WEBVTT 00:00:00.418 --> 00:00:08.752 - This is the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission, Thursday, October 9. If you would, please 00:00:08.752 --> 00:00:17.253 - call the roll. Sure. Duncan Campbell. Drew Herron. Oh, if you want to sit at the table. Oh, sure. Our 00:00:17.253 --> 00:00:24.254 - newest commissioner. This is my first time. Please welcome our newest commissioner. 00:00:28.546 --> 00:00:43.420 - Nice to meet you. Thanks for being here. Karen Duffy. Elizabeth Mitchell. Ernesto Castaneda. Here. Daniel 00:00:43.420 --> 00:00:58.014 - Schlegel. Here. Sam DeSolar. Renard Cross. Here. Jack Baker. Here. Jeremy Hackard. Melody Dusner. Here. 00:00:58.722 --> 00:01:12.180 - Thank you. And it appears we have a quorum. All right. I think at this point, do we normally read the 00:01:12.180 --> 00:01:25.375 - statement? I've got to find it first before I can read it. It's in there. Yes, it is. And I just am 00:01:25.375 --> 00:01:27.486 - not finding it. 00:01:28.258 --> 00:01:36.538 - So we normally read this at the beginning of our meeting. For each item, the Historic Preservation Program 00:01:36.538 --> 00:01:44.121 - Manager will first present a staff report. We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional 00:01:44.121 --> 00:01:52.092 - information, followed by a round of questions from each commissioner. We ask that the petitioners, the 00:01:52.092 --> 00:01:55.806 - public and commissioners refrain from speaking. 00:01:56.002 --> 00:02:02.744 - until addressed by the chair unless a question is directly addressed to them. If a member of the public 00:02:02.744 --> 00:02:09.227 - or a petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand until recognized by the chair. And once a 00:02:09.227 --> 00:02:15.905 - motion is made, we will open up the discussion of the item for members of the commission. We encourage 00:02:15.905 --> 00:02:22.582 - all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at all times. And 00:02:22.582 --> 00:02:25.694 - now I think we ask for approval of the minutes. 00:02:25.954 --> 00:02:36.773 - All right. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Let me get a motion to approve meeting notes from 00:02:36.773 --> 00:02:47.699 - last hearing. I'll second. All right. All right, if you would please call the roll. Thank you. Ernesto 00:02:47.699 --> 00:02:55.230 - Castaneda? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? I'll abstain. OK. Bernard Cross? Yes. 00:02:56.130 --> 00:03:10.000 - Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Melanie Dusner? Yes. You have four? Nope, motion carried. So starting 00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:24.414 - off with certificates of appropriateness, we have one staff approved application today. This is COA 2567. 00:03:24.962 --> 00:03:35.493 - 4908 South Rogers in the McDole Historic District. Petitioner is Sam Parmenter. The request is for the 00:03:35.493 --> 00:03:45.820 - installation of rooftop solar panels and staff approved COA 2567. Because the proposed rooftop solar 00:03:45.820 --> 00:03:52.670 - array places panels on contours that fit the pitch of the roof and 00:03:52.866 --> 00:04:02.690 - The current roofing material is asphalt shingle. There's no additional concern about damaging or obscuring 00:04:02.690 --> 00:04:12.240 - more significant character defining roofing material. All right. Thank you. That's all I have for that. 00:04:12.240 --> 00:04:21.054 - OK. Then we'll move on. OK. Moving on to commission review for certificates of appropriateness. 00:04:22.306 --> 00:04:34.142 - First item, 702 West Kirkwood in the Near West Side Historic District. Do we have anybody either present 00:04:34.142 --> 00:04:45.528 - or in person or online for this item? I believe we do have somebody online. Yes, please. Hello. Yes, 00:04:45.528 --> 00:04:49.022 - Jennifer Milner. Good evening. 00:04:51.746 --> 00:04:57.786 - 702 West Kirkwood is a slightly altered T plan cottage with a five sided L. In 2025, the owner removed 00:04:57.786 --> 00:05:03.944 - forward frame double hung windows on the front facing L and replaced them with double hung vinyl divided 00:05:03.944 --> 00:05:09.809 - light windows topped with transom lights. A COA application for retroactive approval was denied and 00:05:09.809 --> 00:05:16.025 - so the petitioners are returning with a proposal to install windows that match the originals. The request 00:05:16.025 --> 00:05:17.374 - to whom it may concern 00:05:18.018 --> 00:05:26.812 - We will replace the windows with windows that are the same dimensions and look as the original windows. 00:05:26.812 --> 00:05:35.268 - Materials to be used are windows and wood. Further clarification was added that the openings of the 00:05:35.268 --> 00:05:43.893 - replaced windows are 84 and 5 eighths inches by 34 and a half inches and the width of the old windows 00:05:43.893 --> 00:05:46.430 - and the replacements would be 00:05:47.202 --> 00:05:53.591 - 78 inches by 31 inches. Staff recommends approval of COA 2559. Although clarification will be needed 00:05:53.591 --> 00:05:59.980 - on the exterior trim of the windows proposed, replacing the former windows with custom windows built 00:05:59.980 --> 00:06:06.559 - to size and the configuration of the originals, which still exist elsewhere in the house, would resolve 00:06:06.559 --> 00:06:09.342 - the outstanding violation on this property. 00:06:13.314 --> 00:06:22.945 - for a second, we have duplicate COA numbers on the agenda. And I just want to clarify maybe by address 00:06:22.945 --> 00:06:32.483 - what case we're talking about. Staff review and the 212S Kirkwood card listed as the same COA number. 00:06:32.483 --> 00:06:42.302 - At least on the agenda. Oh, on the agenda. Oh, I'm sorry, on the agenda. And this one is correct. Sorry. 