- I would like to call the January 22nd meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission to
- order. This is the first meeting of 2026. So hopefully we'll either elect officers or somebody in a
- temporary position to serve as chair for this meeting. So let's move on to a roll call. Duck and Campbell.
- Karen Duffy. Here. Drew Herron. Jack Baker. Here. Jeremy Hackard. Here. Ernesto Castaneda. Here. Reynard
- Cross. Here. Sam DeSolar. Here. Melanie Dusner. Daniel Schlegel. We have quorum. OK. Election of officers.
- Is there anybody who would like to nominate themselves either for
- or for chair, either further duration of the year or in an interim position for this meeting? I would
- recommend that we do a temporary chair since we have a number of our group here who are temporarily
- serving until appointments are made. And I'd nominate Sam to serve as the chair for this evening. Second.
- Sorry, Sam. There's been a motion and second to nominate Sam DeSolar as a temporary chair for this meeting.
- Assuming we go through the regular voting procedure. Yes. Jack Baker. Yes. Jeremy Hackard. Yes. Ernesto
- Castaneda. Yes. Reynard Cross. Yes. Sam DeSolar. Yes. That motion carries. 5-0.
- Thank you. Do we have any nominations for vice chair? I nominate Jeremy for vice chair. I'll second
- that. And is this for this meeting or for the first? For this meeting to be bigger. And the second was
- Sam DeSolar, is that correct? That's correct. OK. Again, we have a motion and a second to nominate Jeremy
- Hackard as temporary vice chair for tonight's meeting. We'll go ahead and vote.
- Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Renard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. That
- motion passes 5-0. All right. So who can remember if they were here for November 13? Because we're going
- to need minutes approved. OK. Do we have a entertain motion to approve the minutes? Yes. I move to approve
- the minutes. Do I have a second?
- Second. Got it. Okay, there's a motion on the floor to approve the minutes from the November 13th meeting
- and we'll go ahead and take that vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes.
- Bernard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Five zero minutes are approved. Okay, moving on to your meeting. Okay.
- Moving on to certificates of appropriateness. All of our applications tonight are commission reviewed.
- So we're moving on to our first item, COA 2392 for 309 South Davidson Street in the Greater Prospect
- Hill Historic District. I'm sorry, just before we move on, we have a new person here.
- Hello everyone my name is Councilmember Sydney Zulek. I will be serving as your new council liaison
- for the HPC and this is a new program that I spearheaded last year starting this year so that our boards
- and commissions feel more supported by council that they know that they have a person that they can
- call if they have any issues and I will also be charged with making sure that you are all informed of
- anything coming down the pipeline at council.
- that might impact the HPC. So please feel free to reach out to me personally. I'm happy to give anyone
- myself. And I look forward to working with all of you. And I will also be reaching out to people individually
- to schedule coffee. But I'm liaison to two different boards and commissions, and so that will be slow.
- So if you don't get an email from me this month, it's coming. And I look forward to working with each
- of you individually and as a group.
- Thank you. Good point. Okay. This item is a little bit special because the petitioner is asking for
- it to be extended for another two years. This item has expired since the work was not completed. Is
- the petitioner or somebody representing the petitioner present at tonight's meeting?
- Okay, so. In December of 2023, the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission approved a proposal
- for a rear addition and accessory unit to be built at 309 South Davison in the Greater Prospect Hill
- Historic District. Within two years of the issuance of COA 2392, work on the proposed project has not
- been completed, so the applicant is applying to renew the COA
- to complete the project. So before we get too much more deeply into this, we're getting into certificates
- of appropriateness.
- and demolition delays. And for each of these items, Noah, the HPC program manager, will present a staff
- report and hear from the petitioner. If they have any additional information followed by a round of
- questions from each commissioner, we ask petitioners, public, and commissioners to refrain from speaking
- until addressed by the chair unless a question is directly addressed to them. If a member of the public
- or a petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand.
- until recognized by the chair. Once a motion is made, we'll then open up the discussion of the item
- for members of the commission only. We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the
- public to be civil and respectful at all times. Thank you for the reminder. I'm meeting lots of us today.
- So while we have you here, is there anything that you'd like to add about this item? Well, we've got
- the building permit issued within the time period, but they wanted to split
- building permit up so that the accessory building was on a separate permit. And Eric Clapper had done
- all the drawings. We didn't have time. Basically, it was my delay. But we didn't have time to get the
- second application in the building department in time to stay within the guidelines. And I just,
- you know, I'm just on a slow roll. So is this for the accessory, or is this for the main building? The
- accessory. The accessory. Thank you.
- It's going to be a two-car garage with an unfinished apartment above. So that part's not going to be
- finished. It's going to be a garage building. It shows in the drawings. I don't have the drawings with
- me, but you can comment if you have them. With the, yeah. All right. Nothing's changed on the project
- except we just couldn't get the permit issued for the garage.
- That was integrally part of what Barry had designed for this watch. I assume that y'all had seen it,
- and it had. So I've had two slow years. I hear you. Thank you. I had things removed. So I'm back in
- the saddle. So we're good. Welcome back. All right.
- The staff recommendation on this item is to approve an extension for COA 2392 for two more years. The
- proposed addition in accessory structure, which we're voting tonight on the accessory structure, comply
- with the historic district guidelines. These guidelines have not changed in the time that this project
- has been on hold. Do we have any further feedback from the neighborhood design review committee?
- I haven't heard from the neighborhood on this one. OK. All right. Questions, Jack? I have no questions
- on this one. Jeremy? You answer my question if the guidelines have changed, and they have not.
- So we're good. No questions. Mr. Cross? Ms. Duffy? No questions. No questions. I have no questions.
- You have any comments, Jack?
- Just that it seems to fit the guidelines very well. It's been a year, man. I will entertain a motion
- at this point, and then we'll discuss. I'll move for a two-year extension. Is that what we're looking
- for? A two-year extension of the project for the accessory structure. All right, you're second. Second.
- All right, now we can talk about it. Yeah. Jeff? I think it's fitting.
- Jeremy? It's already approved. The requirements haven't changed, so I have no problem with approving
- two more years. Yep, same here. No issues with it. Go ahead. Same here, but I'd just like a comment
- for the record on the typo. In the background paragraph, the address is given as 209 instead of 309,
- just so that nobody gets upset at 209.
- Thank you. All right. I would entertain a motion. I mean, we can all vote. Sorry. So there's been a
- motion, which has been seconded. COA 23992 for the extension. We're going to go ahead and vote on that.
- Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackers? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Bernard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes.
- That motion passes 5-0.
- Thank you for coming in. You're good for another two years. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. I hope the
- owners of 209 South Davison don't end up with an unwanted ADU. It's very nice. What a surprise. This
- daddy was in a demolition. Oh, jeez.
- Moving on to our next item, 708 West 12th Street in the Maple Heights Historic District. This petition
- is also for a new ADU, a two-story carriage house with a garage on the ground floor. I believe it looks
- like the petitioner is present online.
- So this is a 22 foot by 22 foot two-story carriage house. The lower level is a two-story, sorry, a two-car
- garage. The second level would include living space. I'll show you. Including living and dining room
- and bed-driven method. The front elevation in this illustration refers to
- the north elevation, which would be facing a proposed driveway to be added off of the alley to the north.
- We have also received some questions from the Neighborhood Design Review Committee that were not included
- in your packets. These arrived a little later. So I'm just going to run through them real quick before
- I ask the petitioner if he has anything to add.
- So first off the neighborhood design review committee wanted to confirm based on the architectural drawings
- provided that the new structure will be placed directly behind the existing house on the main lot. As
- you can see this property consists of two lots and the proposed garage looks like it would be going
- up on the western lot.
- Secondly, there's a question about the concrete driveway to be added on the north side of the east,
- sorry, to the north on the east-west alley. Currently the alley is undeveloped, hasn't been used in
- a while. Is the plan to open up the alley creating a connection between Fairview and the current north-south
- alley that runs between 12th and 13th? If so, will this be done in concrete or gravel?
- and would any trees need to be taken down? So to show you here, the alley to the north is currently
- unimproved. Third, what's the elevation of the proposed structure relative to the main house? Would
- it be visible to somebody standing in front of the house on West 12th Street? Fourth, what is the pitch
- of the roof
- of the proposed structure relative to the main house? And five, understanding that fiber cement is the
- proposed siding material, will the lap match the lap on the main house? And will the trim on the windows
- and doors be designed to match the main house? I suppose on that note, does the petitioner have anything
- that he'd like to add?
- We can hear you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you for having me. So with the drawings, I think I
- did submit the drawings where with the sideline and the entrance into the garage. Yes. So the entrance
- into the garage, that should be flipped around. You should be able to be using the existing alley that
- already has the, that is already
- I don't know how these things ended up with your office. So these blueprints are actually wrong. This
- actually has to flip around. You have to come in from the, if you come down top streets and then you
- make it right into the alleys, that would be the access for the ADU. So what you're saying, so can you
- see the site plan that's on the screen?
- Yes, I see. Are you saying that's incorrect? Yes, that's not the correct site plan. All right. Do you
- have access to a correct site plan? Yeah, I have it in my computer here. What would you like me to do?
- Email it to you or what's the quickest way? If you could pull it up, you could share your screen. OK,
- just give me a second, please.
- And let us know when you're ready, and I can stop sharing mine. OK. OK. Right now, I'm on multiple for
- some reason. OK. How's it going? Yeah.
- Oh, yeah.
- Are you ready to share your screen, sir?
