members of the committee are expected to attend in …

Heritage Preservation Commission City Hall

Council Chambers

Regular Meeting July 27, 2021 05:00 PM

. PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN IN-PERSON MEETING AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE EXPECTED TO ATTEND IN PERSON, UNLESS MEDICALLY UNABLE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE THE OPTION TO CALL IN TO PARTICIPATE +1 347-352-4853 PHONE CONFERENCE ID: 768 760 243# OR REQUEST A MEETING INVITATION LINK BY CONTACTING [email protected]

. ACCESS TO CITY HALL AFTER 5:15PM WILL BE AVAILABLE ONLY VIA THE ROTUNDA DOORS.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. SET AGENDA

3. APPROVE MINUTES

3.1. June 22, 2021 Meeting Minutes-Draft

4. PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY

This is an opportunity for the public to provide comments to the Commission regarding items not on the agenda. The public has up to four minutes to provide comments. The Commission will not discuss or take action on them.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.A. None

6. NEW BUSINESS

6.A. Challenged Property – Trinity Lutheran Church

6.A.1. Trinity Church

7. OLD BUSINESS

7.A. Red Owl & Time Theater

7.A.1. Red Owl

Heritage Preservation Commission Agenda Tuesday, July 27, 2021 of 2

8. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS

8.A. Challenged Property – Zumbro Lutheran Church

8.B. Challendged Property-Christ United Methodist Church

8.C. Request from Mayor’s office for update/verification of contact info

8.D. Historic Integrity Matrix

8.D.1. Other Business

8.E. Update on Olmsted County Bank & Trust

8.F. Proposed Downtown Landmark District Update

8.G. City Council Updates

9. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS

10. ADJOURNMENT

1

Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes

Regular meeting (Virtual)

June 22, 2021 – 5pm

DISCLAIMER: Meeting minutes herein area a summarization of meeting procedures, not a verbatim transcription. These meeting minutes will not be official until approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. There is no recording of this meeting.

Members Present: Barbara Hudson, Barry Skolnick, Christine Schultze, Nancy Bergner, Mark Carlson, Adaheid Mestad (arrived at 5:02), Jeff Fague, Thomas Meilander, (arrived at 5:04) and Gail Eadie (arrived at 5:10, having had technical difficulties getting into the meeting).

Members Absent:, None

Staff: Ms. Molly Patterson-Lundgren, Urban Design & Heritage Preservation Coordinator; Mr. Brent Carlsen, City Attorney.

Call to Order: Quorum present.

Agenda adoption:

Motion by Commissioner Hudson to adopt agenda as presented, second by Commissioner Skolnick.

Approved 5-0.

Acceptance of minutes: April 27th – Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Bergner. Second by Commissioner Carlson. Approved 5-0. Commissioner Mestad entered the meeting May 25th – Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Carlson. Second by Commissioner Hudson.

Approved 5-0. Commissioner Mestad abstained, being absent from that meeting.

Commissioners Fague and Meilander entered the meeting

Public Comment Opportunity: No one from the public spoke.

Public Hearings: None.

New Business: None. Old Business: Ms. Patterson-Lundgren provided an update on the request to remove Potential Landmark Designation for property located at 303 6 Ave SW, the Holt/ McGill House, continued from the April 26 commission meeting. She informed the Commission that the property no longer belonged to the applicant and therefore the application was no longer valid.

Ms. Patterson-Lundgren provided an update on the additional information, as requested by the Commission, which was provided in the agenda packet. Chair Schultze asked if any there was any action being requested. Ms. Patterson-Lundgren indicated she would like to know if the Commission would like to continue to consider this for landmark in the future or remove the potential landmark designation. It

3.1

Packet Pg. 3

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: Ju

ne

22, 2

021

Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes-

Dra

ft (

Ap

pro

ve M

inu

tes)

2

was agreed that the eligibility form should be completed and that the new property owner should be contacted but that there was no hurry or specific time line for this.

Ms. Patterson-Lundgren provided an update on the City Council action from June 21st regarding the proposed change to the Heritage Preservation Ordinance. She explained that the Council accepted the recommendation and instructed the City Attorney’s office to proceed in completing the ordinance and bring it for a first reading. A second reading will also be required and will likely happen in August.

Chair Schultze asked about the request from Council person Campion regarding a way to better calculate and document on determining landmark eligibility. Ms. Patterson-Lundgren explained that he asked about determining historic integrity and that she had already started to create matrix to look at this, documenting what is already being considered for integrity. Commissioner Hudson asked how this would be applied to their process. Patterson-Lundgren indicated that she would continue to do the evaluations but provide more detailed explanation of how historic integrity was reviewed with a continuum of poor to excellent integrity for each of the 7 aspects of historic integrity. Chair Schultze added that it will further help them with what the Commission is already doing in project reviews and designation evaluation.

Commissioner Fague left the meeting at 6 pm.

Other Items & Announcements: Chair Schultze asked Ms. Patterson-Lundgren to introduce the two readings provided for discussion. She

highlight points from the first article, Why Historic Preservation Needs a new Approach”. She asked for

thoughts on the readings, what each member found most interesting and if there were any ideas that could

be incorporated into our review process, perhaps into the design guidelines that will be created.

Commissioner Bergner said she thinks it is important to allow for adaptive reuse of old buildings, new uses

that were different than what they were built for. She suggested that perhaps if someone is allowed to tear

down a building of significance, they might be required to meet a higher level of standards for designing the

replacement development.

Commissioner Eadie said she thinks we need to update the tools we use in reviewing proposed alterations.

We risk losing the historic property completely if we apply the Secretary of Interior Standards too literally.

Commissioner Hudson said she believed the goal of the commission is to protect the historic integrity and

the historically significant features of a property, no matter the location of the feature on the property. She

equated historic properties in the City to art within a museum. She offered her home town of Chicago as an

example of how neighborhoods have generationally maintained historic integrity throughout years of

ownership. She said she feels the charming elegance of Rochester 40 years ago, when she first moved

here, is gone and knows people who are grieving for the loss of historic properties in the City

Commissioner Meilander said he believes one size does not fit all for the reuse of historic buildings and we

need to be able to be flexible in our treatment of them. He thinks we need to continue to look at each

individual situation

Commissioner Mestad said she appreciated the readings and the comments provided so far, particularly

regarding the need to see beyond the binary [historic or non-historic] categories. She pointed out how

both articles brought people into the equation and that we have a diversity within the community and that

3.1

Packet Pg. 4

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: Ju

ne

22, 2

021

Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes-

Dra

ft (

Ap

pro

ve M

inu

tes)

3

spectrum needs to be considered during our evaluations. Bringing metrics and standards into our

evaluations will help to explain to others how we review things. We need to be able to look at significance

of properties through different cultural lenses to be inclusive all members of the community.

Commissioner Skolnick said he doesn’t understand what different lenses mean and that what works in Great

Britain, [an example for one of the articles] won’t necessarily work in Rochester Minnesota. Rochester has

allowed so much to be destroyed, so preserving what is left is really critical. He agrees that we need to be

flexible, but is not happy with recent City Council decision nor proud of our last meeting discussion on the

Olmsted Bank & Trust Building.

Vice-Chair Carlson liked the first article but found the second one too long and out of context with Rochester

to be useful. He is not interest in cities that are much larger and outside of the Midwest. He would prefer if

reading materials be provided outside of the agenda packet in the future. He would be interested to see

information (articles/stories) about successful adaptive reuse of historic properties with additions.

Chair Schultze discussed how the Older, Smaller, Better… report supports the retention of these properties,

because of the mix of scale and design that they bring to an area. They are a valuable resource in that they

help to provide a diversity in how individuals (of diversity) experience a community, neighborhood, or district.

She further discussed how the development of scoring sheets with key indicators and measures that

consider economic value, including the value of building reuse from a sustainability/resiliency standpoint

may help us in making decisions and in communicating the reason behind the decisions made.

Chair Schultze also mentioned how the author of the article, Why Historic Preservation Needs a New

Approach, is currently with the National Main Street Center, but also served as Director of Sustainability at

the National Trust in the past and Seattle-based Preservation Green Lab before that.

Ms. Patterson-Lundgren provided an update on the proposed Downtown Landmark District. She indicated

that the request for proposals (RFP) for the riverfront small area plan has been drafted and the plan is to

bring it to City Council in July. The small area plan will focus on the riverfront area (Red Owl/Time Theater

property, parking lot and parking ramp) but also will look for ways that it can be connected to the proposed

historic district of 3rd Street and Broadway Avenue.

Ms. Patterson-Lundgren provided an update on City Council action regarding the Olmsted County Bank &

Trust Building. She explained the City Council agreed to the request from the property owner to delay the

decision on the HPC recommendation to designate the property as a landmark. On appeal to the HPC’s

decision, approving the certificate of appropriateness, the City approved the proposed project with one

condition only, which is that the developer work with the city team to on a final design that aligns as close as

possible with the intent of the standards.

Commissioner Hudson asked what was meant by a type 1 review is and if it would be coming back to the

HPC. Patterson-Lundgren indicated no. The Commission did their review and made the decision which

was appealed to City Council. City Council has made their decision for type 1 review of the project moving

forward, which is by City personnel working with the developer to try to get it close to intent of standards

while still assuring that the project has economic viability. This will be a City team to include Patterson-

Lundgren and others, including building official and Interim Community Development Director.

3.1

Packet Pg. 5

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: Ju

ne

22, 2

021

Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes-

Dra

ft (

Ap

pro

ve M

inu

tes)

4

Commissioner Skolnick stated his concern that the plan will not be coming back to either the HPC or the City

Council.

Chair Schultze asked about Plummer House grant and Red Owl/Time Theater. Patterson-Lundgren

indicated that she had not received word on the grant for the Plummer house. She indicated that an initial

report on the Red Owl/Time Theater is anticipated from New History, the consultant on the project.

Items for Future Meetings

Challenged properties: Christ United Methodist, Trinity Lutheran, Zumbro Lutheran Churches and the report

on the Red Owl/Time Theater are expected for upcoming HPC agendas over the next two to three months.

Adjournment:

Chair Schultze adjourned the meeting at 7p.m.

Notice: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021 this meeting occurred electronically, all votes taken by roll call. Public access restricted to comply with State Health guidance during the Pandemic.

3.1

Packet Pg. 6

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: Ju

ne

22, 2

021

Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes-

Dra

ft (

Ap

pro

ve M

inu

tes)

0

Heritage Preservation Commission Prepared by: Molly Patterson-Lundgren, A.I.C.P.

Heritage Preservation & Urban Design Coordinator Meeting Date:

July 27, 2021

Subject:

Trinity Lutheran Church, 222 6th Ave SW (Challenged Property)

Action Items Commission Action Summary:

Review and consider designation criteria and historic integrity of Trinity

Lutheran Church.

Questions and Answers with representatives of the Church regarding the

Heritage Preservation Program and how designation may effect them.

Wait on consideration of potential landmark designation to allow additional

discussions regarding the program with owner.

Background Historic information regarding this property from the Phase I survey completed in 2014 and

updated recently with the assistance of the History Center is attached. This was sent to the

property owner and has been followed up with phone conversations and e-mails. The

property was initially recommended for potential landmark designation, but removed to the

challenged list in 2017. It is one of three properties remaining on the challenged list. This

property was initially recommended for Potential Landmark designation under Criteria 5 of the

Preservation Ordinance. Additional, it might be considered under Criteria 6.

Criteria 5 - Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural

style, period, form, or treatment. It is “a good local example of the Renaissance

Revival architectural style in Rochester”.

Criteria 6 - Its identification as the work of an architect or master builder whose

individual efforts have influenced the development of the city or have

contributed to the development of a nationally- or internationally-recognized

style or movement. Documentation provided by the History Center indicates it was

designed by the Architects, Ellerbe & Company.

Section 4-7-15 of the Preservation Code provides the guidance for the consideration of

Potential Landmark designation. “To be eligible for designation on the inventory as a potential

landmark property, the individual building, site, structure or object, or a collection thereof, must

have a demonstrated quality of significance as determined by the criteria provided in section

4-7-8 (as indicated above). The commission shall determine if the property should be

designated as a potential landmark property based on the designation criteria.” (4-7-15 (b))

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 7

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

2

Evaluation

The Potential Landmark designation allows the HPC to identify properties that may not have been fully researched or determined to have the level of significance for Landmark designation. Two of the criteria used to consider historic significance have been identified for this property. Criteria 5 – Romanesque Revival/Renaissance Revival Architectural Style These are revival styles that were popular in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th Century. Both utilize classical design elements from two earlier periods in history, the medieval Romanesque or Norman (in England) period of the 10th – 12h Century (some sources say longer) and the Renaissance period of 15th – mid 16th Century. As a revival style in the United States, Richardsonian Romanesque was a more specific genre within the style. And, Italianate architecture is also related stylistically. Defining features of the Romanesque Revival style include:

Repetitive use of semi-circular arches for window and door openings.

Massive articulated walls.

Vaulted ceilings and decorative heavy columns (interior)

Corbel tables or miniature arches below the eaves and at the end of gable roofs.

Prominent belt courses that define the horizontal lines of the building.

Following are images of this type of architecture:

Romanesque Parma Cathedral, Parma Italy – 1178 1

1 Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation -

https://dahp.wa.gov/historic-preservation/historic-buildings/architectural-style-guide/late-

romanesque-revival

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 8

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

3

Romanesque Revival First Baptist Church Spokane WA - 1928

Romanesque Revival Houston County Sheriff's residence/jail, Caledonia, MN -1875 and courthouse – 1883

Romanesque Revival St. Mary’s Cathedral, St. Cloud, MN. – Dedicated 1931

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 9

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

4

2 Romanesque Revival Assisi Heights, Rochester MN. - Dedicated 1955 Criteria 6 – The Work of Architects Ellerbe & Company. Individually and as a team, the Ellerbe firm did a wide variety of projects in Rochester. Most notably, they are associated with Mayo Clinic projects as well as associated hotels, and homes of Mayo Clinic associates. This church is a lesser known project and probably less significant aspect of their work. However, it does contribute to their body of work overall, in the City. Historic Integrity In evaluation of the property for potential landmark designation, the HPC should consider both the criteria indicated above as well as the historic integrity of the property and the neighborhood as a potential Landmark District. Integrity is, the ability of the property to convey its historical associations or attributes per the criteria in which it is eligible. The seven aspects of integrity are:

1. Location 2. Design 3. Setting 4. Materials 5. Workmanship 6. Feeling and 7. Association

(See Appendix D of the HPP Strategic Plan for more information) The phase I Survey, by The 106 Group (attached) indicates that the integrity for the property is fair. It specifically addresses the 1960 school addition on the northeast part

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 10

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

5

of the property, which is a modern designed addition. That report does not address the 1990 addition to the north side of the entire sanctuary which is outlined in yellow below.

