This is the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission, Thursday, October 9. If you would, please
call the roll. Sure. Duncan Campbell. Drew Herron. Oh, if you want to sit at the table. Oh, sure. Our
newest commissioner. This is my first time. Please welcome our newest commissioner.
Nice to meet you. Thanks for being here. Karen Duffy. Elizabeth Mitchell. Ernesto Castaneda. Here. Daniel
Schlegel. Here. Sam DeSolar. Renard Cross. Here. Jack Baker. Here. Jeremy Hackard. Melody Dusner. Here.
Thank you. And it appears we have a quorum. All right. I think at this point, do we normally read the
statement? I've got to find it first before I can read it. It's in there. Yes, it is. And I just am
not finding it.
So we normally read this at the beginning of our meeting. For each item, the Historic Preservation Program
Manager will first present a staff report. We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional
information, followed by a round of questions from each commissioner. We ask that the petitioners, the
public and commissioners refrain from speaking.
until addressed by the chair unless a question is directly addressed to them. If a member of the public
or a petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand until recognized by the chair. And once a
motion is made, we will open up the discussion of the item for members of the commission. We encourage
all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at all times. And
now I think we ask for approval of the minutes.
All right. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Let me get a motion to approve meeting notes from
last hearing. I'll second. All right. All right, if you would please call the roll. Thank you. Ernesto
Castaneda? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? I'll abstain. OK. Bernard Cross? Yes.
Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Melanie Dusner? Yes. You have four? Nope, motion carried. So starting
off with certificates of appropriateness, we have one staff approved application today. This is COA 2567.
4908 South Rogers in the McDole Historic District. Petitioner is Sam Parmenter. The request is for the
installation of rooftop solar panels and staff approved COA 2567. Because the proposed rooftop solar
array places panels on contours that fit the pitch of the roof and
The current roofing material is asphalt shingle. There's no additional concern about damaging or obscuring
more significant character defining roofing material. All right. Thank you. That's all I have for that.
OK. Then we'll move on. OK. Moving on to commission review for certificates of appropriateness.
First item, 702 West Kirkwood in the Near West Side Historic District. Do we have anybody either present
or in person or online for this item? I believe we do have somebody online. Yes, please. Hello. Yes,
Jennifer Milner. Good evening.
702 West Kirkwood is a slightly altered T plan cottage with a five sided L. In 2025, the owner removed
forward frame double hung windows on the front facing L and replaced them with double hung vinyl divided
light windows topped with transom lights. A COA application for retroactive approval was denied and
so the petitioners are returning with a proposal to install windows that match the originals. The request
to whom it may concern
We will replace the windows with windows that are the same dimensions and look as the original windows.
Materials to be used are windows and wood. Further clarification was added that the openings of the
replaced windows are 84 and 5 eighths inches by 34 and a half inches and the width of the old windows
and the replacements would be
78 inches by 31 inches. Staff recommends approval of COA 2559. Although clarification will be needed
on the exterior trim of the windows proposed, replacing the former windows with custom windows built
to size and the configuration of the originals, which still exist elsewhere in the house, would resolve
the outstanding violation on this property.
for a second, we have duplicate COA numbers on the agenda. And I just want to clarify maybe by address
what case we're talking about. Staff review and the 212S Kirkwood card listed as the same COA number.
At least on the agenda. Oh, on the agenda. Oh, I'm sorry, on the agenda. And this one is correct. Sorry.
No, I'm sorry about that. No, it's the next one. Sorry. So for clarity, we're on 708.25-50. Yes. And
this is correctly numbered. I apologize. Does the petitioner have anything that she would like to add?
I guess I'm confused. Are you just going to be ruling on if I have till the next meeting
provide you with the samples? Right. The petitioner couldn't be present today in person. I mean, there's
the option of tabling this. There's going to be a vote one way or another. And right now, it's on the
item that's been submitted. I think we should go around and let our commissioners ask some questions.
see how they feel about it at this point. Let's start. If you have questions, please. No. Did we receive
any specifications on the windows themselves and how they're going to do the installation of the trim
on the outside? That would be something that we would like to see. Aside from the dimensions, not yet.
Question. I guess I'll try to put this as a question. Didn't we talk about this at the last meeting
and decide that we had to have those things before we could vote on the proposal? Yes. So why are we
seeing it again if they don't have the material yet? Good point. I don't know who that question is directed
to. Maybe you know of. But if we don't have the stuff we requested,
Well, I mean, because the vote was to continue, it's back on the agenda. But we don't, or I don't have
any new information. Why is it back on the agenda if we haven't received the information that we requested?