- We could do simultaneous. I think that's as long as it's not too small. This afternoon I drove by and
- went around.
- This has a large, big wrapper around it. Did something else go around this afternoon that I missed?
- I drove by it. Oh, okay. No, I was driving around it. I'm having a slight problem, but I could email
- it to you if it's easier. I mean, I have my email open. I can pull it up. Maybe we can...
- Email that and we have a couple of other questions which you might be able to address. Okay. After you
- send the email, let me know when you're ready to address some questions. Okay, okay. What does the email say?
- It's NOAH. Yeah, that's right. Actually, yeah. That's right, we've exchanged emails. Okay. Okay,
- I sent it. Okay. You should have it here. Actually, this was the review from the... It also has some
- details with the review together with the CPU, so...
- Okay, I see. Okay. So you got the email already? Yes, I have it pulled up here. Okay.
- All right. So given this site plan and given that the garage door is on the same elevation, all the
- other facades are sort of, they match the existing drawings that you've given us already. Is that fair
- to say? Yes. All right. So one of the questions from the neighborhood was the siding on the house.
- versus the siding on the garage. You're talking about a smart siding, a lap siding, LP smart siding,
- which is a composite product. What is the exposure? Like is it a four inch, a six inch, an eight inch?
- What's the exposure of the siding on the garage? Six inch. And what is the exposure on the house? It
- must be about
- We'll get back to that. One of the other questions you've already answered, according to what I've got
- in my packet, one of the questions was, what is the slope of the roof on the proposed garage? And your
- drawings say that it's a 3 and 12 slope. Is that correct?
- Yes. And then the slope of the roof on the house, are you aware of what that is? Of the existing house?
- It looks 1212 to me, but that's just what it looks. And then the other question from the neighborhood
- was, do you know at what elevation
- Like how much higher the garage is than the existing house. I think what I'm, and correct me if I'm
- wrong, they're looking for like grade, right? Like how much higher is the ground that the garage is
- built on relative to the ground that the house is built on? Because it slopes up from the front to the
- back, right?
- the length, the length. It is a slight slope, but the height of the ATU, which I think is around 20
- feet. Right. But I think the question that the neighborhood was asking is like, so if the bottom of
- the house is, say, 10 feet up from the sidewalk, I'm just making up a number.
- How much higher is the bottom of the garage relative to the house? Does that make sense? You have anything
- else to add at this point, sir?
- No, I don't have anything to add. I don't see anything I'm missing. I guess there's something on your
- end that you have to let me know. But I don't have anything to add myself. I've been working with also
- the city of Bloomington utilities. They've been asking for quite a few other things that I've been putting together.
- I believe I'm on track. I got you. So I think at this point, I might ask the neighborhood or members
- of the public if they have questions or comments, and then we'll get into commissioner questions or
- comments. Do I have any questions from anybody online or anybody in the audience? Do you say your name
- for the record, please? Kamdo. I'm from the neighborhood. I'm on the federal committee for the neighborhood.
- Did we confirm that the addition is going on to the same lot as the house? Both of the plans that I've
- received, so including this new one, show that it's located on the same lot as the house. So the second
- lot will contain all of its trees, its canopy? So far, so good, yeah.
- 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
- have permission to tear anything down but they don't have permission to do anything on that lot given
- this application. If that clarifies matters. Yes I suppose so. OK. So this is only.
- asking for permission for the lot on which the house currently exists. Right, and it was not immediately
- clear to us whether it would be on the same lot or the second lot. So all the, sir, how do you say your
- last name, sir? Sabindi. Sabindi, Mr. Sabindi. So this is all word that's going to occur on the lot
- with the existing house, just to clarify. Yes. Yes, thank you. Good, good, all right.
- We'll move on to, welcome. I'll move on to questions from the commission. Ernesto, do you have any questions?
- Yes. That's the biggest. I mean, I could keep... Like the whole thing, I don't know. Oh, do it full
- screen? Yeah.
- Since this is the first time we're seeing this, it's a little, I can cheat over here, but you won't
- look. I have a couple of questions. I would like to have some clarity on the two separate lots. Are
- those combined lots? Are there separate lots? What's the situation there? Oh, they are separate. Okay.
- There's two separate passes.
- My second question is, I see that it was designed as two full stories. Did you explore where you would
- do a story and a half as opposed to two stories?
- Could you please repeat your question from the beginning? I kind of missed it. Yeah. Did you explore
- options where instead of designing this structure as a two-story, you would do a story and a half instead?
- When you say two-story and a story, I'm not understanding. Yeah. The way that this is designed is two
- full stories, meaning
- You build the first one and you build the second one has a full length studs at eight foot or nine foot
- story heights for each floor. Go ahead. Yes, I understand that. I think what I'm trying to get at is that
- The house, the main house, is a one-story house. And it has, I think from what I can see, it has dormers
- as part of the attic space. Okay, so when ADUs are designed, they need to be smaller than the main house
- in terms of scale. Because the house represents the main structure. And anything else will represent
- auxiliary structures. And in this case, an ADU is one of them. So you would try to design the structure
- smaller than the main structure. And that's in part, from what I am speculating here, but that's in
- part of the concern of the elevations where the main house sits versus where the ADU sits, because it
- would be automatically taller than the main house.
- And then if you do two full stories, it becomes even larger than the main house. So that is my concern.
- That's all I have. I mean, we can talk about other details that staff is already addressing, like trim,
- siding, windows. All that is great. But I think for me, the massing is the most critical part of this
- discussion. That's all. Thank you.
- The massing. The massing, the size, the scale. That's it. That's all it has. All right. From what I
- can see, yes. So how high is the, how high is the existing house from grade to the peak of the roof?
- How many feet? How many feet, sir? 30 feet? Thank you, sir. Do you want me to come back around to you
- so you can settle in? I think we're probably all right.
- Karen, do you have a question? I have a question. In the packet under, I only see it right now in this
- one spot, but under Noah's paragraph, the recommendation, the first sentence says the existing house
- is approximately 20 feet tall. So again, that's approximate because that's a measure that I did on Google
- Earth comparing elevation at the book. That's considerably shorter than 30 feet.
- And we've already, and the carriage house we know is planned to be 22. And there's at least an extra
- flight. Wait, my dimensions in my packet say it's, oh, that's to the, never mind, you're right. 20.
- 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.
- Well, it's under the request, and I saw it on one of the drawings too, 22. So they're. Oh, so in the
- request, 22 is the dimension in either. Yeah, that's the width, length, or width. It's a square building.
- Oh, that's not the height. 22 by 22. No, this is it. Oh, I see. There's actually. 17. 17 foot, 20 foot,
- 20 foot, 9 inches. Thank you. Thank you. OK. That helps. Did you have additional questions? No.
- Mr. Cross, do you have questions? So there's an empty lot to the east, correct? Yes. When we're considering
- differences in height, do we consider the view from the east across the empty lot? If it's visible from
- the public right of way, then we consider it.
- I don't think nine inches makes that much of a difference when you're talking about buildings 20 feet
- to 20 feet nine inches and looking from the front it's higher up. I'm thinking line of sight you probably
- won't be able to see the building at the back. We're in questions, do you have a question?
- Oh, that was a question. Will you be able to see the building from the back? It'd be nine inches tall
- from 12th Street. You can see it. Really? You can see the building from the alley. You can see the building
- from the street. You can see the building from the other street. Right, but I'm talking about massing
- in terms of a nine inch difference in elevation when the lot itself is probably about four feet above
- the street.
- if you're looking from 12th Street across the existing building. Is that a discernible difference? Is
- that the question you're asking? Yes. That was my clumsy way of asking that question. Gotcha. OK.
- Thank you. I think that is a question that everybody has to have their own answer for. OK.
- Any more questions? No. We'll move on to Mr. Hackett. I don't have any questions. Mr. Baker. Is there
- anything in the
- neighborhood rules regarding roof pitch. Yes. Because there's a big discrepancy. You have it pulled
- up Jeremy. Yeah. It says for new construction, roof size, shape and pitch should be consistent with
- nearby contributing structures. I don't think we have a problem. Okay. So it's a three and 12 versus
- I think the other, the other piece of this is that the, uh,
- The new structures are supposed to take their cues from the existing structures on site. That's where
- they're supposed to take their main cues. I have another question, you know, when you're ready.
- Windows here, I notice, I can't quite tell what kind of windows they are in the existing house, but
- the windows here and the accessory structure give me the impression that they're very different in style,
- and I think that also could be a problem.
- style and dimension. Do you have a question? Yes, is it a problem? Is it a problem that the windows
- do not seem to match? Yeah, that's also in the guidelines they want to... Incompatible changes. Does
- not keep rhythm of openings. Yeah. All right. I think we have addressed public questions. Commissioner
- questions.
- I think we can hear a motion. Does anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion. Do I need to say
- that in the number of COA 2603? I move a motion to the 9, COA 4603. Do I hear a second? We'll second.
- Let's talk about it. Comments?
- You want to talk about what? I think I have a really big issue in terms of, you just talked about guidelines.
- 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
- a lot of work to do in terms of massing, proportions, windows, siding. Yeah, I could keep going. That's
- all I have. OK.
- You want to jump in, Melody, or you want to make a pass by? Go ahead and pass by. All right. Karen,
- you have comments? I have no comments. Bernard, you have comments? Yeah. With regards to the roof pitch
- and the window sizes that Jack mentioned, I see where this might be a problem complying with the guidelines.