While this addition is more in keeping with the architectural style of the church, in particular with the materials chosen, it did change the roofline of the church from the West elevation as well as the buildings appearance from the north side, components of the buildings design. As originally designed Current view

West facade – change in roof profile on the north/left

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 11

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

6

North side of building

The impact that this addition has on the historic integrity of the building should bediscussed at the meeting. In particular, how the change in the profile of the roof whenviewed from the west and the change in the northern wall fenestration (pattern ofwindows and doors) changes and relates to the design aspect of historic integrity.

Recommendation

Church leadership has requested and it is staff recommendation to wait on consideration of potential landmark designation to allow additional discussions regarding the Heritage Preservation Program and it’ possible impact on them as a property owner.

Discussion on criteria and historic integrity is suggested, as well as allowing for some question and answer with Church representatives. While this is not a public hearing,the Commission determined last year that it is appropriate to have a discussion with property owners when we are considering potential landmark designation for their property.

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 12

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

City of Rochester, Minnesota 4001 W River Parkway NW, Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55901-7090

Phone: 507-328-2950 Fax: 507-328-2401 Email: [email protected]

June 28, 2021

RE: Potential Landmark Property – 222 6th Ave SW

Dear Property Owner:

I am reaching out to you to invite discussion on the historic nature of your property located at the

address above. The City’s Ordinance, Chapter 4-7, directs the Heritage Preservation Commission

(HPC) to compile a list of properties that may be considered eligible for Landmark designation at a

future date. Yours was identified as one that may qualify and is therefore scheduled for

consideration at the upcoming meeting of the HPC (details on the meeting follow)

The initial steps in considering a landmark includes designating the property as a Potential Landmark. The process for designating Potential Landmarks consists of HPC review of the property

based on the adopted criteria and known historic information (see attached). The HPC will consider designating the property as a potential landmark. You may contest designation by explaining how the property does not meet the criteria for designation as a landmark property. (Criteria from Sec.

4-7-8 of City Code is in the attached information).

Once a property is designated as a Potential Landmark, if a land use or demolition permit is

submitted for the property, the HPC will review the proposal and either recommend Landmark

designation to the City Council, or allow the permit to continue. It is anticipated that all Potential

Landmarks will be considered for full Historic Landmark designation in the next few years.

HPC review of this property for Potential Landmark designation is scheduled tentatively for

Tuesday, July 27th at 5pm. Due to Covid-19 we have been holding meetings completely virtual

using the Microsoft Teams platform, but anticipate going back to in person meetings sometime

this summer. Please contact me at [email protected] or 507-735-2182 for further

discussion.

Sincerely,

Molly Patterson-Lundgren

Molly Patterson-Lundgren, AICP Heritage Preservation & Urban Design Coordinator

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 13

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

mailto:[email protected]

Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota

Project: Rochester Preservation Plan & Inventory

MINNESOTA ARCHITECTURE - HISTORY INVENTORY FORM

Original Use Religion

Current Use Religion

Resource Type Building

Architect/Engineer Unknown

Style Other

Field # 602

Historic Name Trinity Lutheran Church

Current Name Trinity Lutheran Church

County Olmsted

City/Twp Rochester

Property ID (PIN) 640221081056

Sec 02Twp 106 Range 014

USGS Quad Rochester, MN 1993

Legal Desc.

Description

This one-story building with a partially raised basement is faced in limestone, and has a front-gable roof that is covered with terra cotta tiles. A large rose window is located on the west elevation. A rectangular bell tower is located on the southwest corner of the church. A double-leaf entrance with an arched surround is located on the south elevation of the tower. A one-story projected entrance is located on the south elevation. An exterior limestone-clad chimney is located on the rear (east elevation). Fenestration consists of double-leaf metal doors; arched stained glass windows; and fixed stained glass windows.

Attached to the northwest corner is a two-story brick addition that was constructed in 1960. The addition is clad in brick and stucco, and has a flat roof with metal coping. Fenestration on the addition includes fixed, single-light vinyl windows, vinyl casement windows, and double-leaf metal doors. A two-story addition (525 3 St SW) is located on the southeast corner of the church. The addition is connected to the church by a one-story brick faced hyphen. The addition is faced in brick and has a gable roof that is covered with asphalt shingles. Fenestration on the addition consists of vinyl bay windows, fixed vinyl windows, and a single-leaf replacement door. Another brick faced addition is also located on the southeast corner of the church. This addition has a shed roof and arched stained glass windows.

Description

Identification

Address 532 2 ST SW

SHPO Inventory Number OL-ROC-418

Review and Compliance Number

Construction Date 1949

According to Olmsted County assessor records, this building was constructed in 1949. Trinity Lutheran Church is designed in the Renaissance Revival style. Renaissance Revival is a style that drew inspiration from a wide range of classical Italian architecture. Buildings in the Renaissance Revival style show a definite studied formalism. The tightly contained cube is a symmetrical composition and has characteristics such as finely cut ashlar, architrave framed windows, and doors supporting entablatures or pediments. Window sash can have several lights or just one, and belt or string courses may divide the ground or first floor from the upper floors (Blumenson 1981:39).

Trinity Lutheran Church exemplifies the design of Period Revival churches that were constructed in the first half of the 20th century. During this time period, churches were typically constructed with buff or light colored brick or stone. Smooth surfaces

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS

Zone 15N

Easting 617276 Northing 168512

UTM

Form (New or Updated) New

Datum NAD83

QQ

Historical Narrative

Historical Context

Linear Feature? No

Urban / Downtown Development, 1889 – Present Day

HPC Status: Unknown

OL-ROC-418

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 14

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)




Integrity -

This church has good integrity of materials due to select modern replacement doors. The buildings retain fair integrity of design, workmanship, association and feeling, due to the 1960 addition on the northwest elevation. The buildings retain good integrity of location and setting. Overall this building retains fair integrity.

on the interior and exterior were favored, and carvings tended to be simplified and in low relief. Plans of churches during this era are functional and clearly organized. Proportions were generally horizontal and accentuated by tall towers or domes. Ornament was typically a single style; Romanesque or Byzantine was popular for Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Jewish parishes (Rifkind 1980: 157-158). Representative of the Renaissance Revival style, Trinity Lutheran Church features light stone, semi-circular arches on windows and doors, and a façade that is flanked by a square tower.

This church appears to be a good example of the ecclesiastical Renaissance Revival architectural style in Rochester.

Olmsted County Assessor's Office2014 Property Information. Electronic document, https://webapp.co.olmsted.mn.us/propertytax/Site/Default.aspx.

Prepared By

Kelli Andre Kellerhals

Date Surveyed

6/4/2014

Potentially eligible

Not Previously Evaluated

The 106 Group Ltd.

Sources

This property is recommended as potentially eligible for listing as a historic structure under Rochester Ordinance 19B.04, Subdivision 1, under Criterion E, as a good local example of the Renaissance Revival architectural style in Rochester.

National Register Status

Consultant's Recommendation of Eligibility

Significance

Recommendation

Fair

OL-ROC-418

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 15

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)




Ph t 1K:\Rochester Preservati Property Photograph

Facing SE

2K:\Rochester Preservati Property Photograph

Facing NW

OL-ROC-418

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 16

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)





Facing NW


Facing E

OL-ROC-418

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 17

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)





Facing SE

M 6\\Shiva\Shiva\Active Pr Property Location Map

OL-ROC-418

OL-ROC-418

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 18

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

MINNESOTA ARCITECUTRE – HISTORY INVENTORY FORM CONTINUED – ADDITIONS & CORRECTIONS

OL-ROC-418

Identification

Historic Name Trinity Lutheran Church SHPO Inventory Number OL-ROC-418 Current Name Trinity Lutheran Church Field # 602 Address 222 6th Ave SW Description City/Twp Rochester Linear Feature? County Olmsted HPC Status Unknown Legal Descript Resource Type Building USGS Quad Architect/Engineer Ellerbe and Company UTM Zone Style Other Construction Date 1949 Property ID (PIN 640221081056 Original Use Religion Current Use Religion

Along with criteria 5, for architectural style, originally cited in The 106 Groups Phase I survey, Criteria 6, for Ellerbe &

Company as Architects should also be considered.

Designation Criteria (Sec. 4-7-8 City Code) Numbering was changed in 2019; originally E&G criteria identified. (1) Its character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city,

state or United States; A

(2) Its location as a place of a significant historic event; B

(3) Its location within and contribution as an element of a landmark district; C

(4) Its identification with a person who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the city; D

X (5) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, form, or treatment; E

X (6) Its identification as the work of an architect or master builder whose individual efforts have influenced the development of the city or have contributed to the development of a nationally- or internationally-recognized style or movement;

F

(7) Its embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, material, or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation; and

G

(8) Its location, scale, or other physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature or a neighborhood, a district, the community, or the city.

H

The Trinity Lutheran Church located at the corner of Third Street and Sixth Avenue SW in Rochester, Minnesota, was first known as the German Lutheran Church. It was begun by Mr. Fred Seikert and Mr. Carl Adler, both of whom came to Rochester from Milwaukee, WI, in 1867. The first church was erected at Seventh Street [Second Street] and Franklin Street [Second Avenue] NW, directly across the street on the south side of Central Park. This original structure was 30 x 24 feet, and the altar and lectern were purchased for the building by the Evangelical Lutheran Norwegian congregation as they were allowed to use the building. The church would eventually go on to be used as a Lutheran school. The church was damaged by the cyclone in August 1883, and services were conducted in the Old Central School until the church was rebuilt. This first church was later moved and used as a home, and eventually demolished. In 1916 a new German Evangelical Lutheran School was built on this site using Albert Schippel of Mankato as architect, the school used Central Park across the street as its playground. It was eventually sold to the Methodist Hospital and the classrooms were used for training nurses. That first school is referred to historically by the church as the little German School.

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 19

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

MINNESOTA ARCITECUTRE – HISTORY INVENTORY FORM CONTINUED – ADDITIONS & CORRECTIONS

OL-ROC-418

A second German Lutheran Church was built on the corner of West Center Street and Third Avenue SW in 1894. All services were conducted in the German Language until 1911. This building had a seating capacity of 500, and in 1916 August Kutzky and Louis Hoffman purchased a bell for it. According to the Rochester City Directories, 1916 was the first year the church was listed as the Trinity Lutheran Evangelical Church. This church was sold to the Kahler Corporation in 1943, with the proviso that services could take place there until a new church was finished. The third church, christened as “Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church” in its cornerstone laying ceremony on April 21, 1949, was slated to be finished in 1950, but opened on March 18 1951. The structure was built of Winona sawn-faced stone in what was patterned on “Romanesque lines.” The architects were Ellerbe and Company of Minneapolis, and Edgar W. Buenger was the firm’s representative in Rochester. The general contractor was Alvin E. Benike, and the finished church would seat 750 persons. When the bell tower was completed, the bell that had been donated by Kutzky and Hoffman for the old church was hung in the new bell tower. In 1951 the church complex, as built, was 192 feet long including church offices and a parsonage of brick on the east front along Third Street SW, the building was dedicated on June 10, 1951. In September of 1961 the Educational Building was added to the existing building on the north side. Architecture of the Modern Movement is known for its lack of ornament. According to “The Ellerbe Tradition: Seventy Years of Architecture & Engineering” by Thomas F. Ellerbe, Ellerbe used “programmatically and structurally integrated ornament” and began an “art with architecture program” in the 1950s to “serve man’s emotional as well as his material needs.” In 1956, a sculpture of Christ on the cross designed by Ivan Mestrovic was added to Trinity Lutheran Church (see Trinity Lutheran Church_sources 2.pdf). Ellerbe designed numerous structures (medical, commercial, and residential) across Rochester in the first half of the 20th century. September 2020, Information for update provided by History Center of Olmsted County.

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 20

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

1

Patterson-Lundgren, Molly

From: Donna Bell <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 1:31 PM

To: Patterson-Lundgren, Molly

Subject: Re: Trinity Lutheran Church - follow up on discussion

[EXTERNAL SENDER]: Do not open links/attachments if uncertain about the sender and never give out your user id and password.

Thank you, Molly. This is very helpful. Regards, Donna From: Patterson-Lundgren, Molly Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 12:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Trinity Lutheran Church - follow up on discussion

Donna, I mentioned I was going to send you more information about how we consider historic integrity, when we consider designation of a Potential Landmark or Landmark in the City’s Heritage Preservation Program. Attached is an item that was included in our most recent Heritage Preservation Strategic Plan, which defines historic integrity.

Molly Patterson-Lundgren Historic Preservation & Urban Design Coordinator Community Development City of Rochester, Minnesota 4001 West River Parkway NW, Suite 100, Rochester, MN 55901 Office: 507-328-2600 | Direct: 507-328-2956 This message may contain confidential or legally privileged information belonging to the sender. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify the sender, delete the original message, and destroy all copies.

From: Patterson-Lundgren, Molly Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: FW: Trinity Lutheran Church - follow up on discussion Ok, hopefully I have your e-mail address correct and this will get through to you now.

Molly Patterson-Lundgren Historic Preservation & Urban Design Coordinator Community Development City of Rochester, Minnesota

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 21

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

2

4001 West River Parkway NW, Suite 100, Rochester, MN 55901 Office: 507-328-2600 | Direct: 507-328-2956 This message may contain confidential or legally privileged information belonging to the sender. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify the sender, delete the original message, and destroy all copies.

From: Patterson-Lundgren, Molly Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 9:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Trinity Lutheran Church - follow up on discussion Donna, Thanks so much for reaching out to me to discuss the local heritage preservation program and ongoing consideration for the designation of Trinity Lutheran Church. I enjoyed our discussion with your knowledgeable interest of architectural styles. Following is the link to the Secretary of Interior Standards that we discussed on the phone. As I mentioned, these standards are adopted by the City by reference in the local ordinance and come into consideration for designated properties (both Landmarks and Potential Landmarks) when a permit is required for work done on the property. Secretary of Interior Standards: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments.htm As I also mentioned, it is the Rehabilitation Standards that are used most often for privately owned properties within a designation program. Here is the link to those: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm The standards as stated are fairly general, which allows for a wide variety of applications to a wide variety of situations. If you scroll to the bottom of the page (on either link) you’ll see a link to additional guidelines. These provide a much greater amount of detail on how to apply the standards to different types of situations. And, there is even more detail to be found in Preservation Briefs and other documents provided by the Federal program (https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve.htm). Those are not strict mandates; only the Standards themselves have been adopted in our local program. We want to encourage creative solutions that will help a property owner to meet the standards for their own specific situations. We also will be developing local guidelines to further establish and define how we apply the Secretary of Interior Standards locally. Attached is our “Best Practices” which will be used as a basis for this. (Please note, the City Council will be considering changes to the ordinance which will streamline the review process and updates to this document are forthcoming). Finally, remember that the Secretary of Interior Standards are applied to review of projects for properties that have been designated, either as landmarks or potential landmarks. There are 8 criteria established under the ordinance that are considered along with historic integrity of the property in determining whether to designate a property. Those will be the focus as we consider designation of the church as a potential landmark. Let me know if you have additional questions or would like to discuss further.

