WEBVTT 00:00:00.386 --> 00:00:09.776 - I would like to call the January 22nd meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission to 00:00:09.776 --> 00:00:19.074 - order. This is the first meeting of 2026. So hopefully we'll either elect officers or somebody in a 00:00:19.074 --> 00:00:29.022 - temporary position to serve as chair for this meeting. So let's move on to a roll call. Duck and Campbell. 00:00:30.370 --> 00:00:40.956 - Karen Duffy. Here. Drew Herron. Jack Baker. Here. Jeremy Hackard. Here. Ernesto Castaneda. Here. Reynard 00:00:40.956 --> 00:00:51.744 - Cross. Here. Sam DeSolar. Here. Melanie Dusner. Daniel Schlegel. We have quorum. OK. Election of officers. 00:00:51.744 --> 00:00:58.398 - Is there anybody who would like to nominate themselves either for 00:00:59.234 --> 00:01:08.060 - or for chair, either further duration of the year or in an interim position for this meeting? I would 00:01:08.060 --> 00:01:16.714 - recommend that we do a temporary chair since we have a number of our group here who are temporarily 00:01:16.714 --> 00:01:25.886 - serving until appointments are made. And I'd nominate Sam to serve as the chair for this evening. Second. 00:01:28.802 --> 00:01:39.228 - Sorry, Sam. There's been a motion and second to nominate Sam DeSolar as a temporary chair for this meeting. 00:01:39.228 --> 00:01:49.267 - Assuming we go through the regular voting procedure. Yes. Jack Baker. Yes. Jeremy Hackard. Yes. Ernesto 00:01:49.267 --> 00:01:56.990 - Castaneda. Yes. Reynard Cross. Yes. Sam DeSolar. Yes. That motion carries. 5-0. 00:01:58.114 --> 00:02:05.475 - Thank you. Do we have any nominations for vice chair? I nominate Jeremy for vice chair. I'll second 00:02:05.475 --> 00:02:13.058 - that. And is this for this meeting or for the first? For this meeting to be bigger. And the second was 00:02:13.058 --> 00:02:20.861 - Sam DeSolar, is that correct? That's correct. OK. Again, we have a motion and a second to nominate Jeremy 00:02:20.861 --> 00:02:26.750 - Hackard as temporary vice chair for tonight's meeting. We'll go ahead and vote. 00:02:27.394 --> 00:02:36.185 - Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Renard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. That 00:02:36.185 --> 00:02:45.060 - motion passes 5-0. All right. So who can remember if they were here for November 13? Because we're going 00:02:45.060 --> 00:02:54.105 - to need minutes approved. OK. Do we have a entertain motion to approve the minutes? Yes. I move to approve 00:02:54.105 --> 00:02:56.894 - the minutes. Do I have a second? 00:02:57.890 --> 00:03:06.895 - Second. Got it. Okay, there's a motion on the floor to approve the minutes from the November 13th meeting 00:03:06.895 --> 00:03:15.475 - and we'll go ahead and take that vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. 00:03:15.475 --> 00:03:24.734 - Bernard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Five zero minutes are approved. Okay, moving on to your meeting. Okay. 00:03:25.026 --> 00:03:34.151 - Moving on to certificates of appropriateness. All of our applications tonight are commission reviewed. 00:03:34.151 --> 00:03:43.099 - So we're moving on to our first item, COA 2392 for 309 South Davidson Street in the Greater Prospect 00:03:43.099 --> 00:03:50.718 - Hill Historic District. I'm sorry, just before we move on, we have a new person here. 00:03:52.290 --> 00:03:58.378 - Hello everyone my name is Councilmember Sydney Zulek. I will be serving as your new council liaison 00:03:58.378 --> 00:04:04.771 - for the HPC and this is a new program that I spearheaded last year starting this year so that our boards 00:04:04.771 --> 00:04:10.859 - and commissions feel more supported by council that they know that they have a person that they can 00:04:10.859 --> 00:04:17.069 - call if they have any issues and I will also be charged with making sure that you are all informed of 00:04:17.069 --> 00:04:19.870 - anything coming down the pipeline at council. 00:04:19.970 --> 00:04:26.372 - that might impact the HPC. So please feel free to reach out to me personally. I'm happy to give anyone 00:04:26.372 --> 00:04:33.210 - myself. And I look forward to working with all of you. And I will also be reaching out to people individually 00:04:33.210 --> 00:04:39.612 - to schedule coffee. But I'm liaison to two different boards and commissions, and so that will be slow. 00:04:39.612 --> 00:04:45.952 - So if you don't get an email from me this month, it's coming. And I look forward to working with each 00:04:45.952 --> 00:04:48.190 - of you individually and as a group. 00:04:48.770 --> 00:04:59.267 - Thank you. Good point. Okay. This item is a little bit special because the petitioner is asking for 00:04:59.267 --> 00:05:09.764 - it to be extended for another two years. This item has expired since the work was not completed. Is 00:05:09.764 --> 00:05:18.686 - the petitioner or somebody representing the petitioner present at tonight's meeting? 00:05:19.618 --> 00:05:27.525 - Okay, so. In December of 2023, the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission approved a proposal 00:05:27.525 --> 00:05:35.511 - for a rear addition and accessory unit to be built at 309 South Davison in the Greater Prospect Hill 00:05:35.511 --> 00:05:43.576 - Historic District. Within two years of the issuance of COA 2392, work on the proposed project has not 00:05:43.576 --> 00:05:48.478 - been completed, so the applicant is applying to renew the COA 00:05:48.834 --> 00:06:13.678 - to complete the project. So before we get too much more deeply into this, we're getting into certificates 00:06:13.678 --> 00:06:18.366 - of appropriateness. 00:06:18.562 --> 00:06:24.822 - and demolition delays. And for each of these items, Noah, the HPC program manager, will present a staff 00:06:24.822 --> 00:06:30.842 - report and hear from the petitioner. If they have any additional information followed by a round of 00:06:30.842 --> 00:06:37.162 - questions from each commissioner, we ask petitioners, public, and commissioners to refrain from speaking 00:06:37.162 --> 00:06:43.423 - until addressed by the chair unless a question is directly addressed to them. If a member of the public 00:06:43.423 --> 00:06:46.974 - or a petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand. 00:06:47.138 --> 00:06:53.027 - until recognized by the chair. Once a motion is made, we'll then open up the discussion of the item 00:06:53.027 --> 00:06:58.916 - for members of the commission only. We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the 00:06:58.916 --> 00:07:05.158 - public to be civil and respectful at all times. Thank you for the reminder. I'm meeting lots of us today. 00:07:05.158 --> 00:07:11.106 - So while we have you here, is there anything that you'd like to add about this item? Well, we've got 00:07:11.106 --> 00:07:15.582 - the building permit issued within the time period, but they wanted to split 00:07:15.778 --> 00:07:22.520 - building permit up so that the accessory building was on a separate permit. And Eric Clapper had done 00:07:22.520 --> 00:07:29.261 - all the drawings. We didn't have time. Basically, it was my delay. But we didn't have time to get the 00:07:29.261 --> 00:07:35.673 - second application in the building department in time to stay within the guidelines. And I just, 00:07:35.673 --> 00:07:42.480 - you know, I'm just on a slow roll. So is this for the accessory, or is this for the main building? The 00:07:42.480 --> 00:07:44.926 - accessory. The accessory. Thank you. 00:07:45.442 --> 00:07:53.064 - It's going to be a two-car garage with an unfinished apartment above. So that part's not going to be 00:07:53.064 --> 00:08:00.837 - finished. It's going to be a garage building. It shows in the drawings. I don't have the drawings with 00:08:00.837 --> 00:08:08.535 - me, but you can comment if you have them. With the, yeah. All right. Nothing's changed on the project 00:08:08.535 --> 00:08:13.214 - except we just couldn't get the permit issued for the garage. 00:08:13.378 --> 00:08:23.124 - That was integrally part of what Barry had designed for this watch. I assume that y'all had seen it, 00:08:23.124 --> 00:08:32.773 - and it had. So I've had two slow years. I hear you. Thank you. I had things removed. So I'm back in 00:08:32.773 --> 00:08:37.790 - the saddle. So we're good. Welcome back. All right. 00:08:38.370 --> 00:08:45.645 - The staff recommendation on this item is to approve an extension for COA 2392 for two more years. The 00:08:45.645 --> 00:08:53.062 - proposed addition in accessory structure, which we're voting tonight on the accessory structure, comply 00:08:53.062 --> 00:09:00.408 - with the historic district guidelines. These guidelines have not changed in the time that this project 00:09:00.408 --> 00:09:07.326 - has been on hold. Do we have any further feedback from the neighborhood design review committee? 00:09:07.618 --> 00:09:14.834 - I haven't heard from the neighborhood on this one. OK. All right. Questions, Jack? I have no questions 00:09:14.834 --> 00:09:21.489 - on this one. Jeremy? You answer my question if the guidelines have changed, and they have not. 00:09:21.489 --> 00:09:28.494 - So we're good. No questions. Mr. Cross? Ms. Duffy? No questions. No questions. I have no questions. 00:09:28.494 --> 00:09:30.526 - You have any comments, Jack? 00:09:31.330 --> 00:09:39.229 - Just that it seems to fit the guidelines very well. It's been a year, man. I will entertain a motion 00:09:39.229 --> 00:09:47.207 - at this point, and then we'll discuss. I'll move for a two-year extension. Is that what we're looking 00:09:47.207 --> 00:09:55.341 - for? A two-year extension of the project for the accessory structure. All right, you're second. Second. 00:09:55.341 --> 00:10:00.894 - All right, now we can talk about it. Yeah. Jeff? I think it's fitting. 00:10:02.466 --> 00:10:11.042 - Jeremy? It's already approved. The requirements haven't changed, so I have no problem with approving 00:10:11.042 --> 00:10:19.534 - two more years. Yep, same here. No issues with it. Go ahead. Same here, but I'd just like a comment 00:10:19.534 --> 00:10:28.110 - for the record on the typo. In the background paragraph, the address is given as 209 instead of 309, 00:10:28.110 --> 00:10:31.422 - just so that nobody gets upset at 209. 00:10:32.194 --> 00:10:41.295 - Thank you. All right. I would entertain a motion. I mean, we can all vote. Sorry. So there's been a 00:10:41.295 --> 00:10:50.760 - motion, which has been seconded. COA 23992 for the extension. We're going to go ahead and vote on that. 00:10:50.760 --> 00:10:59.862 - Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackers? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Bernard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. 00:10:59.862 --> 00:11:02.046 - That motion passes 5-0. 00:11:03.586 --> 00:11:14.580 - Thank you for coming in. You're good for another two years. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. I hope the 00:11:14.580 --> 00:11:25.361 - owners of 209 South Davison don't end up with an unwanted ADU. It's very nice. What a surprise. This 00:11:25.361 --> 00:11:29.310 - daddy was in a demolition. Oh, jeez. 00:11:29.474 --> 00:11:41.343 - Moving on to our next item, 708 West 12th Street in the Maple Heights Historic District. This petition 00:11:41.343 --> 00:11:53.328 - is also for a new ADU, a two-story carriage house with a garage on the ground floor. I believe it looks 00:11:53.328 --> 00:11:57.822 - like the petitioner is present online. 00:11:59.170 --> 00:12:10.023 - So this is a 22 foot by 22 foot two-story carriage house. The lower level is a two-story, sorry, a two-car 00:12:10.023 --> 00:12:20.268 - garage. The second level would include living space. I'll show you. Including living and dining room 00:12:20.268 --> 00:12:27.774 - and bed-driven method. The front elevation in this illustration refers to 00:12:28.290 --> 00:12:36.858 - the north elevation, which would be facing a proposed driveway to be added off of the alley to the north. 00:12:36.858 --> 00:12:45.425 - We have also received some questions from the Neighborhood Design Review Committee that were not included 00:12:45.425 --> 00:12:53.750 - in your packets. These arrived a little later. So I'm just going to run through them real quick before 00:12:53.750 --> 00:12:57.630 - I ask the petitioner if he has anything to add. 00:12:58.402 --> 00:13:07.534 - So first off the neighborhood design review committee wanted to confirm based on the architectural drawings 00:13:07.534 --> 00:13:16.158 - provided that the new structure will be placed directly behind the existing house on the main lot. As 00:13:16.158 --> 00:13:24.613 - you can see this property consists of two lots and the proposed garage looks like it would be going 00:13:24.613 --> 00:13:26.558 - up on the western lot. 00:13:29.506 --> 00:13:36.673 - Secondly, there's a question about the concrete driveway to be added on the north side of the east, 00:13:36.673 --> 00:13:43.839 - sorry, to the north on the east-west alley. Currently the alley is undeveloped, hasn't been used in 00:13:43.839 --> 00:13:51.651 - a while. Is the plan to open up the alley creating a connection between Fairview and the current north-south 00:13:51.651 --> 00:13:57.886 - alley that runs between 12th and 13th? If so, will this be done in concrete or gravel? 00:13:58.210 --> 00:14:07.505 - and would any trees need to be taken down? So to show you here, the alley to the north is currently 00:14:07.505 --> 00:14:16.800 - unimproved. Third, what's the elevation of the proposed structure relative to the main house? Would 00:14:16.800 --> 00:14:26.467 - it be visible to somebody standing in front of the house on West 12th Street? Fourth, what is the pitch 00:14:26.467 --> 00:14:27.582 - of the roof 00:14:27.906 --> 00:14:36.145 - of the proposed structure relative to the main house? And five, understanding that fiber cement is the 00:14:36.145 --> 00:14:44.544 - proposed siding material, will the lap match the lap on the main house? And will the trim on the windows 00:14:44.544 --> 00:14:52.942 - and doors be designed to match the main house? I suppose on that note, does the petitioner have anything 00:14:52.942 --> 00:14:54.782 - that he'd like to add? 00:14:59.426 --> 00:15:08.246 - We can hear you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you for having me. So with the drawings, I think I 00:15:08.246 --> 00:15:17.241 - did submit the drawings where with the sideline and the entrance into the garage. Yes. So the entrance 00:15:17.241 --> 00:15:26.236 - into the garage, that should be flipped around. You should be able to be using the existing alley that 00:15:26.236 --> 00:15:29.118 - already has the, that is already 00:15:29.378 --> 00:15:37.575 - I don't know how these things ended up with your office. So these blueprints are actually wrong. This 00:15:37.575 --> 00:15:45.691 - actually has to flip around. You have to come in from the, if you come down top streets and then you 00:15:45.691 --> 00:15:53.968 - make it right into the alleys, that would be the access for the ADU. So what you're saying, so can you 00:15:53.968 --> 00:15:57.182 - see the site plan that's on the screen? 00:15:58.146 --> 00:16:05.764 - Yes, I see. Are you saying that's incorrect? Yes, that's not the correct site plan. All right. Do you 00:16:05.764 --> 00:16:13.457 - have access to a correct site plan? Yeah, I have it in my computer here. What would you like me to do? 00:16:13.457 --> 00:16:21.075 - Email it to you or what's the quickest way? If you could pull it up, you could share your screen. OK, 00:16:21.075 --> 00:16:23.390 - just give me a second, please. 00:16:31.778 --> 00:16:53.431 - And let us know when you're ready, and I can stop sharing mine. OK. OK. Right now, I'm on multiple for 00:16:53.431 --> 00:17:01.630 - some reason. OK. How's it going? Yeah. 00:17:04.674 --> 00:17:30.174 - Oh, yeah. 00:17:31.202 --> 00:17:58.366 - Are you ready to share your screen, sir? 00:18:00.098 --> 00:18:20.842 - We could do simultaneous. I think that's as long as it's not too small. This afternoon I drove by and 00:18:20.842 --> 00:18:23.486 - went around. 