- And whereas I don't have an issue with the height of the building being nine inches tall, that upper
- floor is more massive than, especially when you consider the pitch of the roof. If the pitch of the
- roof wasn't keeping with the pitch on the first building, it wouldn't stand out. But it's a lot,
- is that what, a shallower pitch? And so I believe that it
- obtrusive with regards to the main building on the site. So I agree that there is some work to be done
- before I would feel comfortable approving this project. Comments, Mr. Haggard? Yeah, I agree with what
- Renard said. And if you look in the guidelines, there are some illustrations in there that highlight
- sort of here's what the fenestration needs to look like.
- And here's compatible pitches for roofs throughout it. So I think Petitioner would need to take another
- swing looking at the guidelines and the design of what the ADU looks like in order for it to fully comply.
- Yeah. Jack, do you have comments? Yes, I agree with the comments, all the comments. And there's work
- to be done to get this in compliance with the neighborhood guidelines.
- quite a bit of work, I think, to be done on this redesign. All right. I might try and distill those
- comments for the petitioner a little bit. I think the big issues that the commission has, and I would
- appreciate if people jumped in and corrected me if I'm saying things that you're not saying or don't
- want me to say. One of the big issues that we have is that the roof pitch of three and 12 that's proposed
- for the garage does not match the house roof pitch of 12 and 12. So to make them compatible, they're
- going to have to get a lot closer and ideally, they would be the same pitch. To do that, I think what
- Ernesta was saying, you're going to need to do a shed dormer kind of thing. So you have a 12 and 12
- roof pitch. But to accommodate your second story, you're going to need to dormer out to make that happen.
- We would like to see the exposure of the siding on the garage match the exposure of the siding on the
- house. It's just nice to see it sort of compatible. And I think one thing that we haven't touched on
- is this is the first time all of us are seeing the second site plan. And this is the neighborhood has
- not seen the site plan at all.
- So I think regardless of what the motion was tonight, I would have been behind asking you to come back
- to the next meeting just to let the neighborhood look at the site plan and discuss it again. And part
- of that discussion, I think, and part of the concern that the neighborhood has is that all of the alleys
- surrounding your property are currently on, what's the word?
- Unproved. Unproved. Thank you. So they're all grass right now. Not the one. Not the north-south one?
- 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.
- OK, cool. All right, so that one, I can withdraw that bit. But I was just. The one on the north.
- The north, where the original thing was. Right. OK. So I think giving the neighborhood a little bit
- more time to absorb the site plan would be helpful.
- But I think that given that what you're doing is densifying the neighborhood, I don't think this commission
- has any issues with that. I don't think the footprint of the building is out of scale with what we're
- looking for. I think the materials are fine with what we're looking for in terms of the siting. I think
- if you have more information on the windows, that would be helpful. And I think if you look at the proportion
- of the windows on the existing house and
- look at the windows of what you're proposing on the garage, both in terms of the proportions of the
- windows themselves, and also just the amount of glass that you're talking about putting versus the amount
- of siding you're talking about putting on there. I think we would like to see a little bit more glass
- and windows that are a little taller and skinnier. The other piece is like, are the existing windows
- on the house, they're one over one, or what are they? They're one over one.
- So they don't have all these divided grids on the windows. So if you're trying to make it more sympathetic
- to the house, dump all the grids. But you can come back and you can do what you want, and we'll talk
- about it then. But to get this thing through and to make the neighborhood happy, the more you make it
- compatible with the existing house, the happier both the commission and the neighborhood are going to be.
- Make sense? Yes, it does make a lot of sense. Yes, I agree. And with the package, I forgot the name
- of the other package that comes with blueprints. The actual windows are single hung. So this is just
- an error on my end. I think we just did it on the blueprints. But the right windows are actually the
- windows and the doors and the siding. So this kind of a mix-up. So I apologize. No, that's fine.
- But what I'm trying to say, if you look at, say, the windows above the garage door there, they've got
- like, is that four little? Yeah, they've got four little panes above four little panes. On the existing
- house, there's just one big piece of glass over one big piece of glass. And I think that would look
- more like the existing house. So I would take out all the cross pieces. Does that make sense? OK. Yes, it does.
- But I think this is totally doable. I don't think it's insurmountable. I think sit down with the guidelines,
- maybe talk to Noah about, here are the types of windows that are in the house and how to match them
- there. And just make sure they match up with the wording of the guidelines. That will help quite a bit.
- That will help quite a bit. The other thing I was seeing on the elevations is they look like they're
- nail-on-finned windows with no trim.
- on the sides or on the top or on the bottom, there's no sill trim. And I think we in the commission
- and I think the neighborhood would also appreciate having trim that the size of that trim matches around
- the windows. So what's on the house, make it as close as you can when you put it on the garage. Okay.
- Okay. All right. So, you know,
- We're probably going to vote this down tonight, but don't take that as the end of the world. We'll see
- you again in a couple of weeks, and we'll talk again then. Yes, one question before you go, please.
- 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
- change this roof line to a 12-12? So if you look at the existing house, it's got a much steeper roof,
- yeah? Uh-huh.
- And if you change the pitch of the garage to a much steeper pitch, everybody's going to be bonking their
- heads on the inside of the kitchen and the bedrooms, right? So what they do generally is they make a
- dormer. They pop up a big portion of the roof to allow for a head height there. Does that make sense?
- Yeah, but the sitting height on the second floor is actually
- So I thought that would be enough clearance. This is something that we could discuss. I guess what Sam's
- saying is that there are ways to add that ad room while also having part of the roof be that 12 over
- 12th pitch. I think Noah can talk you through that. And if you have issues, I'm also happy to talk to
- you about it. Yeah, so maintaining most of what you have here and then just
- redesigning the roof a bit. All right. I think we're at the point where we can call the vote. Thank
- you for your patience, everyone. Hang on. There's a motion to deny COA 2603 on the floor. It's been
- moved and seconded. We'll take a vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes.
- Bernard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes.
- Motion to deny passes 6-0. All right. Thank you for coming in and talk to Noah, and we will see you
- at the next one. Thank you. Have a good night. All right. Moving on. OK, next item, COA 2579, 702 West
- Kirkwood in the Near West Side Historic District. Who's the petitioner?
- Petitioner is Jennifer Milner who it appears is online. Thank you. This is, okay, background on this
- item. 702 West Kirkwood is a slightly altered T plan cottage with a five-sided L. In 2025, the owner
- removed four wood frame double hung windows on the front facing L.
- and replaced them with double hung divided light vinyl windows topped with transom lights. Subsequently,
- the property owner applied in August to replace the windows with new windows of the same size as the
- original but did not attend meetings to address questions following the proposal. In November 2025,
- a fine was paid for the outstanding violation and a new proposal was submitted, which is the proposal
- that you see here.
- The material submitted included a copy of the COA application from March 2025 with an illustration of
- the windows with transoms, but with one over one gen-weld windows as opposed to the current divided
- light design, along with the description of white brick mold cedar trim to match the dimensions found
- on other windows.
- Subsequently, the petitioner inquired in an email about replacing the windows with gen-weld, flat casing,
- double hung windows at dimensions 33 and a quarter inches by 65 and a quarter inches and covering the
- current transom windows with drywall and siding. So if I'm to understand this application, the request is for
- The replacement of the existing windows with one over one 33 and a quarter inch by 65 and a quarter
- inch vinyl windows and covering the transoms with white cedar brick molding to be installed as trim.
- I see the petitioner is present. Is there anything that she'd like to add or discuss?
- Just for my own clarification, this is an NOV nose violation. There are fines that have been paid, but
- we're still treating this as a violation. And these were original windows that were removed. And there
- has been subsequent work done after the violation. Is that fair to say? That's what it looks like. One
- of the transoms.
- that it's been installed has been covered up, which is part of this proposal here to cover those transoms
- and change the overall dimensions of the window openings. And so the proposed windows are different
- than in size than the originals? Yes. OK. All right.
- At this point, I'll ask for comments. Do we have anything from the neighborhood first? I haven't received
- anything new from the neighborhood on this. OK. Do we have anything from the public? Nobody online?
- Nobody's raising their hand. All right. Thank you. I will entertain questions from the commissioners.
- Jack? My question is, how does this in any way
- get back to the original design of the house. It's just completely wrong, in my opinion. It just does
- not know how to say exactly. I don't think that this meets with the original design of the house, and
- I think it needs to.
- I don't know what we have here, how we can judge this and decide what should be done except to, say,
- replace with the original style window. Do you have questions, Jeremy? I think you asked mine. So these
- are the replacement windows that they're suggesting are smaller than the ones that were originally removed. Right.
- And work has already been done on one of them for what was proposed in the thing that we're looking
- at now. Without it being approved. Okay, that's it. I don't have any questions. Do you have questions?
- Yeah. Do you have questions, Ernest, if you wanted to know? So I guess the only question that I have
- is this might be for Noah or for the petition. I'll start with Noah. How many of the original windows
- were moved? How many of them have been replaced and then on the first round and then how many of them
- are replaced after the NOV? I believe it was five windows and what you see
- Currently installed in this picture were the replacement windows with transoms that were put in when
- the commission first saw this item. The latest that I have seen, it looks like only one of these windows
- has had the transom covered with trim or with siding. Sorry. OK.
- Sam, before you move on, I just thought of a question for the petitioner, if I may. For the petitioner,
- could you explain to me what the difficulty is that you're having replacing the windows with the original windows?
