that this would all be destroyed for some bland buildings that have no meaning, no community, nothing that provides anything for this community would kill me inside to see something like this be destroyed for unaffordable housing for these students. I mean, I'm barely holding on as it is. And to see that it would all be destroyed by, you know, these kids, they come here to learn, and at the end of the day, they come here to pay for school. You think they have the money to pay for expensive housing that's going to destroy something that they can do in their spare time where something else can be built elsewhere? I have... found such a great community through these buildings. I have grabbed so many refreshing drinks from Steam. I have found so many amazing records from Tree Dome. And they have opened up so many opportunities for, you know, possibilities for people who wanna be in bands and form these different kinds of communities. And seeing this, it really hurts me. And I really, I deny this. I do not want this to happen. That is all I have to say.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward one final time. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this item, I will close the public hearing. At this point, what we are going to do, and you are all welcome to stay, and I hope you all do, we are going to take a 10-minute break. When we get back, the applicant will have five minutes to respond to the public hearing and any closing comments. And then after that, myself, my colleagues, The mayor will have an opportunity to pose questions to staff and the applicant. And after that, we will deliberate on a decision. So with that, we are on a 10-minute break. bob before we continue on uh... item g one i just want to let the council know that uh... under our rules uh... we are not to begin a public hearing after 10.15 this evening. After G1, we have G2, G3, and G4, which are public hearings. So depending on the length of the discussion on G1, we may bump ourselves up to that 10.15 time. So I am... Wondering if council members have any interest in suspending the rules, which I think G2, 3, and 4 may be able to be dispensed with more rapidly. If there is a desire to suspend the rules, and I don't know if, according to our rules, we can postpone discussion of G1 and 4. and then come back to it after dispensing with two, three, and four. Mr. Spindler, Greg? Yes, Mr. President. With a super majority vote, you could. Okay, so is there interest in suspending the rules and pausing the progress that we have made on G1, which is all the way through three hours of public testimony. We will go to G2, G3, and G4 so that we are able to hold those public hearings before our time certain of 1015, and then we will come back to G1. Is there a motion? Council Member Keene.

Just before a motion, is there a possibility of suspending the rules and starting the public hearings after 10-15 or is that not an option for us? That is an option as well.

Okay.

Council President, that would be my preference that we continue on with our G1 work and vote now to suspend our rules to start our other public hearings later and see if we can get a supermajority there. Yeah.

Okay, is that sound, is that? That would be my motion. Is that? Second. Okay, there is a motion on the table to suspend the rule that we actually can have public hearings after 1015, made by Council Member Keene and seconded by Council Member Doering. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay. We are able to hold public hearings after 1015. Thank you very much. We will move back to G1. And at this point, we will hear from our applicants. And the applicant, you have five minutes to respond to any questions, things you heard during the public hearing, and any other information that you would like to share with the council.

Appreciate that, council president, council members, and mayor. One thing I know for sure after tonight is the arts and the music and the culture are They're not leaving Rochester. The passion that filled this room with the arts and the love for music and love for the downtown convinced me they're not leaving. And the great thing about this proposed project, we're not asking them to leave. We're not destroying any buildings in the downtown district. We're not proposing to destroy the downtown district. What the passion shows me is we all love that place of our first kiss with our wife or our spouse or a partner. We all love those special places where we celebrate things. We wanna keep them to ourselves. We don't want others to share in that. And that's what's happening.

Excuse me, please, no response from the audience or we will have to have you removed from the audience. Continue, Mr. Hess.

We're proposing to bring more people into the downtown community, to provide a place, homes, for others to come into the downtown community. And that passion is so deep that they don't want that. This proposal is about inclusivity and broadening the rich history of Rochester in a way that preserves the historic integrity of the downtown district as confirmed by the experts, the city, the city development team who live with the UDC, who live with the Secretary of Interior Standards on a daily basis. You've heard people come up here and say that the standards aren't met. The HPC concluded only that they're not being met with the proposed project. They provided no factual support. I know the city, somebody said it was a staffing issue. It's not. The city requested the HPC to provide findings of fact, verbally requested that, and they didn't do it. The only information in the record that is of any substance factual findings comes from the city, your experts, your development team that found that this new revised proposed project satisfies all 10 standards. It complies with what the city asked the HGT team to do. And they did that over months of meetings, over months of communications. To level set, this is an appeal from the HPC's denial based on standards. This is a standards-based analysis. I can stand up here and be emotional and compassionate about the community that I have found in Rochester. But that's what I have to say, what I feel is not part of a standards-based analysis that you have to consider. Your experts, the city, did that analysis through all 10 of them. We addressed it in our comprehensive appellate brief and appeal documents. The record from the HPC provides no factual support for denying the request for certificate of appropriateness. It actually contravenes the recommendation of the experts in the room. Those experts have now come to you and said, we request for action that you overturn the HPC's denial. And they provided reasons under all 10 of those standards that show that this new proposed project complies with every one of those standards. Old buildings bring challenges The rents that people pay are below market. They don't even cover the property taxes for the buildings.

Who cares? Please keep your thoughts to yourself. Continue, Mr. Hess.

Old buildings bring challenges. Different types of shops come in. We're already seeing it on Broadway. THC being sold in shops. Adult-only stores on Broadway. They bring challenges. an element that does not bring character to a historical district. What we're offering is an opportunity to continue the historic nature of downtown Rochester while also growing downtown Rochester, making it more inclusive to more people that can take advantage of the rich history and culture, the arts and the music and the shops downtown. And we ask you to overturn the HPC's denial.

Thank you, Mr. Hash. At this time, I will invite my colleagues to ask questions of staff and or the applicant. Council Member Keene.

Yeah, I had a question for staff just going through this. Much of the public input are items about impact to local small businesses and the space that has become the anchor for these local arts communities. What are the decision criteria that 1 through 10 that have anything to do with the business that currently operate within the space, the historic building that's being under question for the certificate?

Who's taking this one? Ms. Woodward, go ahead.

Thank you, Councilmember Keene. The certificate of appropriateness deals with the alteration that's being proposed to the building. It doesn't have anything to do with the existing businesses within the building. So it's evaluating how the alterations to the exterior or the additions, how that has an impact on the overall structures in the buildings, not necessarily on what the existing businesses are.

Okay, do you consider that to be like a rigorous sort of thing or is it a flaw in the criteria we're using that we don't consider what's happening in the building right now?

The rehabilitation standards don't really consider that and that along with the design guidelines are really focused on what is the design of that building and what are those elements that need to be considered in terms of the overall additions, alterations and things that are happening with those buildings and those are the primary of what we're evaluating as part of the certificate of appropriateness.

Okay, thank you. And then I also had a question for the owner or owner representation. Just comparing this project to projects we've seen before and turned down, it appears to me that this new product better protects the historic streetscape. But I also want to confirm is it, and it does these step backs, but I also am trying to understand, can I assume that this project is economically viable and then this is a way now that the building maintains historic preservation but is also maintained?

Yes.

Okay. All right. So good, good. I'm glad to hear that because I will be surprised then if this group comes back in the next year or two saying we need public support for something because if it's economically viable, you should be able to handle it yourself and not depend on public support for that.

Yeah, I mean, certainly as we go forward, certainly if there's public funds that are available to anybody else that would also be available to us, we should consider it. But it doesn't mean that we have to pursue it. But I wouldn't want to be locked in right now to say that we're not allowed to apply for public funds that are available to any other developer.

No, good point. But I... But I'm trying to establish that this is an economically viable project. You wouldn't come in here with a test that said, but for some support that the city or DMC would give you, we can't do this. Because you're coming in with an economically viable project.

Well, we like to think so, but part of the economics is sort of TIF funding or other public funding that may be available. I'm not saying we're asking for that right now.

I know you're not, sir, but I'm just trying to get it on there that when we deal with this and try to say you need to come back with something that both preserves the history of the building but is also economically viable, I think that says that we're not coming back for the other. Now, when you talk about DMC's got these grants and stuff, that's fine. I got you. Okay.

So it's like there's a facade grant and we're working on the facades. We're not saying, no, we shouldn't be able to apply for that.

No, no. But this idea of going through and coming back with the but for test going, we want to do this, but you guys have to come to the table. That's not what I'm seeing what you're coming back with at this point. I understand.

Thank you. And you're correct.

Okay.

QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS. I HAVE A QUESTION TO, FIRST TO THE OWNER GROUP AND MR. HENDERSON YOU MAY WANT TO ANSWER THIS AS WELL. THIS HAS TO DO WITH, YOU ARE THE OWNERS OF 309 TO 317 BROADWAY WHICH ARE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES TO the Downtown Commercial Historic District. So can you talk to us about how your proposed alterations contribute to the historic district that the building is in? And when I say how it contributes to the historic district, looking at the objectives of the historic district and its activation of storefronts, public realm, character, all of those pieces of what it means to be in a historic district.