00:18:23.746 --> 00:18:32.410 - This has a large, big wrapper around it. Did something else go around this afternoon that I missed? 00:18:32.410 --> 00:18:41.160 - I drove by it. Oh, okay. No, I was driving around it. I'm having a slight problem, but I could email 00:18:41.160 --> 00:18:48.958 - it to you if it's easier. I mean, I have my email open. I can pull it up. Maybe we can... 00:18:49.122 --> 00:19:03.511 - Email that and we have a couple of other questions which you might be able to address. Okay. After you 00:19:03.511 --> 00:19:18.878 - send the email, let me know when you're ready to address some questions. Okay, okay. What does the email say? 00:19:19.202 --> 00:19:29.774 - It's NOAH. Yeah, that's right. Actually, yeah. That's right, we've exchanged emails. Okay. Okay, 00:19:29.774 --> 00:19:40.782 - I sent it. Okay. You should have it here. Actually, this was the review from the... It also has some 00:19:40.782 --> 00:19:46.558 - details with the review together with the CPU, so... 00:20:01.186 --> 00:20:29.694 - Okay, I see. Okay. So you got the email already? Yes, I have it pulled up here. Okay. 00:20:33.058 --> 00:20:42.530 - All right. So given this site plan and given that the garage door is on the same elevation, all the 00:20:42.530 --> 00:20:52.285 - other facades are sort of, they match the existing drawings that you've given us already. Is that fair 00:20:52.285 --> 00:21:01.662 - to say? Yes. All right. So one of the questions from the neighborhood was the siding on the house. 00:21:02.114 --> 00:21:10.745 - versus the siding on the garage. You're talking about a smart siding, a lap siding, LP smart siding, 00:21:10.745 --> 00:21:19.547 - which is a composite product. What is the exposure? Like is it a four inch, a six inch, an eight inch? 00:21:19.547 --> 00:21:28.178 - What's the exposure of the siding on the garage? Six inch. And what is the exposure on the house? It 00:21:28.178 --> 00:21:29.374 - must be about 00:21:30.402 --> 00:21:41.874 - We'll get back to that. One of the other questions you've already answered, according to what I've got 00:21:41.874 --> 00:21:53.346 - in my packet, one of the questions was, what is the slope of the roof on the proposed garage? And your 00:21:53.346 --> 00:21:59.806 - drawings say that it's a 3 and 12 slope. Is that correct? 00:22:00.738 --> 00:22:13.593 - Yes. And then the slope of the roof on the house, are you aware of what that is? Of the existing house? 00:22:13.593 --> 00:22:26.200 - It looks 1212 to me, but that's just what it looks. And then the other question from the neighborhood 00:22:26.200 --> 00:22:30.526 - was, do you know at what elevation 00:22:30.946 --> 00:22:38.854 - Like how much higher the garage is than the existing house. I think what I'm, and correct me if I'm 00:22:38.854 --> 00:22:46.761 - wrong, they're looking for like grade, right? Like how much higher is the ground that the garage is 00:22:46.761 --> 00:22:54.906 - built on relative to the ground that the house is built on? Because it slopes up from the front to the 00:22:54.906 --> 00:22:55.934 - back, right? 00:22:59.298 --> 00:23:08.874 - the length, the length. It is a slight slope, but the height of the ATU, which I think is around 20 00:23:08.874 --> 00:23:18.449 - feet. Right. But I think the question that the neighborhood was asking is like, so if the bottom of 00:23:18.449 --> 00:23:25.918 - the house is, say, 10 feet up from the sidewalk, I'm just making up a number. 00:23:26.210 --> 00:23:45.199 - How much higher is the bottom of the garage relative to the house? Does that make sense? You have anything 00:23:45.199 --> 00:23:50.878 - else to add at this point, sir? 00:23:54.082 --> 00:24:03.102 - No, I don't have anything to add. I don't see anything I'm missing. I guess there's something on your 00:24:03.102 --> 00:24:12.211 - end that you have to let me know. But I don't have anything to add myself. I've been working with also 00:24:12.211 --> 00:24:22.558 - the city of Bloomington utilities. They've been asking for quite a few other things that I've been putting together. 00:24:22.914 --> 00:24:30.128 - I believe I'm on track. I got you. So I think at this point, I might ask the neighborhood or members 00:24:30.128 --> 00:24:37.271 - of the public if they have questions or comments, and then we'll get into commissioner questions or 00:24:37.271 --> 00:24:44.628 - comments. Do I have any questions from anybody online or anybody in the audience? Do you say your name 00:24:44.628 --> 00:24:52.414 - for the record, please? Kamdo. I'm from the neighborhood. I'm on the federal committee for the neighborhood. 00:24:54.082 --> 00:25:05.028 - Did we confirm that the addition is going on to the same lot as the house? Both of the plans that I've 00:25:05.028 --> 00:25:16.079 - received, so including this new one, show that it's located on the same lot as the house. So the second 00:25:16.079 --> 00:25:23.518 - lot will contain all of its trees, its canopy? So far, so good, yeah. 00:25:25.826 --> 00:25:35.050 - That's I don't I don't know that that's I don't know that that's part of this. It's not. Well they don't 00:25:35.050 --> 00:25:44.011 - have permission to tear anything down but they don't have permission to do anything on that lot given 00:25:44.011 --> 00:25:51.390 - this application. If that clarifies matters. Yes I suppose so. OK. So this is only. 00:25:52.226 --> 00:26:00.034 - asking for permission for the lot on which the house currently exists. Right, and it was not immediately 00:26:00.034 --> 00:26:07.767 - clear to us whether it would be on the same lot or the second lot. So all the, sir, how do you say your 00:26:07.767 --> 00:26:15.203 - last name, sir? Sabindi. Sabindi, Mr. Sabindi. So this is all word that's going to occur on the lot 00:26:15.203 --> 00:26:21.598 - with the existing house, just to clarify. Yes. Yes, thank you. Good, good, all right. 00:26:22.082 --> 00:26:33.771 - We'll move on to, welcome. I'll move on to questions from the commission. Ernesto, do you have any questions? 00:26:33.771 --> 00:26:44.398 - Yes. That's the biggest. I mean, I could keep... Like the whole thing, I don't know. Oh, do it full 00:26:44.398 --> 00:26:45.886 - screen? Yeah. 00:26:50.146 --> 00:26:59.080 - Since this is the first time we're seeing this, it's a little, I can cheat over here, but you won't 00:26:59.080 --> 00:27:08.013 - look. I have a couple of questions. I would like to have some clarity on the two separate lots. Are 00:27:08.013 --> 00:27:17.215 - those combined lots? Are there separate lots? What's the situation there? Oh, they are separate. Okay. 00:27:17.215 --> 00:27:19.806 - There's two separate passes. 00:27:21.570 --> 00:27:32.323 - My second question is, I see that it was designed as two full stories. Did you explore where you would 00:27:32.323 --> 00:27:37.438 - do a story and a half as opposed to two stories? 00:27:39.298 --> 00:27:47.387 - Could you please repeat your question from the beginning? I kind of missed it. Yeah. Did you explore 00:27:47.387 --> 00:27:55.956 - options where instead of designing this structure as a two-story, you would do a story and a half instead? 00:27:55.956 --> 00:28:04.124 - When you say two-story and a story, I'm not understanding. Yeah. The way that this is designed is two 00:28:04.124 --> 00:28:05.886 - full stories, meaning 00:28:07.778 --> 00:28:21.880 - You build the first one and you build the second one has a full length studs at eight foot or nine foot 00:28:21.880 --> 00:28:36.254 - story heights for each floor. Go ahead. Yes, I understand that. I think what I'm trying to get at is that 00:28:37.282 --> 00:28:47.371 - The house, the main house, is a one-story house. And it has, I think from what I can see, it has dormers 00:28:47.371 --> 00:28:57.461 - as part of the attic space. Okay, so when ADUs are designed, they need to be smaller than the main house 00:28:57.461 --> 00:29:07.166 - in terms of scale. Because the house represents the main structure. And anything else will represent 00:29:08.098 --> 00:29:16.524 - auxiliary structures. And in this case, an ADU is one of them. So you would try to design the structure 00:29:16.524 --> 00:29:24.626 - smaller than the main structure. And that's in part, from what I am speculating here, but that's in 00:29:24.626 --> 00:29:32.890 - part of the concern of the elevations where the main house sits versus where the ADU sits, because it 00:29:32.890 --> 00:29:37.022 - would be automatically taller than the main house. 00:29:37.922 --> 00:29:46.921 - And then if you do two full stories, it becomes even larger than the main house. So that is my concern. 00:29:46.921 --> 00:29:55.920 - That's all I have. I mean, we can talk about other details that staff is already addressing, like trim, 00:29:55.920 --> 00:30:04.746 - siding, windows. All that is great. But I think for me, the massing is the most critical part of this 00:30:04.746 --> 00:30:07.774 - discussion. That's all. Thank you. 00:30:08.322 --> 00:30:21.056 - The massing. The massing, the size, the scale. That's it. That's all it has. All right. From what I 00:30:21.056 --> 00:30:33.918 - can see, yes. So how high is the, how high is the existing house from grade to the peak of the roof? 00:30:38.594 --> 00:30:57.432 - How many feet? How many feet, sir? 30 feet? Thank you, sir. Do you want me to come back around to you 00:30:57.432 --> 00:31:07.774 - so you can settle in? I think we're probably all right. 00:31:07.970 --> 00:31:15.758 - Karen, do you have a question? I have a question. In the packet under, I only see it right now in this 00:31:15.758 --> 00:31:23.395 - one spot, but under Noah's paragraph, the recommendation, the first sentence says the existing house 00:31:23.395 --> 00:31:31.409 - is approximately 20 feet tall. So again, that's approximate because that's a measure that I did on Google 00:31:31.409 --> 00:31:37.534 - Earth comparing elevation at the book. That's considerably shorter than 30 feet. 00:31:37.666 --> 00:31:47.240 - And we've already, and the carriage house we know is planned to be 22. And there's at least an extra 00:31:47.240 --> 00:31:56.719 - flight. Wait, my dimensions in my packet say it's, oh, that's to the, never mind, you're right. 20. 00:31:56.719 --> 00:32:05.630 - 22. No, I got 20 foot 9. 20 or something. I've got 20 foot 9. 17.5 and 3.4. That's 20 foot 9. 00:32:05.986 --> 00:32:13.338 - Well, it's under the request, and I saw it on one of the drawings too, 22. So they're. Oh, so in the 00:32:13.338 --> 00:32:21.055 - request, 22 is the dimension in either. Yeah, that's the width, length, or width. It's a square building. 00:32:21.055 --> 00:32:28.626 - Oh, that's not the height. 22 by 22. No, this is it. Oh, I see. There's actually. 17. 17 foot, 20 foot, 00:32:28.626 --> 00:32:35.614 - 20 foot, 9 inches. Thank you. Thank you. OK. That helps. Did you have additional questions? No. 00:32:35.906 --> 00:32:47.866 - Mr. Cross, do you have questions? So there's an empty lot to the east, correct? Yes. When we're considering 00:32:47.866 --> 00:32:59.384 - differences in height, do we consider the view from the east across the empty lot? If it's visible from 00:32:59.384 --> 00:33:04.478 - the public right of way, then we consider it. 00:33:06.946 --> 00:33:14.979 - I don't think nine inches makes that much of a difference when you're talking about buildings 20 feet 00:33:14.979 --> 00:33:23.327 - to 20 feet nine inches and looking from the front it's higher up. I'm thinking line of sight you probably 00:33:23.327 --> 00:33:30.494 - won't be able to see the building at the back. We're in questions, do you have a question? 00:33:31.522 --> 00:33:38.164 - Oh, that was a question. Will you be able to see the building from the back? It'd be nine inches tall 00:33:38.164 --> 00:33:45.197 - from 12th Street. You can see it. Really? You can see the building from the alley. You can see the building 00:33:45.197 --> 00:33:51.839 - from the street. You can see the building from the other street. Right, but I'm talking about massing 00:33:51.839 --> 00:33:58.481 - in terms of a nine inch difference in elevation when the lot itself is probably about four feet above 00:33:58.481 --> 00:33:59.262 - the street. 00:34:00.098 --> 00:34:07.311 - if you're looking from 12th Street across the existing building. Is that a discernible difference? Is 00:34:07.311 --> 00:34:14.242 - that the question you're asking? Yes. That was my clumsy way of asking that question. Gotcha. OK. 00:34:14.242 --> 00:34:20.677 - Thank you. I think that is a question that everybody has to have their own answer for. OK. 00:34:20.677 --> 00:34:27.890 - Any more questions? No. We'll move on to Mr. Hackett. I don't have any questions. Mr. Baker. Is there 00:34:27.890 --> 00:34:29.022 - anything in the 00:34:29.186 --> 00:34:36.844 - neighborhood rules regarding roof pitch. Yes. Because there's a big discrepancy. You have it pulled 00:34:36.844 --> 00:34:44.501 - up Jeremy. Yeah. It says for new construction, roof size, shape and pitch should be consistent with 00:34:44.501 --> 00:34:52.235 - nearby contributing structures. I don't think we have a problem. Okay. So it's a three and 12 versus 00:34:52.235 --> 00:34:56.830 - I think the other, the other piece of this is that the, uh, 00:34:57.762 --> 00:35:04.209 - The new structures are supposed to take their cues from the existing structures on site. That's where 00:35:04.209 --> 00:35:10.276 - they're supposed to take their main cues. I have another question, you know, when you're ready. 00:35:10.276 --> 00:35:16.596 - Windows here, I notice, I can't quite tell what kind of windows they are in the existing house, but 00:35:16.596 --> 00:35:23.296 - the windows here and the accessory structure give me the impression that they're very different in style, 00:35:23.296 --> 00:35:25.950 - and I think that also could be a problem. 00:35:28.098 --> 00:35:36.915 - style and dimension. Do you have a question? Yes, is it a problem? Is it a problem that the windows 00:35:36.915 --> 00:35:45.819 - do not seem to match? Yeah, that's also in the guidelines they want to... Incompatible changes. Does 00:35:45.819 --> 00:35:54.900 - not keep rhythm of openings. Yeah. All right. I think we have addressed public questions. Commissioner 00:35:54.900 --> 00:35:55.870 - questions. 00:35:56.578 --> 00:36:09.593 - I think we can hear a motion. Does anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion. Do I need to say 00:36:09.593 --> 00:36:22.481 - that in the number of COA 2603? I move a motion to the 9, COA 4603. Do I hear a second? We'll second. 00:36:22.481 --> 00:36:26.398 - Let's talk about it. Comments? 00:36:26.626 --> 00:36:36.320 - You want to talk about what? I think I have a really big issue in terms of, you just talked about guidelines. 00:36:36.320 --> 00:36:45.486 - I think there's a lot that I said here. So I don't know if we have the time to do all that, but there's 00:36:45.486 --> 00:36:54.652 - a lot of work to do in terms of massing, proportions, windows, siding. Yeah, I could keep going. That's 00:36:54.652 --> 00:36:56.062 - all I have. OK. 00:36:56.354 --> 00:37:05.830 - You want to jump in, Melody, or you want to make a pass by? Go ahead and pass by. All right. Karen, 00:37:05.830 --> 00:37:15.685 - you have comments? I have no comments. Bernard, you have comments? Yeah. With regards to the roof pitch 00:37:15.685 --> 00:37:26.014 - and the window sizes that Jack mentioned, I see where this might be a problem complying with the guidelines. 