- similar replacement windows? Okay, so what we did was we took the old windows out and then they put
- in the transom and the bottom ones. You guys did not approve that design. So we were just trying to
- do this one, the one that we're looking at, to see if that will meet your guidelines.
- As Noah, I don't know if he's included any of this. I sent him several photos of similar things in the
- neighborhood that look similar. These are the divided light windows? They started fitting with
- the neighborhood. And as you know, the guidelines are very vague. It just said, put it back the way
- it was. Well, here's the thing. When they built the transoms, they cut into
- you know, further than what the originals were. I guess you don't have pictures of what they looked
- like before we took them out, or I mean, I gave you to know. And so we had the idea of covering up the
- transom, putting the trim in so you could see what we were going for and see if that meets your guidelines.
- Right. But let me ask a more specific question. The original windows are 30 inch by 77 inch windows, correct?
- I don't have it right in front of me, but they were bigger old windows that were not original. They're
- not original to that structure. And I'm assuming you don't have the windows that you removed. They might
- be around back that we took out. Okay, so explain to me what is the difficulty. If you have the windows,
- why not just put them back in?
- Because they're single pane in there We changed them because the heating bills over there are terrible
- And they're rotting. They were old We had no idea which is on us that it was considered historic Which
- I now know that you have to study that before you do anything Okay, so that's as simple as it from where
- we're coming from right are Are these old windows repairable?
- No, because I'm not a construction person, to be honest. I don't know. This was one of our friends who
- were in construction said, I have these windows. Here, let's do this. Let's replace them. And that's
- what we did. Right. And have you checked on the market to see if there are windows that are similar
- in size and appearance to the ones that you removed?
- that may have the qualities that you're seeking to get for these replacement windows. We've done some
- research, but I guess it comes back to we're trying to do what you guys are asking us to do,
- but it still is, it just seems so vague. Okay. But we've, so go ahead. I believe that what we're requiring
- has been made very, very clear.
- certainly over the past few interactions we've had with you. So what is vague about replacing the windows
- with windows of a similar type, of a similar dimension, which is in keeping with the guidelines?
- What's vague? What don't you understand? Because
- I guess what I don't understand is you wanted us to put the exact windows back in and redo. You don't
- like the transoms. You didn't like the trim. So you wanted them to look exactly the way they did before.
- Yes. Perfect. OK. See? Yeah. OK. So that's what we'll do. OK.
- We wanted to put this in and see if this would work, even though there's grids on that same building.
- But if this is what needs to happen, then this is what we'll do. Which way are we going? Going that
- way? Going that way? Oh, we stopped it even. Oh. Yeah, we went back to you. Yeah. OK. So I don't have
- questions.
- Yes, we can. Jack, do you have questions? I do have. Do you have a motion? Do you have a question? I
- have just a couple questions. I have many more. Do we have any idea when these tall windows were installed
- in this house? Do we have any idea what the house looked like originally with its first set of windows?
- So I don't have pictures of the house from older than 2001. You know, these are wood windows, and Jennifer's
- right. They were pretty old.
- I would hazard to guess that if they were replaced, they were replaced a long time ago. Certainly, I
- checked and you can find windows that are approximately these dimensions made with newer materials,
- but it would be pretty unusual in anything like post-Victorian. So my hunch is that these windows, the
- windows that were in place before were either
- original or very close to what was originally there. Thank you. Also just considering, like I mentioned,
- the age that we saw on them. They did have rotting cells. And the proportionality of the windows is
- consistent with the type and the age of the house. Good. Good information. Thank you. Yeah. I mean,
- the guidelines don't actually talk about materiality. They talk a lot about proportion and that sort of thing.
- I think we're up to motion making. Appropriate motion would be to deny, yes. Well, yeah. COA 2570. OK.
- So I'll make the motion. Move to deny COA 25-79. Do I have a second? Second. Let's talk about it. I
- think clarity here is we're looking for an
- strike me down if I'm misspeaking again. We're looking for the windows that fit the existing openings
- that were there before this whole process started in all of the windows with, they were one over ones,
- yeah? So no grids, top or bottom, just a double hung window. You could even do a single hung window
- because they look the same with matching trim.
- That's what we're looking for. So when you come back before us, that's what we'll expect. If you want
- to get it past the commission at this point, that's what we need to see. The guidelines don't talk about
- the materiality of the window in this district. So, you know, whatever type of window, you know, we
- always love wood windows, but they're expensive. So we understand that you might not want to do that.
- but windows that are double hung that fit the existing rough openings in the house with trim that matches
- the original trim. That's what we're looking for. We have other comments. It's really the same size
- as the windows that were removed. Yes. Karen. I just want to make sure that you understand that the
- best way to get our approval
- and to submit what you're planning to do is to give us plans ahead of time. Don't try something out
- and say, you mean like this. Do it on paper, clearly and fully. OK. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah,
- good comment. Any other comments, Melody? Well, I share Karen's concern. Yeah. You're married? No, I'm not.
- We can call the roll. OK, so there's a motion to deny 2579. It's been seconded. We'll take a vote.
- Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Ernesto Cascaneda? Yes. Renard Kopp? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie
- Dusner? Yes. Motion to deny is approved 6-0. Thank you. Thank you for coming in. We appreciate it. Will
- the demolition delay? All right.
- Next item we have is demolition delay. Apparently the petitioner is online, Matt Ellenwood. This is
- technically the last demolition delay of 2025. So it's running pretty close up to its deadline. This
- is DD2526 for 102 South Clark. Petitioner is Matt Ellenwood.
- And this is a circa 1950 slightly altered minimal ranch. Built in 1955, 102 South Clark is a slightly
- altered minimal ranch. The first residents appear in the Bloomington City Directory are William and
- V. Gene Fleetwood, owners of a plumbing business. William had served in the Navy during both World War
- II and the Korean War.
- The couple moved out in 1963, and the house passed through a series of renters, most of whom were married
- couples who stayed between one and two years. From 1971 through 1972, the house was occupied by the
- family of Thomas Schwen, a professor in the School of Education, and his wife, Emily. During their time
- at 102 South Clark, Emily gave birth to their daughter, Missy, a two-time Olympic medal winner in rowing.
- The request is for full demolition. Staff recommends the release of DD2526. Is the petitioner present,
- and do they have anything to comment? He is online. I'm having trouble showing him. But he is here,
- and he is unmuted. Yeah. But it says one of his cell phone.
- wait a second oh oh no okay it is 102 South Clark that was the
- Actually, that's going to come up later. That was the scrapyard. Yeah. So can we clarify the address
- on this really quick? Sorry. Yeah, 102. It's going to be a demolition delay for 102 South Park.
- Thank you. And the petitioner, Matt Ellenwood, is online virtually. Can you hear us, Matt? I'm not seeing
- them anywhere.
- He's on the screen that I can see. I'm just trying to get him on this one. Has he been unmuted?
- He is unmuted. And I will chat with him. This is in the green anchors. Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
- This is like an audio. Matt is saying he can't seem to get his audio to work. He's connecting right
- now. If he's got anything to add, he can type it in.
- He said nothing to add. OK. Do we have comments or questions from the public? Anyone else online? Questions
- from commissioners? Jack? Jeremy? No. Bernard? No. Karen? Melody? Ernesto? No. No questions. I will
- entertain a motion. I'll move to release DD2526.
- I have a second. Second. Let's talk about it. Any comments, Jack? No. Jeremy, comments? No. Bernard?
- Karen? Melody? Ernesto? No comments. We got a vote. OK, so there's a motion on the floor. Again, this
- is for 102 South Clark. Moved and seconded. A yes vote would be to release. Jack Baker? Yes.
- Jeremy Haggard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes.
- That passes 6-0. Can you read the thing?
- Today regarding the property located at 102 South Clark, the Historic Preservation Commission declares
- that it got notice of the proposed demolition and after today's discussion sees no need to review the
- plans any further and waives the rest of the demolition delay waiting period. The HBC may later recommend
- the property for historic designation to the Common Council. Thank you. All right. Moving on, we have
- one more new demolition delay for today.
- DD-2601. This is for 809 North Walnut Street. Petitioner is Ernest G. This request is for full demolition.
- Built in 1940. Is the petitioner here? Is the petitioner here? We have a Todd Sachs that are online
- and a Eric that hasn't responded. If either of you that are online, if you're here for this petition,
- would you raise your hand?
- I do not see any hands being raised. All right. And no, he's here from the public for this petition,
- right? Yes. You're here? I mean, to represent the petition? No. Yeah. I've asked him to unmute and also
- he has unmuted. Yes. I'm here for it. Yeah. OK. Thank you. Thank you, sir. OK. All right.
- Pre-continue? Sure. Built in 1940, 809 North Walnut is a two-story, wait, I wrote brick. It's not brick.
- It's limestone. A two-story limestone two-door revival house slash commercial building with a two-story
- vinyl-sided addition and a ground floor storefront facing the south parking lot. For most of the building's
- history, it was mixed commercial residential.
- from the 1960s through the early 2000s. It was home to Edward and Marjorie Ryan, who operated Ryan's
- barber shop on the ground floor. The Ryans rented two other commercial tenants, including a real estate
- and insurance office. Edwards worked as a barber from the time he was decommissioned from the military
- in 1945 until his death in 2008. The request is for full demolition.
