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?