00:06:42.818 --> 00:06:53.097 - No, I'm sorry about that. No, it's the next one. Sorry. So for clarity, we're on 708.25-50. Yes. And 00:06:53.097 --> 00:07:03.580 - this is correctly numbered. I apologize. Does the petitioner have anything that she would like to add? 00:07:03.580 --> 00:07:12.638 - I guess I'm confused. Are you just going to be ruling on if I have till the next meeting 00:07:12.898 --> 00:07:22.640 - provide you with the samples? Right. The petitioner couldn't be present today in person. I mean, there's 00:07:22.640 --> 00:07:32.103 - the option of tabling this. There's going to be a vote one way or another. And right now, it's on the 00:07:32.103 --> 00:07:41.566 - item that's been submitted. I think we should go around and let our commissioners ask some questions. 00:07:42.594 --> 00:07:52.011 - see how they feel about it at this point. Let's start. If you have questions, please. No. Did we receive 00:07:52.011 --> 00:08:01.160 - any specifications on the windows themselves and how they're going to do the installation of the trim 00:08:01.160 --> 00:08:10.398 - on the outside? That would be something that we would like to see. Aside from the dimensions, not yet. 00:08:18.370 --> 00:08:26.161 - Question. I guess I'll try to put this as a question. Didn't we talk about this at the last meeting 00:08:26.161 --> 00:08:34.030 - and decide that we had to have those things before we could vote on the proposal? Yes. So why are we 00:08:34.030 --> 00:08:42.444 - seeing it again if they don't have the material yet? Good point. I don't know who that question is directed 00:08:42.444 --> 00:08:47.742 - to. Maybe you know of. But if we don't have the stuff we requested, 00:08:49.090 --> 00:08:56.170 - Well, I mean, because the vote was to continue, it's back on the agenda. But we don't, or I don't have 00:08:56.170 --> 00:09:03.595 - any new information. Why is it back on the agenda if we haven't received the information that we requested? 00:09:03.595 --> 00:09:10.744 - Well, it wasn't voted. There wasn't a yes or no vote. So this application, it wasn't denied at the last 00:09:10.744 --> 00:09:17.756 - meeting. It was tabled. So it's back and we just don't have the new information. My understanding was 00:09:17.756 --> 00:09:18.718 - it was tabled 00:09:18.882 --> 00:09:28.597 - in lieu of receiving this information. We have not received the information for some time, though, from 00:09:28.597 --> 00:09:38.406 - the petitioner. So that's what we need. So I think we're out of time. Did I miss something? No. It seems 00:09:38.406 --> 00:09:47.934 - to me we're at the point of either denying the petition or passing it on to the next meeting with the 00:09:48.034 --> 00:09:55.882 - expectation that we would get information, but we haven't gotten information to this point. We've asked, 00:09:55.882 --> 00:10:03.505 - I think, a couple times for clarifications and materials. I intend to go around with questioning, let 00:10:03.505 --> 00:10:11.128 - commissioners go ahead and ask for what we have specifically needed again. Why don't we continue with 00:10:11.128 --> 00:10:16.958 - that and then perhaps we want to make a motion at that point to do something. 00:10:17.122 --> 00:10:25.195 - Can we make a motion to deny until they come back with the proper information? I believe we could. I 00:10:25.195 --> 00:10:33.508 - believe we could. All right. Motion on the floor to deny and a second at this point. All right. I think 00:10:33.508 --> 00:10:40.062 - at this point we call the roll. So real quick, just so I understand. So yes vote. 00:10:40.482 --> 00:10:47.700 - would deny it, and so they would come back with appropriate. I missed the last meeting. They'd have 00:10:47.700 --> 00:10:55.135 - to come back with the new COA. This one would be dead. They need to come back, hopefully informed with 00:10:55.135 --> 00:11:02.498 - the things that you all want to look at so they can include that with their new COA request. And just 00:11:02.498 --> 00:11:10.366 - a question. How long has this matter been before the HBC, the violation? I believe since March or April. OK. 00:11:12.802 --> 00:11:21.289 - Would anyone agree that it's about time that we look into treating this like a violation? And does that 00:11:21.289 --> 00:11:29.858 - need a vote, or does that just automatically happen? I mean, it's been, what, six months, and we haven't 00:11:29.858 --> 00:11:38.182 - even gotten the information that we need. I think it's already a violation. Oh, OK. That's why we got 00:11:38.182 --> 00:11:40.222 - here in the first place. 00:11:41.090 --> 00:11:48.558 - I beg your pardon. So with the denial, we are done with this until they come back with a new COA and 00:11:48.558 --> 00:11:56.175 - a new request. I have a further follow-up question. Today, the petitioner understands what is required 00:11:56.175 --> 00:12:03.717 - so that, you know, trying to help them understand what is required so next time they come in front of 00:12:03.717 --> 00:12:07.710 - the Commission, they bring the necessary information. 00:12:08.962 --> 00:12:15.054 - The petitioner hasn't been available for the meetings previously. I wonder if we should, do you care 00:12:15.054 --> 00:12:21.386 - to hear from her now? No. OK. OK, so let's be clear. We've got a motion and a second on the table. We're 00:12:21.386 --> 00:12:27.719 - going to break with our usual practice, which is usually to do comments, let people talk from the public 00:12:27.719 --> 00:12:33.871 - or the commissioner talk, and then go into our motion. But we've already got a motion. So we're going 00:12:33.871 --> 00:12:38.334 - to go ahead and let her speak, even though it's a little bit out of turn. 00:12:38.434 --> 00:12:46.961 - and out of the way we usually do things, just so we can make sure that this is the motion you all want 00:12:46.961 --> 00:12:55.737 - it to come. Let me ask commissioners before we do that, if the commissioners have any additional comments 00:12:55.737 --> 00:13:04.016 - they'd like to make before we go to a vote or a denial. All right. Let's let her speak. Hello. Yes. 00:13:04.016 --> 00:13:07.742 - Can everybody hear me? Yes, you can. Oh, OK. 00:13:08.258 --> 00:13:15.962 - So yes, I apologize this has taken so long. I'm trying to follow what all you guys are saying. I had 00:13:15.962 --> 00:13:24.200 - let Noah know that the problem has been that my father is 85 years old and having a lot of health problems. 