WELL, HONORABLE PRESIDENT SHUBERING AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND HONORABLE MAYOR NORDEN, THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TONIGHT AND APPRECIATING YOU LISTENING TO US. THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION OFFERED TONIGHT THAT IS NOT TRUE. I WON'T GO INTO THAT, BUT I WISH I COULD IF WE HAD TIME. So to answer your question, I think if you look at the image on the screen, essentially it's exactly what's there now. And by a development that allows us some economic vitality to work with, it allows us to bring those buildings back to their original grandeur and character. And without it, they're not going to get what the HPC was hoping to get in terms of character, quality, all the things that they're hoping to accomplish with the HPC mantra. So, yeah, without giving us some financial viable ways of generating the level of income needed to maintain these properties, the property taxes, the insurance, the maintenance, is just not a viable long-term reality. It becomes a point we have to face that reality. We've heard a lot of passionate conversation tonight. I get it. I appreciate it. I understand it. But I've not heard a word about the five years that we've subsidized the rent at $5 a square foot rent, almost free, and then we doubled it 100% we did to 10. I don't think there's anybody in this room that owns property that would say that $10 a square foot is sustainable to operate a building and maintain a quality building.

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

Sorry. It's just not possible. I think you talk to anybody that's a landlord, talk to any real estate agent that has commercial property, they will tell you the market rate is at least $25 a square foot or greater.

Please, you are not a member of the city council or the mayor, and so you do not have the right to speak right now. So please, if you would keep your thoughts to yourself, Mr. Henderson, continue.

Appreciate it. Thank you. That's all I have to say. Thank you. I'm not a politician, so I have no more to say. Thanks for the opportunity, appreciate it, and thanks again.

I have a question for staff. And I want to talk about, and I think it's Measure 9, and it's the whole idea of new alterations being subordinate in size, scale, material, massing, to the historic building. and to the historic district itself, I believe. So I'm just trying to get my head around how a seven-story building, which is, I think, four or five stories higher than any of the contributing buildings among the 31 buildings that are contributing buildings in the historic district, how that building is subordinate. to the historic district or the historic contributing building.

Thank you for the question. I will start and provide a little bit of context. As we establish the commercial historic district, it is the collection of all of the buildings together is how it's evaluated. It's not one individual building. So as we started to evaluate the addition being put, we are evaluating how that contributes or how it aligns with the massing of the overall district and evaluating it. So it wasn't just looking at the existing properties, but the overall district. And so we were looking at, as we mentioned, some other buildings within the district and how it would have an impact overall, not just on one specific, but on the entire historic district.

My understanding is, though, that the building you're using to say that this proposal is subordinate to is a non-contributing building. And it is the tallest building in the district. And it is non-contributing. Why isn't it used in relation to the building that it is becoming an alteration to?

AS WE STARTED TO EVALUATE AND AS WE STARTED TO EVALUATE AND THEN I'LL LET MS. PATTERSON THEN I'LL LET MS. PATTERSON LUNGREN JUMP IN IF SHE NEEDS LUNGREN JUMP IN IF SHE NEEDS TO ADD ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. TO ADD ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW ULTIMATELY WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW ULTIMATELY AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS ADDITION AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS ADDITION TO THE BUILDING IT REALLY TO THE BUILDING IT REALLY STARTS TO MIMIC 318 COMMONS STARTS TO MIMIC 318 COMMONS AND IT STARTS TO LOOK LIKE AN AND IT STARTS TO LOOK LIKE AN ADDITION TO THAT BUILDING WITHIN ADDITION TO THAT BUILDING WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THAT IT the facades of the buildings that are facing Broadway and so that you're still maintaining that perspective when you're on Broadway and maintaining it within the historic district, but then able to have the addition in the rear and be able to kind of tie those together. And I'll let Ms. Patterson-Lundgren also add to it.

Chair Schubring, I think your question, if I'm understanding correctly, relates, you indicated it relates to standard number nine and that the size scale, I'm pulling just the last part of that standard, and proportion and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. So the way I read that is the property is the landmark property, which is the historic district. The landmark property are not the individual buildings. They're contributing to the district. But when we're talking about protecting the integrity of the property, I read that as the property that is landmarked, which is the district in its entirety. So we're looking at how the features, the materials, features, scale and proportion and massing impact the property, which is the district as a whole, which we've landmarked.

Does that answer? Well, let me pose a hypothetical. And can you go to slide 31? in the deck here. So I have a hypothetical. If we are to approve this appeal, and I'm looking at the integrity of the historic district itself, and one of the pieces that I'm really concerned with is precedent and how we are setting a precedent. So on slide 31, we have a view of the Non-contributing parking lot that is on the corner of Broadway and 4th Street, correct? That is part of the historic district. It is a parking lot right now. It's not Contributing it is adjacent to the 318 building which is across the alley so if we are to then HAVE A SEVENTH STORY BUILDING THAT WE SAY IS NOT, IT IS SUBORDINATE TO OTHER BUILDINGS, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO OWNS THAT PROPERTY, BUT LET'S SAY A DEVELOPER OR OWNER COMES IN AND SAYS I WANT TO BUILD A SEVENTH STORY BUILDING THERE ON THAT CORNER, WHICH IS THE FIRST BLOCK OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GOING NORTH. Will we have set a precedent to allow other blocks, non-contributing or contributing, to then scale up to seven stories, eight stories, or whatever is considered subordinate to another building?

Sure. I think we would have set the precedent to review the project within the context of what's adjacent to it. What's adjacent to that empty lot is a two-story building on Broadway and I think a three or four-story building, which is the Francis apartment to the west. And then the hue is right there and that also is taller So we would be looking at how a new building in that site would relate to to its environment Within the historic district So not necessarily a seven-story building because there isn't What eight to ten story building right next to it and

I mean, and please bear with me, my colleagues. I'm gonna ask a maybe even more immediate one. So if we were to continue with this and approve this appeal, and a seven-story building goes up on the rear of 309 through 317, What prevents that seven-story building from being the owner of the building to say, well, I want to go further forward and the seven-story building is what I'm using as a guide.

I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT ANY NEW, I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT ANY NEW, IF THERE WAS A NEW PROJECT IF THERE WAS A NEW PROJECT COMING IN FOR THAT CORNER LOT COMING IN FOR THAT CORNER LOT THAT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE A THAT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND WE AND WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND WE WOULD EVALUATE WHAT THAT PROPOSAL WOULD EVALUATE WHAT THAT PROPOSAL IS AGAINST THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS IS AGAINST THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN COUNCIL ADOPTED the Secretary of Interior standards and evaluate those things to determine as to what Molly is saying, what is that general look of what's happening around there? So it's, we're not, it doesn't necessarily mean the next one would need to be that. So the certificate of appropriateness would need to be reviewed by city teammates at that time. And then it would go to the Heritage Preservation Commission as well.

Council members, other questions? I can keep going. Can I ask a question on, there has been talk among the applicant that the HPC did not address findings. Can you clarify that?

I think what the clarification, and I would just note, is the motion that was made by the HPC was specific in identifying that the building and the project didn't meet 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. There was additional discussion at the HPC, the Heritage Preservation Commission, but in terms of the motion that was taken, those were the specific ones that were identified during that. But there was discussion generally about the historic character of the property will be retained won't be retained. The project would detract and doesn't preserve the sense of history. These are homes to marginalized businesses. Loss of sight of Kaler, Seiden, and Plummer building. Seven stories is too big. And there were several other, but that was summary of discussion that was had at the Heritage Preservation Commission. The actual motion that was taken only referenced those numbers.

Okay. Council Member Palmer.

So how long has the staff been working on this proposal with the applicant?

After the last request, which was to remove the properties from the historic district, there's been on and off conversations. I would say since that time period, there haven't necessarily been consistent. There's been questions asked of us, review, and we've met with them on occasion. I can't say to how many, but it's probably been going on since after that last time where there was a request to remove them from the historic district.

And the recommendation from the staff is that we approve their or overturn the HBC's recommendation, is that correct?

The recommendation that staff made to the Heritage Preservation Commission was to approve the certificate of appropriateness and the motion and our recommendation would to be overturned the Heritage Preservation Commission.

So if I go to the next block over and we've got the Biobusiness Center, I think that's nine stories. How does that fit into the historic district?

So the biobusiness center is not within the historic district.

Okay. Is the parking ramp?

It is not.

Okay. Is the hotel that's just to the north of this part of the district?

No.

So the district kind of moves around a little bit. It doesn't like a solid block?

It does move. I think we've shown the kind of district a number of times. So it kind of goes along there and it shifts in terms of what is contributing and non-contributing properties within the historic district.

Okay. Can I ask a question of the developer?

Go ahead.

The question is last time if you wanted to take the whole building down you didn't want to do that and it was about a million dollars just to keep the facade. I'm assuming there's an added cost to just working in the back of this building in the alley. Is there added cost to that or would it be just cheaper to tear the whole building down and just start from scratch?

CAN YOU GET CLOSER TO THE CAN YOU GET CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE? MICROPHONE? YES. YES.

IT WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE TO IT WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE TO TEAR THE BUILDING DOWN BUT TEAR THE BUILDING DOWN BUT THERE ARE ADDED COSTS RELATED TO THERE ARE ADDED COSTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT IN KEEPING THE THE PROJECT IN KEEPING THE CULTURE OF THE ALLEY AND TRYING CULTURE OF THE ALLEY AND TRYING TO ENHANCE THE ALLEY AND DO TO ENHANCE THE ALLEY AND DO THE THINGS THAT HAL AND GRANT THE THINGS THAT HAL AND GRANT HAVE ALREADY STARTED IN THE HAVE ALREADY STARTED IN THE ALLEY.

ALLEY. AND YOU'RE ADDING 35 AND YOU'RE ADDING 35 APARTMENTS? APARTMENTS? ROUGHLY 37 I TH

Mayor Norton.