- Does the petitioner have anything that he would like to add? No. All right. I think I will move on to
- comments or questions from the public to people. If you would state your name for the record. My name's
- James Ford. I live in Cottage Grove across the street from this house. I'm here to just fill in some
- of the history of this house that has been
- not mentioned yet. William Henry Hunter was born in 1881. He completed the fourth grade. He is buried
- in Valhalla Cemetery. In 1905, he married Margaret Ratliff. These are two Bloomington families. He was
- a mason. He was a contractor. He became somewhat successful.
- In 1910, he was living on 13th Street, in 1916 on Walnut Grove, 1930 on Fee Lane, north of 17th.
- In 1940, when he was 60 years old, he decided to build this house for his wife and his family. He was
- employed at the Public Works Administration, the PWA at the time. This house has currently seven gables.
- It's a house of seven gables.
- It's possible that it had nine originally, two in the front, one in the back, and three on each side.
- It was likely symmetrical at that point. It's a storybook house. It was originally. All stone,
- Tudor revival. And it might have been the last one that was built in Bloomington prior to World War
- II. It was in 1941 our country was attacked.
- by an empire that wanted to dominate the world, and we responded, and we defeated them. But the world
- was never the same after that, and this kind of house would never have been built after World War II.
- Mr. Hunter was unable to work after 1950, and he died in 1957, a year after his wife.
- The house was then lived in by Professor Messick from the business school for a couple years, and then
- a guy who worked at Crane. And it was in 1960 that Edward Ryan decided to buy the house. He moved his
- barber shop, which was at 1010 North Walnut, to the basement of the house. And he moved his residence,
- which was at 1111 North Indiana, to the upstairs. He added the shop at the bottom by gutting the front
- yard. He added the addition on the south side and lived in there.
- He did a lot of damage to this house. Eventually it was sold to Jeff Jones of Pendragon who neglected
- it while he rented it out and it fell into disrepair. And now it's been sold to the present petition.
- The house is going to be destroyed now by people who are not from Bloomington, they're from outside
- and it's going to be replaced likely by another boring box that these people are building around the
- neighborhood.
- who are not interested, people are not interested in the history or the architecture of the neighborhood.
- Instead, they're interested in real estate as a business. This is like a cancer that's spreading through
- our neighborhood. But unlike World War II, it's been a very slow, progressive, insidious road through
- the neighborhood. And it's going to end up creating just a field of piles of stones
- When this is demolished, this will be yet another pile of stone. And in Mandarin, that would be Qian
- Lei. And that's all I have to say about this house. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else from
- the neighborhood in the public to speak to this? I would like to speak to this as well. My name is John
- Ballard. Officially, this is across the street from the proposed Cottage Grove Conservation District.
- So we're not officially opposing it. But we're sad to see it go. And we're disappointed that it's not
- going to be replaced with something nearly as interesting. Thank you. I mean, Butler also wanted to
- say that I'm just sad to see yet another really cool house with a really interesting history
- that's going to get torn down again and replaced or torn down and get replaced by something that is
- very much less interesting and doesn't have nearly the cool historical ties to it. But I know that your
- hands are tied on this, but I just wanted to voice my opinion. And I thank you for your time.
- Thank you. Is anyone online? All right. Questions?
- I have no questions. Jeremy? Which part is the additional house? You can make it out. I'm sorry, the
- screen is pretty small. What's being shared, but you can see behind the tree. I've got a good view on
- Google Docs that I can show you. Oh, that's right. That's a huge bit of vinyl. Yeah.
- Really, unless you're standing at the south end, there isn't really a public view that shows it well.
- Do you know what the edition was put on there? It was put on by Edward and Marjorie Ryan. I'm not sure
- exactly when, before the 2000s. Somewhere between the 1916s and the 1900s. Yes.
- Probably the 1990s, if you might guess. OK. Any more questions? No. Any other questions? I'd like to
- get a sense of what it is that you, how would this house, how would you describe the significance of
- the house? Would it be in its architecture? So that would be the case that you would make if you were
- trying to prevent this thing.
- from Bintornel, this house from Bintornel. And what is it about the architecture? Describe for me how
- is it that the architecture is unique to the, by definition, by the criteria established in the guidelines
- that would justify its protection. Yes, yes.
- My name is James Borden. When you say guidelines, are you referring to a neighborhood guidelines? No,
- I'm referring to the, let's just say we were supposed to make a case to the UDO. Right. So I am not
- an architect. I'm not a specialist in historical architecture, but I don't see many houses with this
- pitch, with this complexity of the roof line, with this careful detail to the stonework and masonry, which
- Maybe only a mason would do to his own house, which is what happened here. It is in an odd place now,
- especially if there's been growth all around it. So it is isolated. If it were my ideal world, it would
- be moved. It would be safe, but moved, because this location is a difficult place for this house today.
- And there's a lot of problems with the house. The windows are all replaced, so there's nothing to preserve
- there. The so-called addition on the south side is not really an addition. It's more of an enclosure,
- because the original house may very well still be in there somewhere. I've never been inside the house,
- so I don't know currently the layout. It looks so unique to me for our neighborhood, for the area.
- It seems like it should be preserved. I know of one house similar to it on South Washington made out
- of brick. And then I know another house on North Washington made of brick. I don't know any of them
- made out of limestone. And this is 100% limestone. It's not just the front facing here. It's all around
- the house. No. Is there anything that you discovered in your research that is in keeping with James's
- definition that could possibly be considered? Yes. There are a few other examples of two revival limestone
- houses in Bloomington. The other ones are more sort of standard, what you'd see gable front with a sloping
- roof. I can think of a couple on Maxwell Lane from the 1920s, so this is a little late.
- It's also a little unusual in that it's clearly sort of not clearly, but it's probably not architect
- designed. It's probably craftsman designed. It definitely has an eclectic look. There aren't a lot of
- Tudor revival houses in Bloomington, but this one is not alone.
- Okay, and I see your recommendation is to release it. Is it that you couldn't find anything, just to
- get a clear statement from you, that in your opinion, there's nothing unique about this house that would
- substantiate or support? So I guess my rationale, looking at the history of the house, I had a hard
- time picking out any sort of clear
- significance to the history of Bloomington beyond the immediate impact of the business located here.
- In terms of its architecture, I think if it had a higher degree of integrity, it would absolutely be
- eligible. I think the storefront that was added does add a little more context.
- It does hurt the original architectural integrity of the Tudor Revival House. All of the windows have
- been replaced. The rear addition, I don't think that's as much of an issue for me, but I'd say even
- though it's clearly an interesting building, a lot of its architectural integrity has been compromised.
- I think it would be a little harder, in my opinion, to make an architectural case for designating it.
- And we don't think that the addition on the side there, like, I don't know what the precedent is for
- looking at a building like this and saying, OK, well, if that was simply not there, we think that anything
- would be restored. Like, can you not? I don't know whether it could be restored.
- you know, this addition was taken off. Like Mr. Ford said, I don't know what's under there. Honestly,
- the addition on the side, I don't think is much of an issue in terms of compromising integrity. A lot
- of buildings that are on the National Register of Historic Places have additions that were added either
- after the period of significance or after they've been designated. So unless there's something really
- significant that we're missing that was taken away for that addition,
- That isn't so much it for me. It's really more the overall effect of all the other replacements on the
- house and, you know, the alterations for those sort of added storefronts. Do you have any questions?
- Yes. Yes. Karen, did you have questions? No questions. Do you have additional questions? I asked out
- of turn. That's OK. We'll get there. Questions? All right. I have no questions.
- I will entertain a motion. I'll move to release DD 2601. Do I have a second? I'll second. All right.
- Comments? Jack, comments? No. Jeremy? I think Noah explained his rationale pretty well. It's listed
- as a contributing building. I think the historical context, we can't make an argument.
- in that area either, given those two factors, I think we need to release it. I don't know. I agree that
- it's cool, but apparently cool isn't a criteria. Criterion that can be used. So there you go. Karen.
- It makes it tough, but I think that's the right call. Yeah. Hi. I'm Karen with Jack and David. Did you
- call the roll? Yes.
- So this would be on Demolition Delay 2601, which has been motioned and seconded. We'll go ahead and
- vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hanford? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Renard Croft? Yes. Sam Soler? Yes.
- Melody Dusner? Yes. And that passes 6-0.
- Today, regarding the property located at 809 North Walnut, the Historic Preservation Commission declares
- that it got notice of proposed demolition and after today's discussion, sees no need to review the plans
- any further and waives the rest of the demolition delay waiting period. HBC may later recommend the
- property for historic designation to the Common Council. I'd like to thank the petitioner for coming
- in and also
- Residents of Cottage Grove for showing up. I appreciate that. Moving on to old business. There are a
- few items I'd like to address. There's also some that, some things I think we should just discuss that
- can go under new business that are not in the agenda, but then popping around. Sort of new things since
- this was put together anyway.
- I included in your packet this evening a report from the developers of 503 North Rogers. In case you're
- wondering why that address was on one of the demolition delays, you may remember that item came up at
- our last meeting. There were some questions about a limestone loading dock from the site's previous
- use as a, what do you call it, cutting mill, limestone mill.
- The petitioners, although we weren't able to meet between the time that this structural engineers report
- was produced and when the demolition delay was automatically released, they wanted me to show it to
- you to demonstrate one, what the integrity of the structure looked like and then two,
- what it might possibly take to preserve part of it. The takeaway, in short, from the structural engineer
- is that it would be difficult to move the entire structure, which was, you know, that was sort of the
- best case scenario because there's something else that they needed to put in, some utilities and access
- for, I think, emergencies into the Beeline Trail.