00:13:24.200 --> 00:13:32.285 - He lives 100 miles from here. So I was hoping to be able to get you your information by the next meeting. 00:13:32.285 --> 00:13:35.870 - That was what I had told Noah to ask you guys. 00:13:39.010 --> 00:13:45.584 - That's really about all I have to say about it. I don't have an excuse. That's why we don't have it. 00:13:45.584 --> 00:13:52.158 - My husband has been very resistant about the whole thing, and so it's all fallen on me to try to get 00:13:52.158 --> 00:13:58.861 - all this done. And then with my dad's health problems, this has been going on for several months, it's 00:13:58.861 --> 00:14:05.500 - really made it very difficult for me. With this vote, if the vote is positive, which is a denial, you 00:14:05.500 --> 00:14:07.518 - would be required to come back 00:14:08.066 --> 00:14:17.920 - with a new COA, in other words, start the process over. OK. I guess I'm just confused as to, well, it 00:14:17.920 --> 00:14:28.063 - just seems like that's going to make it take longer, but we can do it. You know, you guys are in charge. 00:14:28.063 --> 00:14:32.990 - If that's what we need to do, that's what I'll do. 00:14:35.074 --> 00:14:43.062 - And the vote's taking place because we have not received the materials that we've asked for over the 00:14:43.062 --> 00:14:51.367 - past several meetings. So we think it's appropriate at this point to at least put out for a vote whether 00:14:51.367 --> 00:14:59.593 - we want to deny or not. So with that, let's call the roll. This is on the motion to deny. So a yes vote 00:14:59.593 --> 00:15:04.734 - means to deny this application. All right. Ernesto? Yes. Daniel? 00:15:09.378 --> 00:15:20.286 - Jack? Yes. Melody? Yes. Motion carries. All right, motion passes. Thank you. So Jack, should we wrap 00:15:20.286 --> 00:15:31.410 - up with this petitioner really quickly? So ma'am, you have an opportunity to submit a new application. 00:15:31.410 --> 00:15:36.702 - Yes. You know what the commission has requested. 00:15:37.090 --> 00:15:44.873 - So that should be part of your new application that you submit, hopefully in a very timely fashion, 00:15:44.873 --> 00:15:52.345 - since you think you'll have the materials by the next meeting. All right. Thank you. Thank you. 00:15:52.345 --> 00:16:00.284 - Thank you. All right. To move on. All right. Moving on to our next item. COA application 2568 for 212 00:16:00.284 --> 00:16:04.798 - West Kirkwood in the Courthouse Square Historic District. 00:16:05.762 --> 00:16:12.902 - The petitioner is Ron Walker. Built in 1882, the Bundy Hotel, or the Irish Lion building, retains all 00:16:12.902 --> 00:16:20.252 - of its original iron work with its pressed cornice and brackets and medallions and the cast iron columns 00:16:20.252 --> 00:16:27.462 - with their fluting and detailed bases and crowns. Limestone coins at the ground level separate the two 00:16:27.462 --> 00:16:33.342 - sections of the building, which are also reflected in the brickwork at the cornice. 00:16:35.298 --> 00:16:41.841 - This request is for the replacement of windows in the building. As part of the renovation of the former 00:16:41.841 --> 00:16:48.320 - Irish Lion, we seek to replace 14 exterior windows. This narrative does not include the windows on the 00:16:48.320 --> 00:16:54.800 - first floor south elevation exterior, which is the main entrance. We plan to address the main entrance 00:16:54.800 --> 00:16:59.518 - area in a separate narrative that is also going to be sent as a follow-up. 00:17:00.418 --> 00:17:06.679 - We are seeking to replace the existing windows with windows that match the pre-1980s windows, which 00:17:06.679 --> 00:17:13.503 - are one over one with no mountains. None of the current windows being replaced are original to the building. 00:17:13.503 --> 00:17:20.389 - We believe that the current windows were installed in the 1980s. These wood windows have suffered significant 00:17:20.389 --> 00:17:27.026 - deterioration and need to be replaced. The description below aligns with the, sorry, during the operation 00:17:27.026 --> 00:17:29.342 - of the Irish lion. Okay, going back. 00:17:29.698 --> 00:17:36.632 - Skipped a bit, okay. All proposed windows will be pine clad and the color will be black. During the 00:17:36.632 --> 00:17:43.704 - operation of the Irish lion, the East Alley windows did not actually function as windows. A couple of 00:17:43.704 --> 00:17:50.984 - windows were covered with plywood and one window opening was actually a solid door that was not utilized 00:17:50.984 --> 00:17:55.838 - as an entrance or exit and that we are also converting into a window. 00:17:57.346 --> 00:18:05.630 - The description below aligns with the Pella proposal attached as part of this application, which you 00:18:05.630 --> 00:18:14.243 - can find in your packet. See here images of what the building looked like around the turn of the century 00:18:14.243 --> 00:18:22.445 - as well as in 1978 after it was acquired by the previous owner. So that's what the original windows 00:18:22.445 --> 00:18:24.414 - would have looked like. 00:18:25.346 --> 00:18:31.753 - Staff recommends approval of COA 2568. While the Irish Lion building was acquired and renovated in the 00:18:31.753 --> 00:18:38.159 - 1980s, replacement wood windows were installed with the six-over-six configuration. Photographs of the 00:18:38.159 --> 00:18:44.379 - building dating back to at least the turn of the century depict one-over-one double-hung, double or 00:18:44.379 --> 00:18:50.910 - single-hung windows on the primary elevation. When this application was first submitted on September 26, 00:18:51.586 --> 00:18:57.103 - Custom windows have been designed to match the later appearance, but have since been changed to a design 00:18:57.103 --> 00:19:02.463 - more imitative of the originals based on evidence that has been subsequently presented. Some openings 00:19:02.463 --> 00:19:07.402 - on the alley side have been boarded up for years and are missing their original fenestration. 