00:37:26.114 --> 00:37:34.620 - And whereas I don't have an issue with the height of the building being nine inches tall, that upper 00:37:34.620 --> 00:37:43.041 - floor is more massive than, especially when you consider the pitch of the roof. If the pitch of the 00:37:43.041 --> 00:37:51.210 - roof wasn't keeping with the pitch on the first building, it wouldn't stand out. But it's a lot, 00:37:51.210 --> 00:37:56.094 - is that what, a shallower pitch? And so I believe that it 00:37:58.018 --> 00:38:05.650 - obtrusive with regards to the main building on the site. So I agree that there is some work to be done 00:38:05.650 --> 00:38:13.282 - before I would feel comfortable approving this project. Comments, Mr. Haggard? Yeah, I agree with what 00:38:13.282 --> 00:38:20.766 - Renard said. And if you look in the guidelines, there are some illustrations in there that highlight 00:38:20.766 --> 00:38:24.990 - sort of here's what the fenestration needs to look like. 00:38:25.090 --> 00:38:32.996 - And here's compatible pitches for roofs throughout it. So I think Petitioner would need to take another 00:38:32.996 --> 00:38:41.130 - swing looking at the guidelines and the design of what the ADU looks like in order for it to fully comply. 00:38:41.130 --> 00:38:48.809 - Yeah. Jack, do you have comments? Yes, I agree with the comments, all the comments. And there's work 00:38:48.809 --> 00:38:54.206 - to be done to get this in compliance with the neighborhood guidelines. 00:38:54.338 --> 00:39:01.347 - quite a bit of work, I think, to be done on this redesign. All right. I might try and distill those 00:39:01.347 --> 00:39:08.497 - comments for the petitioner a little bit. I think the big issues that the commission has, and I would 00:39:08.497 --> 00:39:15.576 - appreciate if people jumped in and corrected me if I'm saying things that you're not saying or don't 00:39:15.576 --> 00:39:23.006 - want me to say. One of the big issues that we have is that the roof pitch of three and 12 that's proposed 00:39:23.362 --> 00:39:30.584 - for the garage does not match the house roof pitch of 12 and 12. So to make them compatible, they're 00:39:30.584 --> 00:39:37.877 - going to have to get a lot closer and ideally, they would be the same pitch. To do that, I think what 00:39:37.877 --> 00:39:45.027 - Ernesta was saying, you're going to need to do a shed dormer kind of thing. So you have a 12 and 12 00:39:45.027 --> 00:39:52.606 - roof pitch. But to accommodate your second story, you're going to need to dormer out to make that happen. 00:39:53.314 --> 00:40:02.231 - We would like to see the exposure of the siding on the garage match the exposure of the siding on the 00:40:02.231 --> 00:40:11.060 - house. It's just nice to see it sort of compatible. And I think one thing that we haven't touched on 00:40:11.060 --> 00:40:19.976 - is this is the first time all of us are seeing the second site plan. And this is the neighborhood has 00:40:19.976 --> 00:40:22.686 - not seen the site plan at all. 00:40:23.010 --> 00:40:31.236 - So I think regardless of what the motion was tonight, I would have been behind asking you to come back 00:40:31.236 --> 00:40:39.381 - to the next meeting just to let the neighborhood look at the site plan and discuss it again. And part 00:40:39.381 --> 00:40:47.767 - of that discussion, I think, and part of the concern that the neighborhood has is that all of the alleys 00:40:47.767 --> 00:40:52.638 - surrounding your property are currently on, what's the word? 00:40:53.154 --> 00:40:59.596 - Unproved. Unproved. Thank you. So they're all grass right now. Not the one. Not the north-south one? 00:40:59.596 --> 00:41:06.293 - Not the one on the west side. Not the one on the west. It's gravel. So that one's cool. That one's good. 00:41:06.293 --> 00:41:12.479 - OK, cool. All right, so that one, I can withdraw that bit. But I was just. The one on the north. 00:41:12.479 --> 00:41:18.857 - The north, where the original thing was. Right. OK. So I think giving the neighborhood a little bit 00:41:18.857 --> 00:41:22.174 - more time to absorb the site plan would be helpful. 00:41:22.658 --> 00:41:29.175 - But I think that given that what you're doing is densifying the neighborhood, I don't think this commission 00:41:29.175 --> 00:41:35.330 - has any issues with that. I don't think the footprint of the building is out of scale with what we're 00:41:35.330 --> 00:41:41.606 - looking for. I think the materials are fine with what we're looking for in terms of the siting. I think 00:41:41.606 --> 00:41:48.244 - if you have more information on the windows, that would be helpful. And I think if you look at the proportion 00:41:48.244 --> 00:41:50.718 - of the windows on the existing house and 00:41:51.362 --> 00:41:57.306 - look at the windows of what you're proposing on the garage, both in terms of the proportions of the 00:41:57.306 --> 00:42:03.606 - windows themselves, and also just the amount of glass that you're talking about putting versus the amount 00:42:03.606 --> 00:42:09.669 - of siding you're talking about putting on there. I think we would like to see a little bit more glass 00:42:09.669 --> 00:42:15.673 - and windows that are a little taller and skinnier. The other piece is like, are the existing windows 00:42:15.673 --> 00:42:20.190 - on the house, they're one over one, or what are they? They're one over one. 00:42:20.642 --> 00:42:28.147 - So they don't have all these divided grids on the windows. So if you're trying to make it more sympathetic 00:42:28.147 --> 00:42:35.232 - to the house, dump all the grids. But you can come back and you can do what you want, and we'll talk 00:42:35.232 --> 00:42:42.387 - about it then. But to get this thing through and to make the neighborhood happy, the more you make it 00:42:42.387 --> 00:42:49.822 - compatible with the existing house, the happier both the commission and the neighborhood are going to be. 00:42:50.018 --> 00:42:56.922 - Make sense? Yes, it does make a lot of sense. Yes, I agree. And with the package, I forgot the name 00:42:56.922 --> 00:43:03.896 - of the other package that comes with blueprints. The actual windows are single hung. So this is just 00:43:03.896 --> 00:43:10.869 - an error on my end. I think we just did it on the blueprints. But the right windows are actually the 00:43:10.869 --> 00:43:17.566 - windows and the doors and the siding. So this kind of a mix-up. So I apologize. No, that's fine. 00:43:17.666 --> 00:43:24.849 - But what I'm trying to say, if you look at, say, the windows above the garage door there, they've got 00:43:24.849 --> 00:43:32.173 - like, is that four little? Yeah, they've got four little panes above four little panes. On the existing 00:43:32.173 --> 00:43:39.215 - house, there's just one big piece of glass over one big piece of glass. And I think that would look 00:43:39.215 --> 00:43:47.102 - more like the existing house. So I would take out all the cross pieces. Does that make sense? OK. Yes, it does. 00:43:47.298 --> 00:43:54.350 - But I think this is totally doable. I don't think it's insurmountable. I think sit down with the guidelines, 00:43:54.350 --> 00:44:00.820 - maybe talk to Noah about, here are the types of windows that are in the house and how to match them 00:44:00.820 --> 00:44:07.549 - there. And just make sure they match up with the wording of the guidelines. That will help quite a bit. 00:44:07.549 --> 00:44:14.084 - That will help quite a bit. The other thing I was seeing on the elevations is they look like they're 00:44:14.084 --> 00:44:16.478 - nail-on-finned windows with no trim. 00:44:16.930 --> 00:44:24.730 - on the sides or on the top or on the bottom, there's no sill trim. And I think we in the commission 00:44:24.730 --> 00:44:32.920 - and I think the neighborhood would also appreciate having trim that the size of that trim matches around 00:44:32.920 --> 00:44:40.876 - the windows. So what's on the house, make it as close as you can when you put it on the garage. Okay. 00:44:40.876 --> 00:44:43.294 - Okay. All right. So, you know, 00:44:43.746 --> 00:44:50.841 - We're probably going to vote this down tonight, but don't take that as the end of the world. We'll see 00:44:50.841 --> 00:44:57.730 - you again in a couple of weeks, and we'll talk again then. Yes, one question before you go, please. 00:44:57.730 --> 00:45:05.031 - You mentioned the roof at Dorma. So you said a 12-12 roof. So I'm not sure here if you're saying I should 00:45:05.031 --> 00:45:12.058 - change this roof line to a 12-12? So if you look at the existing house, it's got a much steeper roof, 00:45:12.058 --> 00:45:13.022 - yeah? Uh-huh. 00:45:13.218 --> 00:45:21.658 - And if you change the pitch of the garage to a much steeper pitch, everybody's going to be bonking their 00:45:21.658 --> 00:45:29.776 - heads on the inside of the kitchen and the bedrooms, right? So what they do generally is they make a 00:45:29.776 --> 00:45:37.975 - dormer. They pop up a big portion of the roof to allow for a head height there. Does that make sense? 00:45:37.975 --> 00:45:42.878 - Yeah, but the sitting height on the second floor is actually 00:45:43.906 --> 00:45:52.051 - So I thought that would be enough clearance. This is something that we could discuss. I guess what Sam's 00:45:52.051 --> 00:45:59.886 - saying is that there are ways to add that ad room while also having part of the roof be that 12 over 00:45:59.886 --> 00:46:07.798 - 12th pitch. I think Noah can talk you through that. And if you have issues, I'm also happy to talk to 00:46:07.798 --> 00:46:13.694 - you about it. Yeah, so maintaining most of what you have here and then just 00:46:14.370 --> 00:46:22.636 - redesigning the roof a bit. All right. I think we're at the point where we can call the vote. Thank 00:46:22.636 --> 00:46:30.901 - you for your patience, everyone. Hang on. There's a motion to deny COA 2603 on the floor. It's been 00:46:30.901 --> 00:46:39.249 - moved and seconded. We'll take a vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. 00:46:39.249 --> 00:46:44.126 - Bernard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. 00:46:44.354 --> 00:46:54.406 - Motion to deny passes 6-0. All right. Thank you for coming in and talk to Noah, and we will see you 00:46:54.406 --> 00:47:04.760 - at the next one. Thank you. Have a good night. All right. Moving on. OK, next item, COA 2579, 702 West 00:47:04.760 --> 00:47:11.998 - Kirkwood in the Near West Side Historic District. Who's the petitioner? 00:47:12.194 --> 00:47:21.696 - Petitioner is Jennifer Milner who it appears is online. Thank you. This is, okay, background on this 00:47:21.696 --> 00:47:31.199 - item. 702 West Kirkwood is a slightly altered T plan cottage with a five-sided L. In 2025, the owner 00:47:31.199 --> 00:47:37.502 - removed four wood frame double hung windows on the front facing L. 00:47:38.754 --> 00:47:45.685 - and replaced them with double hung divided light vinyl windows topped with transom lights. Subsequently, 00:47:45.685 --> 00:47:52.353 - the property owner applied in August to replace the windows with new windows of the same size as the 00:47:52.353 --> 00:47:58.954 - original but did not attend meetings to address questions following the proposal. In November 2025, 00:47:58.954 --> 00:48:05.688 - a fine was paid for the outstanding violation and a new proposal was submitted, which is the proposal 00:48:05.688 --> 00:48:06.942 - that you see here. 00:48:07.778 --> 00:48:15.562 - The material submitted included a copy of the COA application from March 2025 with an illustration of 00:48:15.562 --> 00:48:23.193 - the windows with transoms, but with one over one gen-weld windows as opposed to the current divided 00:48:23.193 --> 00:48:30.976 - light design, along with the description of white brick mold cedar trim to match the dimensions found 00:48:30.976 --> 00:48:32.350 - on other windows. 00:48:33.538 --> 00:48:43.297 - Subsequently, the petitioner inquired in an email about replacing the windows with gen-weld, flat casing, 00:48:43.297 --> 00:48:52.687 - double hung windows at dimensions 33 and a quarter inches by 65 and a quarter inches and covering the 00:48:52.687 --> 00:49:02.814 - current transom windows with drywall and siding. So if I'm to understand this application, the request is for 00:49:03.682 --> 00:49:12.478 - The replacement of the existing windows with one over one 33 and a quarter inch by 65 and a quarter 00:49:12.478 --> 00:49:21.362 - inch vinyl windows and covering the transoms with white cedar brick molding to be installed as trim. 00:49:21.362 --> 00:49:28.926 - I see the petitioner is present. Is there anything that she'd like to add or discuss? 00:49:38.370 --> 00:49:47.630 - Just for my own clarification, this is an NOV nose violation. There are fines that have been paid, but 00:49:47.630 --> 00:49:56.890 - we're still treating this as a violation. And these were original windows that were removed. And there 00:49:56.890 --> 00:50:06.150 - has been subsequent work done after the violation. Is that fair to say? That's what it looks like. One 00:50:06.150 --> 00:50:07.678 - of the transoms. 00:50:07.778 --> 00:50:18.869 - that it's been installed has been covered up, which is part of this proposal here to cover those transoms 00:50:18.869 --> 00:50:29.332 - and change the overall dimensions of the window openings. And so the proposed windows are different 00:50:29.332 --> 00:50:34.878 - than in size than the originals? Yes. OK. All right. 00:50:35.938 --> 00:50:44.383 - At this point, I'll ask for comments. Do we have anything from the neighborhood first? I haven't received 00:50:44.383 --> 00:50:52.351 - anything new from the neighborhood on this. OK. Do we have anything from the public? Nobody online? 00:50:52.351 --> 00:51:00.477 - Nobody's raising their hand. All right. Thank you. I will entertain questions from the commissioners. 00:51:00.477 --> 00:51:04.222 - Jack? My question is, how does this in any way 00:51:04.418 --> 00:51:17.081 - get back to the original design of the house. It's just completely wrong, in my opinion. It just does 00:51:17.081 --> 00:51:29.743 - not know how to say exactly. I don't think that this meets with the original design of the house, and 00:51:29.743 --> 00:51:32.350 - I think it needs to. 00:51:33.986 --> 00:51:42.721 - I don't know what we have here, how we can judge this and decide what should be done except to, say, 00:51:42.721 --> 00:51:51.716 - replace with the original style window. Do you have questions, Jeremy? I think you asked mine. So these 00:51:51.716 --> 00:52:01.662 - are the replacement windows that they're suggesting are smaller than the ones that were originally removed. Right. 00:52:02.018 --> 00:52:11.817 - And work has already been done on one of them for what was proposed in the thing that we're looking 00:52:11.817 --> 00:52:21.909 - at now. Without it being approved. Okay, that's it. I don't have any questions. Do you have questions? 00:52:21.909 --> 00:52:31.806 - Yeah. Do you have questions, Ernest, if you wanted to know? So I guess the only question that I have 00:52:32.450 --> 00:52:42.533 - is this might be for Noah or for the petition. I'll start with Noah. How many of the original windows 00:52:42.533 --> 00:52:52.616 - were moved? How many of them have been replaced and then on the first round and then how many of them 00:52:52.616 --> 00:53:00.030 - are replaced after the NOV? I believe it was five windows and what you see 00:53:00.834 --> 00:53:09.729 - Currently installed in this picture were the replacement windows with transoms that were put in when 00:53:09.729 --> 00:53:18.977 - the commission first saw this item. The latest that I have seen, it looks like only one of these windows 00:53:18.977 --> 00:53:24.702 - has had the transom covered with trim or with siding. Sorry. OK. 00:53:30.306 --> 00:53:42.644 - Sam, before you move on, I just thought of a question for the petitioner, if I may. For the petitioner, 00:53:42.644 --> 00:53:56.286 - could you explain to me what the difficulty is that you're having replacing the windows with the original windows? 00:53:58.786 --> 00:54:09.246 - similar replacement windows? Okay, so what we did was we took the old windows out and then they put 00:54:09.246 --> 00:54:19.706 - in the transom and the bottom ones. You guys did not approve that design. So we were just trying to 00:54:19.706 --> 00:54:28.702 - do this one, the one that we're looking at, to see if that will meet your guidelines. 