Yeah, this has been an interesting process. And I guess in talking to some former city council members, I would say throughout this process, Mr. Henderson has been asked to keep coming back with something else that preserves the historic integrity and this is closer to what the council had been asking for. So I want to acknowledge that you have heard what they have said over time and have made changes every time and you are bringing something different forward this time, so I want to acknowledge that. I do, I think the question probably ties a little bit onto, I think, what Councilmember Palmer was getting at, but I want to ask it very specifically. A person buys a building or a set of buildings and they own them. It's their property. They can rent, they can leave them empty, they can do whatever they want. And we have some wonderful businesses that have been allowed to be there. Does, and I don't know if this is probably for staff, but does a building owner that happens to have the building or buildings that are then designated as historic, do they have the right to remove those buildings completely from a block?

We do have a process in place. If you are trying to submit for a demolition permit, then you would be required to remove the property from the historic district and show that it is no longer contributing to the historic district.

That's not... EXACTLY GETTING TO THE ANSWER. IF SOMEONE OWNS PROPERTY AND THEY DON'T WANT IT ANYMORE AND THEY OWN IT AND IT'S THEIRS, DOES OUR DESIGNATION AS A HISTORIC DISTRICT MEAN THEY NO LONGER HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT THEY DO WITH THEIR BUILDINGS AND THEIR PROPERTY?

No, within the historic district, there are ways that we go about this process of making changes to it. So they still have the ability to make changes. Interior changes aren't reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. It's only exterior in terms of additions or things that are happening. So there is a process.

And does that process include removal of buildings?

The process to remove a building would be that someone was submitting for a demolition and they would need to request removal from the historic district.

And does the city or the HPC have the right to tell someone who owns property that they cannot get rid of that property?

That property could be sold, so it doesn't mean that that property owner has to maintain that. They could sell the property. It would still be within the historic district because the historic district is an overlay zone within our UDC.

So what I'm trying to get at is that if a person owns property and they decide they don't want that property, they want something else, we have a process to go through to modify that property to make it appropriate for the historic district we've designated.

That is correct.

I guess I'm trying to get at do they have the right to just get rid of the building, demolish it, because they're not so... So my council member is saying a business owner really doesn't own that building and have the right to decide what to do with it because the HPC won't let them. I mean, I'm trying to really understand that because they don't want to put us in a position where buildings will be demolished because we're not allowing them to be modified. So I'm trying to get at do they have the right to remove their buildings because they don't want them. They want them to be something else. Or have we disallowed an owner from a building to control his building?

So I think I understand what you're trying to get at. And I think that's where within the unified development code, within the heritage preservation overlay, there is identified in terms of if you wanted to be removed from historic district, you wanted to demolish it. There's a process to identify that. There's a process if you want to make an alteration to your building. And that doesn't prevent anyone from selling their building to somebody else or utilizing it within the interior in a different way. But in terms of removing it or DEMOLISHING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE THAT IS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING AND IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, THAT IS A PROCESS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO REMOVE IT FROM AND THAT COMES BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO REMOVE IT FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND HAVE THAT APPROVAL.

Yeah, just to clarify, so we know that this council in January of 24 designated a historic district that includes 31 buildings. And in that ordinance, the council said with these 31 buildings, if you want to alter that building or you want to demolish it, there is a process. It starts at HPC. It comes here to this building. City Council and that's what we're doing this evening. So anytime any one of those 31 buildings want to make an alteration or They want to put something else there.

It has to come to our council Yes, and that's what I was trying to clarify that there is a process for removal as well but that ultimately These people own that process that that property the city does not own the property they do and And so ultimately they have some choices to make. So I just wanted to make that point. And I guess, Mr. Henderson, has anyone ever made an offer to purchase your property?

Please come to the microphone, Mr. Henderson, if you're going to answer.

Well, Mayor, the answer to that is no, they have not. And no one in the room that spoke tonight has approached us. If somebody were to buy it, they would obviously have more control over the future. As a tenant, they don't have that level of control. And therefore, we have to generate enough income to make these properties viable, maintain them, pay the taxes, pay the insurance, pay the maintenance, the list goes on. So, yeah, I mean, if they wanted to buy them, they should approach us. We're more than happy to do that. City wants to buy them? You should approach us.

Okay.

Thank you. I just wanted that on the record.

Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify, our first proposal was to remove the buildings, to demolish them, and that was denied. So that, I think, answers your question. It's been tested before. Okay. And that was one of our requests early on. Thanks. Thank you.

Council Member Wall.

Mr. Henderson, I hate to have you come back up again, but please.

Okay.

I really appreciate the passion of so many of the speakers here tonight. And I think there's an assumption on the part of many of those speakers that the current businesses will simply be displaced permanently. Is that part of the proposal?

It was one thing I was referring to that's not true. Okay.

So they certainly would be displaced during a time of construction.

Our goal is to not do that. Steamed coffee would stay. The businesses other than the tree dome would have to be replaced somewhere and possibly come back. But again, they'd have to be able to pay the rent and willing to pay the rent. That would be the question. Can their business tolerate that? Do they generate enough for their business to tolerate a rent to that level? And that's what I mentioned is a reality check. Your business has to be able to produce enough income to rent a space that you want to be in. It's kind of as simple as that.

That is probably where some of my next questions were going to go. However, I thought that maybe when you talked about an economically viable project, you could use the towers to help subsidize some of the costs of the street level. Not really.

Well, yeah, to a point, yes. We can't continue to maintain those buildings long term without something that allows us enough economic generation to do that. They'll just maintain at a certain level that the income that we generate could support, which currently it doesn't.

Yeah, so you would see the rent going from 5 to 10 to 25? I would have to, yes.

I'm just telling you the truth. And you ask anybody that's renting space downtown, you look at what the Discovery 1 and 2 buildings are renting for. You know, they're a lot more than that. And I could give you a list. The vacant space that's on the merchant exchange building that the Meza building property was in, their business was in, it is now being listed at $32 a square foot, just a half a block away. So it gives you a sense of what the difference is and what we're getting and what the real market is. So, I mean, even if we were to get $25 a square foot, I'm not convinced that it even covers the expenses and all the costs of real estate taxes and everything else.

With the buildings as they currently are.

Well, they're not right now as they currently are by far. And that's actually a lot of the motivation for doing this. And it's not just us. It's going to be other people that are going to have the same issues we're having. You've got to, unless there's a major decision to support these businesses for the purposes these people passionately want, which I can totally understand and appreciate that. In fact, we've helped them for the last 10 years, but I haven't heard a word about that. Nobody said that they appreciate that. So that part is the reality is the economics are coming to bear. It's just the way things are in Rochester. And property taxes, insurance, everything else is not allowing us to continue on this path.

You know I imagine if I were you I'd be very discouraged at this point with the time and money that you put into that I think maybe I'm along the same route as the mayor and you know if you could sell the building to someone who'd be willing to take on those just in the paper tonight on North Broadway a woman who BUILDING, AN ART BUILDING, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO TAKE THAT ON. THIS IS VERY THORNY. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE DONE. I APPRECIATE THE PASSION OF THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S HARD TO HAVE A BUSINESS THAT SUPPORTS THESE RATS. I AGREE. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. IT'S HARD TO HAVE A BUSINESS THESE DAYS THAT CAN DO THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER.

Yeah, I have a question for staff, and I'm first going to read a section from the Secretary of the Interior Standards and then a section from the Landmark Designation Study, and then I have a question. So, standard number one says a property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. And then the quote I'm pulling from the landmark designation study, which stated 2019 but with 2024 updates, says of this block, of the early commercial development along Broadway and its cross streets, the highest concentration of extant buildings is located on the 300 block of Broadway Avenue South and on Third Street Southwest between Broadway and First Avenue South. architecturally this area is characterized by contiguous development along the blocks one and two-story masonry buildings with first-level storefronts flat roofs punched openings at upper levels and revival style details so is that block scale building form and the continuous low-rise street wall character defining under the 2022 guidelines or only on the the facades Thinking about flat roofs, I mean, obviously that's considering a characteristic beyond just the facade. So how would you interpret standard one with that quote from the designation study?

Yeah. Councilman Miller, are you asking if the addition would alter that characteristic?

Correct. Right? So looking at minimal change.

Sure.

How do you interpret that or help us understand that standard within this project?

Yep. So the minimal change to the distinctive to the distinctive. It's distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. So what are the distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships? I interpret that based on the eligibility study to be the facades of these buildings. That's where the distinctive I'll read it again the distinctive materials features spaces and spatial relationships exist and it's and that's why the last go-round I recommended denial because the addition was infringing on that in terms of its proximity to those facades by pushing them back further you are allowed to still as a as a viewer as somebody who's experiencing that space you're still experiencing them at that second at that two-story level when you're in the district okay so then i appreciate you bringing up the view shed so how did the analysis your analysis as staff

Contemplate the viewshed what points is it the entirety of the district? Where where are you kind of looking at that from and saying minimal change? Sure.

Yeah, so And then you've got an illustration on the screen right now that shows that you do see the tip of the plumber building from some vantage points How important is that to understand the history of the district and i think that's where my interpretation is that um being able to see that does not directly relate to um to the historic um significance at least not not to the weight of prohibiting this okay and then also looking back to the guidelines i was looking through the document it says the guidelines state character defining features

Must not be radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed. And so I'm curious about the word obscured, too, because it does feel like, depending on your vantage point, there is some obscuring of the spatial relation of the district.

