- calling to order the Thursday, February 26, 2026 meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission
- to order. Tonda, could you please call the roll? Yes. Jack Baker? Here. John Butler? Here. Ernesto Castaneda?
- Here. Melanie Duesner? Here. Karen Duffy? Here. Jeff Golden? Here. Jeremy Hacker? Here. Abby Hanson?
- Daniel Schlegel? We have quorum. Excellent.
- The minutes, do I have a motion on the minutes? I have a correction. Okay. I noticed, at least in the
- copy I had, that was a draft of the minutes. There were a couple of, in the vote, in the voting reports,
- you got that? Yeah, we made some corrections. Okay, good. That's all.
- So do you want to note them for the record at all of the corrections? Or I'm not sure. Well, the ones
- I saw were, I think they were just a copy paste. Yes. Yeah. For with Jeff. And they all were just. They
- were all. Yeah. For Jeff. Yeah. That's it. They just made them look awkward. Those were fixed. Good.
- And yeah, those were fixed a couple of days ago. OK. All right. I didn't recheck. OK, so then do I have
- a motion on the minutes?
- I'll move. OK. Do I second it? All right. John's got the second. OK. So it's been moved and seconded
- to approve the minutes of the February 12th meeting. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Karen Duffy?
- Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. The minutes are approved. All right. Next up, we have staff
- review for COA 2613. Noah? This is our one.
- Staff review COA for tonight. COA 2613 addresses 642 North Madison Street in the Showers Brothers Furniture
- Company Historic District. Petitioner is Dawn Gray. This is for the Mill Building, which is an early
- 20th century industrial building rated notable. Built in 1915, the Showers Brothers
- furniture planing mill has been substantially rehabilitated into office space. While mostly complete,
- some HVAC and engineering work is ongoing. The request submitted in this proposal is the installation
- of a heat pump on the northwest corner of the roof, which Jack can tell you all about.
- Staff approves COA 2613. The new mechanical equipment will be mounted on flat roof membrane beside other
- mechanical equipment would have a relatively negligible effect on the building's appearance and no impact
- on historic materials. That's it. That's it. Okay. Next up, we're coming up for COAs for commission
- review. For each item on the agenda, the historic preservation program manager
- We'll first present a staff report. We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional information
- about the request followed by public comment. Once public comment concludes, commissioners will be able
- to ask questions to staff, the petitioner, and the public. We ask that petitioners, the public, and
- commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed by the chair unless a question is directly addressed
- to them. Following commissioner questions, the chair will entertain a motion from a commissioner regarding
- the petition.
- Once a motion is made, we will then open up a discussion of the item for members of the commission only.
- Finally, once the commissioners have each had a chance to speak, the commission will vote on the petition.
- We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at
- all times. Noah, can you start off with COA 2607? I'm sorry, I realize this report, I did not have printed off.
- I'm just pulling it up real quick. COA 2607. This is a petition for new signage in the Courthouse Square
- Historic District on the Princess Theater building. The Princess Theater is an outstanding rated building
- in the Courthouse Square, local and national historic districts. Bloomington Restorations, Inc. has
- a facade easement on the property.
- In 2025, the new owner of the property undertook repairs to the building's terracotta facade and is
- still undergoing a replacement of, this is now complete, since this item was last presented, they now
- have new second story windows. The ground floor will be reopening for a new restaurant and the restaurateur
- is applying to install new signage over the entrance on existing mounting. Additionally, new signage
- has been installed in the
- Alcove Which I will show you Over Let's see Over some spandrels By the entrance So Just to clarify two
- items here signage
- that has been installed in the entrance alcove over, I suppose, the fan light over the entrance. And
- then new signage that is proposed to approximately the same size as the previous signage and intended
- to be mounted on existing mounts on the building that will be over this door front.
- Is the petitioner present? So this item is complicated slightly by the fact that Bloomington Restorations,
- Inc. is the holder of the historic facade easement on this property.
- Uh, so their approval is also required for exterior alterations. Um, I've put the petitioner in touch
- with Bloomington Restorations Inc. Uh, but I've not yet heard back from BRI, um, about their opinion
- on this new signage. So currently the staff recommendation is to continue COA 2607 until we receive,
- um, further feedback from BRI.
- And they're bored. OK, is that is that it? That's it. OK, all right. The petitioners online. Do you
- have any comments that you would like to make regarding your COA? So I just have to work with the BRI
- to get approval and assign installation. Is that. How I. Have to approach. That's right. So.
- I guess our lawyer could explain it a little better than me. You know, this property, it requires the
- certificate of appropriateness from us because it's located in a local historic district. This property,
- the building, prior to being locally designated, was restored with funding from this organization,
- Bloomington Respirations Inc. And in exchange, they got this facade easement that
- requires their approval prior to alterations to the exterior. So it really depends on how we're going
- to stagger out these approvals. But, you know, I think that the commission will need to get word from
- BRI, you know, about what their opinion is before we make a move. I don't know if that's your reading
- as well, Anna.