00:54:28.930 --> 00:54:36.261 - As Noah, I don't know if he's included any of this. I sent him several photos of similar things in the 00:54:36.261 --> 00:54:43.023 - neighborhood that look similar. These are the divided light windows? They started fitting with 00:54:43.023 --> 00:54:50.141 - the neighborhood. And as you know, the guidelines are very vague. It just said, put it back the way 00:54:50.141 --> 00:54:55.550 - it was. Well, here's the thing. When they built the transoms, they cut into 00:54:56.066 --> 00:55:02.663 - you know, further than what the originals were. I guess you don't have pictures of what they looked 00:55:02.663 --> 00:55:09.457 - like before we took them out, or I mean, I gave you to know. And so we had the idea of covering up the 00:55:09.457 --> 00:55:16.582 - transom, putting the trim in so you could see what we were going for and see if that meets your guidelines. 00:55:16.582 --> 00:55:23.838 - Right. But let me ask a more specific question. The original windows are 30 inch by 77 inch windows, correct? 00:55:26.242 --> 00:55:34.232 - I don't have it right in front of me, but they were bigger old windows that were not original. They're 00:55:34.232 --> 00:55:42.377 - not original to that structure. And I'm assuming you don't have the windows that you removed. They might 00:55:42.377 --> 00:55:50.521 - be around back that we took out. Okay, so explain to me what is the difficulty. If you have the windows, 00:55:50.521 --> 00:55:52.926 - why not just put them back in? 00:55:55.682 --> 00:56:02.838 - Because they're single pane in there We changed them because the heating bills over there are terrible 00:56:02.838 --> 00:56:09.995 - And they're rotting. They were old We had no idea which is on us that it was considered historic Which 00:56:09.995 --> 00:56:17.290 - I now know that you have to study that before you do anything Okay, so that's as simple as it from where 00:56:17.290 --> 00:56:21.598 - we're coming from right are Are these old windows repairable? 00:56:27.074 --> 00:56:35.114 - No, because I'm not a construction person, to be honest. I don't know. This was one of our friends who 00:56:35.114 --> 00:56:42.999 - were in construction said, I have these windows. Here, let's do this. Let's replace them. And that's 00:56:42.999 --> 00:56:50.805 - what we did. Right. And have you checked on the market to see if there are windows that are similar 00:56:50.805 --> 00:56:54.942 - in size and appearance to the ones that you removed? 00:56:56.066 --> 00:57:05.222 - that may have the qualities that you're seeking to get for these replacement windows. We've done some 00:57:05.222 --> 00:57:13.569 - research, but I guess it comes back to we're trying to do what you guys are asking us to do, 00:57:13.569 --> 00:57:23.174 - but it still is, it just seems so vague. Okay. But we've, so go ahead. I believe that what we're requiring 00:57:23.174 --> 00:57:26.046 - has been made very, very clear. 00:57:27.522 --> 00:57:38.814 - certainly over the past few interactions we've had with you. So what is vague about replacing the windows 00:57:38.814 --> 00:57:49.146 - with windows of a similar type, of a similar dimension, which is in keeping with the guidelines? 00:57:49.146 --> 00:57:54.366 - What's vague? What don't you understand? Because 00:57:55.778 --> 00:58:06.139 - I guess what I don't understand is you wanted us to put the exact windows back in and redo. You don't 00:58:06.139 --> 00:58:16.804 - like the transoms. You didn't like the trim. So you wanted them to look exactly the way they did before. 00:58:16.804 --> 00:58:23.102 - Yes. Perfect. OK. See? Yeah. OK. So that's what we'll do. OK. 00:58:24.514 --> 00:58:33.590 - We wanted to put this in and see if this would work, even though there's grids on that same building. 00:58:33.590 --> 00:58:42.488 - But if this is what needs to happen, then this is what we'll do. Which way are we going? Going that 00:58:42.488 --> 00:58:51.563 - way? Going that way? Oh, we stopped it even. Oh. Yeah, we went back to you. Yeah. OK. So I don't have 00:58:51.563 --> 00:58:52.542 - questions. 00:58:54.082 --> 00:59:00.761 - Yes, we can. Jack, do you have questions? I do have. Do you have a motion? Do you have a question? I 00:59:00.761 --> 00:59:07.836 - have just a couple questions. I have many more. Do we have any idea when these tall windows were installed 00:59:07.836 --> 00:59:14.713 - in this house? Do we have any idea what the house looked like originally with its first set of windows? 00:59:14.713 --> 00:59:21.920 - So I don't have pictures of the house from older than 2001. You know, these are wood windows, and Jennifer's 00:59:21.920 --> 00:59:23.838 - right. They were pretty old. 00:59:24.226 --> 00:59:32.249 - I would hazard to guess that if they were replaced, they were replaced a long time ago. Certainly, I 00:59:32.249 --> 00:59:40.193 - checked and you can find windows that are approximately these dimensions made with newer materials, 00:59:40.193 --> 00:59:48.376 - but it would be pretty unusual in anything like post-Victorian. So my hunch is that these windows, the 00:59:48.376 --> 00:59:52.030 - windows that were in place before were either 00:59:52.450 --> 00:59:59.880 - original or very close to what was originally there. Thank you. Also just considering, like I mentioned, 00:59:59.880 --> 01:00:06.956 - the age that we saw on them. They did have rotting cells. And the proportionality of the windows is 01:00:06.956 --> 01:00:14.032 - consistent with the type and the age of the house. Good. Good information. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, 01:00:14.032 --> 01:00:21.886 - the guidelines don't actually talk about materiality. They talk a lot about proportion and that sort of thing. 01:00:23.138 --> 01:00:35.583 - I think we're up to motion making. Appropriate motion would be to deny, yes. Well, yeah. COA 2570. OK. 01:00:35.583 --> 01:00:47.666 - So I'll make the motion. Move to deny COA 25-79. Do I have a second? Second. Let's talk about it. I 01:00:47.666 --> 01:00:52.862 - think clarity here is we're looking for an 01:00:53.250 --> 01:01:01.186 - strike me down if I'm misspeaking again. We're looking for the windows that fit the existing openings 01:01:01.186 --> 01:01:09.200 - that were there before this whole process started in all of the windows with, they were one over ones, 01:01:09.200 --> 01:01:16.981 - yeah? So no grids, top or bottom, just a double hung window. You could even do a single hung window 01:01:16.981 --> 01:01:20.638 - because they look the same with matching trim. 01:01:21.922 --> 01:01:28.545 - That's what we're looking for. So when you come back before us, that's what we'll expect. If you want 01:01:28.545 --> 01:01:35.362 - to get it past the commission at this point, that's what we need to see. The guidelines don't talk about 01:01:35.362 --> 01:01:41.855 - the materiality of the window in this district. So, you know, whatever type of window, you know, we 01:01:41.855 --> 01:01:48.478 - always love wood windows, but they're expensive. So we understand that you might not want to do that. 01:01:49.282 --> 01:01:58.576 - but windows that are double hung that fit the existing rough openings in the house with trim that matches 01:01:58.576 --> 01:02:07.344 - the original trim. That's what we're looking for. We have other comments. It's really the same size 01:02:07.344 --> 01:02:16.111 - as the windows that were removed. Yes. Karen. I just want to make sure that you understand that the 01:02:16.111 --> 01:02:18.654 - best way to get our approval 01:02:19.106 --> 01:02:28.519 - and to submit what you're planning to do is to give us plans ahead of time. Don't try something out 01:02:28.519 --> 01:02:38.120 - and say, you mean like this. Do it on paper, clearly and fully. OK. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, 01:02:38.120 --> 01:02:48.286 - good comment. Any other comments, Melody? Well, I share Karen's concern. Yeah. You're married? No, I'm not. 01:02:48.898 --> 01:02:57.593 - We can call the roll. OK, so there's a motion to deny 2579. It's been seconded. We'll take a vote. 01:02:57.593 --> 01:03:06.814 - Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Ernesto Cascaneda? Yes. Renard Kopp? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie 01:03:06.814 --> 01:03:15.948 - Dusner? Yes. Motion to deny is approved 6-0. Thank you. Thank you for coming in. We appreciate it. Will 01:03:15.948 --> 01:03:18.846 - the demolition delay? All right. 01:03:19.746 --> 01:03:30.261 - Next item we have is demolition delay. Apparently the petitioner is online, Matt Ellenwood. This is 01:03:30.261 --> 01:03:40.880 - technically the last demolition delay of 2025. So it's running pretty close up to its deadline. This 01:03:40.880 --> 01:03:47.294 - is DD2526 for 102 South Clark. Petitioner is Matt Ellenwood. 01:03:48.194 --> 01:03:56.820 - And this is a circa 1950 slightly altered minimal ranch. Built in 1955, 102 South Clark is a slightly 01:03:56.820 --> 01:04:05.278 - altered minimal ranch. The first residents appear in the Bloomington City Directory are William and 01:04:05.278 --> 01:04:13.989 - V. Gene Fleetwood, owners of a plumbing business. William had served in the Navy during both World War 01:04:13.989 --> 01:04:15.934 - II and the Korean War. 01:04:16.738 --> 01:04:24.361 - The couple moved out in 1963, and the house passed through a series of renters, most of whom were married 01:04:24.361 --> 01:04:31.552 - couples who stayed between one and two years. From 1971 through 1972, the house was occupied by the 01:04:31.552 --> 01:04:39.031 - family of Thomas Schwen, a professor in the School of Education, and his wife, Emily. During their time 01:04:39.031 --> 01:04:46.654 - at 102 South Clark, Emily gave birth to their daughter, Missy, a two-time Olympic medal winner in rowing. 01:04:47.074 --> 01:04:57.286 - The request is for full demolition. Staff recommends the release of DD2526. Is the petitioner present, 01:04:57.286 --> 01:05:07.201 - and do they have anything to comment? He is online. I'm having trouble showing him. But he is here, 01:05:07.201 --> 01:05:13.150 - and he is unmuted. Yeah. But it says one of his cell phone. 01:05:14.178 --> 01:05:26.110 - wait a second oh oh no okay it is 102 South Clark that was the 01:05:26.722 --> 01:05:36.234 - Actually, that's going to come up later. That was the scrapyard. Yeah. So can we clarify the address 01:05:36.234 --> 01:05:45.275 - on this really quick? Sorry. Yeah, 102. It's going to be a demolition delay for 102 South Park. 01:05:45.275 --> 01:05:55.257 - Thank you. And the petitioner, Matt Ellenwood, is online virtually. Can you hear us, Matt? I'm not seeing 01:05:55.257 --> 01:05:56.670 - them anywhere. 01:05:56.898 --> 01:06:06.937 - He's on the screen that I can see. I'm just trying to get him on this one. Has he been unmuted? 01:06:06.937 --> 01:06:17.918 - He is unmuted. And I will chat with him. This is in the green anchors. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. 01:06:24.194 --> 01:06:35.883 - This is like an audio. Matt is saying he can't seem to get his audio to work. He's connecting right 01:06:35.883 --> 01:06:42.078 - now. If he's got anything to add, he can type it in. 01:06:50.786 --> 01:07:02.927 - He said nothing to add. OK. Do we have comments or questions from the public? Anyone else online? Questions 01:07:02.927 --> 01:07:14.169 - from commissioners? Jack? Jeremy? No. Bernard? No. Karen? Melody? Ernesto? No. No questions. I will 01:07:14.169 --> 01:07:19.678 - entertain a motion. I'll move to release DD2526. 01:07:20.194 --> 01:07:30.183 - I have a second. Second. Let's talk about it. Any comments, Jack? No. Jeremy, comments? No. Bernard? 01:07:30.183 --> 01:07:40.272 - Karen? Melody? Ernesto? No comments. We got a vote. OK, so there's a motion on the floor. Again, this 01:07:40.272 --> 01:07:49.470 - is for 102 South Clark. Moved and seconded. A yes vote would be to release. Jack Baker? Yes. 01:07:49.666 --> 01:07:57.122 - Jeremy Haggard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. 01:07:57.122 --> 01:08:00.062 - That passes 6-0. Can you read the thing? 01:08:00.226 --> 01:08:06.875 - Today regarding the property located at 102 South Clark, the Historic Preservation Commission declares 01:08:06.875 --> 01:08:13.460 - that it got notice of the proposed demolition and after today's discussion sees no need to review the 01:08:13.460 --> 01:08:20.303 - plans any further and waives the rest of the demolition delay waiting period. The HBC may later recommend 01:08:20.303 --> 01:08:26.887 - the property for historic designation to the Common Council. Thank you. All right. Moving on, we have 01:08:26.887 --> 01:08:29.534 - one more new demolition delay for today. 01:08:29.666 --> 01:08:39.111 - DD-2601. This is for 809 North Walnut Street. Petitioner is Ernest G. This request is for full demolition. 01:08:39.111 --> 01:08:47.939 - Built in 1940. Is the petitioner here? Is the petitioner here? We have a Todd Sachs that are online 01:08:47.939 --> 01:08:56.943 - and a Eric that hasn't responded. If either of you that are online, if you're here for this petition, 01:08:56.943 --> 01:08:59.326 - would you raise your hand? 01:09:06.370 --> 01:09:16.152 - I do not see any hands being raised. All right. And no, he's here from the public for this petition, 01:09:16.152 --> 01:09:26.225 - right? Yes. You're here? I mean, to represent the petition? No. Yeah. I've asked him to unmute and also 01:09:26.225 --> 01:09:34.942 - he has unmuted. Yes. I'm here for it. Yeah. OK. Thank you. Thank you, sir. OK. All right. 01:09:35.426 --> 01:09:43.607 - Pre-continue? Sure. Built in 1940, 809 North Walnut is a two-story, wait, I wrote brick. It's not brick. 01:09:43.607 --> 01:09:51.711 - It's limestone. A two-story limestone two-door revival house slash commercial building with a two-story 01:09:51.711 --> 01:10:00.126 - vinyl-sided addition and a ground floor storefront facing the south parking lot. For most of the building's 01:10:00.126 --> 01:10:03.710 - history, it was mixed commercial residential. 01:10:04.386 --> 01:10:11.929 - from the 1960s through the early 2000s. It was home to Edward and Marjorie Ryan, who operated Ryan's 01:10:11.929 --> 01:10:19.696 - barber shop on the ground floor. The Ryans rented two other commercial tenants, including a real estate 01:10:19.696 --> 01:10:27.389 - and insurance office. Edwards worked as a barber from the time he was decommissioned from the military 01:10:27.389 --> 01:10:32.542 - in 1945 until his death in 2008. The request is for full demolition. 01:10:34.370 --> 01:10:42.995 - Does the petitioner have anything that he would like to add? No. All right. I think I will move on to 01:10:42.995 --> 01:10:51.789 - comments or questions from the public to people. If you would state your name for the record. My name's 01:10:51.789 --> 01:11:00.330 - James Ford. I live in Cottage Grove across the street from this house. I'm here to just fill in some 01:11:00.330 --> 01:11:03.966 - of the history of this house that has been 01:11:04.450 --> 01:11:14.302 - not mentioned yet. William Henry Hunter was born in 1881. He completed the fourth grade. He is buried 01:11:14.302 --> 01:11:24.250 - in Valhalla Cemetery. In 1905, he married Margaret Ratliff. These are two Bloomington families. He was 01:11:24.250 --> 01:11:30.142 - a mason. He was a contractor. He became somewhat successful. 01:11:31.522 --> 01:11:39.996 - In 1910, he was living on 13th Street, in 1916 on Walnut Grove, 1930 on Fee Lane, north of 17th. 01:11:39.996 --> 01:11:48.908 - In 1940, when he was 60 years old, he decided to build this house for his wife and his family. He was 01:11:48.908 --> 01:11:58.081 - employed at the Public Works Administration, the PWA at the time. This house has currently seven gables. 01:11:58.081 --> 01:12:00.702 - It's a house of seven gables. 