Well, it wasn't voted. There wasn't a yes or no vote. So this application, it wasn't denied at the last
meeting. It was tabled. So it's back and we just don't have the new information. My understanding was
it was tabled
in lieu of receiving this information. We have not received the information for some time, though, from
the petitioner. So that's what we need. So I think we're out of time. Did I miss something? No. It seems
to me we're at the point of either denying the petition or passing it on to the next meeting with the
expectation that we would get information, but we haven't gotten information to this point. We've asked,
I think, a couple times for clarifications and materials. I intend to go around with questioning, let
commissioners go ahead and ask for what we have specifically needed again. Why don't we continue with
that and then perhaps we want to make a motion at that point to do something.
Can we make a motion to deny until they come back with the proper information? I believe we could. I
believe we could. All right. Motion on the floor to deny and a second at this point. All right. I think
at this point we call the roll. So real quick, just so I understand. So yes vote.
would deny it, and so they would come back with appropriate. I missed the last meeting. They'd have
to come back with the new COA. This one would be dead. They need to come back, hopefully informed with
the things that you all want to look at so they can include that with their new COA request. And just
a question. How long has this matter been before the HBC, the violation? I believe since March or April. OK.
Would anyone agree that it's about time that we look into treating this like a violation? And does that
need a vote, or does that just automatically happen? I mean, it's been, what, six months, and we haven't
even gotten the information that we need. I think it's already a violation. Oh, OK. That's why we got
here in the first place.
I beg your pardon. So with the denial, we are done with this until they come back with a new COA and
a new request. I have a further follow-up question. Today, the petitioner understands what is required
so that, you know, trying to help them understand what is required so next time they come in front of
the Commission, they bring the necessary information.
The petitioner hasn't been available for the meetings previously. I wonder if we should, do you care
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
going to break with our usual practice, which is usually to do comments, let people talk from the public
or the commissioner talk, and then go into our motion. But we've already got a motion. So we're going
to go ahead and let her speak, even though it's a little bit out of turn.
and out of the way we usually do things, just so we can make sure that this is the motion you all want
it to come. Let me ask commissioners before we do that, if the commissioners have any additional comments
they'd like to make before we go to a vote or a denial. All right. Let's let her speak. Hello. Yes.
Can everybody hear me? Yes, you can. Oh, OK.
So yes, I apologize this has taken so long. I'm trying to follow what all you guys are saying. I had
let Noah know that the problem has been that my father is 85 years old and having a lot of health problems.
He lives 100 miles from here. So I was hoping to be able to get you your information by the next meeting.
That was what I had told Noah to ask you guys.
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.
My husband has been very resistant about the whole thing, and so it's all fallen on me to try to get
all this done. And then with my dad's health problems, this has been going on for several months, it's
really made it very difficult for me. With this vote, if the vote is positive, which is a denial, you
would be required to come back
with a new COA, in other words, start the process over. OK. I guess I'm just confused as to, well, it
just seems like that's going to make it take longer, but we can do it. You know, you guys are in charge.
If that's what we need to do, that's what I'll do.
And the vote's taking place because we have not received the materials that we've asked for over the
past several meetings. So we think it's appropriate at this point to at least put out for a vote whether
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
means to deny this application. All right. Ernesto? Yes. Daniel?
Jack? Yes. Melody? Yes. Motion carries. All right, motion passes. Thank you. So Jack, should we wrap
up with this petitioner really quickly? So ma'am, you have an opportunity to submit a new application.
Yes. You know what the commission has requested.
So that should be part of your new application that you submit, hopefully in a very timely fashion,
since you think you'll have the materials by the next meeting. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. To move on. All right. Moving on to our next item. COA application 2568 for 212
West Kirkwood in the Courthouse Square Historic District.
The petitioner is Ron Walker. Built in 1882, the Bundy Hotel, or the Irish Lion building, retains all
of its original iron work with its pressed cornice and brackets and medallions and the cast iron columns
with their fluting and detailed bases and crowns. Limestone coins at the ground level separate the two
sections of the building, which are also reflected in the brickwork at the cornice.
This request is for the replacement of windows in the building. As part of the renovation of the former
Irish Lion, we seek to replace 14 exterior windows. This narrative does not include the windows on the
first floor south elevation exterior, which is the main entrance. We plan to address the main entrance
area in a separate narrative that is also going to be sent as a follow-up.