00:19:07.402 --> 00:19:12.761 - In this case, reopening these spaces and installing windows is encouraged. While unclad wooden window 00:19:12.761 --> 00:19:18.383 - frames would bring the new windows more in line with the original appearance of the building, the original 00:19:18.383 --> 00:19:20.958 - windows are not being replaced in this instance. 00:19:21.826 --> 00:19:33.587 - Is the petitioner present? Yes. Do you have anything you'd like to add at this point? I think 00:19:33.587 --> 00:19:46.223 - your description was very good, so thank you. We're here to answer any questions you might have, but 00:19:46.223 --> 00:19:49.726 - we're really excited about. 00:19:50.210 --> 00:19:57.080 - the improvements to the property and getting it backing to being a contributing place of business in 00:19:57.080 --> 00:20:04.018 - the historic square. So our crew is working on that. The work is being done, by the way, by Pritchett 00:20:04.018 --> 00:20:10.956 - Brothers Construction, which is the firm that Cook has used for probably 40, 50 years to do the other 00:20:10.956 --> 00:20:17.758 - historic renovation and preservation projects we've had around town. So we feel confident in there. 00:20:17.954 --> 00:20:27.392 - assessments as well as their quality of work. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. All right. So we're back to 00:20:27.392 --> 00:20:36.923 - commissioners. Let's do a round of questions. Drew, would you like to start if you have any questions 00:20:36.923 --> 00:20:43.838 - at all? I don't have any questions. Melody? Karen? Any questions? Daniel? 00:20:47.970 --> 00:20:56.524 - Anything? None here? Then we could, how about comments? There has to be a motion. Yes, that's right. 00:20:56.524 --> 00:21:05.331 - Sorry. So at this point, we can put a motion on the floor. Would anybody? OK. Make your motion, please. 00:21:05.331 --> 00:21:14.054 - I'll move to approve. All right. Let me have a second. OK. All right. Let's go around and any comments 00:21:14.054 --> 00:21:17.950 - that you have. No, I don't have any comments. 00:21:18.050 --> 00:21:28.657 - Thank you. Token anything? Just glad to see it happening. Been worried about this building ever since 00:21:28.657 --> 00:21:39.055 - Larry McKinney let go of it. Glad to see it's in good hands. I'm just excited as well. I can't wait 00:21:39.055 --> 00:21:47.582 - to see the finished product. Same on that point. And also I want to thank you for 00:21:47.842 --> 00:21:58.923 - the clear materials and all the photographs, historic, present. It was just a joy to look at it, really. 00:21:58.923 --> 00:22:09.898 - I'm glad to see the boarded-up windows and closed-up areas coming back into use. Laura, I like it. It's 00:22:09.898 --> 00:22:12.958 - a blessing. You think, Ruth? 00:22:13.346 --> 00:22:19.901 - I think the proposal is great and especially with all the details that they went into to outline the 00:22:19.901 --> 00:22:26.845 - project itself is fantastic so I don't have any other comments. Ron, thank you. Looks like a great project 00:22:26.845 --> 00:22:33.464 - to me and that building, I know it needs a lot of work but we don't want to see that building ever go 00:22:33.464 --> 00:22:40.084 - away. I have high hopes for it at some point. I loved it as a bar. I thought it was a true pub in the 00:22:40.084 --> 00:22:43.134 - city and rather than a bar, it was a true pub. 00:22:43.650 --> 00:22:56.645 - Enjoyed it for that. So with that, I think we're ready to call the roll. All righty. Ernesta? Yes. Daniel? 00:22:56.645 --> 00:23:09.034 - Yes. Renard? Yes. Jack? Yes. Melody? Yes. Motion to. All right. Thank you for coming in. Thank you so 00:23:09.034 --> 00:23:13.406 - much. Thanks to you all. All right. 00:23:13.666 --> 00:23:23.741 - We are now ready for some DD work, are we? Yes, we have one demolition delay this evening. Demolition 00:23:23.741 --> 00:23:33.520 - delay 2525. Address is 503 North Rogers. The petitioner is Kim Lee and Horne, represented tonight, 00:23:33.520 --> 00:23:43.102 - I believe, by Carmen Deaton. Is that right? Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Perfect. 00:23:44.418 --> 00:23:55.044 - So this includes three contributing resources on the lot at 503 North Rogers, which at one point was 00:23:55.044 --> 00:24:05.355 - the Shawnee Stone Company Mill. The mill building is no longer standing. Anyway, more background. 00:24:05.355 --> 00:24:13.246 - In 1916, Irving Fell purchased the Shawnee Stone Company Mill and quarried 00:24:13.698 --> 00:24:21.121 - and used the land to start a company buying and selling iron and steel. The company was sued in 1988 00:24:21.121 --> 00:24:28.471 - by the US Environmental Protection Agency for PCB contamination. In the early 1990s, 27,000 tons of 00:24:28.471 --> 00:24:35.894 - soil were removed from the site, transported to a landfill in Utah. In 1996, Harold Dooms bought the 00:24:35.894 --> 00:24:43.390 - company and renamed it Wilmington Iron and Metal. There are three contributing structures at the site 00:24:44.386 --> 00:24:53.899 - A two-story stone and steel girder loading dock by the B line, which I'm sorry, there's a lot of foliage. 