01:12:01.026 --> 01:12:09.271 - It's possible that it had nine originally, two in the front, one in the back, and three on each side. 01:12:09.271 --> 01:12:16.950 - It was likely symmetrical at that point. It's a storybook house. It was originally. All stone, 01:12:16.950 --> 01:12:25.033 - Tudor revival. And it might have been the last one that was built in Bloomington prior to World War 01:12:25.033 --> 01:12:28.670 - II. It was in 1941 our country was attacked. 01:12:29.218 --> 01:12:36.881 - by an empire that wanted to dominate the world, and we responded, and we defeated them. But the world 01:12:36.881 --> 01:12:44.545 - was never the same after that, and this kind of house would never have been built after World War II. 01:12:44.545 --> 01:12:51.006 - Mr. Hunter was unable to work after 1950, and he died in 1957, a year after his wife. 01:12:53.026 --> 01:12:59.099 - The house was then lived in by Professor Messick from the business school for a couple years, and then 01:12:59.099 --> 01:13:05.113 - a guy who worked at Crane. And it was in 1960 that Edward Ryan decided to buy the house. He moved his 01:13:05.113 --> 01:13:11.186 - barber shop, which was at 1010 North Walnut, to the basement of the house. And he moved his residence, 01:13:11.186 --> 01:13:17.259 - which was at 1111 North Indiana, to the upstairs. He added the shop at the bottom by gutting the front 01:13:17.259 --> 01:13:21.150 - yard. He added the addition on the south side and lived in there. 01:13:21.730 --> 01:13:28.810 - He did a lot of damage to this house. Eventually it was sold to Jeff Jones of Pendragon who neglected 01:13:28.810 --> 01:13:35.890 - it while he rented it out and it fell into disrepair. And now it's been sold to the present petition. 01:13:35.890 --> 01:13:42.832 - The house is going to be destroyed now by people who are not from Bloomington, they're from outside 01:13:42.832 --> 01:13:49.842 - and it's going to be replaced likely by another boring box that these people are building around the 01:13:49.842 --> 01:13:50.814 - neighborhood. 01:13:51.298 --> 01:13:58.517 - who are not interested, people are not interested in the history or the architecture of the neighborhood. 01:13:58.517 --> 01:14:05.667 - Instead, they're interested in real estate as a business. This is like a cancer that's spreading through 01:14:05.667 --> 01:14:12.614 - our neighborhood. But unlike World War II, it's been a very slow, progressive, insidious road through 01:14:12.614 --> 01:14:18.334 - the neighborhood. And it's going to end up creating just a field of piles of stones 01:14:18.818 --> 01:14:25.892 - When this is demolished, this will be yet another pile of stone. And in Mandarin, that would be Qian 01:14:25.892 --> 01:14:32.897 - Lei. And that's all I have to say about this house. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else from 01:14:32.897 --> 01:14:40.181 - the neighborhood in the public to speak to this? I would like to speak to this as well. My name is John 01:14:40.181 --> 01:14:47.326 - Ballard. Officially, this is across the street from the proposed Cottage Grove Conservation District. 01:14:48.386 --> 01:14:58.697 - So we're not officially opposing it. But we're sad to see it go. And we're disappointed that it's not 01:14:58.697 --> 01:15:08.805 - going to be replaced with something nearly as interesting. Thank you. I mean, Butler also wanted to 01:15:08.805 --> 01:15:18.206 - say that I'm just sad to see yet another really cool house with a really interesting history 01:15:18.722 --> 01:15:26.927 - that's going to get torn down again and replaced or torn down and get replaced by something that is 01:15:26.927 --> 01:15:35.461 - very much less interesting and doesn't have nearly the cool historical ties to it. But I know that your 01:15:35.461 --> 01:15:43.173 - hands are tied on this, but I just wanted to voice my opinion. And I thank you for your time. 01:15:43.173 --> 01:15:47.358 - Thank you. Is anyone online? All right. Questions? 01:15:48.386 --> 01:15:58.799 - I have no questions. Jeremy? Which part is the additional house? You can make it out. I'm sorry, the 01:15:58.799 --> 01:16:09.315 - screen is pretty small. What's being shared, but you can see behind the tree. I've got a good view on 01:16:09.315 --> 01:16:18.078 - Google Docs that I can show you. Oh, that's right. That's a huge bit of vinyl. Yeah. 01:16:18.498 --> 01:16:28.117 - Really, unless you're standing at the south end, there isn't really a public view that shows it well. 01:16:28.117 --> 01:16:37.830 - Do you know what the edition was put on there? It was put on by Edward and Marjorie Ryan. I'm not sure 01:16:37.830 --> 01:16:45.374 - exactly when, before the 2000s. Somewhere between the 1916s and the 1900s. Yes. 01:16:46.882 --> 01:16:55.599 - Probably the 1990s, if you might guess. OK. Any more questions? No. Any other questions? I'd like to 01:16:55.599 --> 01:17:04.317 - get a sense of what it is that you, how would this house, how would you describe the significance of 01:17:04.317 --> 01:17:13.121 - the house? Would it be in its architecture? So that would be the case that you would make if you were 01:17:13.121 --> 01:17:15.710 - trying to prevent this thing. 01:17:16.034 --> 01:17:26.081 - from Bintornel, this house from Bintornel. And what is it about the architecture? Describe for me how 01:17:26.081 --> 01:17:36.621 - is it that the architecture is unique to the, by definition, by the criteria established in the guidelines 01:17:36.621 --> 01:17:41.054 - that would justify its protection. Yes, yes. 01:17:41.410 --> 01:17:47.794 - My name is James Borden. When you say guidelines, are you referring to a neighborhood guidelines? No, 01:17:47.794 --> 01:17:54.052 - I'm referring to the, let's just say we were supposed to make a case to the UDO. Right. So I am not 01:17:54.052 --> 01:18:00.373 - an architect. I'm not a specialist in historical architecture, but I don't see many houses with this 01:18:00.373 --> 01:18:07.070 - pitch, with this complexity of the roof line, with this careful detail to the stonework and masonry, which 01:18:07.202 --> 01:18:16.077 - Maybe only a mason would do to his own house, which is what happened here. It is in an odd place now, 01:18:16.077 --> 01:18:25.125 - especially if there's been growth all around it. So it is isolated. If it were my ideal world, it would 01:18:25.125 --> 01:18:34.174 - be moved. It would be safe, but moved, because this location is a difficult place for this house today. 01:18:34.306 --> 01:18:41.976 - And there's a lot of problems with the house. The windows are all replaced, so there's nothing to preserve 01:18:41.976 --> 01:18:49.287 - there. The so-called addition on the south side is not really an addition. It's more of an enclosure, 01:18:49.287 --> 01:18:56.742 - because the original house may very well still be in there somewhere. I've never been inside the house, 01:18:56.742 --> 01:19:03.838 - so I don't know currently the layout. It looks so unique to me for our neighborhood, for the area. 01:19:04.354 --> 01:19:11.698 - It seems like it should be preserved. I know of one house similar to it on South Washington made out 01:19:11.698 --> 01:19:18.970 - of brick. And then I know another house on North Washington made of brick. I don't know any of them 01:19:18.970 --> 01:19:26.533 - made out of limestone. And this is 100% limestone. It's not just the front facing here. It's all around 01:19:26.533 --> 01:19:33.950 - the house. No. Is there anything that you discovered in your research that is in keeping with James's 01:19:34.626 --> 01:19:44.658 - definition that could possibly be considered? Yes. There are a few other examples of two revival limestone 01:19:44.658 --> 01:19:54.691 - houses in Bloomington. The other ones are more sort of standard, what you'd see gable front with a sloping 01:19:54.691 --> 01:20:02.942 - roof. I can think of a couple on Maxwell Lane from the 1920s, so this is a little late. 01:20:03.522 --> 01:20:13.459 - It's also a little unusual in that it's clearly sort of not clearly, but it's probably not architect 01:20:13.459 --> 01:20:23.494 - designed. It's probably craftsman designed. It definitely has an eclectic look. There aren't a lot of 01:20:23.494 --> 01:20:29.790 - Tudor revival houses in Bloomington, but this one is not alone. 01:20:32.706 --> 01:20:41.244 - Okay, and I see your recommendation is to release it. Is it that you couldn't find anything, just to 01:20:41.244 --> 01:20:50.121 - get a clear statement from you, that in your opinion, there's nothing unique about this house that would 01:20:50.121 --> 01:20:58.575 - substantiate or support? So I guess my rationale, looking at the history of the house, I had a hard 01:20:58.575 --> 01:21:01.534 - time picking out any sort of clear 01:21:02.210 --> 01:21:11.412 - significance to the history of Bloomington beyond the immediate impact of the business located here. 01:21:11.412 --> 01:21:20.613 - In terms of its architecture, I think if it had a higher degree of integrity, it would absolutely be 01:21:20.613 --> 01:21:27.902 - eligible. I think the storefront that was added does add a little more context. 01:21:29.314 --> 01:21:37.889 - It does hurt the original architectural integrity of the Tudor Revival House. All of the windows have 01:21:37.889 --> 01:21:46.295 - been replaced. The rear addition, I don't think that's as much of an issue for me, but I'd say even 01:21:46.295 --> 01:21:55.038 - though it's clearly an interesting building, a lot of its architectural integrity has been compromised. 01:21:57.890 --> 01:22:05.352 - I think it would be a little harder, in my opinion, to make an architectural case for designating it. 01:22:05.352 --> 01:22:12.741 - And we don't think that the addition on the side there, like, I don't know what the precedent is for 01:22:12.741 --> 01:22:20.568 - looking at a building like this and saying, OK, well, if that was simply not there, we think that anything 01:22:20.568 --> 01:22:26.494 - would be restored. Like, can you not? I don't know whether it could be restored. 01:22:26.946 --> 01:22:32.827 - you know, this addition was taken off. Like Mr. Ford said, I don't know what's under there. Honestly, 01:22:32.827 --> 01:22:38.708 - the addition on the side, I don't think is much of an issue in terms of compromising integrity. A lot 01:22:38.708 --> 01:22:44.705 - of buildings that are on the National Register of Historic Places have additions that were added either 01:22:44.705 --> 01:22:50.586 - after the period of significance or after they've been designated. So unless there's something really 01:22:50.586 --> 01:22:54.622 - significant that we're missing that was taken away for that addition, 01:22:55.330 --> 01:23:02.880 - That isn't so much it for me. It's really more the overall effect of all the other replacements on the 01:23:02.880 --> 01:23:10.283 - house and, you know, the alterations for those sort of added storefronts. Do you have any questions? 01:23:10.283 --> 01:23:17.686 - Yes. Yes. Karen, did you have questions? No questions. Do you have additional questions? I asked out 01:23:17.686 --> 01:23:23.550 - of turn. That's OK. We'll get there. Questions? All right. I have no questions. 01:23:24.162 --> 01:23:34.272 - I will entertain a motion. I'll move to release DD 2601. Do I have a second? I'll second. All right. 01:23:34.272 --> 01:23:44.282 - Comments? Jack, comments? No. Jeremy? I think Noah explained his rationale pretty well. It's listed 01:23:44.282 --> 01:23:52.990 - as a contributing building. I think the historical context, we can't make an argument. 01:23:53.218 --> 01:24:02.125 - in that area either, given those two factors, I think we need to release it. I don't know. I agree that 01:24:02.125 --> 01:24:10.775 - it's cool, but apparently cool isn't a criteria. Criterion that can be used. So there you go. Karen. 01:24:10.775 --> 01:24:19.597 - It makes it tough, but I think that's the right call. Yeah. Hi. I'm Karen with Jack and David. Did you 01:24:19.597 --> 01:24:21.310 - call the roll? Yes. 01:24:21.730 --> 01:24:29.715 - So this would be on Demolition Delay 2601, which has been motioned and seconded. We'll go ahead and 01:24:29.715 --> 01:24:37.940 - vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hanford? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Renard Croft? Yes. Sam Soler? Yes. 01:24:37.940 --> 01:24:41.214 - Melody Dusner? Yes. And that passes 6-0. 01:24:41.762 --> 01:24:48.616 - Today, regarding the property located at 809 North Walnut, the Historic Preservation Commission declares 01:24:48.616 --> 01:24:55.470 - that it got notice of proposed demolition and after today's discussion, sees no need to review the plans 01:24:55.470 --> 01:25:01.998 - any further and waives the rest of the demolition delay waiting period. HBC may later recommend the 01:25:01.998 --> 01:25:08.591 - property for historic designation to the Common Council. I'd like to thank the petitioner for coming 01:25:08.591 --> 01:25:09.374 - in and also 01:25:09.666 --> 01:25:17.726 - Residents of Cottage Grove for showing up. I appreciate that. Moving on to old business. There are a 01:25:17.726 --> 01:25:25.945 - few items I'd like to address. There's also some that, some things I think we should just discuss that 01:25:25.945 --> 01:25:34.244 - can go under new business that are not in the agenda, but then popping around. Sort of new things since 01:25:34.244 --> 01:25:36.638 - this was put together anyway. 01:25:37.634 --> 01:25:45.830 - I included in your packet this evening a report from the developers of 503 North Rogers. In case you're 01:25:45.830 --> 01:25:53.869 - wondering why that address was on one of the demolition delays, you may remember that item came up at 01:25:53.869 --> 01:26:01.750 - our last meeting. There were some questions about a limestone loading dock from the site's previous 01:26:01.750 --> 01:26:06.558 - use as a, what do you call it, cutting mill, limestone mill. 01:26:07.170 --> 01:26:17.537 - The petitioners, although we weren't able to meet between the time that this structural engineers report 01:26:17.537 --> 01:26:27.411 - was produced and when the demolition delay was automatically released, they wanted me to show it to 01:26:27.411 --> 01:26:35.902 - you to demonstrate one, what the integrity of the structure looked like and then two, 01:26:36.514 --> 01:26:45.215 - what it might possibly take to preserve part of it. The takeaway, in short, from the structural engineer 01:26:45.215 --> 01:26:53.668 - is that it would be difficult to move the entire structure, which was, you know, that was sort of the 01:26:53.668 --> 01:27:02.287 - best case scenario because there's something else that they needed to put in, some utilities and access 01:27:02.287 --> 01:27:06.430 - for, I think, emergencies into the Beeline Trail. 01:27:06.530 --> 01:27:16.321 - where this is currently located on the site. They did propose, however, that they might be able to save 01:27:16.321 --> 01:27:25.829 - the lower part of some of the bays. If they were to relocate larger, more complete sections, there's 01:27:25.829 --> 01:27:35.902 - a concern for public safety if anybody was regularly engaging with it or was going to be passing close by. 01:27:36.130 --> 01:27:43.519 - received yet is any sort of idea of where the structure might be relocated on the site. I've seen a 01:27:43.519 --> 01:27:51.057 - couple of proposed locations and meetings. One would be within this property, sort of located further 01:27:51.057 --> 01:27:58.889 - to the north, close to the Beeline Trail, which I guess, as you'd all know, used to be the Monon Railway, 01:27:58.889 --> 01:28:04.062 - which is part of the railroad significance to this loading structure. 01:28:05.186 --> 01:28:12.150 - The other location that they were gunning for, at least in my meeting with them and with the planning 01:28:12.150 --> 01:28:19.115 - department, would be on City Parkland adjacent to the Beeline Trail. People from the Parks Department 01:28:19.115 --> 01:28:26.557 - haven't heard anything about this proposal. It sounds like it. But it's on your own? Yeah. So now. Surprise. 01:28:26.557 --> 01:28:33.384 - Obviously, that's what the petitioner would have preferred, because it would mean taking up less of 01:28:33.384 --> 01:28:34.750 - their own property. 