Of the character-defining features?

But also it defines the environment as well, which I would assume goes to the spatial relationships between the buildings.

Sure. Yeah. I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S OBSCURING AND I USE THE EXAMPLE AT THE HPC MEETING. YOU HAVE SOME HISTORIC DISTRICTS WHERE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VIEW SHED IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT HISTORIC SITE. TAKE A BATTLEFIELD WHERE YOU SEE SOMETHING IN THE DISTANCE WHERE maybe some action was coming from that direction and it has a direct relationship to the historic significance of that property. I don't see this as being that case. I just don't. That's my opinion.

So then I have some questions for the applicant. So if the standard 10, which the HPC also found for denial, says that if the additional removed that the character defining features would be intact. So if for some reason this project, this addition were approved and then removed, what would remain of these buildings?

I think that it's Why all the emphasis was on the facades and the preservation and the setbacks. So all of that would be preserved. What's behind that would come down, but then it would be back in its original condition based on the historically significant facades, as was always articulated to us.

Okay. So on standard one, which again talks about minimal change, did you consider alternate addition heights between zero and seven stories of addition? And what were some of the alternatives?

I think we were at 14.

But lower, between like a two-story addition and a seven-story addition. Yes.

Yes, we did consider a lot of variations, but to make the project economically viable, you have to have a certain amount of space that's rentable to generate revenue and income to support the cost of, and then the ongoing maintenance. So we leveled out at seven with that number of units.

And so seven is the minimal change that your analysis makes the building economically viable. Correct. Okay.

Thank you. Council Member Doering.

I'm ready to make a motion.

Go ahead councilmember.

I move to deny the requested appeal and not overturn the denial of the certificate of appropriateness for an addition to the project at 309 through 317 Broadway Avenue Motion has been made by councilmember Doering.

Is there a second? I'll second that motion Go ahead.

My rationale. First, I want to thank the members of the public who came and spoke during public comment. I am also a fan of the businesses in these buildings. I just read a great book about national parks that I purchased from Diatem. I'm looking forward to reading A History of Mayo Clinic that my wife is reading, was also purchased at Diatem. Threshold Hearts is where I go to buy my Christmas gifts because I believe in supporting local artists. Art Heads, I wish I was good at visual arts. I'm a musician, so love going in that space, but it's really not for me. Cafe Steam, as a pastor of an open and affirming church and a fierce advocate and ally for the LGBTQIA plus community here in Rochester. When members of my congregation were looking for a safe place to hold a Bible study for teen youth in that population, Cafe Steam was my first recommendation. Tree Dome is a beloved business from my family. My son is a sneakerhead and likes thrift store shopping. Doesn't really work for me, but I loved going into Tree Dome with him as he was growing up so I could pat Phoebe on the head. Love the businesses. That being said, our task is to not make this decision based on the current business use. Therefore, I have been doing a lot of research and came across the document, the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for preserving rehabilitation, restoring and reconstructing historic buildings. This document is very lengthy, offers recommendations. On page 26, new exterior additions and related new construction. There must be a balance between differentiation and compatibility to maintain the historic character and the identity of the building being enlarged. I don't believe that our current proposal does that. Page 146 recommended designing new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent new construction that are compatible with the historic character of the setting that preserves the historic relationship between buildings and the landscape. Because I believe... An essential character of this historic district is the view of the Plummer Building and the Kaler sign. I believe that our current proposal does not meet that recommendation. Page 156, recommendation, ensuring that the addition is subordinate and secondary to the historic building and is compatible in massing scale materials relationship of solids to materials. solids to voids and color. What's not recommended in this document? Constructing a new addition that is as large or larger than the historic building, which visually overwhelms it. The results in the diminution or loss of its historic character. I believe this proposal takes the non-recommended route. Recommendation, page 156. Using the same... forms, materials, and color range of the historic building in a manner that does not duplicate it, but distinguishes the addition from the original building. Looking at the renderings provided by the applicant in the packet, It does not appear from the renderings provided that the same materials and at least colors aren't being used in the complete construction of this new addition. Recommendation page 156, ensuring that the addition is stylistically appropriate for the historic building type. If I look at the 309 building that has a big glass tower sticking out of the top of it, I believe that this proposal does not abide by that recommendation. Recommended, considering the design for a new addition in terms of its relationship to the historic building as well as the historic district, neighborhood, and setting, I believe contributing properties in the district itself will be diminished by the size and scope of this addition. Therefore, it doesn't abide by that recommendation. Designing an addition to a historic building in a densely built location, such as a downtown commercial district, to appear as a separate building or infill rather than as an addition. In such a setting, the addition structure must be compatible with the size and the scale of the historic building and surrounding buildings. usually the front elevation of the new building should be in the same plane not set back from the historic building this approach may also provide the opportunity for a larger addition or infill when the facade can be broken up into smaller elements that are consistent with the scale of the historic building and surrounding buildings i do not believe that the project in front of us follows that recommendation my main standard for voting to uphold the HPC's decision is standard 10, make it reversible. New additions, new construction should 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 be unimpaired. If you remove the back from a building, you are changing the structural integrity of the building. Therefore, I feel like this project does not live up to that standard. I really appreciate the work that our Community Development Department has done. Mr. Henderson, I appreciate your continued passion to do work here. I just don't think we are here yet to make me feel comfortable moving forward.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. AS THE SECONDER, I WILL SPEAK NEXT AND I WILL SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE HPC AND AGAIN, I ALSO WILL ECHO WHAT MY COLLEAGUE SAID IS I APPRECIATE MR. HENDERSON, YOU COMING BACK HERE WITH AN ALTERED VERSION, BUT I REALLY IT'S HARD TO SEE when you look at the building and it's the the alteration is supposed to be subordinate to either the historic building or subordinate in the historic district and And it's clearly a building we can see it is not subordinate to the district and and I have some concern with staff using a non-contributing building as the model to then say this building is subordinate to that building. We are in a place where colleagues where we have a historic district that was designated less than two and a half years ago and it's been tested by developers and it's also has some integrity to it, and we are also creating this certificate of appropriateness. I have some concern with staff not reaching out to the State Historic Preservation Office for their input on whether or not this was appropriate. This is appropriate. We are very nascent in the work of protecting 31 buildings in a very small part of our city. And we made that decision that we wanted to protect these buildings. And with that protection comes standards, and the need for business owners who were consulted as we went through this process on what those standards mean as far as whether something is appropriate. I really am most concerned with us opening the door to allowing what as I said, this council created to be diminished and wounded by the first of a thousand cuts here. And we also have, as a council and as a DMC, put financial commitments into building up this historic district with no interest loans, grants, and others to help really build the vitality that we all want to see in the district. And I just have to also say I am just overwhelmed by the over 40 patrons and Rochester residents who are creating vitality there. And they are creating that. And we need to be looking at preserving that. And I encourage you, Mr. Anderson, to encourage that vitality where it's at and look at those no interest loans and look at your historic buildings properties as historic properties. I look at this and I say this is a back door way or maybe even a back alley way of getting around the objectives of our historic district. And what you need to do is work with the communities there and see what you can do with the buildings you have or sell them because they are in our historic district. Council Member Wall.

Last night, my wife and I decided that we would eat downtown and then walk through the downtown so that we could really study the fronts of the buildings, look in the alleys. It's something that we think is valuable and we would like to preserve. I would like the best of both worlds. I would like a viable project that would protect and save those buildings. I worry that this might be the last best effort to actually save the facades and two-thirds of the buildings, that if Mr. Henderson needs to divest himself of those buildings, who will take that on and is willing to invest the amount of money that would actually bring the buildings to a continued safe operation with businesses that can afford the rent. It's so thorny. You know, you want to have it all. I appreciate the work that Mr. Henderson has done. The community lack of support has been overwhelming.

Mr. President. Over here. Mr. Spindler-Craig. Thank you. If I could interject, I was just trying to figure out the right time to push the issue a bit on the question of findings. There's more discussion to come, I think, but we really do need clarification perhaps from community development. whether they have heard enough from the motioners in this case to have clarity on what findings would support this particular motion. We really do need some amount of clarity in order for the body to deliberate on those specific proposed findings. So I would defer to Community Development to weigh in. Ms. Woodward.

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify, I know that Council Member Doering listed and kind of went through the guidelines that were identified in the Secretary of Interior Standards. The actual standards that we reviewed that were part of Heritage Preservation Commission are in the packet of those 10 numbers. So I just, and then I heard President Shubring mentioned being consistent with the Heritage Preservation Commission. So I wanted to make sure that we were clear on what those findings were.

Council Member Doering.

SO I FEEL LIKE MY MOTION STANDS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE STANDARD 10 IS NOT BEING MET.

THANK YOU.

CAN I ADD AND CLARIFY, MS. PETTERSON-LUNDGREN, I SPOKE TO THE SCALE AND SIZE OF THE ALTERATION. IS THAT STANDARD 9 OR IS THAT 10?

PART OF ME WHILE I LOOK. Yep, that is number nine.

So, Councilmember Doering, are you okay with adding also it's not in keeping with standard nine? Absolutely. Okay. Councilmember Miller.