00:24:53.899 --> 00:25:02.874 - This is the best picture I could take without trespassing. This built circa 1895. A steel roof shed 00:25:02.874 --> 00:25:12.387 - on wood posts. Again, not the best picture. It's sort of open air right now, but there have been a number 00:25:12.387 --> 00:25:13.374 - of changes 00:25:14.082 --> 00:25:22.791 - to that building over the years. And a 1953 cement block, one-story office building. Just to show you 00:25:22.791 --> 00:25:31.330 - a little background on the site, this is the property after it was acquired and turned into a scrap 00:25:31.330 --> 00:25:39.868 - metal yard. And at a point at which all the resources that we're looking at are still in place, but 00:25:39.868 --> 00:25:42.686 - older ones have been demolished. 00:25:43.586 --> 00:25:57.939 - So this is what the tin roof shed looks like, approximate location of the two-story loading bay and 00:25:57.939 --> 00:26:09.278 - the office. Does the petitioner have anything that she would like to have? No. 00:26:09.378 --> 00:26:19.975 - I think you covered it really well, Noah. And I know there's a few other people online, too, just from 00:26:19.975 --> 00:26:30.675 - the development team. I can unmute them. Yeah. Anyway, the staff recommends release of demo delay 2525. 00:26:30.675 --> 00:26:38.494 - Thank you. Well, let's ask questions from commissioners. I have a question. 00:26:38.786 --> 00:26:47.124 - Do we know what's the future line use after these buildings are done? Can we ask that? I don't think 00:26:47.124 --> 00:26:55.545 - we can really ask that. You can ask that. That can't be an element of your consideration. I answer my 00:26:55.545 --> 00:27:04.379 - own question. I mean, if you're curious, I guess. I digress. Thank you. Well, as someone who is interested 00:27:04.379 --> 00:27:08.094 - in the history of the limestone industry and 00:27:09.058 --> 00:27:19.842 - you know, slightly more than an amateur expert on it. I always am trying to get people to look at saving 00:27:19.842 --> 00:27:30.113 - whatever remnants aren't particularly in their way and in a way as a way to commemorate sites and a 00:27:30.113 --> 00:27:35.454 - lot of almost every mill site in Bloomington we had 00:27:35.746 --> 00:27:44.627 - over 18 mills at one time in the city limits. Almost all of them are gone. There's one extant and it's 00:27:44.627 --> 00:27:53.249 - probably not going to last long. So I guess my question is would it be possible to particularly the 00:27:53.249 --> 00:28:01.957 - iron loading dock configuration up by the trail seems to be marginally on the margin of the property 00:28:01.957 --> 00:28:05.406 - and I wonder if it would be possible to 00:28:06.146 --> 00:28:18.547 - save that as a way of commemorating the site and the industry that has clearly put Bloomington on the 00:28:18.547 --> 00:28:30.462 - map. That's an interesting question. Daniel? Oh, I didn't know. Is that a question for the owner? 00:28:39.682 --> 00:28:47.339 - I guess I will, if you could unmute John. Okay, yeah, he's on mute or two. So say I'll let him kind 00:28:47.339 --> 00:28:55.378 - of speak to this too, if he's good at all then. Yeah, thank you for having us today and our application. 00:28:55.378 --> 00:29:03.035 - And sorry, I was not able to answer the previous question in time about what the future use here is 00:29:03.035 --> 00:29:08.318 - proposed is a multifamily development. And our current plan here has 00:29:08.770 --> 00:29:16.423 - fire access lane going in this location, as well as there's utilities in this location. So I am not 00:29:16.423 --> 00:29:24.153 - sure at this time that the site plan or the utility plan will allow for preservation of this item or 00:29:24.153 --> 00:29:32.495 - the other two items. I was particularly interested in that one because it seemed like it might be relocated. 00:29:32.495 --> 00:29:37.470 - And the other ones I don't consider as significant historically. 00:29:41.922 --> 00:29:49.803 - I wasn't talking about all three of them, I was just asking about that one specifically. Okay. Yeah, 00:29:49.803 --> 00:29:58.231 - and I don't have a lot of details on the one there north to the beeline, its size or its current condition. 00:29:58.231 --> 00:30:06.190 - Our current plan, like I said, does have utilities in that area, as well as a fire access lane, so if 00:30:06.190 --> 00:30:11.262 - it being saved and relocated is a possibility, we'd just like to 00:30:11.682 --> 00:30:22.499 - understand more what you all would be looking to do with that and what we're placing that will be proposed 00:30:22.499 --> 00:30:32.810 - at. Thank you. Yeah, I'll say mine was very my question would be very similar to Duncan's is with all 00:30:32.810 --> 00:30:37.662 - the quarries and the metals that we had here is 00:30:38.018 --> 00:30:45.560 - there's gonna be any sort of representation or acknowledgement of what the site was. Somehow just because 00:30:45.560 --> 00:30:52.676 - like Duncan said, I mean, this is really what put Bloomington on the map and attracted the start to 00:30:52.676 --> 00:31:00.147 - a lot of stuff. So even if you can't save some of the stuff, would anything like from the site or either 00:31:00.147 --> 00:31:07.262 - inspired by or repurposing some of the items, is that at all possible or something you'd look into? 00:31:10.018 --> 00:31:17.176 - Yes, it's something we could look into. We're always looking to make sure that our proposed buildings 00:31:17.176 --> 00:31:24.264 - integrate into the community. And taking the history of this site is always something that we try to 00:31:24.264 --> 00:31:31.562 - do when possible. So if there's something that could be done here, we would be open to that. OK. I just 00:31:31.562 --> 00:31:38.580 - think it'd be very twisted irony to put up brick buildings on the Stone Quarry site. So that's also 00:31:38.580 --> 00:31:39.422 - my opinion. 