We are seeking to replace the existing windows with windows that match the pre-1980s windows, which
are one over one with no mountains. None of the current windows being replaced are original to the building.
We believe that the current windows were installed in the 1980s. These wood windows have suffered significant
deterioration and need to be replaced. The description below aligns with the, sorry, during the operation
of the Irish lion. Okay, going back.
Skipped a bit, okay. All proposed windows will be pine clad and the color will be black. During the
operation of the Irish lion, the East Alley windows did not actually function as windows. A couple of
windows were covered with plywood and one window opening was actually a solid door that was not utilized
as an entrance or exit and that we are also converting into a window.
The description below aligns with the Pella proposal attached as part of this application, which you
can find in your packet. See here images of what the building looked like around the turn of the century
as well as in 1978 after it was acquired by the previous owner. So that's what the original windows
would have looked like.
Staff recommends approval of COA 2568. While the Irish Lion building was acquired and renovated in the
1980s, replacement wood windows were installed with the six-over-six configuration. Photographs of the
building dating back to at least the turn of the century depict one-over-one double-hung, double or
single-hung windows on the primary elevation. When this application was first submitted on September 26,
Custom windows have been designed to match the later appearance, but have since been changed to a design
more imitative of the originals based on evidence that has been subsequently presented. Some openings
on the alley side have been boarded up for years and are missing their original fenestration.
In this case, reopening these spaces and installing windows is encouraged. While unclad wooden window
frames would bring the new windows more in line with the original appearance of the building, the original
windows are not being replaced in this instance.
Is the petitioner present? Yes. Do you have anything you'd like to add at this point? I think
your description was very good, so thank you. We're here to answer any questions you might have, but
we're really excited about.
the improvements to the property and getting it backing to being a contributing place of business in
the historic square. So our crew is working on that. The work is being done, by the way, by Pritchett
Brothers Construction, which is the firm that Cook has used for probably 40, 50 years to do the other
historic renovation and preservation projects we've had around town. So we feel confident in there.
assessments as well as their quality of work. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. All right. So we're back to
commissioners. Let's do a round of questions. Drew, would you like to start if you have any questions
at all? I don't have any questions. Melody? Karen? Any questions? Daniel?
Anything? None here? Then we could, how about comments? There has to be a motion. Yes, that's right.
Sorry. So at this point, we can put a motion on the floor. Would anybody? OK. Make your motion, please.
I'll move to approve. All right. Let me have a second. OK. All right. Let's go around and any comments
that you have. No, I don't have any comments.
Thank you. Token anything? Just glad to see it happening. Been worried about this building ever since
Larry McKinney let go of it. Glad to see it's in good hands. I'm just excited as well. I can't wait
to see the finished product. Same on that point. And also I want to thank you for
the clear materials and all the photographs, historic, present. It was just a joy to look at it, really.
I'm glad to see the boarded-up windows and closed-up areas coming back into use. Laura, I like it. It's
a blessing. You think, Ruth?
I think the proposal is great and especially with all the details that they went into to outline the
project itself is fantastic so I don't have any other comments. Ron, thank you. Looks like a great project
to me and that building, I know it needs a lot of work but we don't want to see that building ever go
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
city and rather than a bar, it was a true pub.
Enjoyed it for that. So with that, I think we're ready to call the roll. All righty. Ernesta? Yes. Daniel?
Yes. Renard? Yes. Jack? Yes. Melody? Yes. Motion to. All right. Thank you for coming in. Thank you so
much. Thanks to you all. All right.
We are now ready for some DD work, are we? Yes, we have one demolition delay this evening. Demolition
delay 2525. Address is 503 North Rogers. The petitioner is Kim Lee and Horne, represented tonight,
I believe, by Carmen Deaton. Is that right? Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Perfect.
So this includes three contributing resources on the lot at 503 North Rogers, which at one point was
the Shawnee Stone Company Mill. The mill building is no longer standing. Anyway, more background.
In 1916, Irving Fell purchased the Shawnee Stone Company Mill and quarried
and used the land to start a company buying and selling iron and steel. The company was sued in 1988
by the US Environmental Protection Agency for PCB contamination. In the early 1990s, 27,000 tons of
soil were removed from the site, transported to a landfill in Utah. In 1996, Harold Dooms bought the
company and renamed it Wilmington Iron and Metal. There are three contributing structures at the site
A two-story stone and steel girder loading dock by the B line, which I'm sorry, there's a lot of foliage.