Molly Patterson-Lundgren Heritage Preservation & Urban Design Coordinator

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 22

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

3

City of Rochester, Minnesota 4001 West River Parkway NW, Suite 100, Rochester, MN 55901 Office: 507-328-2600 | Direct: 507-328-2956 [email protected] This message may contain confidential or legally privileged information belonging to the sender. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify the sender, delete the original message, and destroy all copies.

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 23

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

1

Patterson-Lundgren, Molly

From: Patterson-Lundgren, Molly

Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 2:41 PM

To: John Beatty

Cc: Eliot Tracz; 'Donna Bell'; Pastor Schwartz; Carlsen, Brent

Subject: RE: Trinity Lutheran Church - Request to be Excluded from July 27, 2021 Agenda

Attachments: Appendix D Historic Integrity.pdf; Q&A w John Beatty - Molly responses.docx

John, Thanks again for continued discussion. As requested, I’ve written the staff report on Trinity Lutheran Church to indicate that I recommend discussion only, with the HPC on the property at next week’s meeting, and am asking them not to make a decision at this point. Once the packet is ready, we’ll send it out to this e-mail list. Attached are my comments/answers back on the questions/statements you posed, just to make sure we are all on the same page. I believe we all recognize that the development of the Rochester Heritage Preservation Program is relatively young and it continues to evolve as we continue to refine it. Also, things happened regarding all of the properties on our lists prior to my time. I continue learn how things were handled in past by previous city personal and appreciate getting this information as it is not always contained in the files to give me this background. I’ll follow up on the other two churches you mention separately as there are different situations for each of them.

Molly Patterson-Lundgren Historic Preservation & Urban Design Coordinator Community Development City of Rochester, Minnesota 4001 West River Parkway NW, Suite 100, Rochester, MN 55901 Office: 507-328-2600 | Direct: 507-328-2956 This message may contain confidential or legally privileged information belonging to the sender. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify the sender, delete the original message, and destroy all copies.

From: John Beatty <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 9:42 AM To: Patterson-Lundgren, Molly <[email protected]> Cc: Eliot Tracz <[email protected]>; 'Donna Bell' <[email protected]>; Pastor Schwartz <[email protected]> Subject: Trinity Lutheran Church - Request to be Excluded from July 27, 2021 Agenda

[EXTERNAL SENDER]: Do not open links/attachments if uncertain about the sender and never give out your user id and password.

Good morning Molly, Thanks for taking my call yesterday. I appreciated the discussion.

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 24

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

2

I write today to formally request, similar to HPC’s plan with respect to Christ United Methodist and potentially Zumbro Lutheran churches, that there be no action or vote taken with regard to potential landmark designation for Trinity Lutheran church at next week’s meeting. This request is based on several factors:

1. Church records reflect that the Congregation passed a resolution in February 2017 to be removed from the City’s list of potential landmark properties. Church leaders met with City Clerk Aaron Reeves and reached agreement to exclude the church from designation as a potential landmark at that time. The latest effort to put the church back in front of the HPC appears to be an about face on the City’s previous discussion and commitments to the Church.

2. At this time, City staff, the City Council, and the Heritage Preservation Commission have been publicly discussing the fact that the ordinance as drafted is not working well, and requires redrafting in order to better accomplish and guide heritage preservation policy in the community. A redline reflecting proposed tweaks to the ordinance is available on the City’s website, and has been introduced to the Commission and the City Council. Where the City, the HPC, and the Council have all acknowledged that the ordinance as drafted is not working (particularly with respect to the process for designation of “potential landmark” properties), then why is the Commission continuing to place challenged properties on its agenda for designation? Why not focus the time on fixing the ordinance first? If the issue first arose in 2017 (and somehow has been revived), why the hurry to do this again before addressing issues in the ordinance?

3. As I’ve pointed out in several other instances, how is it fair or responsible for the HPC (on behalf of the City)

to cherry pick aspects of the ordinance it would like to enforce (i.e., designation of properties), when the commission has yet to fulfill its mandated obligations under the ordinance to develop local programs providing financial incentives to property owners? What local opportunities are available for any property owner whose property is designated landmark or potential landmark? Absent a clear path to clear local incentives, I hope you can understand how the ordinance feels punitive and may, perhaps, result in an unconstitutional taking of my client’s property interests.

4. When you and I spoke yesterday I understood you had not yet been able to study the original

plans/drawings of the church. It sounded as though that work was necessary in order to reach some determination as to whether the original architectural integrity of the building had been sufficiently altered on account of the multiple incongruent additions over the years, rendering the building to a level of insignificance that would not qualify for any designation. Can we agree to a delay in order to give you more time to get the information you need? Also, considering that we are in the heart of summer, could we schedule this agenda item at a time when many people – church members and commissioners alike -- are not otherwise away for summer vacation?

5. Lastly, Ms. Donna Bell, an officer with the church, was left with the impression (after your phone discussion

with her last week) that you were willing to delay and not put Trinity on next week’s agenda. Did something change between then and now?

Thank you for considering our request to postpone and to remove Trinity from next week’s meeting. Sincerely, JCB

John C. Beatty Attorney

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 25

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

3

Dunlap & Seeger, P.A. 30 Third Street SE Suite 400 Rochester, MN 55904 Phone: 507-285-4210 Fax: 507-288-9342 e-mail: [email protected]

============================================================== The information in this e-mail is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use of or reliance on, the contents of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying back to sending e-mail address, and delete this e-mail message from your computer.

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 26

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

1. Church records reflect that the Congregation passed a resolution in February 2017 to be

removed from the City’s list of potential landmark properties. Church leaders met with City Clerk Aaron Reeves and reached agreement to exclude the church from designation as a potential landmark at that time. The latest effort to put the church back in front of the HPC appears to be an about face on the City’s previous discussion and commitments to the Church. Mr. Reeves removed the property from potential landmark designation at that time, and created a “challenged list”. The City is now reviewing all properties on that challenged list, discussing the program again with property owners and determining whether the property should be designated a potential landmark or removed from further consideration. Clearing all properties off the challenged list was determined a priority in the Heritage Preservation Strategic Plan adopted by City Council in 2020.


There are several concerns that were identified with the adopted ordinance currently in place. We have drafted a new ordinance, on which the City Council has had a first reading and approval (July 19th). It is anticipated that this new ordinance will be passed after the second reading on August 2nd. The reason for continuing to consider potential landmark designation of challenged properties is to remove those that clearly do not warrant landmark designation from further consideration or designate them as potential landmark. We need a clear list of potential landmarks to budget resources for the evaluation process to determine which ones will eventually be brought to the City Council for landmark designation consideration.

3. As I’ve pointed out in several other instances, how is it fair or responsible for the HPC (on

behalf of the City) to cherry pick aspects of the ordinance it would like to enforce (i.e., designation of properties), when the commission has yet to fulfill its mandated obligations under the ordinance to develop local programs providing financial incentives to property owners? What local opportunities are available for any property owner whose property is designated landmark or potential landmark? Absent a clear path to clear local incentives, I hope you can understand how the ordinance feels punitive and may, perhaps, result in an unconstitutional taking of my client’s property interests.

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 27

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

Section 4-7-19 (3), allows for the City to create a program to incentivize property owners, but does not mandate the HPC to create one. It states, “The city may authorize funding sources to create a financial incentive program…” Through its annual budgeting process the City Council may choose to fund such a program, but has not yet done so. Existing local financial assistance, such as tax increment financing, and other assistance for certain districts or those which periodically becomes available at the local level would be available to preservation projects that meet all requirements of those programs. Per Section 4-7-6 (c) of the ordinance, “Designated properties are eligible for and have priority to participate in city incentive programs…” The HPC is required, under Section 4-7-15 of the ordinance to designate potential landmarks. That section states, “The commission shall compile a list of other properties that may have not met the criteria for landmark property designation but have historic or potentially historic significance within the city and may be considered eligible for landmark designation at a future date.”

4. When you and I spoke yesterday I understood you had not yet been able to study the

original plans/drawings of the church. It sounded as though that work was necessary in order to reach some determination as to whether the original architectural integrity of the building had been sufficiently altered on account of the multiple incongruent additions over the years, rendering the building to a level of insignificance that would not qualify for any designation. Can we agree to a delay in order to give you more time to get the information you need? Also, considering that we are in the heart of summer, could we schedule this agenda item at a time when many people – church members and commissioners alike -- are not otherwise away for summer vacation?

In our phone discussion yesterday, we discussed several properties. I have now reviewed more information in the building permit files for Trinity Lutheran Church. I have requested that they refrain from making a decision on potential landmark this month.

5. Lastly, Ms. Donna Bell, an officer with the church, was left with the impression (after your

phone discussion with her last week) that you were willing to delay and not put Trinity on next week’s agenda. Did something change between then and now?

It is my recollection that I indicated I still plan on providing a staff report and discussing the criteria that the church may meet as well as the historic integrity. Criteria is found in Section 4-7-8 (b) of the ordinance and I’ve attached Appendix B from the Heritage Preservation Strategic Plan that address historic integrity. I believe I indicated that the staff report that addresses these issues, will go out in the packet before the end of this week and I would provide a copy to Donna as a representative of the church. Based on your clear request, I have recommend to the HPC, to delay any decision until August, allowing for analysis and for additional discussion with the Church as property owner.

6.A.1

Packet Pg. 28

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: T

rin

ity

Ch

urc

h (

Ch

alle

ng

ed P

rop

erty

– T

rin

ity

Lu

ther

an C

hu

rch

)

Community Development Department | Development Services and Infrastructure Center | 4001 West River Parkway NW | Rochester MN 55901

PH: 507.328.2950 | FAX: 507.328.2401 | [email protected]

www.rochestermn.gov/communitydevelopment

TO: HERITEAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION

FROM: MOLLY PATTERSON-LUNDGREN, AICP HERITAGE PRESERVATION & URBAN DESIGN COORDINATOR

SUBJECT: OLD LEGENDS PROPERTY, RED OWL AND TIME THEATER BUILDINGS

DATE: JULY 22, 2021

CC: KEVIN LUND, LANDMARK APPLICANT

Attached are the final reports from the consultant on the eligibility study for the Red Owl and theTime Theater Building.

Note that both reports indicate that, "As of completion of this study, the City has not provided a copy of the designation for State Historic Preservation Office review, nor held a public hearing. Bothof these actions are required prior to a landmark designation by the City Council.

We have it on the agenda to discuss these at the meeting on July 27th.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 29

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


http://www.rochestermn.gov/communitydevelopment

TIME THEATER Rochester Historic Landmark Eligibility

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 30

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )

CONTACT: LAUREN ANDERSON | 612.843.4146 | [email protected]

CITY OF ROCHESTER LANDMARK DESIGNATION

STUDY

Time Theater 11 4th Street Southeast, Rochester, MN 55904

July 2021

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 31

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )

City of Rochester Landmark Designation Study Time Theater 11 4th Street Southeast Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Prepared for: City of Rochester 201 4th Street Southeast Rochester, MN 55904 By: New History 575 Ninth Street Southeast, Suite 215 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 (612) 843-4140 www.newhistory.com For questions and comments: Meghan Elliott and Lauren Anderson [email protected]; [email protected] (612) 843-4146 ©2021 New History

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 32

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )

Historic Property Name: Time Theater Rochester Historic Landmark Eligibility

1

Property Identification & Description

Identification Historic Name Time Theater Current Name Legends Bar n’ Grill Address 11 4th Street North City/Twp Rochester County Olmsted Legal Description ALL TH PT OF MILL RESERVATION AS PLATTED IN MOE &

OLDS DES AS FOLL COM AT N PROPERTY LINE OF 4TH ST SE & CONTINUING TH IN A NELY DIRECTION AL E LINE OF ALLEY 175FT MORE OR LESS TH E TO THE WALL OF THE ZUMBRO RIVER TH S AL WALL BACK TO THE N PROPERTY LINE OF 4TH ST SE TH W AL N LINE 4TH ST SE TO BEG

USGS Quad Rochester, MN Property ID (PIN) 640211053797 SHPO Inventory Number OL-ROC-456 Previous Determinations National Register – Not listed Phase 1 Survey – The 106 Group (2014)

Aerial view of Rochester, 2021. Courtesy of Olmsted County

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 33

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


2

Property Description

Architect/Engineer/Contractor Liebenberg & Kaplan (architects); C.C. Pagenhart (contractor)

Style Art Deco/Streamline Moderne Construction Date 1937 Original Use Movie Theater Current Use Vacant (most recently used as a restaurant) Associated Properties/Districts N/A

Resource Type Buildings Structures Sites Objects Contributing Resources • • • • Non-Contributing Resources • Time Theater • • •

Statement of Significance The Time Theater is historically significant under Criterion 5 as a local example of the Streamline Moderne and Art Deco architectural styles and as a local example of a building type – the small Moderne movie theaters constructed in the United States during the Great Depression of the 1930s. It is also significant under Criterion 6 for its identification as the work of master theater architects Jack Liebenberg and Seeman Kaplan. The period of significance is 1937, the date of the building’s construction. The property does not retain integrity to the period of significance and is therefore recommended as not eligible for local landmark designation.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 34

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


3

Physical Description of the Property

The Time Theater at 11 4th Street Southeast (historically addressed at 15 4th Street Southeast) is a two-story, flat-roofed, rectangular-shaped masonry commercial building located in downtown Rochester, just northwest of the crossing of the 4th Street bridge over the Zumbro River. The building’s primary south elevation fronts on 4th Street Southeast, and the secondary east elevation overlooks the Zumbro River and associated Riverwalk Trail. The building shares a party wall with the adjacent building to the west. A parking lot is located to the north. In 1983, the building was connected at the interior to the adjacent building, and both buildings are now located on the same parcel addressed at 11 4th Street Southeast.1

South elevation, looking north, March 2021. Courtesy of the City of Rochester.

1 Ankeny, Kell & Associates, “Zumbro Market,” February 17, 1983, Sheets A3 – A4, on file at the City of Rochester.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 35

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


4

South Elevation

The building’s primary elevation, which faces south, is composed of light-colored brick with a granite water table. At the time of the building’s construction, the center of the façade held a set of double doors beneath a marquee. Today, the façade features a modern aluminum storefront entrance system surrounded by non-original panels composed of a cementitious material, with a non-original metal-framed awning reading “Union Labor Center” attached to the façade above the paneling. Around the entrance, columns and rows of brick are laid at an angle, creating a symmetrical, double-lined design on the façade. At the cornice, two courses of brick are likewise laid at an angle to create a three-dimensional, zig-zag design. The top of the façade is capped with a concrete or stone parapet cap.

East elevation, looking southwest, March 2021. Courtesy of the City of Rochester.