Yeah, I would agree with that. I think standard 10 for me is just the crux of this. If the permanent demolition of part of the buildings and 309 largely in its entirety but for the facade is removed, its essential form has changed. And like, those aren't reversible steps for the buildings. And I think that that's the clearest place where I just can't understand how to apply standard 10 in a different way. I think similarly, standard one and nine that talk about minimal change, and the spatial relationships. Also, I cannot get my head around how a seven story edition is compatible in scale with a two story building. So those are my read of the HPC. I find it more difficult to apply to five and six, but I think one, nine and 10, I just, it seems quite clear to me that those findings do not fit the Secretary of the Interior standards.

Council Member Palmer.

So staff is recommending nine and ten, how did you justify nine and ten?

So with number nine, I'm indicating that the proposed project will not destroy the historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that provide the historic character to these properties along Broadway. That takes us back to what the eligibility study indicates, And it's referring to the facades of the buildings. And it's referring to them being directly adjacent to Broadway. And it's referring to them as being direct entry from Broadway, mixed uses. It doesn't... The project... has very little impact on four of those storefronts, on two of the buildings. The project has a little more impact on 309, but it maintains that facade. So you're still experiencing the character-defining features of the historic district.

How about number 10?

Number 10, let me just look at my notes here. Again, I think that it's the essential form and integrity of experiencing it within the historic district. One of the things that our certificate of appropriateness considers Is the exterior right? We don't review and we don't require certificate of appropriateness for alterations on the interior. So I think you start to have to define where does that? You know, where does that happen? You're still maintaining the exterior facade. And that that's why that's why I made that recommendation.

And you're comfortable making that recommendation?

I stand by what, yeah, by what I said.

And you're our historic preservation person on staff.

Yes.

Correct?

Yep, correct.

Can I follow up on Councilmember Palmer's questioning, Ms. Patterson-Longren? Yes, you are our Historic Preservation Specialist on staff. Can you talk to us about why the State Historic Preservation Office was not contacted and asked to weigh in on this alteration?

Absolutely. Yeah, that is not part of our process. It's not part of our adopted process. There's no requirements for it. And it's not something that we typically do for a certificate of appropriateness. So it's not typical and it's not required.

But you do it for other historic preservation projects, don't you?

No, not for certificates of appropriateness. When we are looking at designation, then we are required to reach out to them and get their opinion. That's by state statute and by our UDC. We're not required and we don't typically follow that as a procedure for a certificate of appropriateness.

When a building owner wants to demolish a building, is SHPO contacted?

So when a building owner wants to demolish a building, they have to come before the city council and ask for the designation to be removed. Community Development will not issue a building demolition permit unless you remove the designation from it. We are not required by statute to approach the State Preservation Office for removal of properties from, for removal of the designation.

But you have in the past, correct?

I don't believe we have.

The demolition of the Lord's High School, I do know that Schiphol was, there was a letter from Schiphol speaking against that.

We specifically didn't reach out to them. It could have also been the applicant at the time that requested that from SHPO.

Are there any other council members wishing to be heard on this item?

Can I follow up my question?

Yeah, absolutely. Go ahead, Council Member Palmer.

Are the buildings landmarked or is it the district that's landmarked?

The district is landmarked. We landmarked the historic district. That is the property that is landmarked. The buildings, these three buildings contribute to the historic district and to the landmark, but it is the district that is landmarked.

I'll call the question.

Can you hold on to calling the question?

You can call the question. I hadn't spoke yet.

Okay. Go ahead, Council Member Keene.

I mean, in this discussion that I'm following, there is this, we're in quasi-judicial, and we have these criteria we have to use. It seems reasonable that differing people cannot take the criteria and say it's met or not met. I think that can happen with these things. I am still trying to, like... take this whole thing in with the public hearing as far as more of the powerful part of the public hearing and the emotion, but also the idea of like the support for these avant-garde communities and what they need and what they're owed from us. But I can't find any of that in the criteria that I'm dealing with. And I'm worried that we're working to get there. And I'm fighting that impulse. Councilmember Wall talks about the knotty issues with historic preservation. We as an owner of the Chateau are fighting with the same thing. How do we maintain that building viably and have it just be used as a community place? for whatever reason, it's not working out. I'm sitting here right now knowing that we went through one of these reviews for demolition and another review for another building type that we could not accept because the experts were looking at it and going like it does not support the integrity of it. I actually do have much more of a facade view of what the historic district is, that you experience it as you're walking around. I'm kind of thrown off that someone says, no, when I go over to the corner of 4th Avenue and this, I can't see something. I had no concept that that was part of the historic district, that you can't block anything, or that you could put a drone up and say, ooh, you're changing the roofs. I just didn't think that was part of what we were protecting I thought I really did think it was the streetscape and what our staff talks about of these setbacks from there so as the as the motion is made here now I don't think I'm not going to support it I think we have a we have this back and forth going on with what we did a historic preservation policy which you know I don't need to say this but I will that I didn't support at the time but it is the law of the land and I'm going to enforce it for for where for how we're going to use it in this historic district but we have gone back and forth with this problem of how do you make these buildings viable versus how do you keep them historic uh and it is a struggle um i i struggle with the idea of what does it mean to be economically viable i don't want to say well you could have made 10 more dollars a foot if you'd have done this does that something we have to do now and i don't think that's upon us but i think it is a worry that and we've struggled with this through dmc and through other areas to say how do we help make these better and this is a case where the building owners are coming and saying we can protect the We can do the setbacks that you talked about. We can do this height because it's really not noticeable from this. So based on those things, then what I thought a historic district was for, both contributing and non contributing, it makes it difficult for me to support this motion.

Thank you, Councilmember. So we are voting on the motion to support the findings of the HPC. And Clerk Caso, please call the roll.

Councilmember Keene.

Nay.

Councilmember Miller.

Aye.

Councilmember Wall.

Nay.

Council Member Fredericks. Nay. Council Member Palmer.

Nay.

Council Member Doering. Aye. Council President Schubring.

Aye.

Motion fails.

May I make a motion? Go ahead, Council Member.

I'll make a motion approving the requested appeal and overturning the denial of the certificate of appropriateness for an addition to the project at 309 to 317 Broadway Avenue.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Motion made by Council Member Palmer and seconded by Council Member Fredericks. Any more to add, Council Member? Any further discussion, Council Member? President, again, I'll jump in earlier this time.

Are there findings? I want to clarify with the move-ins what findings are being referenced. Are there findings that you are...

The ones provided by the staff.

in the staff report in the packet?

That is correct.

Any additional clarification needed by community development?

No, we don't need anything additional, thank you.

Council Member Wall.

Just so hard. If we were to move ahead, it would be with my certain hope that we would be working with the businesses, that that really was the crux of what so much of the testimony was about tonight and the community that is so important to Rochester. So that would be a proviso for me.

Council Member Fredericks.

Irene and Molly, thank you for helping us navigate some really difficult waters and helping us see this for what it is and what you're telling us it is. I appreciate it. These are not easy decisions.

Clerk Caso, please call the roll.

Council Member Keene.

Aye.

Councilmember Miller.

Nay.

Councilmember Wall.

Aye.

Councilmember Fredericks. Aye. Councilmember Palmer.

Aye.

Councilmember Doering.

Nay.

Council President Schubring.

Nay.

Motion passes four to three.

Thank you everyone for being here. And for your testimony, we all appreciated it, and we hope to see you again. We are going to move on now to item G2, which is the 2026 Transit Program of Projects, Federal Transit Administration. Ms. Rachel Faust.

And you can hold for a minute, if you like, as people leave.

Please exit if you're not staying for the meeting.

Go ahead. There's no presentation.

GO AHEAD, MS. PAUCH. GO AHEAD, MS. PAUCH.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS. COUNCIL MEMBERS. THIS IS THE 2026 ANNUAL PROGRAM THIS IS THE 2026 ANNUAL PROGRAM OF PROJECTS OR SOMETIMES OF PROJECTS OR SOMETIMES AFFECTIONALLY CALLED THE AFFECTIONALLY CALLED THE POP TO RECEIVE OUR FEDERAL POP TO RECEIVE OUR FEDERAL FUNDS WHICH INCLUDE OPERATION AND FUNDS WHICH INCLUDE OPERATION AND CAPITAL PROJECT DOLLARS. CAPITAL PROJECT DOLLARS. THIS YEAR IT'S JUST OPERATIONS So these funds are federal apportionments that are distributed based on an equation. And that equation includes population and population density. And so those are often referred to as formula funds. So if you hear us discussing formula funds or 5307 funds, these are the same. They have many names, but the same dollar amount because it's an equation. The POP is a compliance checkpoint for FTA. It's an opportunity for FTA to verify that the formula funds are being used for eligible and appropriately scoped projects. It's also an opportunity for public engagement in terms of our federal funding opportunities. The projects listed are found in the State Transportation Improvement Plan, or the STIP, and they are funneled through ROCOG, and I can throw in a bunch more acronyms as we go. So they're in the STIP and the TIP, federally and statewide. So you'll note that in the public notice, the transit development plan was listed as one of the funding projects. However, that is included under VIA's contract. So that is a value add and that is being services being provided to the city at no cost to our contract so that those funds have been rolled back into the operational dollars for that grant. I wanted to point out that in there very loud It says local match and that local match includes our our local dollars from Rochester from our revenue and our advertising dollars But additionally it includes our state funding dollars as well so when it says local that includes both of those because it's a federal and So we're still on the hook for 15% total of that if we were to spend all of those dollars. And I think that's a really important designation there. We don't have to spend all of the dollars. We can roll those over. You saw those kind of listed out within the public notice as well. And so the program of projects includes current known projects. And again, that's just operations for this year. It doesn't include competitive grant opportunities. So things like the LinkBRT grants that we received or even the North Broadway grant are not, they won't be listed within here because these are just our federal funding dollars. So we're requesting approval of our annual program of projects.