00:31:39.554 --> 00:31:54.387 - I don't have any questions. I like that thought and I'm wondering if it couldn't be treated more as 00:31:54.387 --> 00:32:08.478 - a sculptural element and if it has to be removed, moved, moved somewhere else on the property. 00:32:08.674 --> 00:32:18.407 - I'm inclined to transfer this down perhaps to another meeting and give our petitioners time to look 00:32:18.407 --> 00:32:28.334 - into this and see if it is a distinct possibility to retain this and put it elsewhere on the property 00:32:28.334 --> 00:32:36.510 - or leave it where it is. Does that make sense to anyone else? Yeah, I guess I have. 00:32:37.186 --> 00:32:43.907 - because it's no acknowledge the photograph is not very clear and I don't really have a sense of the 00:32:43.907 --> 00:32:50.963 - full scale of the object. And so I don't, you know, I ask the question, you know, with some hopefulness, 00:32:50.963 --> 00:32:57.885 - but I don't really have a personal opinion about whether it's actually possible to move it. So I don't 00:32:57.885 --> 00:33:04.606 - really want to set conditions on something that, or delay something that, you know, is in progress, 00:33:04.606 --> 00:33:05.950 - but because I think 00:33:06.754 --> 00:33:13.850 - I think that the other two buildings, at least in my mind, are not historically significant on this 00:33:13.850 --> 00:33:21.089 - site. But that is, and so I'm not sure what the right procedure would be to, you know, as he said, he 00:33:21.089 --> 00:33:28.327 - would look into it, and I'm not sure how you, you know, maybe Noah can follow up with them, you know, 00:33:28.327 --> 00:33:36.062 - or I don't know. I mean, extending it might get the answer, but you're only talking about a couple of weeks, 00:33:36.994 --> 00:33:43.502 - You know, development projects take a lot longer than that to develop, so. But I was thinking about 00:33:43.502 --> 00:33:50.011 - the Johnson Creamery when we redeveloped that. We took the compressors that were used in the first, 00:33:50.011 --> 00:33:56.584 - really the very first iteration of commercial refrigeration and put them in the landscape, you know, 00:33:56.584 --> 00:34:03.223 - which some people didn't like it, but they're still there. So that's the kind of thing I was thinking 00:34:03.223 --> 00:34:05.566 - of. I think it's a reasonable idea. 00:34:05.698 --> 00:34:16.604 - if the petitioner is willing to take some additional time and look into the quality and condition of 00:34:16.604 --> 00:34:28.051 - the loading dock. Is the petitioner willing to do that? Yes, we'd be willing to take a look at it, making 00:34:28.051 --> 00:34:32.478 - sure it's something that could be safely 00:34:32.578 --> 00:34:40.179 - relocated our request would just be that we're under the understanding that it is something that you 00:34:40.179 --> 00:34:47.780 - know there's a currently proposed use in this location and that we just ask that the path we go down 00:34:47.780 --> 00:34:55.456 - be just related to a relocation of it somewhere on site and preserving what we can. I know that we do 00:34:55.456 --> 00:35:02.078 - have components on site of open space and green space where we generally like to try to 00:35:02.178 --> 00:35:09.227 - install some sort of art installation. And this could be something that we do in an open space that 00:35:09.227 --> 00:35:16.699 - we have on the project. So we'd be open to taking a look at it and seeing it from a structural and safety 00:35:16.699 --> 00:35:23.889 - perspective. It's something that could be salvaged. And something you could give us some rough answer 00:35:23.889 --> 00:35:29.246 - on next meeting, which would be about two weeks from now. That same reason? 00:35:30.210 --> 00:35:37.173 - It's possible. I need to talk to a few other folks to see what their schedules are. So maybe I'd ask 00:35:37.173 --> 00:35:44.274 - for slightly more time than two weeks, but it's possible that we could have an indication and then get 00:35:44.274 --> 00:35:51.237 - with no ups in that point of time. And then maybe if we could possibly be at your meeting four weeks 00:35:51.237 --> 00:35:58.132 - from now. Well, I mean, the way that demolitions delays work is if it isn't released or recommended 00:35:58.132 --> 00:36:00.062 - for designation to council, 00:36:00.610 --> 00:36:09.860 - It will keep coming up until the period ends. So whether you want to come back at the next meeting on 00:36:09.860 --> 00:36:19.564 - the 23rd or at the subsequent meeting on the second Thursday of November, either option would be available 00:36:19.564 --> 00:36:28.542 - to you. OK, that works well. So you could accept a motion to continue this item until November 13. 00:36:30.658 --> 00:36:41.505 - Do you all hear that? Yeah. Is anyone willing to make a motion? Motion and second. I'm sorry I didn't 00:36:41.505 --> 00:36:53.310 - see who seconded. So we have a motion and second. Any additional comments? Can I request for the Commission to 00:36:53.890 --> 00:37:01.285 - to have better photographs? Can we have access to the property and take the proper photographs? Or can 00:37:01.285 --> 00:37:08.536 - the petitioner provide those photographs as part of the next documentation? I think the question is, 00:37:08.536 --> 00:37:15.716 - is the petitioner the current owner? Only the owner would be able to grant that. I think it's right 00:37:15.716 --> 00:37:23.326 - on the trail. Yeah, we are not the current landowner here. But we could request access for when we do our 00:37:23.778 --> 00:37:32.819 - structural analysis and more than likely take additional photos. There is a lot of trees in this location, 00:37:32.819 --> 00:37:41.269 - so the photos will probably be better than what we have, but just with the understanding that there 00:37:41.269 --> 00:37:49.973 - will still be trees in the area. Understood. Thank you. Would you do that, please? Yes. All right. Any 00:37:49.973 --> 00:37:52.254 - other questions, comments? 