- I think that sounds like probably a pretty good order. So if you would communicate with BRI, get their
- input, and then come back to us with an application that has their support, or come and talk to NOAA
- if you've talked to them and need to do some work, I think that would be the best process to use, because
- they will have to approve the easement.
- I'm sorry that the process here is a little complicated. Okay. So let me contact them and then I guess
- go from there, right? And then let you know what's the conclusion of whatever the task is. Yes. They're
- going to offer so. Okay. Do you have any other comments or questions? No, sir. Okay. Thank you very
- much. Are there any public comment?
- in the room on this? Online? No? All right, we'll start off with questions then. Jack, do you have any
- questions about this? Well, there are two signs involved, it looks like. One is a new installation,
- is that correct? And the other was done sometime previous but is not part of this purview. Still a little
- So the timeline here is we received an application for this vinyl sign that would be mounted over the
- storefront on existing mounting from the previous business. I since learned subsequently that new signage
- had also been installed in the entry alcove here. So that would also have to be
- considered as part of this application? Okay. Any other questions, Jeff? Jeff, any questions? John?
- How long has this already been ongoing? I just don't want to keep this project in limbo forever. I just
- wondered when this was first submitted. I think February 12th was the first meeting. Yeah, for the signage. Yeah.
- No questions. Karen? No questions. Duncan? So, have both of these signs gone through planning? I believe
- so. They've both been approved by planning? Even the one that was installed? Wish we had a planner here.
- I don't know the answer to that, Duncan, but we can find out. But that matters. If they're not going
- to approve it, if it doesn't meet the city's sign standards, or we sometimes make exceptions and
- refer that back to the city and say, well, we think this is OK, even though it violates your normal
- rules. But it's important for me, anyway, that both of these have at least been applied for at the city
- so that there's an awareness. Because we have this order of business that also involves the deed covenant,
- the easement.
- We don't want to postpone it again because the owner has a contact to the city or. I know that they've
- both been applied for with the planning department. I don't know what the status is right now. Because
- initially we just got a petition for the facade side. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah, their application,
- I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that, you know,
- learning about this second sign about the time that I did and so subsequently the petitioner applied
- for this sign with them as well. Okay, so and I think I'm right that the BRI approval would take precedence
- since it's a deed restriction. In other words, no matter what we do, if BRI doesn't approve it, it's
- not going to happen. So what we're saying to the owner is
- their approval has to be confirmed before we're gonna hear it again. Is that right? Yeah. Does they
- meet once a month and? Should be Tuesday. Should be, yeah, next week. Is that right, next week? It should
- be. Okay. Okay, so that keeps it in the timeline. My question, Noah, is for you, just a clarifying question.
- If this comes back,
- The COA would need to include information for the sign on the facade and the sign that is in this alcove.
- Right. With plans and renderings for both of those things. Correct. Yeah. OK. Which I've since received
- for both. OK. I just want to make sure we're getting both of those things. OK. Any other questions.
- All right. At this point I'll entertain a motion on this.
- continuation until such times we have information from city planning and VRI. Okay is there a second?
- Second. All right Jeff Scott second. All right discussion Jack any comments you'd like to add? No. Jeff?
- No. John? No. Karen? No. Duncan? I don't have any
- Well, I guess I just look forward to seeing a full COA with information on both of the signs coming
- back to us, hopefully with approval from planning and BRI. So, all right, with the comments completed,
- let's go ahead and call the roll. All right. And this is on the motion to continue COA 26-07. John Butler?
- Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. John Butler?
- Sorry, Jack Baker. My apologies. Anyway, so that motion to continue passes with a 5-0 vote. Thank you
- very much. All right. Next up, we have COA 2611. The petitioner is Oscar Sibbindi. Is the petitioner
- or representative here? Someone online?
- Okay, so this will bump to the end of the agenda. All right, next up then we have COA 2612. Kevin Potter
- is the petitioner. Is the petitioner here or a representative? Kevin Potter. Kevin Potter? All right,
- thank you very much. All right, Noah, go ahead. Okay, so I'll get started. 618 West Howe Street is a
- severely altered 1925 gable front one-story bungalow with a side entrance opening onto a wood deck.
- And there's also an added rear addition built on a 0.08 acre lot. The applicants are seeking to have
- living space without running over maximum impervious surface coverage. The request has submitted in
- accordance with the hand application for certificate of appropriateness where you're submitting the
- statement regarding the proposed remodel and addition of our home at 618 West House Street. The existing
- residence is 18 feet by 61 feet in area.