East Elevation

The secondary east elevation is composed of light-colored brick with a painted concrete foundation. A non-historic deck, built up above the height of the Riverwalk Trail and Zumbro River (installed in 1983), spans the length of the façade.2 As one moves north, the grade of the deck slopes downward, progressively exposing more of the building’s foundation. Near the center of the façade,

2 Notice 797, Donald Austin, Building and Safety Department, City of Rochester, to Ankeny, Kell and Ankeny & Weiderholt, September 30, 1983, on file at the City of Rochester.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 36

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


5

an engaged concrete column marks the point at which the building’s east wall angles north, away from the river. A non-historic aluminum storefront entry system (installed in 1983) is located at the north side of the elevation. Non-historic punched window openings (also installed in 1983) are located at the first and second levels.3 Windows are modern fixed aluminum windows, some with modern awnings and three with operable lower panes. Louvers, a large mechanical vent, and abandoned anchors are set in the masonry façade. At the top of the façade, the building’s parapet has a metal cap.

. East elevation, looking south, March 2021. Courtesy of the City of Rochester.

3 Ankeny, Kell & Associates, “Zumbro Market,” February 17, 1983, Sheet A7, on file at the City of Rochester.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 37

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


6

North Elevation

Like the east elevation, the secondary north elevation is composed of light-colored brick with a painted concrete foundation. The building’s non-historic wood deck wraps around from the east façade to continue along the north elevation. At the first level, a set of modern aluminum and glass double doors (installed in 1983) beneath an awning provides access to the building from the parking lot. Non-historic punched window openings at the first and second levels (installed in 1983 and later) have modern fixed aluminum windows. At the top of the façade, the building’s parapet has a metal cap. At the west side of the elevation, the 1983 concrete-block addition to the adjacent building encroaches on the Time Theater façade.4

North elevation, looking south, March 2021. Courtesy of the City of Rochester.

4 Ankeny, Kell & Associates, “Zumbro Market,” February 17, 1983, Sheets A1 – A4, on file at the City of Rochester.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 38

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


7

West Elevation

The building shares a party wall with the adjacent building to the west (constructed in 1935), and the majority of the west elevation is concealed. Character-Defining Features: The Time Theater does not retain integrity, and only some of its character-defining features remain. Character-defining features that have been lost include:

• Original entry sequence with two sets of double doors on the primary façade • Central ticket booth on the primary façade • Metal marquee, canopy, signage, and lighting on the primary façade • Movie poster display cases on the primary façade • Large areas of blank masonry walls on the east and north façades

Character-defining features that remain include:

• Exterior masonry, including: brick detailing, polished granite water table, and stone or concrete parapet cap at the primary south façade

• Location of primary entrance on the primary south façade

Discussion of Historical Significance History of Property Rochester’s Time Theater, located along 4th Street Southeast and the west bank of the Zumbro River, was constructed in 1937. The theater was developed by the Mayo Properties Association on the site of a former mill, which the association acquired from the Rochester Milling Company in 1930.5 The exact reasons that led to Mayo’s decision to develop the theater are unknown, but the operators of Rochester’s thriving Mayo clinic were likely one of the only entities with enough capital to finance the construction of a new building during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Mayo hired the well-known architectural firm of Liebenberg and Kaplan to design their new theater. C. C. Pagenhart was the general contractor. Many local Rochester firms also contributed to

5 “Real Estate Record: Time Theater,” September 26, 1930, Mayo Association Real Estate Records, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN; “Welcome to the New Time Theater,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937; Deed Record No. 151, September 26, 1930, courtesy of Kevin Lund.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 39

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


8

the theater’s construction, including the Rochester Electric Company, sheet metal and heating contractor Alfred Pekkalas, Sanitary Co. plumbing, and the Dodge Lumber & Fuel Company.6

Time Theater, c. 1936. Courtesy of the History Center of Olmsted County.

The 400-seat theater opened in January of 1937 with Harry Salisbury, an experienced show business professional and Rochester resident, as the manager. Operations were handled by the Rochester Amusement Company, affiliated with the larger Minnesota Amusement Company, which leased the building from the Mayo Properties Association.7

6 “Architects and Engineers…” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937; “Welcome to the New Time Theater,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937; “Manager of New Time Theater Began Show Business 12 Years Ago,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937. 7 “Congratulations!,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937; “Manager of New Time Theater Began Show Business 12 Years Ago,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937; “We Will Show No Films Because ‘It’s Time,’” Rochester Post-Bulletin, April 24, 1982; Keiter Directory Company, Rochester City and Olmsted County Directory (Rochester, MN: Keiter Directory Co., Inc., 1940), 48.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 40

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


9

Time Theater, c. 1937. Courtesy of Cinematreasures.org.

Newspaper articles announcing the theater’s opening hailed its “ultra-modern design.” The exterior was ornamented with a “unique canopy and towering design,” a sleek, streamlined metal marquee with colored electric lights and the theater’s name printed in bold letters, and an ornamented brick façade with symmetrical geometric patterns created by unique masonry coursing. Two sets of double doors with half-moon designs flanked a central ticket counter, and display cases showcasing current or upcoming features were set at either edge of the façade.8 Historic photographs and a c. 1948 Sanborn fire insurance map suggest that two or three small window openings were located on the east elevation.9

8 “New Time Theater to Mark Another Milestone…” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937; historic photographs of the Time Theater, courtesy of Olmsted County. 9 Sanborn Map Company, Fire Insurance Map of Rochester, MN, 1928, rev. 1948, Sheet 4, Proquest Digital Sanborn Maps; historic photographs of the Time Theater, courtesy of Olmsted County.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 41

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


10

Time Theater, January 1937. Courtesy of the History Center of Olmsted County.

At the interior, most of the available space was filled by a single auditorium, with a second-level projection booth at the back of the auditorium. A lobby, foyer, and powder room were located near the entrance.10 The theater featured the latest technology and modern furnishings, including colored carpet in the foyer and lobby, “ultra-modern” decorations, and “luxurious furniture of the most modern design.” Advertisements called attention to the building’s air conditioning system, which used an artesian well, radiators, humidifiers, and “cooling surfaces” to maintain a constant 70-degree interior temperature.11 The theater was innovative in its acoustical design, intended to “insure perfect sound reception in every seat in the theater.” Projection equipment represented the latest technology in visual and audio quality, including RCA Photophone motion picture sound equipment and the

10 Sanborn Map Company, Fire Insurance Map of Rochester, MN, 1928, rev. 1948, Sheet 4, Proquest Digital Sanborn Maps; “Opening of New Time Theater to Mark Another Milestone in Theatrical History,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937. 11 “New Time Theater to Mark Another Milestone…”Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937; “Air Conditioning Plant to Provide Theater Comfort,” unknown newspaper, c. 1937, courtesy of Kevin Lund; “…And We Drilled the Deepest Well…” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 42

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


11

“latest type clear vision screen.”12 Other novel features included “floating cushion seats” and a “photo-electric cell” powered drinking fountain without handles.13 The theater opened on January 8, 1937, with a showing of the film “Three Smart Girls.” 14 An eager crowd of Rochester residents awaited tickets, and the large number of attendees forced the theater to turn away some patrons. Merchants coordinated “two special trade days” of sales, encouraging theater attendees to patronize nearby businesses.15 Parking was provided at the rear (north) side of the building.16

Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map of Rochester, 1948, Sheet No. 4. Courtesy of the

History Center of Olmsted County. The Time Theater was operated by the Rochester Amusement Company until 1961, when the firm decided not to renew its lease from the Mayo Properties Association. A spokesperson for the Rochester Amusement Company attributed the firm’s decision to “the Time’s limited seating capacity and the fewer Hollywood productions,” noting that Rochester’s larger Lawler and Chateau theaters were more conveniently located and better suited to new trends in film production and showing. The theater was purchased by independent theater operator James Fraser of Red Wing.17 In 1963, building permits indicate that the interior walls and ceiling were covered with marlite.18 In 1967, the theater was sold to Mann Theaters of Minneapolis; that same year, a building permit was filed to

12 “Do You Know,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 4, 1937; “Congratulations Rochester!” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 8, 1937; “New Time Theater to Mark Another Milestone…”Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937. 13 “Do You Know,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 4, 1937; “New Time Theater Opens at Rochester,” Winona Daily News, January 11, 1937; Tamara Schonsberg, “Southeast rich in loyalty, memories,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, February 25, 995. 14 “New Time Theater to Mark Another Milestone…”, Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937. 15 “New Rochester Theater Opens, Crowd Attends, Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 8, 1937. 16 “Theater Provides Space for Parking,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 6, 1937. 17 “Time Theater leased to Red Wing Man,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 21, 1961. 18 Building permit application B12838, 15 4th Street SE, August 9, 1963, City of Rochester.

Time Theater

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 43

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


12

replace the entry door and relocate the ticket booth.19 By the late 1960s and the 1970s, the theater had developed a reputation for showing adult-only films. Mayo sold the property in 1977. It continued to operate as a theater until 1982, when the Rochester Theater Company decided to replace the Time by adding two additional screens to its existing theater at the Northbrook Shopping Center.20

Time Theater, 1975. Courtesy of the History Center of Olmsted County.

In 1983, the Time Theater building, along with the adjacent Gold Bond Stamp Store (originally a Red Owl grocery store constructed in 1935), was redeveloped into a two-level restaurant and retail space known as the Zumbro Market. According to one newspaper article, the remodel included the complete gutting of the interior and an exterior “face-lift.” Drawings for the project on file at the City of Rochester indicate that the renovation included the remodel of the primary entrance to its current configuration, the addition of windows on the east and north elevations, the addition of an entrance on the east as well as the north elevation, and the infill of two small window openings on the east elevation. The deck along the east and north elevations was also added at this time.21 The building was purchased by AFL-CIO Labor Temple Association around 2000 and then by the City of Rochester in 2013. Building permit records indicate numerous interior remodels for a variety of

19 Building permit application B17405, 15 4th Street SE, July 14, 1967, City of Rochester. 20 “We Will Show No Films Because ‘It’s Time,’” Rochester Post-Bulletin, April 24, 1982; 21 “We Will Show No Films Because ‘It’s Time,’” Rochester Post-Bulletin, April 24, 1982; Beverly Geber, “Gutting of Time Theater Is Nearing Completion,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, March 9, 1983; Lee Hilgendorf, “A XXX Theater in Rochester – Really?” Rochester Post-Bulletin, April 5, 2016; “Could the Legends Site Be Deemed a Local Landmark?” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 28, 2021; Application for Building Permit and Zoning Certificate, 18-1983, 11 – 15 4th Street Southeast, January 19, 1983, City of Rochester; Notice 797, Donald Austin, Building and Safety Department, City of Rochester, to Ankeny, Kell and Ankeny & Weiderholt, September 30, 1983, on file at the City of Rochester; Ankeny, Kell & Associates, “Zumbro Market,” February 17, 1983, Sheet A7, on file at the City of Rochester.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 44

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


13

commercial tenants during the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. Most recently, the building was leased to the Legends Sports Bar. The building is currently vacant.22 Historic Context(s): Movie Theaters in Downtown Rochester At the turn of the 20th century, motion pictures were a novel form of entertainment in the United States. These silent films were shown in vaudeville houses as well as by traveling exhibitors at fairgrounds, circuses, and other locations. The first permanent theater designated specifically for the showing of motion pictures in the United States was the Nickelodeon, which opened in a converted storefront in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1905. During the first decade of the twentieth century, thousands of similar “storefront theaters” that catered to the working class opened across the country.23 By the 1910s and 1920s, moviegoing had become a middle-class pastime, leading to the construction of elegant new theaters that represented a “step-up” in theater design. The era between 1913 and 1932 became known as the “golden age” of movie theaters and moviegoing, the era of the elaborate movie palace. According to historian David Kenney, “the 1920s [proved] to be a decade of excess” in theater design.24 Historian Charlotte Herzog elaborates on the characteristics of these movie palaces:

Among [the movie palace’s] most distinguishing characteristics were its numerous appointments, lavish decorations, and enormous size. During the teens the average movie palace had from one thousand to eighteen hundred seats…During the 1920s, the peak years of the movie palace, the average size house accommodated from eighteen to twenty-five hundred… The exterior and interior of the theater were lavishly decorated in a romantic but highly eclectic historic mode to distinguish it from the other buildings around it and to give it the stamp of legitimacy. With the help of materials like terra cotta and plaster, architects combined their own improvisations with exact reproductions of entire renowned buildings or parts of buildings to achieve their effect.25

The increasing popularity of movie palaces was reflected in the movie theaters built in Rochester during the 1910s and 1920s. The Empress Theater (not extant) at 5 Broadway Avenue South was constructed in 1914; the Metropolitan Theater (not extant) at 102 South Broadway was

22 Lee Hilgendorf, “A XXX Theater in Rochester – Really?” Rochester Post-Bulletin, April 5, 2016; “Could the Legends Site Be Deemed a Local Landmark?” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 28, 2021; Building permit 00-08174, 11 SE 4th Street, December 15, 2000, City of Rochester. For examples of building permits for interior remodeling, see Building permit R11-0301CB, 11 SE 4th Street, November 4, 2011, City of Rochester; Building permit 07-01817, 11 SE 4th Street, July 25, 2007, City of Rochester; Building permit 96-00888, 11 SE 4th Street, May 14, 1996, City of Rochester; Building permit 96-00888, 11 SE 4th Street, April 1, 1996, City of Rochester; 23 Bob Mondello, “100th Anniversary of First-Ever U.S. Movie Theater,” NPR, June 17, 2005, https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4707873#:~:text=the%20United%20States.-,On%20June%2019%2C%201905%2C%20the%20Nickelodeon%20opened%20in%20Pittsburgh%2C,ancient%20Greek%20word%20for%20theater; Brittannica 24 Dave Kenney, Twin Cities Picture Show: A Century of Movie Going (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007), 151; Ross Menick and Andreas Fuches, Cinema Treasures: A New Look at Classic Movie Theaters (St. Paul, MN: MBI, 2004), 6, 30. 25 Charlotte Herzog, “The Movie Palace and the Theatrical Sources of Its Architectural Style,” Cinema Journal 20, no. 2 (Spring 1981), 17 – 19.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 45

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


14

built in 1914; and the Lawler Theater (not extant) at 221 – 223 1st Avenue Southwest was constructed in 1916. Finally, the Chateau Dodge Theater (extant and listed on the NRHP) at 15 1st Street Southwest was constructed in 1927. The Chateau was an example of an atmospheric theater, theaters “designed to give moviegoers the illusion that they were sitting in an outdoor elegant garden.” The exterior featured an architectural style described as “French chateau” or a hybrid of the French and Byzantine styles. The Empress, Lawler, and Metropolitan each held 1,000 seats, while the Chateau held 1,600. All were operated by the Finkelstein and Ruben Amusement Company, which by the late 1920s operated 125 theaters across the country.26

Chateau Theater, 1938. Courtesy of the History Center of Olmsted County.