01:28:35.170 --> 01:28:41.797 - So they're still going through the process with I don't know what commissions they have left to go to 01:28:41.797 --> 01:28:48.359 - now, but a few other boards, because it's a fairly big project. And there's a lot of things that are 01:28:48.359 --> 01:28:55.376 - going to have to get worked out with our associates and other boards and commissions. So I'll be interested 01:28:55.376 --> 01:29:02.263 - to see where this fits into that discussion. I think the next date that they're going to be coming before 01:29:02.263 --> 01:29:04.862 - any commission is going to be in April. 01:29:05.634 --> 01:29:14.701 - It might be a while before I get any answers for you guys. But read through at your leisure. At least 01:29:14.701 --> 01:29:24.478 - we've received it. I also wanted to go through some of the points that we discussed at last year's commission 01:29:24.478 --> 01:29:33.811 - retreat. So thank you to everybody who was able to come to that. One of the big points was how we handle 01:29:33.811 --> 01:29:34.878 - violations. 01:29:35.490 --> 01:29:43.353 - whether they could be handled differently from other COA applications in cases where a petitioner wants 01:29:43.353 --> 01:29:51.444 - to come back and retroactively apply for approval. Part of the reason why we thought it might be difficult 01:29:51.444 --> 01:29:59.156 - to change the timeline for this would be because COAs often sort of align with other permits that are 01:29:59.156 --> 01:30:03.390 - received either from the county or from the city. So if 01:30:03.490 --> 01:30:12.296 - a two-year timeline is changed for historic preservation approval that might, you know, people in planning 01:30:12.296 --> 01:30:20.691 - might not remember that when it comes time to, yeah, approve some sort of, I don't know, something on 01:30:20.691 --> 01:30:29.085 - their end. So, I mean, I agree that it would be cool if we could find a way to make this work to have 01:30:29.085 --> 01:30:32.542 - more variable timeframes for approval for 01:30:32.674 --> 01:30:42.304 - corrections to violations, but I'm just not sure that would work. And correct me if you have any other 01:30:42.304 --> 01:30:51.747 - ideas, Anna. But I mean, this is something that we discussed. Sorry about him, but I'm curious as to 01:30:51.747 --> 01:31:01.470 - why these things are joined to other permitting processes and why they cannot be independent processes. 01:31:06.594 --> 01:31:15.566 - We're a separate commission. We have our own authority. We are under the umbrella of hand. That said, 01:31:15.566 --> 01:31:24.539 - it's going to take as long as it's going to take to get this stuff done. And I think the two-year COA 01:31:24.539 --> 01:31:33.511 - in terms of violations is arbitrary. It could be much shorter. It could be much longer. It depends on 01:31:33.511 --> 01:31:36.062 - how the petitioner responds. 01:31:36.674 --> 01:31:43.533 - Or could that also just be a separate tracking form that whoever is in your position is able to keep 01:31:43.533 --> 01:31:50.392 - a track of and then be liaising with whatever these other permitting departments are. You have to be 01:31:50.392 --> 01:31:57.319 - like, hey, there's this time period that's coming up short of just a way to make that work. So as you 01:31:57.319 --> 01:32:04.382 - guys know, the two-year time frame, that is in our rules and procedures. So it's not a statutory thing. 01:32:06.594 --> 01:32:14.899 - You know, we could see about changing rules and procedures, which, you know, requires like a two-third 01:32:14.899 --> 01:32:23.043 - majority vote. There could be some way to keep track of it, but it couldn't be a separate process or 01:32:23.043 --> 01:32:31.670 - a separate like, what do you call it, a separate certificate from a certificate of appropriateness because 01:32:31.670 --> 01:32:32.638 - that's what 01:32:33.186 --> 01:32:40.337 - is provided for in the state, a statute. So that is the only way we can enforce anything is through 01:32:40.337 --> 01:32:48.203 - COAs. Is that what you're saying? No. I mean, we could enforce with fines or liens. I still don't understand. 01:32:48.203 --> 01:32:55.569 - I guess I was saying about a suggestion that was brought up at the commission meeting for issuing COAs 01:32:55.569 --> 01:33:03.006 - for less than two years for some variable length of time for violations. So based on that, could we not 01:33:03.202 --> 01:33:11.302 - then vote to amend our own bylines for COAs that are dealing with violations that we can make them shorter 01:33:11.302 --> 01:33:19.100 - periods. I believe we could. Or even violations apart from COAs. I look at them as two very distinctly 01:33:19.100 --> 01:33:26.140 - different tracks because a violation can happen regardless of whether there's an application 01:33:26.140 --> 01:33:31.742 - for a certificate of appropriateness or not. So I think maybe we write up 01:33:32.066 --> 01:33:39.059 - something that maybe we could share with everybody, take a look at, and mold a little bit and see if 01:33:39.059 --> 01:33:46.052 - we could vote on it if people are interested in what we're saying. Yeah. The other caveat here is we 01:33:46.052 --> 01:33:53.184 - need a full slate of commissioners, I think, in good faith to move forward on most anything that we're 01:33:53.184 --> 01:34:00.107 - talking about here. I would agree with that. And now that you brought that up, is there anything in 01:34:00.107 --> 01:34:02.046 - motion to make that happen? 01:34:02.786 --> 01:34:10.113 - That's not my department's having. Well, that's the next item on here. Just information. That wasn't. 01:34:10.113 --> 01:34:17.368 - Yeah. Let's get through his commission thing. Sure. So I'm going to be honest. I haven't heard about 01:34:17.368 --> 01:34:24.982 - any new appointments. That's something I want to talk with Sydney about, obviously. So aside from serving 01:34:24.982 --> 01:34:31.806 - as commissioner liaison, which is a new position for her, she's on the interview committee for 01:34:32.034 --> 01:34:41.859 - that handles HBC appointments. However, because she doesn't work for the mayor's office, she works for 01:34:41.859 --> 01:34:51.398 - city council. She's, for the most part, unless the mayor's office starts nominating more people for 01:34:51.398 --> 01:34:57.694 - voting positions, she's mostly handling the non-voting positions. 01:34:57.922 --> 01:35:05.681 - I mean, this issue that we've been having, it's not for a lack of applications because I think we have 01:35:05.681 --> 01:35:13.591 - enough qualified applicants on board right now to, you know, fill all the positions that we need filled. 01:35:13.591 --> 01:35:21.125 - The next regular city council meeting is on February 4th, I believe. I haven't heard anything and I 01:35:21.125 --> 01:35:26.398 - would hear from the mayor's office if somebody was being recommended. 01:35:26.946 --> 01:35:33.263 - They haven't reached out to me about anyone. Would it help for us to all write in to the mayor's office 01:35:33.263 --> 01:35:39.397 - to recommend on these? I've written individually recommending approval of some of the applications I 01:35:39.397 --> 01:35:45.714 - know have gone in, but it might be maybe more forceful if all of us do it, or if we do maybe one letter 01:35:45.714 --> 01:35:52.031 - together. We could make a motion to request. Yeah, I mean, if we do a letter from the commission. Yeah. 01:35:52.031 --> 01:35:56.222 - I mean, we could make a formal motion from the commission to request 01:35:56.354 --> 01:36:04.064 - that these vacancies be filled with in the next 30 days or some, you know, because we're in trouble 01:36:04.064 --> 01:36:11.928 - and I don't know what else to do. So every time I do get a new application I write to both the person 01:36:11.928 --> 01:36:19.638 - in the clerk's office and the person in the mayor's office who handles recommendations to the mayor 01:36:19.638 --> 01:36:24.958 - and to council. So plus a couple of reminders that Jeremy and I have 01:36:25.218 --> 01:36:32.551 - Maybe some other people have sent off over the course of the last year or so. I've written a couple 01:36:32.551 --> 01:36:39.884 - of recommendations. I mean, legally, it states that the mayor is supposed to fill a vacancy within, 01:36:39.884 --> 01:36:47.877 - what, 30 days, 60 days? 90 days. 90 days. And the last one was Elizabeth, which was at the end of September. 01:36:47.877 --> 01:36:54.110 - So that's August, actually. Oh, August. And then we had another one that's been open 01:36:54.658 --> 01:37:01.875 - for about a year. And then, technically, there's two people who are continuing to serve on this commission 01:37:01.875 --> 01:37:09.025 - right now for 90 days until they're either reappointed or somebody else is appointed into their position. 01:37:09.025 --> 01:37:15.770 - And I actually haven't met our most recent appointee yet. Drew? Mm-hmm. What was that? Drew Lahren. 01:37:15.770 --> 01:37:22.718 - Is he a voting member? No. No. He had attended a couple of meetings last year. How many commissioners? 01:37:23.618 --> 01:37:32.358 - regular in the absence. From this commission or from commissions in general? From this. I remember when 01:37:32.358 --> 01:37:41.098 - I started, we either had one or no openings. So there's been a lot of attrition. But I mean people that 01:37:41.098 --> 01:37:49.501 - have been appointed are supposed to be active now but don't show. Don't show? I don't know. I don't 01:37:49.501 --> 01:37:50.846 - really ask you. 01:37:51.074 --> 01:37:56.767 - They're supposed to be like a three in a row, you know, like kind of a three strikes rule if you don't 01:37:56.767 --> 01:38:02.295 - show three times a row. That's what I was getting at. That could be instituted. Yeah. Well, I mean, 01:38:02.295 --> 01:38:08.210 - part of the difficulty about instituting that right now, at least for me, is I haven't seen any indication 01:38:08.210 --> 01:38:13.793 - that any new appointees are being reviewed. And I'm concerned that if I start kicking people off the 01:38:13.793 --> 01:38:19.486 - commission at this point, we could get to a situation where we literally don't have a quorum of people 01:38:19.874 --> 01:38:28.555 - before serving on the commission. Now, I don't think anybody here today has missed three consecutive 01:38:28.555 --> 01:38:36.720 - meetings over the course of the past year. I might be wrong. I've actually come to some death. 01:38:36.720 --> 01:38:45.315 - You've tried. Every maker has come to nonexistent death. I know we have had that issue in the past. 01:38:45.315 --> 01:38:47.550 - And there were people who 01:38:48.546 --> 01:38:55.290 - I did not boot off the commission. OK. OK. Can we move ahead and write that letter to? Do you want to 01:38:55.290 --> 01:39:02.431 - make a motion to write a letter? I suggest somebody makes the motion to write a letter and have a deadline, 01:39:02.431 --> 01:39:09.374 - 30 days, fill out those positions. This is an urgent matter, isn't it? Is that letter going to recommend 01:39:09.698 --> 01:39:16.268 - individuals or just recommend that field. I want bodies. I mean, I don't think that's something that 01:39:16.268 --> 01:39:22.967 - we can necessarily influence one way or the other, or should influence one way or the other. You know, 01:39:22.967 --> 01:39:29.602 - I have my favorite people, and you have your favorite people, and they might be different people. All 01:39:29.602 --> 01:39:35.326 - my favorite people are here. You want cookies. I know you. But we just need applicants. 01:39:35.650 --> 01:39:44.962 - We need commissioners. Jeremy. Is there any teeth? You write a letter and, well, firstly, it's 01:39:44.962 --> 01:39:54.862 - my understanding that 90 days have passed for a couple at least. And what? Is there a next step that 01:39:54.862 --> 01:40:03.390 - can be taken if they aren't filled? And two, if we write a letter and nothing happens, 01:40:03.842 --> 01:40:12.421 - And those are just questions. I mean, worst case scenario is we get to March and we shut down. Two members 01:40:12.421 --> 01:40:20.839 - of the commission who are currently just showing up on Good Faith are no longer legally allowed to vote. 01:40:20.839 --> 01:40:29.097 - And so we won't make quorum. That's my understanding. And then everything just goes through. Just ages 01:40:29.097 --> 01:40:31.262 - out until they get quorum. 01:40:31.746 --> 01:40:39.010 - all the seaways. So we basically got through the end of March before we have to see something and we've 01:40:39.010 --> 01:40:45.995 - been begging for this for a long time but you know anything that we can do I think we should do and 01:40:45.995 --> 01:40:52.980 - I think that a formal letter requesting that the mayor's office fill these vacancies within 30 days 01:40:52.980 --> 01:41:00.245 - is not unreasonable. No I agree I was just asking. Yeah, what happened next? Yeah. I don't know. Mayors 01:41:00.245 --> 01:41:01.502 - and City Council. 01:41:02.306 --> 01:41:10.069 - Well, the mayor has to nominate them, and the city council has to approve them. And so all I'm asking 01:41:10.069 --> 01:41:17.832 - is for the mayor to do some nominations to submit to the city council to fill the slate. And then the 01:41:17.832 --> 01:41:25.595 - city council will do what the city council does. But we have to have at least start down the road. We 01:41:25.595 --> 01:41:30.238 - can write letters to the city council, too. It's February 4. 01:41:30.466 --> 01:41:43.102 - I believe that's the next City Council meeting. That's when they have to vote on appointees. 01:41:46.114 --> 01:41:51.900 - There's a section on the council agenda at each of their voting meetings that is a place for nominations 01:41:51.900 --> 01:41:57.465 - and approval of board and commission members. So it could come at any council meeting. The fourth is 01:41:57.465 --> 01:42:02.975 - the next one. How far ahead of that meeting does the mayor's office need to get that information to 01:42:02.975 --> 01:42:08.926 - the council? Do we know? I don't know on board and commission nominations. I don't know the answer to that. 01:42:09.442 --> 01:42:16.247 - I think the bottom line is that we need to send that letter as soon as we can so that it gets in line 01:42:16.247 --> 01:42:23.185 - with deadlines. Otherwise, we're going to be off track. Would we say the letter would be to we strongly 01:42:23.185 --> 01:42:30.056 - recommend that the mayor submit nominations for consideration by the city council for the February 4th 01:42:30.056 --> 01:42:36.727 - meeting? Yeah, just push for that date. I'd have no qualms with that. And then I would also suggest 01:42:36.727 --> 01:42:39.262 - the letter should come not from NOAA. 01:42:40.226 --> 01:42:47.337 - from the commission, Sam as the chair. And if we all vote and approve, I'll sign on our behalf. Yes, 01:42:47.337 --> 01:42:54.448 - I think it would put Noah in a weird position. Oh, you think so? Yeah, I think it needs to come from 01:42:54.448 --> 01:43:01.981 - Sam as the chair. No, not all from Sam. Yes, I agree. And I agree to what Sam said. We vote, he represents 01:43:01.981 --> 01:43:10.078 - us, and that's it. Well, that's a good question, because I'm now not really the chair for this particular meeting. 01:43:11.202 --> 01:43:21.159 - But it might be better for all signing. I'd be good with all signing. I'm just saying I don't think 01:43:21.159 --> 01:43:31.613 - it comes from nobody. I hear that. I concur. Make a motion to send letter to the office of mayor, here's 01:43:31.613 --> 01:43:39.678 - office, to request nominations for city council on a hearing dated February 4th. 01:43:44.546 --> 01:43:53.913 - Before? Before, yes. I second that. All right. And then if we could just, for the record, so I accurately 01:43:53.913 --> 01:44:03.633 - have that motion. Ernesto, you said you're making a motion to send a letter to the mayor's office requesting, 01:44:03.633 --> 01:44:12.734 - I heard, requesting, I heard a strongly recommend, was it? Compel. Send a letter to the mayor's office 01:44:13.122 --> 01:44:19.341 - requesting that the vacancies, or that they make recommendations to fill the vacancies? I think she 01:44:19.341 --> 01:44:25.560 - is. For the Historic Preservation Commission to the Common Council before the February 4th meeting. 