Thank you, Ms. Fouch. And this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Anybody wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Anybody wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and invite you back up. Are there questions from Council Member Keene?

Yeah, just on that. This is the thing I had the federal and then local state is ripped up in there. Is the state funding a percentage? Is it the same like formula for federal is like 70% in state is 10 or is it very different?

It can vary. And so a few council meetings ago, we approved the state funding. And so that is more of a state-driven dollar amount. So it's not a formula.

So they're not coordinated together.

They're neighbors, but they're not utilizing the same formula.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any further discussion? Is there a motion on this item? No.

I'll make a motion adopting a resolution authorizing the filing of the 2026 transit program projects and subsequent submission of grant applications and execution of grants.

Second. A motion made by Councilmember Fredericks and seconded by Councilmember Keene. Any further discussion, Councilmember Fredericks?

Thank you, Rachel.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. THANKS, RACHEL. NEXT UP WE HAVE ITEM G3 WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY UCI TOWER. MR. DESMOND MCGILL.

YES. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT SHUBERING.

THANK YOU, MR. MCGILL FOR STAYING LATER THAN YOU USUALLY HAVE TO.

YOU'RE WELCOME. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I'LL BE BRINGING YOU THIS INTRODUCTION. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FREE STANDING COMMERCIAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY. IT CONSISTS OF 125-FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT AND LOCATED IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AT 1811 7TH STREET NORTHWEST. The subject site is at the John Hardy's restaurant location situated north and west of the interchange of Highway 14 and Highway 52. The applicant, UCI, is looking to construct this monopole for a service provider with the co-location space for two additional providers. for companies wishing to serve this area. The applicant looks to establish a 25 by 35 lease area site on the south side of the restaurant. The leasing site is generally concealed by large structures located to the north, west, south, and southeast. To approve this facility, UDC requires that no existing viable monopole structure or other structure be available to co-locate on within a half mile. This proposed facility meets that criteria. A freestanding monopole up to 75 feet is a permitted use in the light industrial zoning district. However, through a council approved CUP, up to 50 additional feet of height may be requested and approved. Um, the 125 feet height for this structure is requested to maintain adequate service and reception in the central portion of the city. Um, this structure will serve as a replacement facility for an existing 180 foot high, uh, TALL TOWER LOCATED 100 FEET EAST OF THIS SITE AT THE JOHN MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL. THIS FACILITY WILL LIKELY ELIMINATE FUTURE NEED FOR OTHER MONOPOLES IN THIS IMMEDIATE VACINITY. SUBJECT APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, ANY FUTURE MONOPOLE WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THIS SITE WOULD NEED TO DEMONSTRATE WHY THIS PARTICULAR SITE WOULD NOT MEET THEIR NEEDS. SHOULD ALL THREE OF THIS COLOCATING AREAS ON THIS POLE BE USED, THE UDC DOES ALSO REQUIRE THAT ANY OTHER MONOPOLE THAT COULD BE LOCATED IN THIS GENERAL AREA BE NO CLOSER THAN 1,000 FEET AWAY. AT THEIR JULY 22 MEETING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS BY UNANIMOUS 7-0 VOTE. AND THAT'S MY PRESENTATION. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

Thank you, Mr. McGill. Is there an applicant for this item? Please step forward, state your name, and you have up to 10 minutes, but you don't have to use them all.

My name is Matt Coonert. I represent UCI. I would say the same thing that I said at the Planning Commission is the staff report is very complete. I'm happy to reiterate anything, or if you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer those as well.

We will invite you back after the public hearing and see if my colleagues have any questions for you. You can sit down now. Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and invite the applicant back up for any closing comments.

Does anybody have any questions for me?

Does anybody have any questions? I do. Council Member Palmer.

Is the one at John Marshall then getting torn down? The lease has been terminated. It will be coming down at some point is what we've been told. Soon? This is a pretty complicated project that's going on right now. There's a lot of things that are going on that are just sort of... gray areas and everybody's a little bit in the weeds. Right now, there is no viable alternate solution. That's what this is.

So once this tower is done and completed, is the other tower coming down?

That's my understanding, yes. It's not ours to take down. We just know the circumstances of it.

Okay. Any further questions on this? Is there a motion on this item?

I'll move to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit CD 2026-011 CUP by UCI Tower for the construction of a wireless communications facility consisting of a 125-foot monopole tower and ancillary equipment in a L1 zoning district. Second.

MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER KEENE AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FREDERICKS. YOU CAN SIT DOWN, SIR. ANY FURTHER INFORMATION TO SHARE? NO. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED SAY NAY. NAY. MOTION PASSES 6-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER PALMER VOTING NAY. Thank you. We will now move on to G4, which is our 2027 Master Fee Schedule, Mr. Aaron Parrish.

Actually, I can take that one, Mr. President, if that's all right.

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

Thank you, Council President, Council Members, Mayor Norton, Administrator Zelms. As part of the budget process before you tonight is the 2027 Master Fees Schedule. Some of the salient components of this year's schedule, 32 fees have been removed, seven fees have been added in the Community Development Building Division, some of which were transferred from their housing code update. And then there were some fire-related changes FEES IMPLEMENTED FOR NON-EMERGENCY, NON-MISSION CRITICAL SERVICES BASED ON THE MOST RECENT CURRENT FEMA EQUIPMENT RATES, WHICH IS A SIMILAR METHODOLOGY THAT WE USE FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS THAT'S CURRENTLY WITHIN THE FEE SCHEDULE AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, YOU SEE A CLEAN VERSION. YOU HAVE A RED LINE VERSION THAT SHOWS THE CHANGES. AND WITH THAT, ME AND MY COLLEAGUES CAN STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MR. ANDERSON. WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to be heard on this item? Is there anyone wishing to be heard on this item? Anyone wishing to be heard on this item? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Are there questions from council members to staff? Seeing no questions, is there a motion on this item?

Yes, I'll make a motion approving an ordinance establishing the 2027 master schedule directing the city attorney office to prepare an ordinance for the first reading on September 21, 2026.

Motion made by Council Member Fredericks. Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Council Member Wall. Any further... To add, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. Moving on to our reports and recommendations. H1 is wood debris management operations update. This is an item that was vetoed by Mayor Norton. The veto automatically places the item back on the next agenda for consideration. To override a veto, the item must pass with a supermajority of the body members. VOTING AYE, FIVE, REGARDLESS OF QUORUM. THE ITEM MAY ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS IT WAS PASSED. NO AMENDMENTS MAY BE MADE. MAYOR NORTON.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. So as I mentioned in my veto note, I support this project. I think it belongs in the 2027 budget. One of my hesitations with this, and one of the things I shared at the last meeting, and maybe not as well as I should have, I view contingencies as for unexpected items that come at the end of the year. We are very close to the end of that year. We in fact are in the next month going to be discussing the next budget and it seems to me this would be an appropriate discussion for that in the first place. Secondly, I think when an item comes forward like this, and it's happened several other times since I've been mayor, it disallows a council to be able to think about its priorities and the things it may want to spend that contingency on, as opposed to a single item that is brought forward kind of out of the blue. And so for me We have had at least two items in the last month that I would have loved a discussion about should the contingency be spent on this Hate to get into the controversy of Elton Hills Drive But one of the questions was asked could we put in protected bike lanes and we were told well that'll cost $150,000 and that's not part of our budget or whatever whatever amounts the item that's going to come up later this actually the next item is another item where with extra funding we could have considered alternative routes for a bike path there are multiple things that this board cares about and when we have an item like this it gets approved if you determine that a contingency shouldn't just be held for emergency. It should be the items that you select should be part of a larger picture and not just a single item brought forward. That is my belief. So I was very uncomfortable to have an item brought forward that wasn't an emergency that in my going over and talking to all the neighbors that have moved into the home said we don't hear any noise from Hathaway. It's not an issue. And I had been led to believe or at least that was What I heard is that it was loud and we would have to, you know, one of the reasons we want to do this is to tamp down noise. The neighbors said that the construction noise of the homes being built around them was a far bigger issue than anything that they had heard. And these are literally the next, there's trees and the next thing beyond those trees is Hathaway. And they said they don't hear anything from there. So as I... As I went home after the last meeting with only two items on the agenda and two items that had a lot of controversy and a council member missing, it was my determination that we bring this back and have the full board vote, again, for the reasons that I listed.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll speak to it. I agree with you, Mayor, when it comes to the contingency fund that best practices are to have both staff and council members to feel they can come forward with projects to use the contingency funds. I do, however, look at the contingency fund as something that gives our staff the flexibility to use not just in an emergency, but when situations change, when there is a new direction that a project may come before us. And I think I definitely support this project. I think I heard you say you also support the goals of this project. So I agree that best practices are not to use the contingency fund, but we do have a contingency fund, and it is tied to the project. IT'S LATE.