This is the best picture I could take without trespassing. This built circa 1895. A steel roof shed
on wood posts. Again, not the best picture. It's sort of open air right now, but there have been a number
of changes
to that building over the years. And a 1953 cement block, one-story office building. Just to show you
a little background on the site, this is the property after it was acquired and turned into a scrap
metal yard. And at a point at which all the resources that we're looking at are still in place, but
older ones have been demolished.
So this is what the tin roof shed looks like, approximate location of the two-story loading bay and
the office. Does the petitioner have anything that she would like to have? No.
I think you covered it really well, Noah. And I know there's a few other people online, too, just from
the development team. I can unmute them. Yeah. Anyway, the staff recommends release of demo delay 2525.
Thank you. Well, let's ask questions from commissioners. I have a question.
Do we know what's the future line use after these buildings are done? Can we ask that? I don't think
we can really ask that. You can ask that. That can't be an element of your consideration. I answer my
own question. I mean, if you're curious, I guess. I digress. Thank you. Well, as someone who is interested
in the history of the limestone industry and
you know, slightly more than an amateur expert on it. I always am trying to get people to look at saving
whatever remnants aren't particularly in their way and in a way as a way to commemorate sites and a
lot of almost every mill site in Bloomington we had
over 18 mills at one time in the city limits. Almost all of them are gone. There's one extant and it's
probably not going to last long. So I guess my question is would it be possible to particularly the
iron loading dock configuration up by the trail seems to be marginally on the margin of the property
and I wonder if it would be possible to
save that as a way of commemorating the site and the industry that has clearly put Bloomington on the
map. That's an interesting question. Daniel? Oh, I didn't know. Is that a question for the owner?
I guess I will, if you could unmute John. Okay, yeah, he's on mute or two. So say I'll let him kind
of speak to this too, if he's good at all then. Yeah, thank you for having us today and our application.
And sorry, I was not able to answer the previous question in time about what the future use here is
proposed is a multifamily development. And our current plan here has
fire access lane going in this location, as well as there's utilities in this location. So I am not
sure at this time that the site plan or the utility plan will allow for preservation of this item or
the other two items. I was particularly interested in that one because it seemed like it might be relocated.
And the other ones I don't consider as significant historically.
I wasn't talking about all three of them, I was just asking about that one specifically. Okay. Yeah,
and I don't have a lot of details on the one there north to the beeline, its size or its current condition.
Our current plan, like I said, does have utilities in that area, as well as a fire access lane, so if
it being saved and relocated is a possibility, we'd just like to
understand more what you all would be looking to do with that and what we're placing that will be proposed
at. Thank you. Yeah, I'll say mine was very my question would be very similar to Duncan's is with all
the quarries and the metals that we had here is
there's gonna be any sort of representation or acknowledgement of what the site was. Somehow just because
like Duncan said, I mean, this is really what put Bloomington on the map and attracted the start to
a lot of stuff. So even if you can't save some of the stuff, would anything like from the site or either
inspired by or repurposing some of the items, is that at all possible or something you'd look into?
Yes, it's something we could look into. We're always looking to make sure that our proposed buildings
integrate into the community. And taking the history of this site is always something that we try to
do when possible. So if there's something that could be done here, we would be open to that. OK. I just
think it'd be very twisted irony to put up brick buildings on the Stone Quarry site. So that's also
my opinion.
I don't have any questions. I like that thought and I'm wondering if it couldn't be treated more as
a sculptural element and if it has to be removed, moved, moved somewhere else on the property.
I'm inclined to transfer this down perhaps to another meeting and give our petitioners time to look
into this and see if it is a distinct possibility to retain this and put it elsewhere on the property
or leave it where it is. Does that make sense to anyone else? Yeah, I guess I have.
because it's no acknowledge the photograph is not very clear and I don't really have a sense of the
full scale of the object. And so I don't, you know, I ask the question, you know, with some hopefulness,
but I don't really have a personal opinion about whether it's actually possible to move it. So I don't
really want to set conditions on something that, or delay something that, you know, is in progress,
but because I think
I think that the other two buildings, at least in my mind, are not historically significant on this
site. But that is, and so I'm not sure what the right procedure would be to, you know, as he said, he
would look into it, and I'm not sure how you, you know, maybe Noah can follow up with them, you know,
or I don't know. I mean, extending it might get the answer, but you're only talking about a couple of weeks,
You know, development projects take a lot longer than that to develop, so. But I was thinking about
the Johnson Creamery when we redeveloped that. We took the compressors that were used in the first,
really the very first iteration of commercial refrigeration and put them in the landscape, you know,
which some people didn't like it, but they're still there. So that's the kind of thing I was thinking
of. I think it's a reasonable idea.