The Great Depression was a catalyst for change in both the movie watching experience and the design of movie theaters. Historian Richard Butsch notes that

The Depression abruptly redefined the movie-going experience. It halted the promotion of movie-going as an experience of luxury at the movie palace. In its place, price, comfort and

26 Robert Frame, “Chateau Dodge Theater,” National Register of Historic Places nomination, April 1980, Section 8, https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/454faa87-eb58-4c93-bcbf-746dad444c24/; “Empress Theater,” Cinema Treasures, accessed June 7, 2021, http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/45864; History Center of Olmsted County, “Metropolitan Theater,” Cinema Treasures, accessed June 7, 2021, http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/60340; Kenney, Twin Cities, 135; Keiter Directory Company, Rochester City and Olmsted County Directory (Rochester, MN: Keiter Directory Co., Inc., 1929), 44; “Rochester Starts Restoring Chateau,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 28, 2016.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 46

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


15

distraction from worries became the selling point. Movie palace construction stopped…Many theaters, mostly independents in small towns, closed their doors in the early years…The movie palaces that survived in the 1930s redefined the evening from one of champagne to one of popcorn and soda. They drastically reduced prices, eliminated or reduced the stage shows, cut staffs, and redefined their jobs. They lowered the wages of ushers and trained them for crowd control instead of courteous assistance. Many began continuous showings of movies and emphasized double features instead of lavish live stage shows. 27

These trends appear to have held true in Rochester. In a 1932 newspaper article, Rochester theater manager Ray Niles noted that “the general reduction of wages, associated with the tremendous amount of unemployment, has been responsible for a severe drop in theater attendance.”28 The Metropolitan Theater went out of business in 1931, and the Chateau was forced to closed briefly in 1932 before reopening in 1933.29 By the mid-1930s, however, lowered prices and promotional offers had successfully revived ticket sales and generated a new boom in theater construction and improvements.30 Many existing theaters were remodeled, including those in Rochester. Based on available architectural drawings on file at the University of Minnesota, it appears that the Chateau, Lawler, and Empress were all remodeled in the 1930s by the renowned theater architects Liebenberg and Kaplan.31 The firm of Liebenberg and Kaplan was a partnership between Jack Liebenberg and Seeman Kaplan. Liebenberg graduated from the newly-formed University of Minnesota School of Architecture’s in 1916. After serving in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War I, he returned to the University of Minnesota to teach architecture. Among his students was Seeman Kaplan. One of Kaplan and Liebenberg’s early projects was the redesign of the Arion Theater in Northeast Minneapolis in 1923. During the Great Depression, Liebenberg and Kaplan went on to design the renovations of many theaters in the Twin Cities and the Upper Midwest, becoming, in the words of historian Dave Kenney, “the Upper Midwest’s premiere theater architect.”32

27 Richard Butsch, "American Movie Audiences of the 1930s," International Labor and Working-Class History, no. 59 (2001): 106-20. Accessed June 7, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27672712. 28 “Chateau Theater at Rochester to Close Saturday,” Winona Daily News, June 16, 1932. 29 “Metropolitan Theater,” Cinema Treasures, accessed June 7, 2021, http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/60340; Chateau Theater at Rochester to Close Saturday,” Winona Daily News, June 16, 1932; “Chateau Theater at Rochester to be Opened Soon,” Winona Daily News, March 20, 1933. 30 Hollywood Theater, National Register of Historic Places Nomination, Section 8, https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/3162541e-19fe-4fb7-8f25-4db1af45be6f/. 31 Liebenberg & Kaplan Papers Finding Aid, Northwest Architectural Archives, accessed June 7, 2021, https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/8/resources/2237/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&filter_q%5B%5D=chateau&op%5B%5D=&field%5B%5D=&limit=&q%5B%5D=*&filter_from_year=&filter_to_year=&commit=Search. 32 Kenney, Twin Cities Picture Show, 211 - 257.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 47

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


16

Uptown Theater in Minneapolis, c. 1939. The theater was constructed in 1916 and remodeled

in 1939 by Liebenberg and Kaplan. Courtesy of the University of Minnesota.

For many Depression-Era theaters, both remodeled and new, the new Moderne style replaced the previous opulent designs of the 1920s.33 Generally divided into two subsets, Art Deco and Streamline Moderne, the Moderne style largely rejected historical references as a source of inspiration. Art Deco architecture is generally characterized by its vertical emphasis, stylized ornamentation using geometrical forms such as chevrons and zigzags, and smooth wall surfaces. Low relief panels, strips of windows with decorative spandrels, and stepped back façades also characterize the style.34 Beginning around 1930, the Streamline Moderne style developed as a less ornamented form of Moderne architecture. Drawing from the industrial design of ships, planes, and automobiles, Streamline Moderne buildings featured smooth wall surfaces, a horizontal emphasis, rounded or curved corners and windows, and aluminum or stainless-steel detailing. Not only were Art Deco and Streamline Moderne theaters less expensive to build, but eliminating the decorative features of the 1920s movie palaces – such as chandeliers and ornamental plaster – also made them more acoustically friendly for the new “talkies” – motion pictures with sound.35

33 Kenney, Twin Cities Picture Show, 155. 34 “Art Deco Style: 1925 – 1940,” and “Moderne Style 1930 – 1950,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, accessed June 7, 2021, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/art-deco.html. 35 Hollywood Theater, National Register of Historic Places Nomination, Section 8, https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/3162541e-19fe-4fb7-8f25-4db1af45be6f/; Kenney, Twin Cities Picture Show, 152, 155.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 48

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


17

New theaters built during the Depression were smaller and less elaborate than their predecessors. According to Butsch:

The Depression took hold just as a handful of major Hollywood studios established firm control of the industry, vertically integrated from production to exhibition. These studios halted plans to build large and lavish movie palaces. Instead, they instituted a new wave of theater construction after 1932, building smaller theaters with sound systems in less expensive, modern architectural style on the business streets of neighborhoods, suburbs, and small towns to try to expand the market. In place of ushers, they turned up lights between movies so patrons could seat themselves. Concession stands selling popcorn and other refreshments became centers of profit.36

The construction of the Time Theater in 1937 reflects these trends. City directories suggest that the Time was the only new theater built in Rochester during the 1930s.37 The Time was much smaller than the Empress, Lawler, and Chateau, with a seating capacity of 400.38 The theater’s design marks it as a local example of the Moderne style, with a blend of Art Deco and Streamline Moderne elements. The symmetrical geometrical designs on its primary façade, as well as the original doors that featured half-moon windows and handles, reflected the Art Deco focus on geometric ornamentation, while the streamlined design of the original marquee was more representative of the Streamline Moderne style. The attention given the theater’s acoustical system and latest projection technology in newspaper publicity indicate that the theater was designed specifically for movies with sound. Following World War II, the theater industry was challenged by a number of factors, including the skyrocketing popularity of the television and the construction of drive-in theaters in the suburbs. Movie attendance peaked in 1946 and then began a decline.39 By the late 1950s, Rochester’s Lawler, Chateau, and Time Theaters remained in operation, though the Empress Theater had closed.40 Following the closure of Time Theater in 1982, both the Lawler and Chateau closed their doors in the 1980s.41

36 Butsch, “American Movie Audiences,” 111. 37 For example, see Keiter Directory Company, Rochester City and Olmsted County Directory (Rochester, MN: Keiter Directory Co., Inc., 1938), 48. 38 Keiter Directory Company, Rochester City and Olmsted County Directory (Rochester, MN: Keiter Directory Co., Inc., 1938), 48. 39 Kenney, Twin Cities Picture Show, 308, 331. 40 R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Rochester City Directory (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Company, 1957), 124. 41 “Lawler Theatre,” Cinema Treasures, accessed June 13, 2021, http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/28334; Chateau Theatre,” Cinema Treasures, accessed June 13, 2021, http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/3138.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 49

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/28334


18

Rationale for Local Historical Designation

Designation Criteria

Criteria from Sec. 4-7-8 of City Code. (Numbering was changed in 2019 from A-H and old criteria is shown in the right-hand column for reference.) An “X” indicates designation criterion met by the subject property. (1) Its character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural

characteristics of the city, state or United States; A

The Time Theater was one of several movie theaters in Rochester during the twentieth century. The Time was much smaller than its predecessors, such as the prominent Chateau Theater (listed on the NRHP), and its contribution to local entertainment in Rochester from the 1930s through the early 1980s does not appear to have been distinguished from those other theaters in any significant way. Thus, the Time Theater does not meet Criterion 1. (2) Its location as a place of a significant historic event; B The building is not known to have been the place of a significant historic event and therefore does not meet Criterion 2. (3) Its location within and contribution as an element of a landmark district; C The building is not part of a landmark district and does not meet Criterion 3. (4) Its identification with a person who significantly contributed to the culture and

development of the city; D

While the building was constructed on property owned by the Mayo Properties Association established by Dr. Charles and William Mayo, the Time Theater is not directly identified or associated with either individual and does not meet Criterion 4. X (5) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period,

form, or treatment; E

The Time Theater meets Criterion 5 as a local example of the Streamline Moderne and Art Deco architectural styles and as a local example of a building type – the small movie theater constructed in the United States during the 1930s. As constructed, the building’s design incorporated elements of both the Art Deco and Streamline Moderne architectural styles, including geometric designs, smooth stone cladding, and a metal marquee. With its small size and general Moderne character, the theater was also an example of the small neighborhood theaters constructed across the United States during the Great Depression. X (6) Its identification as the work of an architect or master builder whose individual

efforts have influenced the development of the city or have contributed to the development of a nationally- or internationally-recognized style or movement;

F

The Time Theater meets Criterion 6 for its identification as the work of master architects Jack Liebenberg and Seeman Kaplan. Liebenberg and Kaplan achieved national recognition for their designs of Midwest theaters, and this building appears to be the only theater in Rochester designed by the firm. The builder, C. C. Pagenhart, was a local contractor who also constructed other buildings in Rochester; however, there is no information to suggest that this building was a particularly notable example of Pagenhart’s local work. (7) Its embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, material, or

craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation; and G

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 50

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


19

The building does not embody the elements of architectural design, detail, material, or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation; therefore, the building does not meet Criterion 7. (8) Its location, scale, or other physical characteristics representing an established

and familiar visual feature or a neighborhood, a district, the community, or the city. H

The building is an established component of this area of downtown Rochester, having occupied its current location for over eight decades. However, it is inconspicuous and diminutive in both scale and design, especially when compared to the more prominent and elaborate commercial buildings along Broadway Avenue South. Therefore, the building does not meet Criterion 8.

Period of Significance A property’s “period of significance” is defined as the span of time in which it attained historic significance.42 The Time Theater is historically significant under Criterion 5 as a local example of the Streamline Moderne and Art Deco architectural styles and as a local example of a building type – the small Moderne movie theaters constructed in the United States during the Great Depression of the 1930s. It is also significant under Criterion 6 for its identification as the work of master theater architects Jack Liebenberg and Seeman Kaplan. In accordance with National Park Service guidelines for the designation of architecturally significant properties, the period of significance is 1937, the date of the building’s construction.43 Evaluation of Integrity

The Time Theater does not retain integrity to the period of significance.

Location The Time Theater has not been moved and retains integrity of location.

Design The Time Theater does not retain integrity of design. The primary façade has been significantly altered by the removal of the original double door entry sequence, ticket booth, metal canopy and marquee, lighting, and display cases, as well as the installation of cementitious paneling and a large awning. The addition of new window openings and entrances at the east and north elevations and a deck along the east and north elevations has also altered the property’s historic design.

Setting The Time Theater retains its historic setting, with 4th Street Southeast to the south, the west bank of the Zumbro River to the east, the former Red Owl Grocery Store to the west, and a parking lot to

42 See National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 42. 43 See National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 42.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 51

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


20

the north. The addition of the Riverwalk Trail along the Zumbro River does not significantly detract from the theater’s integrity of setting.

Materials The Time Theater does not retain integrity of materials. With the exception of the building’s exterior masonry, most of the theater’s distinctive materials have been lost, and new materials, including the storefront and awning, are incompatible with the original.

Workmanship The Time Theater does not retain integrity of workmanship. Though the building retains its historic masonry detailing, it has lost its marquee and canopy, the most important elements of historic workmanship.

Feeling Due to a loss of integrity of design, materials, and workmanship, including the loss of the exterior features that identified the building as a movie theater (such as a double entrance, ticket booth, marquee and canopy, and signage), the Time Theater no longer conveys its historic aesthetic and function as a Moderne movie theater and does not retain integrity of feeling.

Association The building’s redevelopment in 1983 and variety of uses over the past several decades have obscured its association with its original occupant, the Time Theater; therefore, the building does not retain integrity of association.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 52

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


21

Preparer Information Date of Study July 2021 Name & Title of Preparer I Lauren Anderson Organization/Firm New History Name & Title of Preparer II Molly Patterson-Lundgren, AICP, Heritage

Preservation & Urban Design Coordinator Organization/Firm City of Rochester Name & Title of Preparer III Organization/Firm

Information contributing to this study was also provided by the History Center of Olmsted County and Kevin Lund. Mr. Lund submitted an application on February 5th, 2021, requesting City designation of this property as a Landmark. He continued to research and provide additional findings throughout the property evaluation process. As of completion of this study, the City has not provided a copy of the designation for State Historic Preservation Office review, nor held a public hearing. Both of these actions are required prior to a landmark designation by the City Council.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 53

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )

RED OWL GROCERY STORE Rochester Historic Landmark Eligibility

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 54

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )

CONTACT: LAUREN ANDERSON | 612.843.4146 | [email protected]

CITY OF ROCHESTER LANDMARK DESIGNATION

STUDY

Red Owl Grocery Store 11 4th Street Southeast, Rochester, MN 55904

July 2021

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 55

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )

City of Rochester Landmark Designation Study Red Owl Grocery Store 11 4th Street Southeast Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Prepared for: City of Rochester 201 4th Street Southeast Rochester, MN 55904 By: New History 575 Ninth Street Southeast, Suite 215 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 (612) 843-4140 www.newhistory.com For questions and comments: Meghan Elliott and Lauren Anderson [email protected]; [email protected] (612) 843-4146 ©2021 New History

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 56

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )

Historic Property Name: Red Owl Grocery Store Rochester Historic Landmark Eligibility

1

Property Identification & Description

Identification Historic Name Red Owl Grocery Store Current Name Legends Bar n’ Grill Address 11 4th Street North City/Twp Rochester County Olmsted Legal Description ALL TH PT OF MILL RESERVATION AS PLATTED IN MOE &

OLDS DES AS FOLL COM AT N PROPERTY LINE OF 4TH ST SE & CONTINUING TH IN A NELY DIRECTION AL E LINE OF ALLEY 175FT MORE OR LESS TH E TO THE WALL OF THE ZUMBRO RIVER TH S AL WALL BACK TO THE N PROPERTY LINE OF 4TH ST SE TH W AL N LINE 4TH ST SE TO BEG

USGS Quad Rochester, MN Property ID (PIN) 640211053797 SHPO Inventory Number OL-ROC-456 Previous Determinations National Register – Not Listed Phase 1 Survey – The 106 Group (2014)

Aerial view of Rochester, 2021. Courtesy of Olmsted County.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 57

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


2

Property Description Architect/Engineer/Contractor Clyde Smith (architect); C. C. Pagenhart (contractor) Style Streamline Moderne/Classical Revival Construction Date 1935 Original Use Grocery store Current Use Vacant (most recently used as a restaurant) Associated Properties/Districts N/A

Resource Type Buildings Structures Sites Objects Contributing Resources • • • • Non-Contributing Resources • Red Owl

Grocery Store

• • •

Statement of Significance The Red Owl Grocery Store is historically significant under Criterion 1 for its association with Red Owl, a notable regional chain grocery store that contributed both to the development of Rochester as well as to the rise of chain stores across the United States. As the only operating Red Owl store in Rochester from its construction in 1935 until 1952, 11 4th Street Southeast is a local example of the “modernized” grocery stores developed by Red Owl in the 1930s that anticipated the full-fledged supermarkets of the postwar era. The period of significance is 1935 – 1952, reflecting the 17-year period from the store’s opening until the opening of the Red Owl Supermarket at Miracle Mile Shopping Center in 1952. The property does not retain integrity to the period of significance and is therefore recommended as not eligible for local landmark designation.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 58

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


3

Physical Description of the Property

The Red Owl Grocery Store at 11 4th Street Southeast is a one-story, flat-roofed, rectangular-shaped masonry commercial building constructed in 1935. The building is located in downtown Rochester, just northwest of the 4th Street bridge over the Zumbro River. The building’s primary south elevation fronts on 4th Street Southeast. The building shares a party wall with the adjacent building to the east. The building site is bordered by a parking lot to the north and an alley to the west. In 1942, a one-story concrete block addition was added to the building’s north elevation.1 The addition was extended north in 1983. That same year, the building was connected at the interior to the adjacent building, and both buildings are now located on the same parcel addressed at 11 4th Street Southeast.2

South elevation, looking north, March 2021. Courtesy of the City of Rochester.