DO YOU WANT ME TO CLARIFY HOW THE CONTINGENCY IS BUILT INTO THE BUDGET? SO ANNUALLY YOUR EXISTING LEVY CARRIES A MILLION DOLLARS EACH YEAR AND MULTIPLE TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR SOMETIMES STAFF WILL COME FORWARD WITH SOMETHING BASED ON THINGS THEY'VE HEARD FROM COUNCIL. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS, PERHAPS LONGER, AND SO AS THAT, THE DYNAMICS HAVE CHANGED THROUGHOUT HOW WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT WHERE THE PROJECT MIGHT GO, WHERE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MOVE THE COMMERCIAL SITE FARTHER AWAY FROM DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ACTIVELY HAPPENING THERE. THIS IS HOW IT HAS DEVELOPED OVER TIME. OVER TIME. THERE'S BEEN EMERGING CHANGES IN THERE'S BEEN EMERGING CHANGES IN WHERE AND HOW THAT COULD GO. WHERE AND HOW THAT COULD GO. THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE THAT YOU THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD EITHER NEED TO ADD $350,000, WOULD EITHER NEED TO ADD $350,000, MAYBE MORE, DEPENDING ON THE MAYBE MORE, DEPENDING ON THE TIMING OF THIS PROJECT. TIMING OF THIS PROJECT. OFTENTIMES THE COSTS OF THEM GO OFTENTIMES THE COSTS OF THEM GO UP TO YOUR 2027 LEVY OR FIND A UP TO YOUR 2027 LEVY OR FIND A PATHWAY TO AGREEMENT OF FOUR OR PATHWAY TO AGREEMENT OF FOUR OR F THE CONTINGENCY SERVES AS YOU HAVE STATED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING ITEMS FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE TYPICALLY DON'T BRING THOSE FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING BEEN WORKING ON THEM AND YOU STILL AT THE END OF THE YEAR IF THE CONTINGENCY ISN'T UTILIZED WHATEVER IS REMAINING GOES TOWARDS THE 42% RESERVE AND THAT 42% RESERVE FROM A GOVERNMENTAL FINANCE OFFICER'S ACCOUNTING STANDARD AND FROM A STATE STANDARD IS WHERE IT STILL PROVIDES YOU THAT BUFFER FOR ANY TYPE OF VERY EMERGENT ISSUE COMING FORWARD, A PANDEMIC. A FINANCIAL RECESSION, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO THE ACTUAL EMERGENCY RESERVE IS YOUR GENERAL FUND RESERVE.

THANK YOU, ADMINISTRATOR ZAMS, FOR CLARIFYING WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WALL.

AND I MIGHT SAY IT JUST IN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WAY, ALTHOUGH I THINK MR. SCHUBERING WAS GOING DOWN THAT ROAD. MY UNDERSTANDING OF CONTINGENCY IS NOT ALWAYS EMERGENCY. AND I THINK THIS IS A CHANGE ORDER WHEN WE USE CONTINGENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. IT'S TO COVER CHANGE ORDERS OR THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAD PLANNED. SO I'M NOT UNHAPPY USING THAT 350 RATHER THAN ADDING 350. THE ONLY ADDITIONAL THING I WOULD SAY IS WE AS A CITY HAVE INVESTED MONEY IN THAT PARTICULAR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THROUGH OUR SALES TAX MONEY AND I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SUPPORT THAT.

ANYONE ELSE WANTING TO BE HERE? COUNCILMEMBER KEEN. I'M JUST GOING TO PUT IT AT THE MOMENT.

I THINK WE HAVE TO, I MEAN, OUR ONLY ACTION IS TO PUT THE EXACT SAME MOTION. EXACTLY. OKAY. SO ADOPTING A TWO-PART RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF RELOCATION OF COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS AND AUTHORIZING PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY SUPPORT TO THE FUNDING REQUEST OF $350,000 IN CONTINGENCY FUNDS FOR THE COST ASSOCIATED.

MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER KEENE AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FREDERICKS. ANY MORE TO ADD? COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER?

I'LL JUST STAY FOR THE RECORD. MY POSITION HASN'T CHANGED SINCE THE LAST TIME THIS CAME UP. MY GRIPE WITH THE WAY THIS HAS COME IS THAT IT WAS A COUNCIL with no identified funding source or cost and then the first time it comes to the open meeting to our discussion is a recommendation of a funding source not a consideration of possible funding sources with a recommendation to use contingency and then this doesn't allow us to compare alternative projects in the 2027 budget so I don't plan to support this as I did in the first time but I understand welcome to our last meeting councilmember Wall get to re-litigate both items.

Council Member Fredericks. Did you have a...

I'm good.

You were moving your pen. It looked like you wanted to be recognized. If I were an auctioneer, you would have bought everything.

I do.

Council Member Doran, go ahead.

I'm also going to remain consistent and not support the motion. Our Council Member Miller very well expressed both last time and this time his rationale, and I agree with his rationale. So I will not be supporting the motion.

councilmember Palmer I haven't decided how I'm gonna vote because I it's an it's not an unexpected expense and this is something we can budget for next year I really have a problem with us not not waiting till emergencies or something that's unexpected One of my examples would be Cook Park Pickleball. That was something that came up last year. We used contingency funds for that. That came up unexpectedly, and hopefully this next week it's going to be open. It would not have happened if we didn't use contingency funds. This would probably happen next January in our budget, and so... We'll wait until roll call, I guess.

It sounds like Mr. Yetzer may be able to clarify how this became an emergent issue.

Yeah, thanks, Council President Shubring, members of the Council, Mayor. I do want to clarify that. I appreciate the opportunity. The reason why we're saying it's unexpected, certainly the project, as Administrator Zelms pointed out, has been in conversation for some time. The change that was unexpected outside of the budget process is previously we had been working towards a partnership with the county utilizing their site where we did not think that we would be bearing this much cost. And so that's what has changed about the project since we had been talking about it over the years. So that's the reason for the ask.

Clerk Caso, please call the roll.

Council Member Keene.

Aye.

Council Member Miller.

Nay.

Council Member Wall.

Aye.

Council Member Fredericks. Aye. Council Member Palmer.

Aye.

Council Member Doering.

Nay.

Council President Schubring.

Aye.

Motion passes five to two.

Our next item is H2, which is the Willow Creek Regional Trail Feasibility Study and Professional Services Agreement for Final Design. This item also was vetoed by Mayor Norton from our last meeting. As she mentioned, it was our only two items. And as I said before, it automatically places it on our agenda. And to override, we must pass with five. and the item may only be considered as it was passed. No amendments may be made. Mayor Norton.

Thank you. This was the second of a very difficult discussion that we had at the last meeting and this is one I had been involved with prior and I shared some of this at the last meeting as well. I had, the family had been here before when this item was brought forward. We moved ahead and did some testing on their property that they did not want to have but we did it anyway. I worked with Dylan in particular, met with the family and they shared their concern about not wanting their property bifurcated with a trail and could we please find alternatives. And again, this is where we have to make choices as a council about how we decide to spend our money. I do support and have supported putting a trail out to connect Willow Creek and out further in the past. This has been talked about for as long as I can remember. And I do support that concept, but I do not support a condemnation process and moving a trail, putting a recreational trail on someone's personal property. They live out in the country for a reason. They purchased a homestead out there. They have a pond and land and they love their life and they don't want a trail through the center of it. And so I was frustrated in that we did have an alternative brought forward that was not seriously considered, at least it wasn't, it didn't appear to be seriously considered as an alternative because of the cost. And again, we have contingency funding for unexpected delays. And we had a discussion at the time about going out for potential grants or finding other funding or approaching the county or township or whatever. There were other discussions that came up at the meeting. I have since talked to some of our legislators who would be interested in helping us if we need a deferral on a timeline. They would be interested in going back and asking for an increased amount based on what we have found, which is it will cost another million plus four, I think, 1.4. 1.3, that they would entertain the idea of talking about bringing forward and asking for additional funds at the state level. And in fact, one of them said that's not become all that unusual because the costs have gone up so much on so many projects that that would be a reasonable request. So, I am not interested in, personally, I have cannot sleep over the idea that we would be taking, doing something to property owners that truly don't want it and have asked us not to do it and if there were no other alternatives or if it was along the board of a property it would be one thing but neither of those are true. We have other alternatives and perhaps there are even more we haven't thought of. It would be my preference and the reason I vetoed it is because I want us to find those and not go through condemnation and put a trail through someone's personal property.

Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Miller.

Yes, I emailed staff some questions in advance of this and just want to get those on the record. So just if the veto were overturned, what council approvals would remain before the city acquired any property interest and is eminent domain action proposed or authorized by this vote?

Mr. Dombrowski.

Good evening, Mayor, President, members of the council. This vote would just identify the trail alignment that future action would need to occur with the council to initiate property acquisition. At that point, you do identify the potential for the use of a 90-day quick take. If it got to the point where we couldn't agree with different property owners and needed to go to court, there would be an additional action the council would need to take to file in the district court for a condemnation proceeding.

So my second question is, how common is this process, what was passed at our last meeting in trail efforts in, for example, the Chester Woods Trail Extension, how common is this process on our trail network as a whole? Or has it been historically?

The most recent project we completed would have been the Chester Woods extension from Eastwood Golf Course out to 50th Avenue Southeast. That is a similar path. Overland goes through different properties. We worked with the property owners along that project. Part of the, when we get to acquisition process, if we have an alignment, part of that process in acquiring land, easements in this case, is there's negotiation. It could be, you're taking two of my trees, I want two more trees planted as part of the project. Everything's up for negotiation at that point as we move into that process.