- Front length is 39, sorry, the front 39-foot length of the home is a one-story wood-framed structure
- with a steep gable roof facing the front. The loft has been built into the attic above the north 19-foot
- area of the front section. The rear 22-foot length of the home has a sloped, low-sloped shed-type roof
- with the interior ceiling also sloped along the bottom side of its rafters.
- The area has substandard ceiling lengths with only six foot height at the top of the steps. The rear
- 10 foot area steps down about 15 inches lower than the remainder of the floor of the home. Our proposed
- plan would raise the walls of the rear section in order to provide a standard eight foot ceiling height
- throughout. We would also raise the floor level in the rear 10 foot section to match the floor level
- of the rest of the house.
- The proposed roof would also have a shed type roof parallel with the existing roof. Since the rear shed
- section is entirely within the 25 foot setback, we've applied to the BZA for the required variance for
- the proposed work. The proposed plan would also add two bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor.
- The east bedroom would be located above the existing kitchen and the front bedroom would require removal
- of the existing loft area.
- The west bedroom and bathroom would be located over the west side yard and would be open underneath
- and would be supported by two limestone clad columns under the west wall. The access stairs would be
- built along the west wall of the existing house. The roofs for the second story section would have a
- roof slope matching the existing front facing gable roof.
- Gables would be located on the east and west sides of the second story addition with a parapet condition
- matching the existing parapet on the front of the lower level. Windows would be placed in the top of
- both second story gable ends in order to match the existing upper window on the front gable. Their model
- would also include the removal of stairs and walls between the living room and kitchen.
- A large island with its sink and bar type stools will be built between the living room and the kitchen.
- The proposed exterior siding for the second story addition and for the raised exterior walls in the
- rear section will be vinyl siding matching the existing beige colored vinyl siding. Architectural style
- shingles, sorry, architectural type shingles would be installed on all proposed and remaining roof surfaces.
- Since we live in South Bend, we've engaged Kevin Potter with Potter Engineering to be a representative
- for this project. So I want to run through the remaining images. This is going to be the best indication
- here of what's visible from the front, which is a primary street-facing facade. The south elevation.
- Yeah, the south elevation.
- Um, currently there's a fence as I will show you. This is what the South elevation looks like now, uh,
- facing Northeast. So the second story edition would jut out sort of over the midsection here.
- staff recommends approval of COA 2612. You'll find, if you look in your meeting packets, two sets of
- plans, original and revised. The original plans include relevant information about the floor plan and
- site plan, while the revised plan includes a revised design that brings down the proposed roof line.
- After an initial consultation with hand staff and with the Creator Prospect Hill design review committee,
- the full two-story height of the original design was brought down in order to bring the roofline closer
- to that of the neighboring buildings. From the public way, the added cross-gable roofline would be similar
- to some of those found on neighboring buildings. While the neighboring buildings are approximately 20
- feet in height, both staff and the Greater Prospect Hill Design Review Committee agree that the height
- difference between the revised design and the neighboring buildings
- would not be overly conspicuous. The large cantilever on the west side of the house over the patio would
- be an unusual feature, but is not out of scale with the house. The original house was altered decades
- ago to the point where its original appearance has become unrecognizable. Was that it? Yes. All right.
- Mr. Potter, do you want to add anything to the conversation? One correction, it said that
- We were trying to do a design to not exceed the allowable impervious area, but we were not able to do
- that. Actually, the existing conditions exceed the allowable impervious area. So we're going to be heard
- at March 26 at BZA to try to get approval for an impervious area that's a little bit above the 45% allowed.
- Any other comments you'd like to add? No. No? Okay. That's fine. Are there any public comments about
- this either online or in the room? I will say that I heard from four members of the Greater Prospect
- Hill Historic District Design Review Committee. At first it was comments on the first design submitted
- which added a full height second story. That was the primary objection.
- with their revised designs. I heard back from several members of the committee who said that they had
- no objections to what was being proposed. Okay. Thank you, Noah. All right. Hearing no other public
- comments, we'll go to Commissioner Questions. Jack, do you have any questions? No. Okay. Jeff? No questions.
- No questions. John, any questions? No. Okay. Karen?
- I have a question. It's probably in here, but I had trouble reading it. What is the height on the revised
- building now, the revised design? The report says it's around the same height as the others,
- which is 20, but I don't know the exact measurement. It says approximately.
- I thought I read that it was higher, but. He said while the neighboring buildings. It's going to be
- a little higher. Let's see. It's a little higher. How much higher is my question? Are we talking two
- feet? Do you know the number off the top of your head, Mr. Potter? It's about 21 feet. Oh, OK.
- And from the. OK. From the staff report, they noted the other buildings are approximately 20 feet. I
- remember that. OK. Yeah. So it's. Yeah.
- One foot. That's fine. Yeah, as they point out in the application, this house does sort of have unusually
- low ceilings. Duncan, do you have any questions? No, I don't think I do. I took a while to get through
- all of it looking at it, but no, I don't have any questions. I do not have any questions either, so
- I will entertain a motion.