01:44:25.560 --> 01:44:31.779 - Yeah, before the February 4th meeting. Are they technically nominations? Or would it be in time for 01:44:31.779 --> 01:44:38.123 - it to be considered at the February 4th meeting? Whatever that lead time is that we don't know. Yeah, 01:44:38.123 --> 01:44:41.854 - I think that would. Could possibly have passed already, so. 01:44:42.914 --> 01:44:53.175 - I think we're not having to worry about that too much. We just write a letter and get it out there, 01:44:53.175 --> 01:45:03.642 - and it's out there, and we've done what we can do. Do I have a second? Second. OK, so it's been moved 01:45:03.642 --> 01:45:11.646 - and seconded that the commission jointly write a letter to the mayor's office 01:45:12.514 --> 01:45:22.160 - Making that request, we'll go ahead and take a vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? 01:45:22.160 --> 01:45:30.929 - Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. That motion passes 6-0. I'll see if 01:45:30.929 --> 01:45:38.558 - I can write something up, and I'll run it by everybody, and everybody should chime in. 01:45:38.946 --> 01:45:50.021 - Circulated for signatures. Yeah, I don't think it needs to be super long straight to the point As far 01:45:50.021 --> 01:46:00.880 - as issues from the retreat go there is language in our code about maintenance standards And at what 01:46:00.880 --> 01:46:06.526 - point the Commission can step in which is basically 01:46:09.474 --> 01:46:16.498 - Which is to say that historic buildings should be maintained to meet applicable requirements established 01:46:16.498 --> 01:46:23.321 - under state statute for buildings generally. It's a conversation I can have with my coworkers in hand 01:46:23.321 --> 01:46:30.211 - because that is what they work with for the most part. But also more specifically to us to prevent the 01:46:30.211 --> 01:46:37.034 - loss of historic material and the deterioration of important character defining details and features. 01:46:37.034 --> 01:46:38.974 - I don't think that shows up. 01:46:39.298 --> 01:46:46.565 - too much when we see buildings. Okay. I got a call from another CLG in the state where this is happening 01:46:46.565 --> 01:46:53.625 - with them. So I just happened to be looking into it today. Um, and our code calls it out. Whereas I'm 01:46:53.625 --> 01:47:00.684 - not sure that there's does anyway. It's just, okay. Um, so it's the idea to set forth a procedure. Is 01:47:00.684 --> 01:47:08.574 - that what you're saying? I think, I guess what I'm saying is at a certain point, uh, you have to consider whether 01:47:09.538 --> 01:47:16.885 - you know, a certain amount of decay is going to constitute a violation. Yeah, there's something in our 01:47:16.885 --> 01:47:24.375 - guidelines. I think there's a three or four step procedure that's in there. So I don't know if you might 01:47:24.375 --> 01:47:31.937 - want to take a look at that or not, but there's a whole thing of we get a notice of it, we have a meeting 01:47:31.937 --> 01:47:39.070 - about it, and then we, I think it's something we would vote to say yes, that there's this basically 01:47:39.522 --> 01:47:48.418 - demolition by neglect, and then we forward that recommendation on to, I think, the lawyers for potential 01:47:48.418 --> 01:47:57.315 - fine or city staff for potential fine. I think there's some kind of process in there. Yep, you're right. 01:47:57.315 --> 01:48:05.873 - So it's Article 7 of the Rules and Procedures on Maintenance, and you're right, it does have exactly 01:48:05.873 --> 01:48:06.974 - those steps. 01:48:07.426 --> 01:48:13.995 - that upon presentation of supporting evidence, the commission can act by going through this analysis, 01:48:13.995 --> 01:48:21.080 - giving notice of 21-day notice to the property owner, and then determining whether that condition constitutes 01:48:21.080 --> 01:48:27.585 - a threat to the historic fabric of the building, and then forward it to the legal department to take 01:48:27.585 --> 01:48:34.218 - action if a violation is warranted. Do you see something falling down? Right. So we can't act on them. 01:48:34.218 --> 01:48:37.374 - We can, and we should, and that's something that 01:48:37.762 --> 01:48:45.187 - Historically, we have been not very good at. Well, and some of that is just people letting us know we 01:48:45.187 --> 01:48:52.538 - can't see all the buildings everywhere. Yeah. Yeah, that's fair. So another thing I want to bring up 01:48:52.538 --> 01:49:00.254 - while everybody's here is we have an application from the Cottage Grove Historic District. With, I guess, 01:49:00.254 --> 01:49:06.878 - the begrudging assent of some of the applicants, it was not included in tonight's meeting. 01:49:07.522 --> 01:49:15.888 - Part of the reasoning for that is, one, because it's still around the holidays, I wanted to make sure 01:49:15.888 --> 01:49:24.090 - we had a quorum. So I'm not sending out notices to property owners so many days in advance and then 01:49:24.090 --> 01:49:32.539 - having to cancel late. So again, there's no real guarantee that we'll meet when we're supposed to meet 01:49:32.539 --> 01:49:37.214 - next month. I hope we do. Also, we don't have, you know, 01:49:39.202 --> 01:49:46.113 - uh, chair and vice chair for this year yet. Um, I don't know when that's going to happen because we're 01:49:46.113 --> 01:49:52.890 - kind of waiting on having a fuller slate of commissioners. So I think this vote has to happen sooner 01:49:52.890 --> 01:50:00.271 - rather than later. And I would like to bring it up on the next agenda. Is that something that the petitioners 01:50:00.271 --> 01:50:07.518 - are good with? I just, yeah, I mean, that's my rationale for not putting it on this meeting. I just thought 01:50:08.290 --> 01:50:17.869 - It would have been a lot to take on, and there would also be a risk of having to start over again with 01:50:17.869 --> 01:50:27.355 - it. So putting it on the agenda for the next time around, we're just kind of hearing it for the first 01:50:27.355 --> 01:50:36.190 - time in terms of the process and everything like that. We're getting it started with us. Yeah. 01:50:36.898 --> 01:50:45.597 - This is something that I learned about earlier this week is a set of changes to accessibility standards. 01:50:45.597 --> 01:50:54.047 - This actually comes from federal legislation. And it's going to have a significant impact on what our 01:50:54.047 --> 01:51:02.580 - packets look like. So long story short, there's not going to be a packet anymore. Let me describe that 01:51:02.580 --> 01:51:06.142 - to you. There's still going to be agendas. 01:51:07.010 --> 01:51:15.756 - The agenda is going to link to a folder that's shared online that's publicly accessible that's going 01:51:15.756 --> 01:51:24.848 - to have each of those items individually, each of the items for a meeting individually sorted into their 01:51:24.848 --> 01:51:33.854 - own folders. Sort of what's ironic about it is there's no requirement that materials that are submitted 01:51:33.854 --> 01:51:35.326 - by third parties 01:51:35.970 --> 01:51:43.496 - are made accessible themselves. So functionally, what that's going to look like is there's going to 01:51:43.496 --> 01:51:51.473 - be a lot of links to inaccessible documents rather than a packet that's made more accessible. But anyway, 01:51:51.473 --> 01:51:59.225 - that's legally how it's going to work. So for all of you, that means bring in a device that has access 01:51:59.225 --> 01:52:05.246 - to the internet. Because as we go through items, you're going to have to access 01:52:06.306 --> 01:52:17.491 - all of the recommendations and photos and plans and other files that are submitted online in these folders. 01:52:17.491 --> 01:52:27.952 - So we don't have to implement this until April 24. But I'd like to roll it out before then so we can 01:52:27.952 --> 01:52:36.030 - get in the habit of doing that. So has a prolonging this meeting before? Why? 01:52:36.290 --> 01:52:44.852 - What problem is this trying to solve? So basically the accessibility guidelines are to make agendas 01:52:44.852 --> 01:52:53.500 - readable by e-readers for people who are visually impaired. There's some boards and commissions that 01:52:53.500 --> 01:53:02.233 - this can work really well for because a lot of what our commission deals with is visual. That's a lot 01:53:02.233 --> 01:53:03.774 - more complicated. 01:53:04.130 --> 01:53:13.409 - especially considering the fact that, like I mentioned, third-party items don't have to be made accessible, 01:53:13.409 --> 01:53:22.688 - and we have a whole lot of them. So if our, you know, for some of the stuff that we have that's text-based, 01:53:22.688 --> 01:53:31.452 - like our minutes and our agenda, it'll make it so that it's easier for those to be read by e-readers. 01:53:31.452 --> 01:53:33.342 - But just the way that 01:53:33.954 --> 01:53:42.317 - Our packets are laid out and have to be laid out. In my opinion, it doesn't work as well for making 01:53:42.317 --> 01:53:50.680 - it navigable for most of the people who attend our meetings. But one of the things about the packet 01:53:50.680 --> 01:53:59.210 - is that it flows in a somewhat logical sense. So is it that you're going to have the agenda, and then 01:53:59.210 --> 01:54:01.886 - once it's called up, we have to 01:54:02.082 --> 01:54:09.403 - click through individual documents that might not be listed in a logical sequence. So who's going to 01:54:09.403 --> 01:54:16.651 - marshal what we look at? We'll still have the agenda. I think the way I want to discuss with legal, 01:54:16.651 --> 01:54:24.116 - and I'm not quite sure how this would work because I don't want it to be like an elephants all the way 01:54:24.116 --> 01:54:31.582 - down kind of situation, is seeing if I can continue at least for a while until we get this figured out 01:54:31.778 --> 01:54:38.419 - to keep producing packets for the sake of having them printed off so that it's easier for commissioners 01:54:38.419 --> 01:54:44.868 - to follow. The reason why I think that might not be possible is then those packets wouldn't meet the 01:54:44.868 --> 01:54:51.253 - accessibility standards anyway. So. But how would it work is the agenda like here, so the extension 01:54:51.253 --> 01:54:57.702 - of COA 2392, that would be a link to that specific COA. Yeah, there would be a folder that includes. 01:54:57.702 --> 01:55:01.022 - Yeah, that has all the stuff for that specific one. 01:55:01.154 --> 01:55:07.878 - You click on that, look at all that stuff, close it out. For the next one that comes up, you click on 01:55:07.878 --> 01:55:14.537 - that one, look through all that stuff. Is that how it would work? So I'd still have the PowerPoints, 01:55:14.537 --> 01:55:21.459 - and it would walk through all of the files, basically, that are in the folder for that COA. So you would 01:55:21.459 --> 01:55:28.051 - still see everything that's been submitted by the applicant. But it would be sort of chopped up. If 01:55:28.051 --> 01:55:30.622 - somehow there's a glitch in the Wi-Fi, 01:55:30.722 --> 01:55:38.865 - Like that was today. Yeah. Let me see. We would be in trouble then. Wouldn't be great. OK. Where you 01:55:38.865 --> 01:55:47.088 - download all this stuff ahead of time on your computer. You could do that. We could help by providing 01:55:47.088 --> 01:55:55.312 - guides. We were, if I could speak to it. She was in the meeting. Yeah. It was a meeting that was held 01:55:55.312 --> 01:55:59.262 - with our whole department from our IT department 01:55:59.714 --> 01:56:06.936 - that met with all boards and commissions explaining what the requirements were, giving us guidance on 01:56:06.936 --> 01:56:14.300 - how to do that. And Noah was asking a lot of questions about it, since many of the documents we've seen 01:56:14.300 --> 01:56:21.592 - them are architectural drawings and some handwritten things from petitioners, things that there's just 01:56:21.592 --> 01:56:29.310 - not really a way for a screen reader to be able to read, trying to determine how he'd be able to continue to 01:56:29.442 --> 01:56:37.560 - do the work that he's doing and also make it not too difficult for the commissioners trying to find 01:56:37.560 --> 01:56:45.678 - a way to provide the accessible document, but also support the commissioners that are accustomed to 01:56:45.678 --> 01:56:51.198 - not doing things by using folders. And so I think there's ways that 01:56:51.458 --> 01:56:58.795 - some ideas that you've brought up and how to make it easier for the commissioners. But we also have 01:56:58.795 --> 01:57:06.205 - to do it. Yeah. There's going to be a three-week gap rather than the usual two-week gap between this 01:57:06.205 --> 01:57:13.615 - meeting and the next meeting. So next week, I want to play around with setting up the agenda for the 01:57:13.615 --> 01:57:19.998 - next meeting and seeing how I can make it navigable and more familiar for you and also 01:57:20.354 --> 01:57:30.140 - while it's still not problematic to do it, seeing how I might be able to modify the printed packets. 01:57:30.140 --> 01:57:39.828 - Anything that's available to the public or sent out to the public has to be an accessible document. 01:57:39.828 --> 01:57:47.870 - Anything that is internal and is not shared with the public doesn't have that same 01:57:48.034 --> 01:57:54.376 - I was going to say limitation, but the whole idea is to make things accessible so people that aren't, 01:57:54.376 --> 01:58:00.904 - that aren't, is sighted can participate. And like I said, there's a lot of ways in which it makes sense. 01:58:00.904 --> 01:58:07.245 - It just makes a lot more sense in other contexts besides our commission. Yeah. So the plan commission 01:58:07.245 --> 01:58:13.649 - and that board of zoning appeals will be in the same position. So you'll have some people to work with 01:58:13.649 --> 01:58:15.390 - trying to figure out how to 01:58:16.130 --> 01:58:32.762 - how to continue to provide materials in a meaningful way so that decisions can be made. Next item on 01:58:32.762 --> 01:58:45.278 - the agenda. New business. Are we violations yet? We can discuss violations. 01:58:45.410 --> 01:58:52.701 - Mm-hmm. There's a handful that we're dealing with right now. 806 South Woodlawn. Before we do that, 01:58:52.701 --> 01:58:59.991 - I might want to address what all the Connach Grove people are, of course. Oh, you don't have to sit 01:58:59.991 --> 01:59:07.355 - around forever and ever. Unless you're just here for the enjoyment. It's so entertaining. No, I just 01:59:07.355 --> 01:59:13.406 - addressed it. We were wondering about scheduling when you were going to come here. 01:59:13.986 --> 01:59:26.140 - Thank you all for coming in. Thank you as always. I wanted to somehow get a message to a previous petitioner. 01:59:26.140 --> 01:59:37.190 - I didn't know how to do that, but I wanted to say this was the one about the accessory unit at West 01:59:37.190 --> 01:59:41.278 - 12th Street. I wanted him to look at 01:59:41.826 --> 01:59:50.202 - 714 North Washington, which is in our neighborhood. It is a great example of an accessory unit that 01:59:50.202 --> 01:59:55.646 - was built that looks just like the main house. It's a good size. 01:59:56.098 --> 02:00:03.960 - a great example of what he's trying to do, and I think he'd be happy. I don't know who the person was. 02:00:03.960 --> 02:00:11.516 - Well, I'm going to be keeping in touch with him, so I can check out that ADU and see if it's good. 02:00:11.516 --> 02:00:17.470 - Thank you. Good example. Thanks. All right. Sorry about that, back and forth. 