- where this is currently located on the site. They did propose, however, that they might be able to save
- the lower part of some of the bays. If they were to relocate larger, more complete sections, there's
- a concern for public safety if anybody was regularly engaging with it or was going to be passing close by.
- received yet is any sort of idea of where the structure might be relocated on the site. I've seen a
- couple of proposed locations and meetings. One would be within this property, sort of located further
- to the north, close to the Beeline Trail, which I guess, as you'd all know, used to be the Monon Railway,
- which is part of the railroad significance to this loading structure.
- The other location that they were gunning for, at least in my meeting with them and with the planning
- department, would be on City Parkland adjacent to the Beeline Trail. People from the Parks Department
- haven't heard anything about this proposal. It sounds like it. But it's on your own? Yeah. So now. Surprise.
- Obviously, that's what the petitioner would have preferred, because it would mean taking up less of
- their own property.
- So they're still going through the process with I don't know what commissions they have left to go to
- now, but a few other boards, because it's a fairly big project. And there's a lot of things that are
- going to have to get worked out with our associates and other boards and commissions. So I'll be interested
- to see where this fits into that discussion. I think the next date that they're going to be coming before
- any commission is going to be in April.
- It might be a while before I get any answers for you guys. But read through at your leisure. At least
- we've received it. I also wanted to go through some of the points that we discussed at last year's commission
- retreat. So thank you to everybody who was able to come to that. One of the big points was how we handle
- violations.
- whether they could be handled differently from other COA applications in cases where a petitioner wants
- to come back and retroactively apply for approval. Part of the reason why we thought it might be difficult
- to change the timeline for this would be because COAs often sort of align with other permits that are
- received either from the county or from the city. So if
- a two-year timeline is changed for historic preservation approval that might, you know, people in planning
- might not remember that when it comes time to, yeah, approve some sort of, I don't know, something on
- their end. So, I mean, I agree that it would be cool if we could find a way to make this work to have
- more variable timeframes for approval for
- corrections to violations, but I'm just not sure that would work. And correct me if you have any other
- ideas, Anna. But I mean, this is something that we discussed. Sorry about him, but I'm curious as to
- why these things are joined to other permitting processes and why they cannot be independent processes.
- We're a separate commission. We have our own authority. We are under the umbrella of hand. That said,
- 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
- in terms of violations is arbitrary. It could be much shorter. It could be much longer. It depends on
- how the petitioner responds.
- Or could that also just be a separate tracking form that whoever is in your position is able to keep
- a track of and then be liaising with whatever these other permitting departments are. You have to be
- like, hey, there's this time period that's coming up short of just a way to make that work. So as you
- guys know, the two-year time frame, that is in our rules and procedures. So it's not a statutory thing.
- You know, we could see about changing rules and procedures, which, you know, requires like a two-third
- majority vote. There could be some way to keep track of it, but it couldn't be a separate process or
- a separate like, what do you call it, a separate certificate from a certificate of appropriateness because
- that's what
- is provided for in the state, a statute. So that is the only way we can enforce anything is through
- COAs. Is that what you're saying? No. I mean, we could enforce with fines or liens. I still don't understand.
- I guess I was saying about a suggestion that was brought up at the commission meeting for issuing COAs
- for less than two years for some variable length of time for violations. So based on that, could we not
- then vote to amend our own bylines for COAs that are dealing with violations that we can make them shorter
- periods. I believe we could. Or even violations apart from COAs. I look at them as two very distinctly
- different tracks because a violation can happen regardless of whether there's an application
- for a certificate of appropriateness or not. So I think maybe we write up
- something that maybe we could share with everybody, take a look at, and mold a little bit and see if
- we could vote on it if people are interested in what we're saying. Yeah. The other caveat here is we
- need a full slate of commissioners, I think, in good faith to move forward on most anything that we're
- talking about here. I would agree with that. And now that you brought that up, is there anything in
- motion to make that happen?
- That's not my department's having. Well, that's the next item on here. Just information. That wasn't.
- Yeah. Let's get through his commission thing. Sure. So I'm going to be honest. I haven't heard about
- any new appointments. That's something I want to talk with Sydney about, obviously. So aside from serving
- as commissioner liaison, which is a new position for her, she's on the interview committee for
- that handles HBC appointments. However, because she doesn't work for the mayor's office, she works for
- city council. She's, for the most part, unless the mayor's office starts nominating more people for
- voting positions, she's mostly handling the non-voting positions.
- I mean, this issue that we've been having, it's not for a lack of applications because I think we have
- enough qualified applicants on board right now to, you know, fill all the positions that we need filled.
- The next regular city council meeting is on February 4th, I believe. I haven't heard anything and I
- would hear from the mayor's office if somebody was being recommended.
- They haven't reached out to me about anyone. Would it help for us to all write in to the mayor's office
- to recommend on these? I've written individually recommending approval of some of the applications I
- know have gone in, but it might be maybe more forceful if all of us do it, or if we do maybe one letter
- together. We could make a motion to request. Yeah, I mean, if we do a letter from the commission. Yeah.
- I mean, we could make a formal motion from the commission to request
- that these vacancies be filled with in the next 30 days or some, you know, because we're in trouble
- and I don't know what else to do. So every time I do get a new application I write to both the person
- in the clerk's office and the person in the mayor's office who handles recommendations to the mayor
- and to council. So plus a couple of reminders that Jeremy and I have
- Maybe some other people have sent off over the course of the last year or so. I've written a couple
- of recommendations. I mean, legally, it states that the mayor is supposed to fill a vacancy within,
- what, 30 days, 60 days? 90 days. 90 days. And the last one was Elizabeth, which was at the end of September.
- So that's August, actually. Oh, August. And then we had another one that's been open
- for about a year. And then, technically, there's two people who are continuing to serve on this commission
- right now for 90 days until they're either reappointed or somebody else is appointed into their position.
- And I actually haven't met our most recent appointee yet. Drew? Mm-hmm. What was that? Drew Lahren.
- Is he a voting member? No. No. He had attended a couple of meetings last year. How many commissioners?
- regular in the absence. From this commission or from commissions in general? From this. I remember when
- I started, we either had one or no openings. So there's been a lot of attrition. But I mean people that
- have been appointed are supposed to be active now but don't show. Don't show? I don't know. I don't
- really ask you.
- They're supposed to be like a three in a row, you know, like kind of a three strikes rule if you don't
- show three times a row. That's what I was getting at. That could be instituted. Yeah. Well, I mean,
- part of the difficulty about instituting that right now, at least for me, is I haven't seen any indication
- that any new appointees are being reviewed. And I'm concerned that if I start kicking people off the
- commission at this point, we could get to a situation where we literally don't have a quorum of people
- before serving on the commission. Now, I don't think anybody here today has missed three consecutive
- meetings over the course of the past year. I might be wrong. I've actually come to some death.
- You've tried. Every maker has come to nonexistent death. I know we have had that issue in the past.
- And there were people who
- I did not boot off the commission. OK. OK. Can we move ahead and write that letter to? Do you want to
- make a motion to write a letter? I suggest somebody makes the motion to write a letter and have a deadline,
- 30 days, fill out those positions. This is an urgent matter, isn't it? Is that letter going to recommend
- individuals or just recommend that field. I want bodies. I mean, I don't think that's something that
- we can necessarily influence one way or the other, or should influence one way or the other. You know,
- I have my favorite people, and you have your favorite people, and they might be different people. All
- my favorite people are here. You want cookies. I know you. But we just need applicants.
- We need commissioners. Jeremy. Is there any teeth? You write a letter and, well, firstly, it's
- my understanding that 90 days have passed for a couple at least. And what? Is there a next step that
- can be taken if they aren't filled? And two, if we write a letter and nothing happens,
- And those are just questions. I mean, worst case scenario is we get to March and we shut down. Two members
- of the commission who are currently just showing up on Good Faith are no longer legally allowed to vote.
- And so we won't make quorum. That's my understanding. And then everything just goes through. Just ages
- out until they get quorum.
- all the seaways. So we basically got through the end of March before we have to see something and we've
- been begging for this for a long time but you know anything that we can do I think we should do and
- I think that a formal letter requesting that the mayor's office fill these vacancies within 30 days
- is not unreasonable. No I agree I was just asking. Yeah, what happened next? Yeah. I don't know. Mayors
- and City Council.
- Well, the mayor has to nominate them, and the city council has to approve them. And so all I'm asking
- is for the mayor to do some nominations to submit to the city council to fill the slate. And then the
- city council will do what the city council does. But we have to have at least start down the road. We
- can write letters to the city council, too. It's February 4.
- I believe that's the next City Council meeting. That's when they have to vote on appointees.
- There's a section on the council agenda at each of their voting meetings that is a place for nominations
- and approval of board and commission members. So it could come at any council meeting. The fourth is
- the next one. How far ahead of that meeting does the mayor's office need to get that information to
- the council? Do we know? I don't know on board and commission nominations. I don't know the answer to that.
- I think the bottom line is that we need to send that letter as soon as we can so that it gets in line
- with deadlines. Otherwise, we're going to be off track. Would we say the letter would be to we strongly
- recommend that the mayor submit nominations for consideration by the city council for the February 4th
- meeting? Yeah, just push for that date. I'd have no qualms with that. And then I would also suggest
- the letter should come not from NOAA.
- from the commission, Sam as the chair. And if we all vote and approve, I'll sign on our behalf. Yes,
- I think it would put Noah in a weird position. Oh, you think so? Yeah, I think it needs to come from
- Sam as the chair. No, not all from Sam. Yes, I agree. And I agree to what Sam said. We vote, he represents
- us, and that's it. Well, that's a good question, because I'm now not really the chair for this particular meeting.