South Elevation

The building’s primary elevation, which faces south, is clad in rectangular Bedford stone panels. At the base of the elevation, a polished black stone water table runs the length of the façade. The center of the water table features non-original stone panels and one stack of brick, where the

1 Building permit 2686, 11 4th Street SE, February 13, 1942, City of Rochester. 2 Ankeny, Kell & Associates, “Zumbro Market,” February 17, 1983, Sheets A1 – A4, on file at the City of Rochester.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 59

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


4

building’s original double-door entrance was formerly located (removed in 1983).3 A modern aluminum-framed storefront window system rests above the water table. The storefront has tinted glazing, and opaque signage at the bottom half of the glazing. The top of the façade features a dentiled stone cornice and parapet cap. West Elevation

The secondary west elevation faces the alley. The southernmost portion of the façade matches the primary south elevation, with a polished stone water table, stone cladding, modern aluminum storefront system, and a dentiled stone cornice. The remainder and majority of the original 1935 building’s west façade is composed of light-colored brick with a dark-colored brick water table and a concrete or stone parapet cap. The elevation has two fixed aluminum windows with concrete or stone sills, two non-historic door openings with single flush metal doors (installed in 1983), and a louver.4 The location of a former third window opening, infilled with brick in 1983, is also visible.5 Electrical conduit and light fixtures are attached to the façade.

West elevation, looking southeast, March 2021. Courtesy of the City of Rochester.

3 Ankeny, Kell & Associates, “Zumbro Market,” February 17, 1983, Sheet A7, on file at the City of Rochester. 4 Ankeny, Kell & Associates, “Zumbro Market,” February 17, 1983, Sheet A7, on file at the City of Rochester. 5 Ankeny, Kell & Associates, “Zumbro Market,” February 17, 1983, Sheet A7, on file at the City of Rochester.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 60

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


5

North Elevation (Addition)

The building’s secondary north elevation faces the rear parking lot. A one-story, concrete block addition – constructed in 1942 and extended north towards the parking lot in 1983 – runs the length of the façade.6 The upper portion of the original 1935 building’s north elevation is visible above the addition. At the west side of the addition, a ramp with metal handrail leads to a set of modern aluminum and glass doors beneath an awning. A wood and concrete block trash enclosure (also installed in 1983) is attached to the addition’s north elevation.7

Entrance at north addition, looking southeast, July 2021. Courtesy of the City of

Rochester.

East Elevation

The secondary east elevation of the Red Owl Grocery Store is concealed by the adjacent building and is no longer visible.

6 Ankeny, Kell & Associates, “Zumbro Market,” February 17, 1983, Sheet A1, on file at the City of Rochester; Building permit 2686, 11 4th Street SE, February 13, 1942, City of Rochester. 7 Ankeny, Kell & Associates, “Zumbro Market,” February 17, 1983, Sheet A1, on file at the City of Rochester.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 61

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


6

Character-Defining Features:

The Red Owl Grocery Store does not retain integrity, and only some of its character-defining features remain.

Character-defining features that have been lost include:

• Central double-door entrance at the primary south façade and related pedestrian circulation pattern on 4th Street Southeast

• Red Owl signage and awning • Original chrome storefront windows with clear glass

Character-defining features that remain include:

• Bedford stone cladding and cornice • Polished stone water table • Brick and concrete block at the secondary west façade

Discussion of Historical Significance

Property History

The Red Owl Grocery Store was constructed at 11 4th Street Southeast in 1935.8 The store was developed on land owned by the Mayo Properties Association, the site of a former mill which the association purchased from the Rochester Milling Company in 1930.9 The store replaced Red Owl’s first Rochester location on South Broadway, opened in 1922.10 The grand opening for the new 4th Street Southeast store occurred in November of 1935. Newspaper advertisements hailed the “New De Luxe Red Owl Food Store…Complete in Every Department to Serve You with Finest Quality Foods at Saving Prices.”11 At the grand opening, the store distributed free bread and shopping bags to patrons, and musical balloons and candy to children.12

8 “Behind This Curtain…” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 11, 1935; Deed Record No. 151, September 26, 1930, courtesy of Kevin Lund. 9 “Real Estate Record: Time Theater,” September 26, 1930, Mayo Association Real Estate Records, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN. 10 “Red Owl Grocery in New Building,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935. 11 “Curtain’s Up!.” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 13, 1935. 12 “Red Owl Food Stores,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 62

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


7

Red Owl at 11 4th Street Southeast, 1935. Courtesy of the Rochester Post-Bulletin.

The new building was constructed by local contractor C. C. Pagenhart and designed by architect Clyde W. Smith (1886 – 1952). Smith, a Minneapolis architect, appears to have specialized in designs of larger houses, though he also designed the Woodhill Country Club (near Wayzata, Minnesota) and the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Office Building (in Minneapolis, Minnesota).13 The Rochester Post-Bulletin called the new building designed and constructed by Smith and Pagenhart a “beautiful modern building,” “the most modern and best equipped.”14 The 100 by 45-foot store had double the floor space of the original South Broadway store, requiring an increase from four to ten or twelve employees.15 The primary façade featured a set of double doors with transoms at the center of the façade, flanked by storefront windows above a polished stone bulkhead. The storefront was covered by an awning. Above the awning, a blade sign with the iconic Red Owl logo was attached to the façade.16 The Rochester Post-Bulletin commented on the aesthetics of the new store, noting that “a larger glass-plated front, including a portion of the west side, admits an abundance of light. The store front is made more attractive by an outside finishing in Minnesota Bedford stone and

13 “Deaths,” Minneapolis Star, May 19, 1952. 14 “Curtain’s Up!.” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 13, 1935; “Red Owl Grocery in New Building,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935; “City Seeks WPA Money for Clubhouse in 1936,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, October 20, 2011, https://www.postbulletin.com/news/news/local/city-seeks-wpa-money-for-clubhouse-in/article_cb52899c-1387-55de-b899-ade2e6f7f9f3.html; Building permit 610, 11 4th Street SE, September 26, 1935, City of Rochester. 15 “Curtain’s Up!.” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 13, 1935; “Red Owl Grocery in New Building,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935. 16 “Red Owl Food Stores,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935; photograph of the Red Owl Store, February 1936, Olmsted County Historical Society; Photograph of the Red Owl Store, January 1936, Olmsted County Historical Society; “Red Owl Grocery In New Building,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 63

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


8

chromium.”17 The building’s symmetrical design and dentiled cornice recalled the Classical Revival style used throughout the United States during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. On the other hand, the use of smooth and polished stone cladding as well as chromium reflected the trendy Streamline Moderne style of the 1930s.18 Free parking was provided both at the east side and the rear of the building. 19

Red Owl at 11 4th Street Southeast, 1936. Courtesy of the History Center of Olmsted County.

At the interior, the store had “ample room for groceries, fresh fruits and vegetables, dairy products, sea foods and meats.”20 According to the Post-Bulletin, interior fixtures were “modernistic in design,” with showcases and trays constructed of birch and meat counters and coolers “finished in white porcelain.”21

17 “Red Owl Grocery In New Building,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935. 18 “Classical Revival Style 1895 – 1950” and “Moderne Style: 1930 – 1950,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, accessed June 16, 2021, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/index.html. 19 “Red Owl,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, December 19, 1935; “Red Owl Food Stores,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935. 20 “Curtain’s Up!.” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 13, 1935; “Red Owl Grocery in New Building,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935. 21 “Red Owl Grocery in New Building,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 64

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


9

Red Owl at 11 4th Street Southeast, 1936. Courtesy of the History Center of Olmsted County.

The Red Owl continued to occupy 11 4th Street Southeast through approximately 1952. In 1937, the Time Theater was constructed on the adjacent parcel, obscuring the building’s east elevation. In 1942, a one-story concrete block addition was added to the store’s north elevation.22

Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map of Rochester, 1948, Sheet No. 4. Courtesy of the

History Center of Olmsted County.

22 Building permit 2686, 11 4th Street SE, February 13, 1942, City of Rochester.

Red Owl

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 65

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


10

In 1952, a Red Owl Supermarket opened in the new Miracle Mile Shopping Center at the west edge of Rochester. This store replaced the 11 4th Street Southeast location; by 1956, the building was listed as vacant in the Rochester City Directory.23 By 1965, the building held the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company; during the 1970s, it was occupied by the Gold Bond Stamp premium store.24 In 1983, both this building and the adjacent building were redeveloped into a two-level restaurant and retail space known as the Zumbro Market. According to one newspaper article, the remodel included the complete gutting of the interior and an exterior “face-lift.”25 Drawings for the project filed with the project’s building permits indicate that the renovation included the removal of the primary entrance from the building’s primary south façade, the extension of the rear concrete block addition and installation of the trash enclosure at the north elevation, the infill of two window openings on the west elevation, and the addition of two door openings at the west elevation.26 11 4th Street Southeast was purchased by AFL-CIO Labor Temple Association in 2001 and then by the City of Rochester in 2013. Building permit records indicate numerous interior remodels for a variety of commercial tenants during the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. Most recently, the building was leased to the Legends Sports Bar. The building is currently vacant.27

Historic Context(s): Red Owl in Rochester The Red Owl grocery store chain was founded in Rochester in 1922, with “one small grocery”28 on 310 South Broadway (not extant).29 Founded by Ford Bell, the son of General Mills founder James Ford Bell, the company originally sold dry goods, groceries, and coal.30 By the end of the decade, Red Owl had become a familiar Midwest chain, with 175 stores in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota.31 Red Owl was one of numerous chain grocery stores that rose to prominence in the United States during the 1920s. These chain stores, which included well-known

23 “Red Owl to Note 46th Year Here,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, March 29, 1968; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Rochester City Directory, 1954 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1954), 660; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Rochester City Directory, 1956 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1956), 83, 563; “Looking Over…” Rochester Post-Bulletin, October 8, 1952. 24 Tamara Schonsberg, “Southeast Rich in Loyalty, Memories,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, February 25, 1995; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Rochester City Directory, 1965 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1965), 70. 25 “We Will Show No Films Because ‘It’s Time,’” Rochester Post-Bulletin, April 24, 1982; Beverly Geber, “Gutting of Time Theater Is Nearing Completion,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, March 9, 1983; Lee Hilgendorf, “A XXX Theater in Rochester – Really?” Rochester Post-Bulletin, April 5, 1916; “Could the Legends Site Be Deemed a Local Landmark?” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 28, 2021. 26 Sanborn Map Company, Fire Insurance Map of Rochester, MN, 1928, rev. 1948, Sheet 4, Proquest Digital Sanborn Maps; Ankeny, Kell & Associates, “Zumbro Market,” February 17, 1983, Sheets A1 - A7, on file at the City of Rochester. 27 Lee Hilgendorf, “A XXX Theater in Rochester – Really?” Rochester Post-Bulletin, April 5, 2016; “Could the Legends Site Be Deemed a Local Landmark?” Rochester Post-Bulletin, January 28, 2021; Building permit 00-08174, 11 SE 4th Street, December 15, 2000, City of Rochester. For examples of building permits for interior remodeling, see Building permit R11-0301CB, 11 SE 4th Street, November 4, 2011, City of Rochester; Building permit 07-01817, 11 SE 4th Street, July 25, 2007, City of Rochester; Building permit 96-00888, 11 SE 4th Street, May 14, 1996, City of Rochester; Building permit 96-00888, 11 SE 4th Street, April 1, 1996, City of Rochester. 28 “Red Owl Has Anniversary,” Green Bay Press-Gazette, May 17, 1947. 29 Keiter Directory Company, Rochester City and Olmsted County Minnesota Directory, 1923 (Rochester, MN: Keiter Directory Company, 1923), 408; “Red Owl Grocery in New Building,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935; “Red Owl Has Anniversary,” Green Bay Press-Gazette, May 17, 1947. 30 William Burleson, “Red Owl Finds a New Generation of Admirers,” Hennepin History 78, no. 3 (2019), 22 – 23. 31 “Red Owl Stores, Inc., Opens Meat Market,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 20, 1929.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 66

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


11

national chains such as Piggly Wiggly, Kroger, A&P, and National Tea Company, represented a departure from the sole-proprietor specialty shops and general stores that dominated the grocery market in the 1800s. Focusing on efficiency and standardization, chain stores used bulk purchasing and high-volume sales to offer lower prices to customers. Many bought directly from manufacturers and/or produced their own brands of product, decreasing their costs per item. Many also adopted fixed price and no-credit policies, and the new concept of self-service, in which patrons were free to select their own merchandise without the help of clerks.32 Newspaper articles and advertisements covering the opening of new Red Owl stores during the 1920s indicate the company’s use of these new chain store merchandising techniques. By August of 1922, Red Owl had expanded outside of Rochester to open a store in New Ulm, Minnesota. An article in the New Ulm Review emphasized the novel nature of the new self-help grocery store for this area of rural Minnesota, and the strategies employed by Red Owl, noting that

This kind of a store, a help-yourself grocery, is a new departure in New Ulm, although stores of this kind are quite common in the East…Groceries and vegetables in the Red Owl are put up in packages and the price plainly marked. The customer may help himself, gather up the things he wants, and then go to the cashier and pay. In this way, fewer clerks are needed and quick service depends on the customer’s own speed…33