02:00:17.890 --> 02:00:23.749 - quick question just to make sure. So the motion that was made about sending a letter to the mayor's 02:00:23.749 --> 02:00:29.842 - office, would that be considered new business? Yeah. And then the accessibility standards also and then 02:00:29.842 --> 02:00:35.936 - the application for the Cottage Grove Historic District, would that be considered new business or would 02:00:35.936 --> 02:00:42.029 - that be under comments? Just put that all under new business. Oh yeah, I would say that's new business. 02:00:42.029 --> 02:00:45.310 - And my apologies to Interopt. No, it's okay. Thank you. 02:00:47.170 --> 02:00:56.342 - Oh, you need to be organized. That's OK. So do we all. OK. Violations. 806 South Woodlawn. Have we had 02:00:56.342 --> 02:01:05.604 - a meeting since that came up? I don't believe we have. I can give you the short version. You don't want 02:01:05.604 --> 02:01:15.934 - to give the wrong down. So Noah and I have been attending meetings of the Elm Heights Historic District's guideline 02:01:16.354 --> 02:01:23.805 - review sessions. And at the first one, one of the members was concerned that there was a house that 02:01:23.805 --> 02:01:31.406 - the people had just pulled out all the original windows, and why hadn't anything happened to them? So 02:01:31.406 --> 02:01:39.081 - I inquired as to what the house was. They told me. We looked into it. It's a house that was bought by, 02:01:39.081 --> 02:01:44.222 - it's on a wood loan. It was bought by a property management company. 02:01:44.482 --> 02:01:51.948 - that has been before this commission before. So they know the rules. They took out all the original 02:01:51.948 --> 02:01:59.563 - windows. And so we have served them a notice of violation and expect to see them for this body in not 02:01:59.563 --> 02:02:07.103 - too long. There are other issues with that that I want to talk to legal about, but I don't know that 02:02:07.103 --> 02:02:13.150 - those necessarily have to do with this commission. So they have gone back to me. 02:02:13.922 --> 02:02:24.070 - And sounds like they want to submit a, for a COA, which, um, I mean, the current windows don't meet 02:02:24.070 --> 02:02:34.726 - district guidelines. So it would have to be. Reversion to something that's more like what was originally 02:02:34.726 --> 02:02:39.902 - there. Oh, I want to make that clear though. Yeah. 02:02:40.258 --> 02:02:49.570 - Just so we don't get a COA where it's just the finances. That's that one. That's that one. What other 02:02:49.570 --> 02:02:59.064 - violations are there? 301 East Glandora. Oh, right. Matlock Heights. The sneaky window in the basement. 02:02:59.064 --> 02:03:07.006 - And a Hanson and I need to decide on the lien that's going to be put on that property. 02:03:07.458 --> 02:03:15.128 - If people remember there was an abasement window that they did not come before the commission, they 02:03:15.128 --> 02:03:23.181 - did not respond. We haven't seen them. So this is what we know. So did, just to clarify, you said Aline, 02:03:23.181 --> 02:03:31.311 - did we send them a notice of violation with a fine? And then it's moved on to Aline or has it been the... 02:03:31.311 --> 02:03:34.302 - Well, if they don't pay the fine, then 02:03:35.170 --> 02:03:41.058 - So they've been fined. It's placed as a lien on the property. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I was just 02:03:41.058 --> 02:03:47.064 - trying to understand. It's for the non-payment of the fine. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Has the neighborhood design 02:03:47.064 --> 02:03:53.069 - review committee chimed in on this at any point during the process? I haven't heard from them. That's 02:03:53.069 --> 02:03:59.193 - interesting. We might be maybe paying them again just to see. Just to say, hey, this is happening. This 02:03:59.193 --> 02:04:03.550 - is what the guidelines say. This is what we're doing. Yeah. Yeah. OK. OK. 02:04:04.098 --> 02:04:11.661 - 702 West Kirkwood, I think some of you might have been confused as to why that was back on our schedule, 02:04:11.661 --> 02:04:19.296 - considering that there was more than 30 days in which we weren't able to hear the petition. Well, they've 02:04:19.296 --> 02:04:26.571 - done more work on one of those windows, so they're only just picks up the scab. And they're going to 02:04:26.571 --> 02:04:33.054 - have to continue dealing with us because not only is the original violation not resolved, 02:04:33.474 --> 02:04:43.877 - Um, but they don't get the automatic approval on that stuff. They did additional work with us. Exactly. 02:04:43.877 --> 02:04:54.380 - Um, I'm going to have to deal with them about submitting an application before they do. Are we precluded 02:04:54.380 --> 02:05:00.382 - from applying interest on paying fines? On our fines? Yeah. 02:05:00.834 --> 02:05:06.677 - Um, you know, I don't think there's anything in the land. I can look at that. I don't know that there's 02:05:06.677 --> 02:05:12.463 - anything in the language about interest, but what there is, is that each day constitutes an additional 02:05:12.463 --> 02:05:18.194 - fine. So you could really be finding somebody up to the maximum, which I think is 7,500 bucks, right? 02:05:18.194 --> 02:05:24.374 - I'm, I'm not sure where it describes the maximum. Up to the maximum of whatever's allowed for a municipality. 02:05:24.374 --> 02:05:29.374 - Okay. Um, but it's per day, right? Yeah, on a daily basis. So that would be an interest. 02:05:29.538 --> 02:05:38.407 - It can add up pretty quickly if you want it to. I don't know that we want it to, and we don't have a 02:05:38.407 --> 02:05:47.540 - controller for that. I think that's you over there. Okay. People, state bank. Despite saying to several 02:05:47.540 --> 02:05:56.497 - people that they wouldn't, they claim that their signed contractor put up a sign on the wrong part of 02:05:56.497 --> 02:05:57.726 - the building. 02:05:58.402 --> 02:06:08.137 - when they told them not to, they actually reached out to me after they had put that up and then taken 02:06:08.137 --> 02:06:18.444 - it down. I think there's two different issues. One is they had put an additional sign that was not approved 02:06:18.444 --> 02:06:26.366 - on the west-facing facade. So they drilled more holes and done that, but they also 02:06:26.562 --> 02:06:35.052 - We asked them not to drill holes. They drilled holes in the north-facing facade as well. The bagel sign. 02:06:35.052 --> 02:06:43.300 - The bagel sign. The bagel people. The black marble. Yeah. Yeah. There are people who can repair those 02:06:43.300 --> 02:06:51.386 - holes and make it look like the original surface, but what's the next step? That might be suggested 02:06:51.386 --> 02:06:56.318 - to them. So we're going to talk to them when they come back. 02:06:56.578 --> 02:07:05.847 - Not thrilled at the moment. No, not at all. That should have been easy. I mean, it was not rocket science, 02:07:05.847 --> 02:07:14.683 - and it was like, just don't do this, and it'll be OK. So they did it twice. That's the problem. Yeah. 02:07:14.683 --> 02:07:22.046 - They did it twice. So I'm like, ha ha ha. Anyway. That's that one. What else we got? 02:07:23.234 --> 02:07:33.036 - I went over the new business that I wanted to talk about, so changes to the packets and the fact that 02:07:33.036 --> 02:07:42.837 - we're going to be seeing this application from Cottage Grove, and I hope we're ready for it. Is there 02:07:42.837 --> 02:07:51.966 - anything that anyone on the commission would like to add? Big things for me are getting people 02:07:52.290 --> 02:08:00.431 - And then after we get people, I want to tackle the procedural stuff. Yeah. The procedural stuff. 02:08:00.431 --> 02:08:08.908 - That being, having, yeah, notice of violations via separate track and also having, I think the other 02:08:08.908 --> 02:08:17.469 - piece of this, which, you know, was in my head, but I think, I don't think I said it out loud at this 02:08:17.469 --> 02:08:21.246 - meeting, is it seems to be a recurring issue 02:08:21.730 --> 02:08:28.606 - that we don't have a full slate of commissioners when we need to have elections. And I would like to 02:08:28.606 --> 02:08:35.482 - change our rules and regulations so that we don't have elections until we have a full slate. Because 02:08:35.482 --> 02:08:42.357 - I don't think it's fair to the future members of the commission that you get some Yahoo in the chair 02:08:42.357 --> 02:08:49.982 - that doesn't necessarily represent what they want to have happen. Which particular Yahoo are you talking about? 02:08:50.530 --> 02:08:59.358 - The one that was just named interim chair after serving as chair for a year. As soon as this is over, 02:08:59.358 --> 02:09:08.273 - that's no longer... It's kind of a person regime. Any closing comments? Anything else from the public? 02:09:08.273 --> 02:09:17.015 - Question. Jack? Question, this really goes to legal. Designation by the Common Council of a building 02:09:17.015 --> 02:09:19.006 - for historic purposes. 02:09:19.778 --> 02:09:29.340 - Is that required by the state, fed, or whoever, that it lie with the common council? My question is, 02:09:29.340 --> 02:09:39.187 - could that possibly, if they wanted, be designated to this commission or somewhere else if they wanted? 02:09:39.187 --> 02:09:42.974 - Or does it just have to stay with them? 02:09:43.106 --> 02:09:49.277 - I believe that in state law, it is the common counsel as the legislative body that has the authority 02:09:49.277 --> 02:09:55.448 - to approve the designation. So I don't know that they can delegate it to an advisory or recommending 02:09:55.448 --> 02:10:01.558 - body. I don't know if they would either. I don't know if they would, but I also think that would be 02:10:01.558 --> 02:10:07.730 - a little bit of dereliction of duty if they started delegating the things that they are specifically 02:10:07.730 --> 02:10:12.190 - responsible for to other boards of commissions. Had to ask. Yeah, sorry. 02:10:12.866 --> 02:10:21.425 - Following from what Jack said, I was at the last council meeting where the approval was granted. And 02:10:21.425 --> 02:10:29.898 - interestingly, I heard, I don't know what her name was, but she is the, is it chair or president of 02:10:29.898 --> 02:10:38.626 - the head person? President. President. President. President. Was the president last year. Right. Yeah. 02:10:38.626 --> 02:10:42.270 - Make a comment, and I'm paraphrasing here, 02:10:43.426 --> 02:10:52.878 - I don't believe in approving something that just meets one of the criteria. In my mind, it has to meet 02:10:52.878 --> 02:11:02.237 - at least two or three before I will vote for it. And that comment is not in keeping with the law. And 02:11:02.237 --> 02:11:11.230 - if she didn't say anything, then nobody would know. But she said it out loud. It's in the record. 02:11:13.826 --> 02:11:24.016 - In my opinion, that is not in order. And my question is, is there something that can be said in response 02:11:24.016 --> 02:11:33.915 - to it? I actually had a little talk, one-on-one with Sydney, telling her how bad I felt. I still feel 02:11:33.915 --> 02:11:43.038 - guilty that I didn't speak to when Isabel asked that question. Is there a precedent for that? 02:11:43.266 --> 02:11:51.203 - a designation in Bloomington. And I don't know of a property in Bloomington, but I thought, when it's 02:11:51.203 --> 02:11:59.218 - my turn, I'm going to get up there and tell her that these are federal law, right? And there are cases 02:11:59.218 --> 02:12:04.510 - around the country. And the best case I know of for a building that 02:12:04.962 --> 02:12:13.457 - or type of building that's designated as historic that has no architectural value, you know, which is 02:12:13.457 --> 02:12:22.369 - what made her uncomfortable, is the cabins of enslaved peoples. But I've just come up with another example 02:12:22.369 --> 02:12:25.534 - that's just been pointed out to me of 02:12:25.794 --> 02:12:34.166 - temporary housing, shacks that were built in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco as temporary housing 02:12:34.166 --> 02:12:42.539 - after the 1906 earthquake. They still exist. They were moved out of the park. But even the Japanese 02:12:42.539 --> 02:12:50.995 - internment camps out front of the wall, there are no, they're just barracks. There are examples. And 02:12:50.995 --> 02:12:53.758 - I would like to, somehow I think 02:12:54.274 --> 02:13:01.133 - If she's going to be our liaison, she could be our channel for having these kinds of discussions. I 02:13:01.133 --> 02:13:08.198 - guess my problem is I would argue that those buildings do have architectural significance. Or two army 02:13:08.198 --> 02:13:12.382 - barracks. I mean, how architecturally significant are those? 02:13:12.642 --> 02:13:19.215 - I'm a vernacular. Karen has the right idea. I think the whole point of having a council liaison is to 02:13:19.215 --> 02:13:25.787 - have someone that does understand the code and understands the nuances that it can be significant for 02:13:25.787 --> 02:13:30.878 - a reason or it can meet all of the problems and that that is a legal standard. 02:13:31.074 --> 02:13:38.355 - But it's in the plain language. It is not and. It says or. And if you have to explain grammar to the 02:13:38.355 --> 02:13:45.636 - city, that's her prerogative to that. If we have a good article or something about it, we could pass 02:13:45.636 --> 02:13:52.917 - it along. Maybe we can just send it to them. Yeah, it's an educational article. I want to ask. Is it 02:13:52.917 --> 02:14:00.702 - her plan to come to sit in the meetings for at least a portion of the meeting, do you think? I do not know. 02:14:00.834 --> 02:14:06.321 - Councilwoman Zulik. I don't know if she'll be here for every meeting. I think she will try to be here 02:14:06.321 --> 02:14:11.809 - as much as she's very available and very interested in this. But I do think we will have a conduit to 02:14:11.809 --> 02:14:17.243 - her and maybe it'll be the Chair in no other meeting with her if she can't be at the meeting to make 02:14:17.243 --> 02:14:22.784 - sure that she is up to speed on everything and so she can speak to it with a knowledge base if it were 02:14:22.784 --> 02:14:27.518 - to come up at Council. I was going to just suggest that if she is going to sit in for a 02:14:27.682 --> 02:14:33.984 - portion of the meeting, we could adjust the agenda perhaps to present issues to her to take it back 02:14:33.984 --> 02:14:40.349 - to council and make it easy. Yeah, I'd be curious to ask her what the reporting out mechanism is, if 02:14:40.349 --> 02:14:47.281 - there's a formal process where the council members actually bring information from their assigned commissions 02:14:47.281 --> 02:14:52.638 - back to the council in any kind of format so that we could assist with that process. 02:14:52.802 --> 02:14:58.870 - She did say she was going to try to set up meetings with everybody. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. 02:14:58.870 --> 02:15:05.116 - But I think she'll be a great champion. Yeah, something had come up tonight where she had been intending 02:15:05.116 --> 02:15:11.422 - to attend the entire meeting. And then there was some other event that she learned that she had to go to. 02:15:12.162 --> 02:15:19.610 - She did say to me that she would not be able to attend every meeting. I don't think we'll see her here 02:15:19.610 --> 02:15:26.913 - all that often, but we can reach out to her. I think so. And we can find out what works best for her 02:15:26.913 --> 02:15:34.217 - in terms of sharing information. Yeah, exactly. But I'm glad you brought that point up, because that 02:15:34.217 --> 02:15:41.086 - was a glaring problem, and I felt bad about not speaking up right then. I'm starting to learn. 02:15:42.754 --> 02:15:52.211 - I probably shouldn't speak when I feel like speaking. I'm going to adjourn this meeting. Yeah, is there 02:15:52.211 --> 02:15:57.758 - anything else? All right, nothing further? Are we adjourned?