- But it might be better for all signing. I'd be good with all signing. I'm just saying I don't think
- it comes from nobody. I hear that. I concur. Make a motion to send letter to the office of mayor, here's
- office, to request nominations for city council on a hearing dated February 4th.
- Before? Before, yes. I second that. All right. And then if we could just, for the record, so I accurately
- have that motion. Ernesto, you said you're making a motion to send a letter to the mayor's office requesting,
- I heard, requesting, I heard a strongly recommend, was it? Compel. Send a letter to the mayor's office
- requesting that the vacancies, or that they make recommendations to fill the vacancies? I think she
- is. For the Historic Preservation Commission to the Common Council before the February 4th meeting.
- Yeah, before the February 4th meeting. Are they technically nominations? Or would it be in time for
- it to be considered at the February 4th meeting? Whatever that lead time is that we don't know. Yeah,
- I think that would. Could possibly have passed already, so.
- I think we're not having to worry about that too much. We just write a letter and get it out there,
- 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
- and seconded that the commission jointly write a letter to the mayor's office
- Making that request, we'll go ahead and take a vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda?
- Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. That motion passes 6-0. I'll see if
- I can write something up, and I'll run it by everybody, and everybody should chime in.
- Circulated for signatures. Yeah, I don't think it needs to be super long straight to the point As far
- as issues from the retreat go there is language in our code about maintenance standards And at what
- point the Commission can step in which is basically
- Which is to say that historic buildings should be maintained to meet applicable requirements established
- under state statute for buildings generally. It's a conversation I can have with my coworkers in hand
- because that is what they work with for the most part. But also more specifically to us to prevent the
- loss of historic material and the deterioration of important character defining details and features.
- I don't think that shows up.
- too much when we see buildings. Okay. I got a call from another CLG in the state where this is happening
- with them. So I just happened to be looking into it today. Um, and our code calls it out. Whereas I'm
- not sure that there's does anyway. It's just, okay. Um, so it's the idea to set forth a procedure. Is
- that what you're saying? I think, I guess what I'm saying is at a certain point, uh, you have to consider whether
- you know, a certain amount of decay is going to constitute a violation. Yeah, there's something in our
- guidelines. I think there's a three or four step procedure that's in there. So I don't know if you might
- 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
- about it, and then we, I think it's something we would vote to say yes, that there's this basically
- demolition by neglect, and then we forward that recommendation on to, I think, the lawyers for potential
- fine or city staff for potential fine. I think there's some kind of process in there. Yep, you're right.
- So it's Article 7 of the Rules and Procedures on Maintenance, and you're right, it does have exactly
- those steps.
- that upon presentation of supporting evidence, the commission can act by going through this analysis,
- giving notice of 21-day notice to the property owner, and then determining whether that condition constitutes
- a threat to the historic fabric of the building, and then forward it to the legal department to take
- action if a violation is warranted. Do you see something falling down? Right. So we can't act on them.
- We can, and we should, and that's something that
- Historically, we have been not very good at. Well, and some of that is just people letting us know we
- can't see all the buildings everywhere. Yeah. Yeah, that's fair. So another thing I want to bring up
- while everybody's here is we have an application from the Cottage Grove Historic District. With, I guess,
- the begrudging assent of some of the applicants, it was not included in tonight's meeting.
- Part of the reasoning for that is, one, because it's still around the holidays, I wanted to make sure
- we had a quorum. So I'm not sending out notices to property owners so many days in advance and then
- having to cancel late. So again, there's no real guarantee that we'll meet when we're supposed to meet
- next month. I hope we do. Also, we don't have, you know,
- uh, chair and vice chair for this year yet. Um, I don't know when that's going to happen because we're
- kind of waiting on having a fuller slate of commissioners. So I think this vote has to happen sooner
- rather than later. And I would like to bring it up on the next agenda. Is that something that the petitioners
- are good with? I just, yeah, I mean, that's my rationale for not putting it on this meeting. I just thought
- It would have been a lot to take on, and there would also be a risk of having to start over again with
- it. So putting it on the agenda for the next time around, we're just kind of hearing it for the first
- time in terms of the process and everything like that. We're getting it started with us. Yeah.
- This is something that I learned about earlier this week is a set of changes to accessibility standards.
- This actually comes from federal legislation. And it's going to have a significant impact on what our
- packets look like. So long story short, there's not going to be a packet anymore. Let me describe that
- to you. There's still going to be agendas.
- The agenda is going to link to a folder that's shared online that's publicly accessible that's going
- to have each of those items individually, each of the items for a meeting individually sorted into their
- own folders. Sort of what's ironic about it is there's no requirement that materials that are submitted
- by third parties
- are made accessible themselves. So functionally, what that's going to look like is there's going to
- be a lot of links to inaccessible documents rather than a packet that's made more accessible. But anyway,
- that's legally how it's going to work. So for all of you, that means bring in a device that has access
- to the internet. Because as we go through items, you're going to have to access
- all of the recommendations and photos and plans and other files that are submitted online in these folders.
- So we don't have to implement this until April 24. But I'd like to roll it out before then so we can
- get in the habit of doing that. So has a prolonging this meeting before? Why?
- What problem is this trying to solve? So basically the accessibility guidelines are to make agendas
- readable by e-readers for people who are visually impaired. There's some boards and commissions that
- this can work really well for because a lot of what our commission deals with is visual. That's a lot
- more complicated.
- especially considering the fact that, like I mentioned, third-party items don't have to be made accessible,
- 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,
- like our minutes and our agenda, it'll make it so that it's easier for those to be read by e-readers.
- But just the way that
- Our packets are laid out and have to be laid out. In my opinion, it doesn't work as well for making
- it navigable for most of the people who attend our meetings. But one of the things about the packet
- is that it flows in a somewhat logical sense. So is it that you're going to have the agenda, and then
- once it's called up, we have to
- click through individual documents that might not be listed in a logical sequence. So who's going to
- marshal what we look at? We'll still have the agenda. I think the way I want to discuss with legal,
- and I'm not quite sure how this would work because I don't want it to be like an elephants all the way
- down kind of situation, is seeing if I can continue at least for a while until we get this figured out
- to keep producing packets for the sake of having them printed off so that it's easier for commissioners
- to follow. The reason why I think that might not be possible is then those packets wouldn't meet the
- accessibility standards anyway. So. But how would it work is the agenda like here, so the extension
- of COA 2392, that would be a link to that specific COA. Yeah, there would be a folder that includes.
- Yeah, that has all the stuff for that specific one.
- You click on that, look at all that stuff, close it out. For the next one that comes up, you click on
- that one, look through all that stuff. Is that how it would work? So I'd still have the PowerPoints,
- and it would walk through all of the files, basically, that are in the folder for that COA. So you would
- still see everything that's been submitted by the applicant. But it would be sort of chopped up. If
- somehow there's a glitch in the Wi-Fi,
- Like that was today. Yeah. Let me see. We would be in trouble then. Wouldn't be great. OK. Where you
- download all this stuff ahead of time on your computer. You could do that. We could help by providing
- guides. We were, if I could speak to it. She was in the meeting. Yeah. It was a meeting that was held
- with our whole department from our IT department
- that met with all boards and commissions explaining what the requirements were, giving us guidance on
- how to do that. And Noah was asking a lot of questions about it, since many of the documents we've seen
- them are architectural drawings and some handwritten things from petitioners, things that there's just
- not really a way for a screen reader to be able to read, trying to determine how he'd be able to continue to
- do the work that he's doing and also make it not too difficult for the commissioners trying to find
- a way to provide the accessible document, but also support the commissioners that are accustomed to
- not doing things by using folders. And so I think there's ways that
- some ideas that you've brought up and how to make it easier for the commissioners. But we also have
- to do it. Yeah. There's going to be a three-week gap rather than the usual two-week gap between this
- meeting and the next meeting. So next week, I want to play around with setting up the agenda for the
- next meeting and seeing how I can make it navigable and more familiar for you and also
- while it's still not problematic to do it, seeing how I might be able to modify the printed packets.
- Anything that's available to the public or sent out to the public has to be an accessible document.
- Anything that is internal and is not shared with the public doesn't have that same
- I was going to say limitation, but the whole idea is to make things accessible so people that aren't,
- that aren't, is sighted can participate. And like I said, there's a lot of ways in which it makes sense.
- It just makes a lot more sense in other contexts besides our commission. Yeah. So the plan commission
- and that board of zoning appeals will be in the same position. So you'll have some people to work with
- trying to figure out how to
- how to continue to provide materials in a meaningful way so that decisions can be made. Next item on
- the agenda. New business. Are we violations yet? We can discuss violations.
- Mm-hmm. There's a handful that we're dealing with right now. 806 South Woodlawn. Before we do that,
- I might want to address what all the Connach Grove people are, of course. Oh, you don't have to sit
- around forever and ever. Unless you're just here for the enjoyment. It's so entertaining. No, I just
- addressed it. We were wondering about scheduling when you were going to come here.
- Thank you all for coming in. Thank you as always. I wanted to somehow get a message to a previous petitioner.
- I didn't know how to do that, but I wanted to say this was the one about the accessory unit at West
- 12th Street. I wanted him to look at
- 714 North Washington, which is in our neighborhood. It is a great example of an accessory unit that
- was built that looks just like the main house. It's a good size.
- 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.