if the petitioner is willing to take some additional time and look into the quality and condition of
the loading dock. Is the petitioner willing to do that? Yes, we'd be willing to take a look at it, making
sure it's something that could be safely
relocated our request would just be that we're under the understanding that it is something that you
know there's a currently proposed use in this location and that we just ask that the path we go down
be just related to a relocation of it somewhere on site and preserving what we can. I know that we do
have components on site of open space and green space where we generally like to try to
install some sort of art installation. And this could be something that we do in an open space that
we have on the project. So we'd be open to taking a look at it and seeing it from a structural and safety
perspective. It's something that could be salvaged. And something you could give us some rough answer
on next meeting, which would be about two weeks from now. That same reason?
It's possible. I need to talk to a few other folks to see what their schedules are. So maybe I'd ask
for slightly more time than two weeks, but it's possible that we could have an indication and then get
with no ups in that point of time. And then maybe if we could possibly be at your meeting four weeks
from now. Well, I mean, the way that demolitions delays work is if it isn't released or recommended
for designation to council,
It will keep coming up until the period ends. So whether you want to come back at the next meeting on
the 23rd or at the subsequent meeting on the second Thursday of November, either option would be available
to you. OK, that works well. So you could accept a motion to continue this item until November 13.
Do you all hear that? Yeah. Is anyone willing to make a motion? Motion and second. I'm sorry I didn't
see who seconded. So we have a motion and second. Any additional comments? Can I request for the Commission to
to have better photographs? Can we have access to the property and take the proper photographs? Or can
the petitioner provide those photographs as part of the next documentation? I think the question is,
is the petitioner the current owner? Only the owner would be able to grant that. I think it's right
on the trail. Yeah, we are not the current landowner here. But we could request access for when we do our
structural analysis and more than likely take additional photos. There is a lot of trees in this location,
so the photos will probably be better than what we have, but just with the understanding that there
will still be trees in the area. Understood. Thank you. Would you do that, please? Yes. All right. Any
other questions, comments?
I think we can call the roll. Okay. Ernesto? Yes. Daniel? Yes. Renard? Yes. Jack? Yes. Melody? Yes.
Motion carries. All right, motion passes. Thank you. All right, we are at the point. The peers of violations.
Let me see, I don't have
I'm sorry, I didn't have updates prepared for you today. Sucks. If I may. Yes. Just revisit the issue
of the 702 West Kirkwood. You said it's been an issue before the HPC fall, about six months, since April,
and when I
asked if we're gonna treat this as a violation. I think there's some misunderstanding. Yes, I got that,
the violation brought it here, but it's been before us for six months. The COE, we denied it because
the information that we asked for has not been presented. How long are we willing to wait on the petitioner
to come back to us before we start taking, or before any kind of action is taken?
with regards to being in violation. In terms of starting to levy fines? Yes. Because by right, four
months from now, we could get nothing. So there is not, we've been kind of looking at our rules and
regulations, and there isn't a particular plaque on when
things start to accrue or when you would issue fines. It's really open-ended. And NOAA has been doing
some research, and all the cities handle it differently. So it's really up to your discretion at this
point, just given what we have in writing, to make that request to the director of HAND, who then works
with the director of the legal department to determine if that's something that the city is going to
pursue. So right now, the petitioner has been asked to come back with the new COA.
And I think if that doesn't happen within a time frame that you think is appropriate, then maybe you
do want to make a formal request or a motion to request that fines start to be assessed on it. But there
really isn't guidance or any firm rule in terms of how that is supposed to happen or when that is supposed
to happen, Bernard. Well, I would petition the chair to coordinate it with the city.
I think next meeting would be appropriate. If we don't get to see away with the information by the next
meeting, then we give representation to the city department, which deals with this thing. And we move
on it. That would be me. And so then we'll try to look at it. Let's give her until the next meeting.
And then at that point, we'll have a conversation with our legal team.
Thank you. I think the other thing that, I mean, please move on to new business, because this flows
right into the next item, which is. OK, great. I sent all of you an email about this, where city council
has finally agreed or extended an offer, I guess, on their part to have a meeting with us to discuss.
really any topics related to the historic preservation or the Historic Preservation Commission. I came
up with council member Cindy Zulek a number of topics that we might want to discuss. There were mostly
things that she had had questions about, but this is also an opportunity if you have questions or concerns
that you'd like to raise during this meeting to bring up to city council, including some of these
again, ongoing questions we've had about enforcement, getting new commissioners, things like that. So
anything you want to bring up during this, at this point, or you want to reach out to me about, we can
try and get that addressed in this meeting. It'll be on October 15th at 6.30 p.m. in city council chambers.