Likewise, a 1923 article in the Brainerd Daily Dispatch covering the opening of a Red Owl store in Brainerd, Minnesota noted:

The Red Owl company is entirely a Minnesota concern. It has been in business but one year, and now has fourteen stores in operation…The aim of the company is to sell well-known and nationally advertised lines of groceries of the highest quality at the lowest possible price. This is made possible through quantity buying for all stores, and through the system of the help-yourself selling on the cash and carry plan…Customers enter through a turn-stile and make their own selections from merchandise attractively arranged and easily accessible. Several clerks are always on hand to assist if patrons so desire.34

32 David Gwynn, “A Quick History of the Supermarket,” July 4, 2009, https://www.groceteria.com/about/a-quick-history-of-the-supermarket/; “Grocery Stores and Supermarkets,” Encyclopedia of Chicago, accessed June 3, 2021, http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/554.html; Tracey Deutsch, Building a Housewife's Paradise Gender, Politics, and American Grocery Stores in the Twentieth Century (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2010), 51 – 53, 58 – 62, 139. 33 “Red Owl Opened Saturday,” New Ulm Review, August 23, 1922. 34 “New Red Owl Grocerateria,” Brainerd Daily Dispatch, May 31, 1923.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 67

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


12

Interior of a Red Owl store in Minneapolis, c. 1920s. Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical

Society. By 1923, there were 14 Red Owl Stores located in Little Falls, St. Cloud, Sauk Center, Alexandria, Fergus Falls, Mankato, Red Wing, Faribault, New Ulm, Fairmont, Blue Earth, and Austin, in addition to Rochester. Within another year, there were 22 Red Owl stores, including in Eau Claire and Menomonie, Wisconsin. By 1929, the company had a total of 175 stores in the Midwest, including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with headquarters located in Minneapolis. A 1923 newspaper article noted that Red Owl sold “package groceries…canned fruits and vegetables in season, dairy products and smoked meats.” Newspaper advertisements showcased a range of packaged groceries, such as breakfast cereals, coffee, and canned goods, as well as small selections of fresh produce.35 By 1929, 22 of the company’s 175 stores also had meat markets.36 During the 1930s, Red Owl began a modernization campaign of its existing and new stores. Newspaper advertisements and articles covering store construction and remodeling in Midwest towns suggest that this modernization plan included several elements. First, interior layout and circulation were revised to facilitate better self-service. This included wider aisles, the removal of counters that separated products from people and required clerks to service customers, and new methods of display. The chain also began to incorporate shopping carts (or “go-carts,” as the company called

35 “Red Owl Stores,” Brainerd Daily Dispatch, July 26, 1928; “Former Little Falls Girl Married,” Little Falls Herald, October 13, 1922; “Opening Saturday, June 7th,” Eau Claire Leader, June 6, 1924; “Red Owl Stores Inc.,” Dunn County News, March 13, 1924; “New Red Owl Grocerateria,” Brainerd Daily Dispatch, May 31, 1923; “Red Owl Stores, Inc., Opens Meat Market,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 20, 1929. 36 “Red Owl Stores, Inc., Opens Meat Market,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 20, 1929.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 68

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


13

them) into the shopping experience, removing the inconvenience of carrying heavy baskets. Second, Red Owl expanded its produce and meat departments, and updated its store equipment and technology to reflect this expansion. At some stores, “vapor spray equipment” was added to keep produce displays fresh, and seafood was added to the meat department. An article in the April 14, 1938 edition of the Dunn County News (Menomonie, WI), summarized these changes as being “in line with the company’s policy to provide better and more systematic displays, to exhibit merchandise in a more pleasing manner, and to give better and quicker service to patrons.” The aesthetic of these new or remodeled stores was commonly described as “modern.” Cleanliness was a high priority, communicated through the use of the color white. Newspaper articles also suggest that on-site parking lots were added to some locations, evidence of American automobile use even during the years of the Great Depression.37 The development of Rochester’s second Red Owl at 11 4th Street Southeast reflected these 1930s trends in Red Owl store design. While newspaper articles covering the store’s opening do not provide extensive information about its design, the inclusion of vegetables and fruits as well as seafood in the list of store departments, the incorporation of an on-site parking lot, the description of the building as “modern,” and the use of white porcelain at the interior are reflective of other Red Owls constructed or remodeled in the 1930s.38 The changes implemented by Red Owl in the 1930s were the beginning of the development of a new type of grocery store that would dominate the grocery market by the mid-twentieth century – the supermarket. The development of the supermarket began in the early 1930s with independent grocery retailers, who experimented with the development of larger stores that offered a full complement of dry goods, produce, meat, and bakery items at one location. Often located in abandoned industrial buildings away from residential neighborhoods, supermarkets relied not only on self-service and low prices to draw customers but also gaudy marketing techniques and a no-frills shopping environment. Slowly, grocery store chains adopted the ideas pioneered by these independent supermarkets, refining the concept to create a more sophisticated experience that would appeal to upscale shoppers.39

37 Information on the design of Red Owl Stores during the 1930s was derived from historic newspaper articles in Midwest newspapers. For example, see “Red Owl Store Altered to Help Shoppers…” Dunn County News, April 14, 1938; “Red Owl Invites You to the Opening Sale…” Lead Daily Call, October 13, 1938, “Announcing the Opening of a New Red Owl Store,” Gordon Journal, December 19, 1935; “Red Owl Store Moves Into New Modern Building,” Chadron Journal, June 16, 1939; “Red Owl Opens Fine New Food Market in Clark Building, Lead” Deadwood Daily Pioneer Times, April 11, 1936; “Red Owl Store Will Be Opened to the Public Friday,” Rapid City Daily Journal, June 26, 1936; “Red Owl Adds New Tables, Shelves,” Dunn County News, July 15, 1937; and “Newly-Remodeled Red Owl Store Uses New Idea in Merchandising,” Argus-Leader, May 27, 1937. For automobile history during the Great Depression, see John Bell Rae, The American Automobile Industry (Boston, MA: G. K. Hall & Company 1984), 73 – 74. 38 “Curtain’s Up!.” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 13, 1935; “Red Owl Food Stores,” Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935; “Red Owl Grocery In New Building,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 14, 1935; “Red Owl,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, December 19, 1935. 39 Paul Gilmore, “Grocery Stores and Supermarkets,” Encyclopedia of Chicago, accessed June 3, 2021, http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/554.html; Deustch, 133, 144 – 148; Paul Ellickson, “The Volution of the Supermarket Industry: From A & P to Walmart,” University of Rochester William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration, Working Paper No. FR 11-17, April 1, 2011, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1814166, p. 7.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 69

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


14

The business concept of the supermarket required each store to draw a large volume of trade. To attract and retain that trade, architectural historian Richard Longstreth notes that stores had to “offer products of dependable quality and in wide variety at low prices – prices often lower than those of major chain stores.” The cost of overhead was reduced by relying on self-service to the greatest extent possible. Large parking lots were provided to draw motorists arriving by automobile.40 According to Longstreth,

…the supermarket…helped to revolutionize the distribution system by firmly establishing low price as a transcendent factor in mass consumption appeal, by expanding the scope of self-service shopping, and by selling food and other convenience goods at a much larger volume than previously thought possible. These buildings also accelerated the trend of business development away from established nodes, with location predicated on easy access for substantial numbers of motorists.41

Though the concept was developed in the 1930s, it was not until after World War II that the supermarket really came into its own.42 Supermarkets began catering to an increasingly richer clientele, leading to their construction in suburbs and in shopping malls. The stores also expanded their offerings with additional services.43 By the early 1940s, new Red Owl stores were being identified as “supermarkets.” A newspaper article covering the 1941 Red Owl Supermarket in Deadwood, South Dakota suggests the continuity between these 1940s supermarkets and the company’s 1930s stores, noting that the store offered “easy parking in a big parking lot; modern shopping “baskets on wheels”; wide spacious aisles; easily accessible stocks for pleasant, speedy self-service; quick “no waiting” checking,” and a variety of meat and produce.44 Another newspaper article covering the 1942 remodel of an existing Red Owl Store described the new aesthetic and store layout:

All fixtures in the old store were discarded to be replaced by new-type low, sloping shelves and floor displays to afford maximum display of merchandise and easy accessibility to all goods. The store has been lengthened about twenty feet and the meat department has been installed across the back of the store…A much larger and more attractive fruit and vegetable department has been built along the right side of the store. The new super-market will be operated on the self-service principal. Rubber tired carts carrying two steel baskets are provided for customers to eliminate the burden of carrying merchandise.45

The development of supermarkets appears to have at least partially fueled the chain’s continued postwar success; by 1947, the company operated 229 stores in Minnesota, the Dakotas,

40 Richard Longstreth, The Drive-In, the Supermarket, and the Transformation of Commercial Space in Los Angeles, 1914 – 1940 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999), 78. 41 Longstreth, The Drive-In, 78. 42 Longstreth, The Drive-In, 77; Ellickson, “The Volution of the Supermarket Industry,” 7. 43 Ellickson, “The Volution of the Supermarket Industry,” 9. 44 “Who…” Deadwood Daily Pioneer-Times, March 14, 1941. 45 “Interior View of New Red Owl Super-Market,” Spearfish Queen City Mail, June 11, 1942.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 70

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


15

Wisconsin, Michigan, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska and Iowa.46 In 1948, Red Owl constructed a supermarket as part of a new warehouse, office, bakery, and manufacturing complex in Hopkins, Minnesota. According to an article in the Minneapolis Star, this Hopkins store served as “a model for the company’s retail operations.” At this store, “the self-service principal of merchandising [was] extended to all departments,” including the meat department.47

Hopkins Red Owl Complex, 1949. Courtesy of Hennepin County Library.

Historic photographs of Red Owl Supermarkets suggest that by the 1950s and 60s, the company often utilized one-story, Midcentury commercial buildings with clear glass storefronts. The Red Owl name appeared prominently on the facade, often accompanied by the distinctive logo on a large sign or pylon. As was the case for other supermarkets, Red Owls also appeared in shopping centers.48

46 “Red Owl Has Anniversary,” Green Bay Press-Gazette, May 17, 1947. 47 “New Supermarket to Open Monday in Hopkins,” Minneapolis Star, April 30, 1948; “Red Owl Has Anniversary,” Green Bay Press-Gazette, May 17, 1947. 48 Midcentury photographs of Red Owl Supermarkets were obtained from the Minnesota Historical Society’s Collections Online, https://search.mnhs.org/index.php?brand=mhs. For example, see “Red Owl Store, Cedar Avenue, Minneapolis,” August 10, 1955; “Red Owl Store at Southdale Center, Edina,” November 20, 1956, “Exterior view of the Red Owl Store at the Miracle Mile Shopping Center, St. Louis Park,” c. 1960.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 71

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


16

Red Owl Store along Cedar Avenue in Minneapolis, August 10, 1955. Courtesy of the

Minnesota Historical Society. The new Red Owl constructed at the 1952 Miracle Mile Shopping Center in Rochester is illustrative of the company’s postwar supermarket development. At 150 feet wide and 140 feet deep, the store was much larger than the 1935 store at 11 4th Street Southeast. A newspaper article covering the store’s opening labeled it the “largest supermarket in the Midwest,” and the Red Owl public relations director noted that “only 40 markets in the country are as large as the Rochester store.”49 The article explained that

Self-service meat and other departments usually found in large stores of this kind will be included in the new store. In addition, a party and snack department will be provided…One of the features…will be a Kiddie Corral, a department fitted with children’s furniture, comic books and a television set, for youngsters accompanying their parents to the shopping center.50

49 “Miracle Mile Shopping Center Plans Opening,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, October 7, 1952. 50 “Miracle Mile Shopping Center Plans Opening,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, October 7, 1952.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 72

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


17

Red Owl Supermarket in Rochester’s Miracle Mile Shopping Center, October 7, 1952. Courtesy

of the Rochester Post-Bulletin.

Between 1952 and 1956, Red Owl sales increased from $90 million to $124 million. In 1957, there were 146 Red Owl stores, “most of them modern supermarkets” in the North Central States.51 In 1963, a second Red Owl Supermarket was constructed in Rochester at the Northbrook Shopping Center.52 Red Owl was sold to Gamble-Skogmo, Inc. in 1967.53 Following the sale, Red Owl began to decline, “acquiring a ‘second class’ image with consumers that resulted in declining market share.”54 Rochester retained a Red Owl through at least 1986.55 The chain was purchased by Supervalu in 1988.56

Red Owl Store in Rochester’s Northbrook Shopping Center, November 22, 1963. Courtesy of

the Rochester Post-Bulletin.

51 “Red Owl Stores…A Growth Stock,” Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, March 28, 1957. 52 “Northbrook Shopping Center,” Rochester Post-Bulletin, November 22, 1963. 53 Randall Hobart, “Ford Bell Tells Stockholders of Red Owl’s ‘Great Future,” Minneapolis Star, June 7, 1967. 54 “Red Owl: The New Owners Expect to Turn a Profit,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 26, 1986; John Ewoldt, “Gone 30 Years, Red Owl Supermarkets Still Live on in Minnesotans’ Memories,” Minneapolis Star-Tribune, January 31, 2018. 55 Conrad deFiebre, “Grocery is a ‘Meet Market’ on Single’s Night,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, August 28, 1986. 56 John Ewoldt, “Gone 30 Years, Red Owl Supermarkets Still Live on in Minnesotans’ Memories,” Minneapolis Star-Tribune, January 31, 2018.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 73

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


18

Rationale for Local Historical Designation Designation Criteria

Criteria from Sec. 4-7-8 of City Code. (Numbering was changed in 2019 from A-H and old criteria is shown in the right-hand column for reference.) An “X” indicates designation criterion met by the subject property. X (1) Its character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural

characteristics of the city, state or United States; A

The Red Owl Grocery Store meets Criterion 1 for its association with Red Owl, a notable regional chain grocery store. As a home-grown chain store that eventually expanded across the Midwest, Red Owl contributed both to the development of Rochester as well as to the rise of chain stores across the United States. As the only operating Red Owl store in Rochester from its construction in 1935 until 1952, 11 4th Street Southeast is a local example of the “modernized” grocery stores developed by Red Owl in the 1930s that anticipated the full-fledged supermarkets of the postwar era.

(2) Its location as a place of a significant historic event; B The building is not known to have been the place of a significant historic event and therefore does not meet Criterion 2.

(3) Its location within and contribution as an element of a landmark district; C The building is not located within a landmark district and therefore does not meet Criterion 3.

(4) Its identification with a person who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the city;

D

While the building was constructed on property owned by the Mayo Properties Association established by Dr. Charles and William Mayo, the Red Owl Grocery Store is not directly identified or associated with either individual and does not meet Criterion 4.

(5) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, form, or treatment;

E

At the time of its construction, the building displayed elements of both the Classical Revival and Streamline Moderne styles. Its design did not embody the distinguishing characteristics of either style; therefore, the building does not meet Criterion 5.