- Well, I'm going to be keeping in touch with him, so I can check out that ADU and see if it's good.
- Thank you. Good example. Thanks. All right. Sorry about that, back and forth.
- quick question just to make sure. So the motion that was made about sending a letter to the mayor's
- office, would that be considered new business? Yeah. And then the accessibility standards also and then
- the application for the Cottage Grove Historic District, would that be considered new business or would
- that be under comments? Just put that all under new business. Oh yeah, I would say that's new business.
- And my apologies to Interopt. No, it's okay. Thank you.
- Oh, you need to be organized. That's OK. So do we all. OK. Violations. 806 South Woodlawn. Have we had
- a meeting since that came up? I don't believe we have. I can give you the short version. You don't want
- to give the wrong down. So Noah and I have been attending meetings of the Elm Heights Historic District's guideline
- review sessions. And at the first one, one of the members was concerned that there was a house that
- the people had just pulled out all the original windows, and why hadn't anything happened to them? So
- I inquired as to what the house was. They told me. We looked into it. It's a house that was bought by,
- it's on a wood loan. It was bought by a property management company.
- that has been before this commission before. So they know the rules. They took out all the original
- windows. And so we have served them a notice of violation and expect to see them for this body in not
- too long. There are other issues with that that I want to talk to legal about, but I don't know that
- those necessarily have to do with this commission. So they have gone back to me.
- And sounds like they want to submit a, for a COA, which, um, I mean, the current windows don't meet
- district guidelines. So it would have to be. Reversion to something that's more like what was originally
- there. Oh, I want to make that clear though. Yeah.
- Just so we don't get a COA where it's just the finances. That's that one. That's that one. What other
- violations are there? 301 East Glandora. Oh, right. Matlock Heights. The sneaky window in the basement.
- And a Hanson and I need to decide on the lien that's going to be put on that property.
- If people remember there was an abasement window that they did not come before the commission, they
- did not respond. We haven't seen them. So this is what we know. So did, just to clarify, you said Aline,
- did we send them a notice of violation with a fine? And then it's moved on to Aline or has it been the...
- Well, if they don't pay the fine, then
- So they've been fined. It's placed as a lien on the property. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I was just
- trying to understand. It's for the non-payment of the fine. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Has the neighborhood design
- review committee chimed in on this at any point during the process? I haven't heard from them. That's
- interesting. We might be maybe paying them again just to see. Just to say, hey, this is happening. This
- is what the guidelines say. This is what we're doing. Yeah. Yeah. OK. OK.
- 702 West Kirkwood, I think some of you might have been confused as to why that was back on our schedule,
- considering that there was more than 30 days in which we weren't able to hear the petition. Well, they've
- done more work on one of those windows, so they're only just picks up the scab. And they're going to
- have to continue dealing with us because not only is the original violation not resolved,
- Um, but they don't get the automatic approval on that stuff. They did additional work with us. Exactly.
- Um, I'm going to have to deal with them about submitting an application before they do. Are we precluded
- from applying interest on paying fines? On our fines? Yeah.
- 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
- anything in the language about interest, but what there is, is that each day constitutes an additional
- fine. So you could really be finding somebody up to the maximum, which I think is 7,500 bucks, right?
- I'm, I'm not sure where it describes the maximum. Up to the maximum of whatever's allowed for a municipality.
- Okay. Um, but it's per day, right? Yeah, on a daily basis. So that would be an interest.
- 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
- controller for that. I think that's you over there. Okay. People, state bank. Despite saying to several
- people that they wouldn't, they claim that their signed contractor put up a sign on the wrong part of
- the building.
- when they told them not to, they actually reached out to me after they had put that up and then taken
- it down. I think there's two different issues. One is they had put an additional sign that was not approved
- on the west-facing facade. So they drilled more holes and done that, but they also
- We asked them not to drill holes. They drilled holes in the north-facing facade as well. The bagel sign.
- The bagel sign. The bagel people. The black marble. Yeah. Yeah. There are people who can repair those
- holes and make it look like the original surface, but what's the next step? That might be suggested
- to them. So we're going to talk to them when they come back.
- Not thrilled at the moment. No, not at all. That should have been easy. I mean, it was not rocket science,
- and it was like, just don't do this, and it'll be OK. So they did it twice. That's the problem. Yeah.
- They did it twice. So I'm like, ha ha ha. Anyway. That's that one. What else we got?
- I went over the new business that I wanted to talk about, so changes to the packets and the fact that
- we're going to be seeing this application from Cottage Grove, and I hope we're ready for it. Is there
- anything that anyone on the commission would like to add? Big things for me are getting people
- And then after we get people, I want to tackle the procedural stuff. Yeah. The procedural stuff.
- That being, having, yeah, notice of violations via separate track and also having, I think the other
- piece of this, which, you know, was in my head, but I think, I don't think I said it out loud at this
- meeting, is it seems to be a recurring issue
- that we don't have a full slate of commissioners when we need to have elections. And I would like to
- change our rules and regulations so that we don't have elections until we have a full slate. Because
- I don't think it's fair to the future members of the commission that you get some Yahoo in the chair
- that doesn't necessarily represent what they want to have happen. Which particular Yahoo are you talking about?
- The one that was just named interim chair after serving as chair for a year. As soon as this is over,
- that's no longer... It's kind of a person regime. Any closing comments? Anything else from the public?
- Question. Jack? Question, this really goes to legal. Designation by the Common Council of a building
- for historic purposes.
- Is that required by the state, fed, or whoever, that it lie with the common council? My question is,
- could that possibly, if they wanted, be designated to this commission or somewhere else if they wanted?
- Or does it just have to stay with them?
- I believe that in state law, it is the common counsel as the legislative body that has the authority
- to approve the designation. So I don't know that they can delegate it to an advisory or recommending
- body. I don't know if they would either. I don't know if they would, but I also think that would be
- a little bit of dereliction of duty if they started delegating the things that they are specifically
- responsible for to other boards of commissions. Had to ask. Yeah, sorry.
- Following from what Jack said, I was at the last council meeting where the approval was granted. And
- interestingly, I heard, I don't know what her name was, but she is the, is it chair or president of
- the head person? President. President. President. President. Was the president last year. Right. Yeah.
- Make a comment, and I'm paraphrasing here,
- I don't believe in approving something that just meets one of the criteria. In my mind, it has to meet
- at least two or three before I will vote for it. And that comment is not in keeping with the law. And
- if she didn't say anything, then nobody would know. But she said it out loud. It's in the record.
- In my opinion, that is not in order. And my question is, is there something that can be said in response
- to it? I actually had a little talk, one-on-one with Sydney, telling her how bad I felt. I still feel
- guilty that I didn't speak to when Isabel asked that question. Is there a precedent for that?
- a designation in Bloomington. And I don't know of a property in Bloomington, but I thought, when it's
- my turn, I'm going to get up there and tell her that these are federal law, right? And there are cases
- around the country. And the best case I know of for a building that
- or type of building that's designated as historic that has no architectural value, you know, which is
- what made her uncomfortable, is the cabins of enslaved peoples. But I've just come up with another example
- that's just been pointed out to me of
- temporary housing, shacks that were built in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco as temporary housing
- after the 1906 earthquake. They still exist. They were moved out of the park. But even the Japanese
- internment camps out front of the wall, there are no, they're just barracks. There are examples. And
- I would like to, somehow I think
- If she's going to be our liaison, she could be our channel for having these kinds of discussions. I
- guess my problem is I would argue that those buildings do have architectural significance. Or two army
- barracks. I mean, how architecturally significant are those?
- I'm a vernacular. Karen has the right idea. I think the whole point of having a council liaison is to
- have someone that does understand the code and understands the nuances that it can be significant for
- a reason or it can meet all of the problems and that that is a legal standard.
- But it's in the plain language. It is not and. It says or. And if you have to explain grammar to the
- city, that's her prerogative to that. If we have a good article or something about it, we could pass
- it along. Maybe we can just send it to them. Yeah, it's an educational article. I want to ask. Is it
- her plan to come to sit in the meetings for at least a portion of the meeting, do you think? I do not know.
- Councilwoman Zulik. I don't know if she'll be here for every meeting. I think she will try to be here
- as much as she's very available and very interested in this. But I do think we will have a conduit to
- her and maybe it'll be the Chair in no other meeting with her if she can't be at the meeting to make
- sure that she is up to speed on everything and so she can speak to it with a knowledge base if it were
- to come up at Council. I was going to just suggest that if she is going to sit in for a
- portion of the meeting, we could adjust the agenda perhaps to present issues to her to take it back
- to council and make it easy. Yeah, I'd be curious to ask her what the reporting out mechanism is, if
- there's a formal process where the council members actually bring information from their assigned commissions
- back to the council in any kind of format so that we could assist with that process.
- She did say she was going to try to set up meetings with everybody. Yeah, I think that's a good idea.
- But I think she'll be a great champion. Yeah, something had come up tonight where she had been intending
- to attend the entire meeting. And then there was some other event that she learned that she had to go to.
- She did say to me that she would not be able to attend every meeting. I don't think we'll see her here
- all that often, but we can reach out to her. I think so. And we can find out what works best for her
- in terms of sharing information. Yeah, exactly. But I'm glad you brought that point up, because that
- was a glaring problem, and I felt bad about not speaking up right then. I'm starting to learn.
- I probably shouldn't speak when I feel like speaking. I'm going to adjourn this meeting. Yeah, is there
- anything else? All right, nothing further? Are we adjourned?