00:37:53.570 --> 00:38:05.224 - I think we can call the roll. Okay. Ernesto? Yes. Daniel? Yes. Renard? Yes. Jack? Yes. Melody? Yes. 00:38:05.224 --> 00:38:18.044 - Motion carries. All right, motion passes. Thank you. All right, we are at the point. The peers of violations. 00:38:18.044 --> 00:38:20.958 - Let me see, I don't have 00:38:21.346 --> 00:38:34.385 - I'm sorry, I didn't have updates prepared for you today. Sucks. If I may. Yes. Just revisit the issue 00:38:34.385 --> 00:38:47.936 - of the 702 West Kirkwood. You said it's been an issue before the HPC fall, about six months, since April, 00:38:47.936 --> 00:38:49.342 - and when I 00:38:49.890 --> 00:38:56.840 - asked if we're gonna treat this as a violation. I think there's some misunderstanding. Yes, I got that, 00:38:56.840 --> 00:39:03.589 - the violation brought it here, but it's been before us for six months. The COE, we denied it because 00:39:03.589 --> 00:39:10.806 - the information that we asked for has not been presented. How long are we willing to wait on the petitioner 00:39:10.806 --> 00:39:16.286 - to come back to us before we start taking, or before any kind of action is taken? 00:39:18.786 --> 00:39:28.671 - with regards to being in violation. In terms of starting to levy fines? Yes. Because by right, four 00:39:28.671 --> 00:39:38.556 - months from now, we could get nothing. So there is not, we've been kind of looking at our rules and 00:39:38.556 --> 00:39:44.190 - regulations, and there isn't a particular plaque on when 00:39:44.386 --> 00:39:50.575 - things start to accrue or when you would issue fines. It's really open-ended. And NOAA has been doing 00:39:50.575 --> 00:39:56.764 - some research, and all the cities handle it differently. So it's really up to your discretion at this 00:39:56.764 --> 00:40:03.074 - point, just given what we have in writing, to make that request to the director of HAND, who then works 00:40:03.074 --> 00:40:09.202 - with the director of the legal department to determine if that's something that the city is going to 00:40:09.202 --> 00:40:14.238 - pursue. So right now, the petitioner has been asked to come back with the new COA. 00:40:14.434 --> 00:40:21.855 - And I think if that doesn't happen within a time frame that you think is appropriate, then maybe you 00:40:21.855 --> 00:40:29.570 - do want to make a formal request or a motion to request that fines start to be assessed on it. But there 00:40:29.570 --> 00:40:37.432 - really isn't guidance or any firm rule in terms of how that is supposed to happen or when that is supposed 00:40:37.432 --> 00:40:43.678 - to happen, Bernard. Well, I would petition the chair to coordinate it with the city. 00:40:43.778 --> 00:40:51.516 - I think next meeting would be appropriate. If we don't get to see away with the information by the next 00:40:51.516 --> 00:40:59.105 - meeting, then we give representation to the city department, which deals with this thing. And we move 00:40:59.105 --> 00:41:06.619 - on it. That would be me. And so then we'll try to look at it. Let's give her until the next meeting. 00:41:06.619 --> 00:41:11.902 - And then at that point, we'll have a conversation with our legal team. 00:41:12.354 --> 00:41:21.755 - Thank you. I think the other thing that, I mean, please move on to new business, because this flows 00:41:21.755 --> 00:41:31.625 - right into the next item, which is. OK, great. I sent all of you an email about this, where city council 00:41:31.625 --> 00:41:41.214 - has finally agreed or extended an offer, I guess, on their part to have a meeting with us to discuss. 00:41:43.618 --> 00:41:50.538 - really any topics related to the historic preservation or the Historic Preservation Commission. I came 00:41:50.538 --> 00:41:57.458 - up with council member Cindy Zulek a number of topics that we might want to discuss. There were mostly 00:41:57.458 --> 00:42:04.646 - things that she had had questions about, but this is also an opportunity if you have questions or concerns 00:42:04.646 --> 00:42:11.230 - that you'd like to raise during this meeting to bring up to city council, including some of these 00:42:11.394 --> 00:42:20.809 - again, ongoing questions we've had about enforcement, getting new commissioners, things like that. So 00:42:20.809 --> 00:42:30.317 - anything you want to bring up during this, at this point, or you want to reach out to me about, we can 00:42:30.317 --> 00:42:40.286 - try and get that addressed in this meeting. It'll be on October 15th at 6.30 p.m. in city council chambers. 00:42:40.706 --> 00:42:47.970 - So the invited parties would be anybody who's on the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as anybody 00:42:47.970 --> 00:42:54.823 - who's in the city council and our staff here. Unfortunately, Anna won't be able to make it. I mean, 00:42:54.823 --> 00:43:01.950 - Anna, Kelly, and Hanson. I don't know if you'll be able to make it. Other Anna will be able to make it. 00:43:02.178 --> 00:43:09.003 - What sort of a format will it have? Is it going to be formal with city council? It's more of a round 00:43:09.003 --> 00:43:15.760 - table. As long as I've been here, the HPC has wanted to have a work session with city council. So I 00:43:15.760 --> 00:43:22.787 - think it's a really good opportunity to kind of have that open dialogue between you both. It might help 00:43:22.787 --> 00:43:29.950 - in a lot of ways. So I'm hopeful. The structure right now, as it's presented, the agenda is pretty loose. 00:43:29.950 --> 00:43:31.166 - I've put together 00:43:31.618 --> 00:43:39.075 - sort of a PowerPoint that breaks it down basically by these categories so that there's an opportunity 00:43:39.075 --> 00:43:46.386 - to discuss sort of each little bit rather than sort of getting off into tangents. And some of these 00:43:46.386 --> 00:43:53.770 - we may have more that we need to discuss than for other issues. So also I think, you know, just as a 00:43:53.770 --> 00:44:00.862 - heads up, start thinking about anything that you might want to discuss at this upcoming meeting. 