So the invited parties would be anybody who's on the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as anybody
who's in the city council and our staff here. Unfortunately, Anna won't be able to make it. I mean,
Anna, Kelly, and Hanson. I don't know if you'll be able to make it. Other Anna will be able to make it.
What sort of a format will it have? Is it going to be formal with city council? It's more of a round
table. As long as I've been here, the HPC has wanted to have a work session with city council. So I
think it's a really good opportunity to kind of have that open dialogue between you both. It might help
in a lot of ways. So I'm hopeful. The structure right now, as it's presented, the agenda is pretty loose.
I've put together
sort of a PowerPoint that breaks it down basically by these categories so that there's an opportunity
to discuss sort of each little bit rather than sort of getting off into tangents. And some of these
we may have more that we need to discuss than for other issues. So also I think, you know, just as a
heads up, start thinking about anything that you might want to discuss at this upcoming meeting.
And obviously, as many of you as can make it, I'd be happy to have. And I think, like Duncan says, it's
important that people show up to these things. Members of the public? Yes. It's a putter on me. And
it's been posted for you all, as well as for the committee, as well as for the council, because we expect
that we may have a quorum.
participated in a deliberative session. Can you characterize the format? If it's open to the public,
which I assume it has to be. Yeah, it absolutely is.
You know, they've done a variety of work sessions, sort of deliberative sessions like this. The most
recent one, I think, was last month when it was on housing. The public was invited. And the council
members had groups of public. And they kind of ran through an agenda and just received feedback to compile
so that they're taking it under consideration as they're moving forward with their business. So this
is going to be more of a roundtable setup, I understand.
I haven't been to a round table, but my understanding is that they've done that previously with budget
deliberations where everybody just kind of sits around the table. There will be members of the public
in council chambers that can comment and or listen to what is going on. So, you know, the agenda I saw
looked pretty good. I mean, it was a very interesting was not inflammatory. So it looks like.
The agenda that was presented public comment is at the end, so after the roundtable discussion. If I'm
understanding it correctly. It's a good opportunity. I think so. Most of the Council has given the HPC
a lot of latitude in setting its own processes.
by establishing rules and regulations, and that flows down from state law. So we do have state law,
which gives parameters. We have our code, which gives our municipal parameters. But you all really have
the nuts and bolts of how things happen in your rules and regulations. So while we may want to look
at addressing some of those things, there may be some changes that rise to the level of the code amendment.
And it would be really helpful to have a councilwoman
who's invited you to come to a joint meeting to help us usher that through should you want to pursue
a code change and need to get that approved by the city council. So this really is an opportunity to
work with the council member who's expressed some interest in the issues that you all deal with. Questions?
This is not an easy code to change because of state enabling and federal enabling.
That's very true. It was a largely misunderstood point. Even in their invitation, it was misunderstood.
Well, it included some materials to send out that include the state enabling legislation, because most
of what we have in our code comes straight from that. I think a lot of this is an educational opportunity
on both sides, too. From their perspective, what they hear, what they have to deal with. From
your perspective, what you hear, what you have to deal with.
what the regulations are. So just, it's a level set conversation, I would imagine. It closes the gap
a bit between two organizations. Exactly. We tend to be not at opposites necessarily, but aloof. And
it's always better to get to know your person on the other side. Oh, sorry. Colleague. Okay. Move on then to
Commissioner comments? Anyone? All right. We have... I would like to welcome Drew. I said hello on the
way in, but let's give you a formal hello. Nice to see you here tonight. It's nice to meet you all and
thanks for having me. Are you here as a voting member or are you... Non-voting. Okay. Good. I'm so happy
to have your comments.
You and Duncan and Karen all help us out. Yeah, absolutely. Put us back on the straight and narrow.
Thank you. Also, if I could get a head count of who thinks that they might want to attend the session
next week.
Okay. I heard back in an email from Sam, so it should be a good show. Yes. Yeah, I would say everybody
needs to be there. I'd assume Jeremy, he likes to try and make things. I don't know if I should ask
this or not. I wonder if we should have any identification ourselves.
distinguish us from the general audience. Is that important? You'll be sitting at the table, and we
can bring your name tents. That'd be a good idea. All right. There is no public. And with that, I think
we can adjourn. Thank you.