So related to Mayor Norton's statement about where this parcel is located, could you talk about the bonding dollars that were authorized with the state legislature for sewer expansion in southeast Rochester and how that impacts city growth and development? in the broader southeast region of town?

Well, generally speaking, you have this area, the shops on Main Area and the subdivisions that are south of Highway 52. The highway acts as a barrier to people who cannot drive, choose not to drive, cannot afford to drive. This path, the goal is obviously to provide access both people they're getting say into downtown and vice versa to access whether it's recreating, getting to the future sports complex. Game Haven Park is what the bonding money was approved for. There's a very clearly identified corridor that we're working within, and there's only one place to cross the highway that's safe, and as the city engineer, I know these aren't always easy decisions, but we need to bring back the most feasible option. We looked at county one. We would have to reconstruct the entire county, the ditches, provide an urban section, the length of that corridor going all the way out, traveling up the hill to the roundabout, Back over on another county road. It just is priced us out of that as an alternative You can't go down Broadway. It's 65 miles per hour as you pass highway 52 and having to try to navigate a maze of signals and the exit ramps, on ramps with the two highways at that interchange. So really it's looking at two ways to go along the creek that we presented in the feasibility study. We did also during early stage of the study look at going east of the Loomis property. There's about 90 feet of elevation difference. So created challenges in being able to even make the ADA grades work where we were having to carve out these 25 foot cuts and sort of this cavern you'd be walking and biking through just to make the grades work and tremendous amount of earthwork and cost. So, ruled that out and we're left with these two that were presented in the feasibility report. We're going to present to you the most feasible option, with the funding we have was the one we recommended.

And in addition to the difference in construction costs of the two alternatives, what would other cost differences be in design work and ongoing maintenance work of the two alternatives?

So the current design proposal was for the recommended alternative. If the council chooses to go a different direction, we will need to get an updated proposal from our consultant, Alliant Engineering. Then there's the ongoing maintenance costs. Talking with our parks teammates and thinking about winter maintenance and just replacement of a boardwalk. Those numbers we're looking at ten to fifteen thousand dollars annually Let's say we need to replace the boardwalk 30 to 40 years from now Just using inflation. We're looking at a couple million dollars in the future as compared to just a paved bituminous path, ongoing crack ceiling, and just different preservation plus the plowing in the wintertime. That's more in the $1,000 annually comparison.

You said the elevated section would have a 30 to 40 year useful life. What is the useful life of a paved section?

I mean, we would try similar to our roadways to get 50 years out of that with the ongoing preservation work like we do with our roadways.

And what would the replacement cost of that be 50, 60 years from now?

I don't have that number right in front of me, but it's not going to be $2 million. Okay.

I've got a question on kind of the... So... You and your team did due diligence to look at several options, numerous options, is that correct?

Correct.

And so you came up with the two here, and can you talk about from a kind of view shed or screening the differences between the two with... There is the one that goes through the property owner's property and then there's the one that's on the edge of the property. As far as the ability to screen that for the neighboring properties owners.

Well, I mean, like I said, when we're going through acquisition and negotiating what the project looks like, like on the Chester Woods extension, all of the properties we were bisecting along that corridor, we added a fence along each side of the path. We worked with those that need to get farm equipment in and out to increase the pavement depth in certain locations. We provided gates in certain areas, worked with the property owners So, you know, with this project, for example, we could talk about potentially a fence that provides more of a screening benefit than just a barrier. But between the two, I mean, you're in the woods, Council President, so there's going to be trees that provide some of that screening just with the natural corridor that we're looking at with either of these two alternatives.

Thank you. Council Member Doering.

I just have a point of inquiry for our council chair. I know a member of the public wanted to speak about this bike path during public comment. I think there was some miscommunication where that person was invited to have a seat because there was an assumption they were going to talk about G1. I'm wondering if it's appropriate to invite that particular member of the public who has sat here now for four and a half hours or three and a half hours. Council member

Are you proposing that we suspend the rules and allow one member of the public who wanted to speak on this item during open comment period and somehow got steered, probably by me, to the G1? Yes, that's what I'm proposing. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES FOR ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK. THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER DORING AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PALMER. WE DO NEED FIVE TO DO THIS. FIVE TO DO THIS. ANYONE NEED TO SPEAK TO IT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

POST SAY NAY. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SO WITH THAT WE CAN INVITE Yes, I remember your name. Girlsberger. Come up and you have two minutes to speak. You can have someone come up and help you.

Thank you.

This is my first council meeting, so I thought

Yes, and we discussed that, and I really appreciate my colleague bringing that up. So go ahead.

Did this get provided to you?

We have seen that, yes.

You've seen the alternative routes?

Absolutely.

It is already placed in public. domain already to get you over to Whistlebinkies, the school. I drew this out. Michelle doesn't know what I drew. She just kind of saw it. I'm here for moral support. So we showed alternative routes that were never, ever looked at. Due diligence was not done by the city engineer to make sure he was spending our money, my money too, the appropriate way. He just wants to get as fast as he can to this new complex. They're bypassing the school. Everything that they say that they want to do with this project so that the people can use this path to get to the other side of 52. I understand it, to be honest. But they do not need to come across my property in that pond. They've got so many alternatives.

Thank you, Mr. Loomis. Because Ms. Goldsberger has, this is her time.

We just wanted to know, Jesse wanted to know why they didn't go for the west side.

That is the west side.

That is the west side, okay. And then plus, when you're talking about somebody's land, If you want to get it, how come no one's ever said how much money that they could receive for the land? Like are we talking, you know, because some of the parts of the city and they're out in the country, they go by the feet. And so, you know, maybe you want to give Pat $2 million. I mean, I don't know what's in your budget. Maybe that's a big number, but I know the town is changing. all the time, and they're selling the land by the foot. So maybe if you, because how come no number has been said?

We'll address that after you're done speaking. We'll ask our staff that.

And I know the Loomises have been there for over 50 years, so it's generational, and they've built up things for their grandkids to be out there in the pond. all those things, and I was just here to support, because I know if you guys all had land out there, you'd want to keep it to yourself, too.

Thank you. We appreciate it. We appreciate you staying. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Dombrowski, can you speak to compensation to where that fits into the process?

Sure. So the council hasn't authorized us to proceed with any sort of... land acquisition, once that would happen, if it happened, that is when we need to hire an appraiser, establish a valuation. There's a process on when we make an offer, then the property owners can do their own independent appraisal, get reimbursed up to a certain amount for that appraisal. It's all part of the negotiation process that we need to follow during acquisition procedures.

Council Member Fredericks.

Mr. Dombrowski, this is a fun one, but I've had about a week to think about this. After you brought up the fence through the one that you're using to connect to Chester Woods, the construction easement to go through there, yeah, we put up a fence and that sounds good, but there's trees laying on about every other section of that fence currently. It's solid parsnip, it's solid buckthorn, and it's solid box elders, all three non-desirables. It's almost impossible to mitigate that issue now that that fence is there. You go spray in, you're hitting everything, and now it's just a mess. I use that trail weekly, multiple times. It's a great trail, but don't go off the trail. You're going to itch or break out in boils. It's nuts. So it sounds good to put up a fence, but then how are you going to maintain that after it? When there's nothing there, you can actually maintain the side in that construction easement and take care of it. I don't know if that fence keeps anybody out or in anyway, but... That's my opinion and I witness it and it's just another thing.

Any further discussion on this item? Councilmember Palmer.

Yeah, I voted against doing this, and I will not support overwriting the veto on this. I think condemning the land is wrong. There is an alternative to it, and we need to do that. I'm all in favor of the trail. I think the trail is fantastic. Go out to Game Haven Park. We've planned for it for a long period of time, but I think the segment 1C, alternate two, is doable, and I think that's what we need to be doing and focus on that. I think going to court sounds great. It's going to cost a lot of money, take some more time than we really want to take.

Council Member Fredericks.

I believe the taking of land by government entities is for basically safety or emergency purposes only. And I don't see this as either. I don't see this as either. And I think we should reserve that right just for must situations. This isn't a must. So I'll stand by my vote is same as last week as well.

Council Member Wall.

Mr. Dabrowski, is there a much farther west route that's been suggested here tonight?

I don't have that in front of me, but I'm guessing it might be what was shared after the first open house and trying to get to the Whistle Binkies Woodlake Business Park area and work your way along the public streets.

Mm-hmm.

which is challenging with the floodway that we still need to navigate and have to construct boardwalks and then I'm not certain where we're going to acquire the space to get through that industrial area. Those are all platted lots. So we're going through the same conversation and impacting a business potentially. We're gonna have similar conversations if that's the direction the council wants us to go and we can if that's the case.

Mayor Norton.

Thank you. I'm having trouble with my microphone. I did just want to say I struggle a little bit with the conversation about the extra upkeep on the wood options because it is actually the option that we chose to do out at Game Haven. So it is we do have a history of choosing that option. So I'll just say I don't I don't think that holds water with what we're doing. But I am asking for you to uphold the veto. I am asking that we find an alternative route, whether that's the one we were just talking about or another way. I do not think it is fair to take someone's property against their will when there are other options, and there are other options.

I saw you move your microphone, so I didn't know if you wanted to speak. Council Member Keene, go ahead.