00:44:01.282 --> 00:44:10.406 - And obviously, as many of you as can make it, I'd be happy to have. And I think, like Duncan says, it's 00:44:10.406 --> 00:44:19.178 - important that people show up to these things. Members of the public? Yes. It's a putter on me. And 00:44:19.178 --> 00:44:28.477 - it's been posted for you all, as well as for the committee, as well as for the council, because we expect 00:44:28.477 --> 00:44:30.846 - that we may have a quorum. 00:44:31.906 --> 00:44:40.886 - participated in a deliberative session. Can you characterize the format? If it's open to the public, 00:44:40.886 --> 00:44:45.598 - which I assume it has to be. Yeah, it absolutely is. 00:44:46.498 --> 00:44:52.552 - You know, they've done a variety of work sessions, sort of deliberative sessions like this. The most 00:44:52.552 --> 00:44:58.546 - recent one, I think, was last month when it was on housing. The public was invited. And the council 00:44:58.546 --> 00:45:04.959 - members had groups of public. And they kind of ran through an agenda and just received feedback to compile 00:45:04.959 --> 00:45:11.013 - so that they're taking it under consideration as they're moving forward with their business. So this 00:45:11.013 --> 00:45:14.430 - is going to be more of a roundtable setup, I understand. 00:45:14.562 --> 00:45:21.653 - I haven't been to a round table, but my understanding is that they've done that previously with budget 00:45:21.653 --> 00:45:28.675 - deliberations where everybody just kind of sits around the table. There will be members of the public 00:45:28.675 --> 00:45:35.766 - in council chambers that can comment and or listen to what is going on. So, you know, the agenda I saw 00:45:35.766 --> 00:45:42.238 - looked pretty good. I mean, it was a very interesting was not inflammatory. So it looks like. 00:45:42.402 --> 00:45:52.496 - The agenda that was presented public comment is at the end, so after the roundtable discussion. If I'm 00:45:52.496 --> 00:46:02.590 - understanding it correctly. It's a good opportunity. I think so. Most of the Council has given the HPC 00:46:02.590 --> 00:46:07.294 - a lot of latitude in setting its own processes. 00:46:07.618 --> 00:46:13.468 - by establishing rules and regulations, and that flows down from state law. So we do have state law, 00:46:13.468 --> 00:46:19.552 - which gives parameters. We have our code, which gives our municipal parameters. But you all really have 00:46:19.552 --> 00:46:25.401 - the nuts and bolts of how things happen in your rules and regulations. So while we may want to look 00:46:25.401 --> 00:46:31.719 - at addressing some of those things, there may be some changes that rise to the level of the code amendment. 00:46:31.719 --> 00:46:34.878 - And it would be really helpful to have a councilwoman 00:46:35.426 --> 00:46:42.909 - who's invited you to come to a joint meeting to help us usher that through should you want to pursue 00:46:42.909 --> 00:46:50.391 - a code change and need to get that approved by the city council. So this really is an opportunity to 00:46:50.391 --> 00:46:58.393 - work with the council member who's expressed some interest in the issues that you all deal with. Questions? 00:46:58.393 --> 00:47:04.542 - This is not an easy code to change because of state enabling and federal enabling. 00:47:04.674 --> 00:47:10.867 - That's very true. It was a largely misunderstood point. Even in their invitation, it was misunderstood. 00:47:10.867 --> 00:47:17.000 - Well, it included some materials to send out that include the state enabling legislation, because most 00:47:17.000 --> 00:47:23.312 - of what we have in our code comes straight from that. I think a lot of this is an educational opportunity 00:47:23.312 --> 00:47:28.910 - on both sides, too. From their perspective, what they hear, what they have to deal with. From 00:47:28.910 --> 00:47:32.542 - your perspective, what you hear, what you have to deal with. 00:47:32.770 --> 00:47:42.382 - what the regulations are. So just, it's a level set conversation, I would imagine. It closes the gap 00:47:42.382 --> 00:47:51.993 - a bit between two organizations. Exactly. We tend to be not at opposites necessarily, but aloof. And 00:47:51.993 --> 00:48:02.366 - it's always better to get to know your person on the other side. Oh, sorry. Colleague. Okay. Move on then to 00:48:02.466 --> 00:48:11.248 - Commissioner comments? Anyone? All right. We have... I would like to welcome Drew. I said hello on the 00:48:11.248 --> 00:48:20.029 - way in, but let's give you a formal hello. Nice to see you here tonight. It's nice to meet you all and 00:48:20.029 --> 00:48:28.981 - thanks for having me. Are you here as a voting member or are you... Non-voting. Okay. Good. I'm so happy 00:48:28.981 --> 00:48:30.942 - to have your comments. 00:48:31.042 --> 00:48:41.677 - You and Duncan and Karen all help us out. Yeah, absolutely. Put us back on the straight and narrow. 00:48:41.677 --> 00:48:52.524 - Thank you. Also, if I could get a head count of who thinks that they might want to attend the session 00:48:52.524 --> 00:48:53.694 - next week. 00:48:54.722 --> 00:49:05.454 - Okay. I heard back in an email from Sam, so it should be a good show. Yes. Yeah, I would say everybody 00:49:05.454 --> 00:49:15.873 - needs to be there. I'd assume Jeremy, he likes to try and make things. I don't know if I should ask 00:49:15.873 --> 00:49:23.166 - this or not. I wonder if we should have any identification ourselves. 00:49:23.586 --> 00:49:31.827 - distinguish us from the general audience. Is that important? You'll be sitting at the table, and we 00:49:31.827 --> 00:49:40.397 - can bring your name tents. That'd be a good idea. All right. There is no public. And with that, I think 00:49:40.397 --> 00:49:42.622 - we can adjourn. Thank you.