(6) Its identification as the work of an architect or master builder whose individual efforts have influenced the development of the city or have contributed to the development of a nationally- or internationally-recognized style or movement;

F

The architect of the building, Clyde W. Smith, was a Minneapolis architect primarily known for his design of larger houses. The builder, C. C. Pagenhart, was a local contractor who also constructed other buildings in Rochester. There is no information to suggest that this building was a particularly notable example of Smith or Pagenhart’s work; therefore, the building does not meet Criterion 6.

(7) Its embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, material, or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation; and

G

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 74

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


19

The building does not embody the elements of architectural design, detail, material, or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation; therefore, the building does not meet Criterion 7.

(8) Its location, scale, or other physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature or a neighborhood, a district, the community, or the city.

H

The building is an established component of this area of downtown Rochester, having occupied its current location for over eight decades. However, it is inconspicuous and diminutive in both scale and design, especially when compared to the more prominent and elaborate commercial buildings along Broadway Avenue South. Therefore, the building does not meet Criterion 8.

Period of Significance

A property’s “period of significance” is defined as the span of time in which it attained historic significance.57 The Red Owl Grocery Store is historically significant under Criterion 1 for its association with Red Owl, a notable regional chain grocery store that contributed both to the development of Rochester as well as to the rise of chain stores across the United States. As the only operating Red Owl store in Rochester from its construction in 1935 until 1952, 11 4th Street Southeast is a local example of the “modernized” grocery stores developed by Red Owl in the 1930s that anticipated the full-fledged supermarkets of the postwar era. Therefore, the period of significance is 1935 – 1952, reflecting the 17-year period from the store’s opening until the opening of the Red Owl Supermarket at Miracle Mile Shopping Center in 1952.

Evaluation of Integrity

The Red Owl Grocery Store does not retain integrity to the period of significance.

Location The Red Owl Grocery Store has not been moved and retains integrity of location.

Design The Red Owl Grocery Store does not retain integrity of design. The removal of the entrance and distinctive chromium storefront from the primary façade significantly altered the building’s historic design, removing its ability to function as a distinct building, as well as altering its relationship with the street. The replacement of the clear glass storefront with the current tinted glazing and opaque signage also altered the spatial relationship of the interior to the exterior, eliminating the transparency critical to the storefront’s historic function as the grocery store’s display area. The removal of Red Owl’s signage, a distinctive design element, the extension of the rear concrete-block addition, and the installation of entrances at the west elevation have also detracted from the building’s historic design.

57 See National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 42.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 75

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


20

Setting The Red Owl Grocery Store retains its historic setting along 4th Street Southeast, with the Time Theater abutting its east elevation; an alley and a block of commercial buildings to the west; and a parking lot to the north.

Materials The Red Owl Grocery Store does not retain integrity of materials. Though the building retains some of its original masonry cladding, windows have been replaced and original entrance doors removed. Even more importantly, the building’s chromium storefront, the distinctive feature critical to the building’s function and aesthetic as a modernized Red Owl grocery, has been removed.

Workmanship Though the distinctive Red Owl signage has been removed, the remaining historic masonry, including the polished stone water table and dentiled cornice, allows the building to communicate its historic workmanship.

Feeling Due to a loss of integrity of design and materials, as well as the building’s capacity to function as a stand-alone commercial building, the property no longer conveys its historic function as a 1930s Red Owl Grocery Store and does not retain integrity of feeling.

Association The building’s redevelopment in 1983 and variety of uses over the past several decades have obscured its association with its original occupant, the Red Owl Grocery Store; therefore, the building does not retain integrity of association.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 76

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )


21

Preparer Information Date of Study July 2021 Name & Title of Preparer I Lauren Anderson Organization/Firm New History Name & Title of Preparer II Molly Patterson-Lundgren, AICP, Heritage

Preservation & Urban Design Coordinator Organization/Firm City of Rochester Name & Title of Preparer III Organization/Firm

Information contributing to this study was also provided by the History Center of Olmsted County and Kevin Lund. Mr. Lund submitted an application on February 5th, 2021, requesting City designation of this property as a Landmark. He continued to research and provide additional findings throughout the property evaluation process. As of completion of this study, the City has not provided a copy of the designation for State Historic Preservation Office review, nor held a public hearing. Both of these actions are required prior to a landmark designation by the City Council.

7.A.1

Packet Pg. 77

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: R

ed O

wl

(Red

Ow

l & T

ime

Th

eate

r )

Community Development Department | Development Services and Infrastructure Center | 4001 West River Parkway NW | Rochester MN 55901

PH: 507.328.2950 | FAX: 507.328.2401 | [email protected]

www.rochestermn.gov/communitydevelopment

TO: HERITEAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION

FROM: MOLLY PATTERSON-LUNDGREN, AICP HERITAGE PRESERVATION & URBAN DESIGN COORDINATOR

SUBJECT: OLD LEGENDS PROPERTY, RED OWL AND TIME THEATER BUILDINGS

DATE: JULY 22, 2021

CC:

We have several items on the agenda under “other business”. One is a discussion on a matrix that I’ve created for us to use a tool to determine historic integrity of a property. That is attached here. I also have two properties that are on our challenged list, Zumbro Lutheran and First United Methodist. I have updates on both, but have not gotten to the point of developing staff reports on these. I plan to provide a verbal update on these and the remaining items under other business at the meeting.

8.D.1

Packet Pg. 78

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: O

ther

Bu

sin

ess

(H

isto

ric

Inte

gri

ty M

atri

x)


http://www.rochestermn.gov/communitydevelopment

Guidelines - Determining Historic Integrity

Historic integrity is a measure of a properties physical features, how well it is able to convey its

historic significance, based on the criteria for which it is significant, during its period of

significance.

Determining which aspects of integrity is most important for a property requires

knowing why, where and when the property was significant.

Certain aspects of integrity are more important to consider depending on the criteria for

which the property is being considered historically significant. For example, properties

that are significant for their embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an

architectural style, period, form, or treatment (criteria 5) require a strong integrity of

design and materials, where setting is less important.

The attached matrix provides the seven aspects of historic integrity in various combinations. It

is intended to provide a tool for determining the integrity of a property.

These are used by within the National Register of Historic Places program and by many

other jurisdictions, but the specific guidelines for determining weak to strong integrity is

unique to the City of Rochester MN.

Although presented in a ridged grid matrix, the boundaries along the continuum from

weak to strong is permeable.

There is no specific measure of integrity that is required, but most of the aspects of

integrity should be average to excellent for a property to be designated as a landmark.

Ultimately, the question is whether the property retains the physical identity associated

with the criteria for which it is significant. If it does, the property has historic integrity.

The concepts for these guidelines was taken from National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register

Criteria for Evaluation”, 1995 Revision.

8.D.1

Packet Pg. 79

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: O

ther

Bu

sin

ess

(H

isto

ric

Inte

gri

ty M

atri

x)

DRAFT CONCEPT – JULY 2021

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Weak Strong

1. LOCATION The geographic place where the historic resource/property was constructed, or existed during the period of significance or the place where the historic event occurred.

A building, object, or structure has been moved to a location completely out of context from its location during period of significance.

Moved to a location that provide the same setting context. Properties moved within the same historic district

Moved within the same property as the period of significance (e.g. on the same lot or farmstead) and retains its orientation to its surroundings.

The building, object, or structure is in the same location as where it was constructed and/or used during its period of significance

2. SETTING The physical environment of the property, not the specific location. It involves the relationship of the property to its surrounding area character.

Surrounding topographic, natural, or built features that relate to the significance of a property have been removed or greatly altered. (e.g. the stream for a water driven mill has been pipped underground).

While there have been major changes to the surrounding character to the property, those changed features were not directly related to the significance of the property.

Some changes have occurred to the surrounding area, but the features present during the period of significant are still present.

The area surrounding the historic property has the same features with little change since its period of significance.

3. DESIGN The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It includes massing, spatial relationships, texture, colors, ornamentation, and patterns of fenestration.

Additions or demolitions have significantly changed the form, proportions and/or spatial relationships of the property. Windows/doors have been infilled or new ones punched in, that do not fit the original patterns. Ornamentation has been removed.

Additions or demolitions have altered but not destroyed the form and/or spatial relationships. Some changes to fenestration and/or ornamentation has occurred.

Changes to form, fenestration and ornamentation are relatively minor and the majority of the primary façade(‘s) still maintain enough of the significant elements to present the intended design.

Minor changes have occurred to, but have little effect on the most significant features or facades of the property. Changes are compatible with the original. The overall design as originally conceived is still present.

The form of the property remains the same. Additions or partial demolitions are minor and cannot be seen from the primary façade(s) Ornamentation and other features that contribute to the intended design remain.

8.D.1

Packet Pg. 80

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: O

ther

Bu

sin

ess

(H

isto

ric

Inte

gri

ty M

atri

x)

DRAFT CONCEPT – JULY 2021

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Weak Strong

4. MATERIALS The physical elements that make up the property. Examples include, wood, stone, metal, glass, concrete, earth, vinyl, asphalt, plastic. For historic landscapes, vegetation is a material.

Large portions of materials that originally comprised the property are now removed or covered. Materials that were not available during the period of significance) have replaced what was there before.

While some materials have been replaced with modern ones, there is still enough of the historic to understand what the property was comprised of during the period of significance.

The majority of the property is still comprised mostly (51% or more) of the materials from the period of significance.

The majority of the property retains a large amount (75% or more) of the materials from the period of significance. Where there is replacement, it is with the same or compatible material.

Historic material have been maintained and repaired with replacement of portions as needed with the same type of material (e.g. splicing in a new wood section as a repair).

5. WORKMANSHIP The physical evidence of an artisan’s labor or craft at the property. The product may express vernacular methods or be highly sophisticated, but it typically relates to a particular cultural practice or reveals an innovative technique. Examples include handmade masonry, woodworking, or landscape features.

Examples of workmanship from the period of significance have been destroyed and there is little to no physical evidence (visible or covered) of groups, cultures, or individuals that had a hands on contribution to the property.

Some examples of workmanship remain but are covered up or altered.

The property did not contain examples of handmade workmanship during its period of significance.

Examples of workmanship are present, but in less quantity then originally or in poorer condition.

Tool marks, handmade artistic or vernacular features of the property are in good condition, visible and in their original location on the property.

6. FEELING The physical presence of a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of particular period of time.

The integrity of location, setting, design, material and workmanship combined is too weak, to present the feeling of the property under which criteria it is deemed historically significant.

The integrity of location, setting, design, material and workmanship is strong enough combined to present the feeling of the property under which criteria it is deemed historically significant.

7. ASSOCIATION The link between an important activity, event, or person as expressed in physical features or components of the property.

There are too few or the integrity of location, setting, design, material and workmanship combined is too weak to provide enough physical elements that were present during the period of significance.

The integrity of location, setting, design, material and workmanship combined provides enough physical elements that were present during the period of significance to be recognizable from that period.

8.D.1

Packet Pg. 81

Co

mm

un

icat

ion

: O

ther

Bu

sin

ess

(H

isto

ric

Inte

gri

ty M

atri

x)

1. Church records reflect that the Congregation passed a resolution in February 2017 to be

removed from the City’s list of potential landmark properties. Church leaders met with City Clerk Aaron Reeves and reached agreement to exclude the church from designation as a potential landmark at that time. The latest effort to put the church back in front of the HPC appears to be an about face on the City’s previous discussion and commitments to the Church. Mr. Reeves removed the property from potential landmark designation at that time, and created a “challenged list”. The City is now reviewing all properties on that challenged list, discussing the program again with property owners and determining whether the property should be designated a potential landmark or removed from further consideration. Clearing all properties off the challenged list was determined a priority in the Heritage Preservation Strategic Plan adopted by City Council in 2020.


There are several concerns that were identified with the adopted ordinance currently in place. We have drafted a new ordinance, on which the City Council has had a first reading and approval (July 19th). It is anticipated that this new ordinance will be passed after the second reading on August 2nd. The reason for continuing to consider potential landmark designation of challenged properties is to remove those that clearly do not warrant landmark designation from further consideration or designate them as potential landmark. We need a clear list of potential landmarks to budget resources for the evaluation process to determine which ones will eventually be brought to the City Council for landmark designation consideration.

3. As I’ve pointed out in several other instances, how is it fair or responsible for the HPC (on

behalf of the City) to cherry pick aspects of the ordinance it would like to enforce (i.e., designation of properties), when the commission has yet to fulfill its mandated obligations under the ordinance to develop local programs providing financial incentives to property owners? What local opportunities are available for any property owner whose property is designated landmark or potential landmark? Absent a clear path to clear local incentives, I hope you can understand how the ordinance feels punitive and may, perhaps, result in an unconstitutional taking of my client’s property interests.

Section 4-7-19 (3), allows for the City to create a program to incentivize property owners, but does not mandate the HPC to create one. It states, “The city may authorize funding sources to create a financial incentive program…” Through its annual budgeting process the City Council may choose to fund such a program, but has not yet done so. Existing local financial assistance, such as tax increment financing, and other assistance for certain districts or those which periodically becomes available at the local level would be available to preservation projects that meet all requirements of those programs. Per Section 4-7-6 (c) of the ordinance, “Designated properties are eligible for and have priority to participate in city incentive programs…” The HPC is required, under Section 4-7-15 of the ordinance to designate potential landmarks. That section states, “The commission shall compile a list of other properties that may have not met the criteria for landmark property designation but have historic or potentially historic significance within the city and may be considered eligible for landmark designation at a future date.”

4. When you and I spoke yesterday I understood you had not yet been able to study the

original plans/drawings of the church. It sounded as though that work was necessary in order to reach some determination as to whether the original architectural integrity of the building had been sufficiently altered on account of the multiple incongruent additions over the years, rendering the building to a level of insignificance that would not qualify for any designation. Can we agree to a delay in order to give you more time to get the information you need? Also, considering that we are in the heart of summer, could we schedule this agenda item at a time when many people – church members and commissioners alike -- are not otherwise away for summer vacation?

In our phone discussion yesterday, we discussed several properties. I have now reviewed more information in the building permit files for Trinity Lutheran Church. I have requested that they refrain from making a decision on potential landmark this month.

5. Lastly, Ms. Donna Bell, an officer with the church, was left with the impression (after your

phone discussion with her last week) that you were willing to delay and not put Trinity on next week’s agenda. Did something change between then and now?

It is my recollection that I indicated I still plan on providing a staff report and discussing the criteria that the church may meet as well as the historic integrity. Criteria is found in Section 4-7-8 (b) of the ordinance and I’ve attached Appendix B from the Heritage Preservation Strategic Plan that address historic integrity. I believe I indicated that the staff report that addresses these issues, will go out in the packet before the end of this week and I would provide a copy to Donna as a representative of the church. Based on your clear request, I have recommend to the HPC, to delay any decision until August, allowing for analysis and for additional discussion with the Church as property owner.

members of the committee are expected to attend in …

Documents