- All right, we got Jeff has moved to approve it. Is there a second? I'll second that. John is the second.
- Jack, comments? Just a couple. It's an unusual design. It's a little hard to wrap your head around the
- first time when you have to really look at it from all angles. What I'm seeing and what I'm hearing
- is that it meets the requirements.
- Windows sizing placement. No one has criticized that. I won't criticize it either. Roof pitch and so
- on all seem to meet the neighborhood criteria. And the fact that no one is from the neighborhood is
- criticizing. I'll support it.
- So this house has been changed so much that we're not really protecting anything. And I have been inside
- the house. It's very interesting. So I think I'm in favor of this. And I also agree that since
- the neighborhood is in favor of it, I'm going to follow that. I agree with what Jeff and Jack Nicole said.
- It's an unusual plan. I think it's a creative plan. I appreciate that. I also really appreciate the
- fact that the neighborhood and the petitioner came together and were able to negotiate a settlement
- that everybody seems to like. So I'm also going to support this. Karen? Yes, same. Duncan? Yeah, I mean,
- I think partly because it's a non-contributing building, I wouldn't be too stringent about it.
- I think I get what the goal is, and after looking at it really carefully, I'm really okay with it. If
- you drive, if you go by the site, one thing that is really difficult about it is it's very tight. There's
- no room around it, except on the west side where they're proposing that cantilevered projection, which
- creates a kind of more kosher, I guess.
- If you didn't do that, you wouldn't have any yard or ground space. And so I sort of get why they've
- done it the way they've done it. And the house is really hampered by the back shin addition, which is
- extremely low. And it looks almost uninhabitable from the outside. So we've got a case of a real mongrel
- set of changes that have happened over probably a pretty long time, so I think this is probably
- an improvement. Okay. I would like to thank Mr. Potter for working with the neighborhood to adjust the
- design to help it better match the other houses that are there. It is non-contributing, so I'm not really
- going to be too upset about anything going on with this, so I will support it. All right, I think we're
- ready to call the vote.
- OK, so we have a motion to approve. So COA 2612. Go ahead and vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes.
- Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Motion to approve passes 5-0. Excellent. Thank
- you very much. Thanks for coming in. We want to check back with COA 2611 and see if Oscar Sabindi is
- online or representative.
- not online. Okay. So I think that will be continued to the next meeting unless there is any objection.
- I'd like to move new business to the next agenda item. We need to hear an item from Anna and she has
- another thing that she has to get to. So I'd like for her to be able to talk to us about it. Are there
- any objections to the change. All right. Go ahead please.
- Recently the City Council made some amendments to Title II, which is where the Boards and Commissions
- rules and procedures live. Mostly they were cleanup amendments, moving all of the language to one section.
- It was kind of scattered throughout Title II. So the Council Committee on Council Processes
- made recommendations and took it to the full Council and they were voted upon.
- One of the things that we're going to need to do is to bring our bylaws, which are a little bit different
- than some of the things that are now required by the code, we're going to need to bring our bylaws into
- compliance with that. And yes. You mean the rules of procedure? I mean the rules of procedure.
- Thank you. Yes, rules of procedure. We don't have bylaws. We have rules of procedure.
- So Noah and I have kind of taken a first glance through what our rules of procedure say versus what
- these new changes say. And one of the things we know we'll need to change is that there's a different
- lineup of officer positions, but it does also allow and other positions as necessary. So we can accommodate
- the positions that we have, but we will need to also do the ones that are mandatory now in the code.
- And and there's a different vote for calling a special meeting. So it's things like that. It's just
- small little technical stuff. It's not policy issues. So what I'd like to propose is that we'll do a
- side by side or a red line of the rules of procedure so that you can see where those changes are that
- would just correspond with code and we can
- take other amendments if other people have things that they want to suggest. But we can definitely have
- a vote next time and just go ahead and vote in the code changes, the ones that are necessary just to
- comply with our code. And then whatever the body or the chair would like to do with any kind of additional
- discussion that you'd like to have, we could kind of work on that as a second step. Thank you. Yeah,
- I think it would be interesting to take this opportunity for everybody to look at the rules and procedures.
- Make sure you're familiar with them.
- and see if there's anything that any other things that we might need to tweak. So maybe when you come
- to that next meeting, have some ideas for discussion, it sounds like at least as of now, we don't have
- a ton of COAs maybe for the next one. So it might be a good meeting to have a discussion about the rules
- and procedures document and anything else that we might need to tweak. Right. I really only identified
- maybe three or four points where we
- might have to amend our rules and procedures. Other than that, there are requirements that we may want
- to add for clarity. One of the most, I guess, interesting bits is the requirement of a couple of new
- officer positions, including secretary and treasurer. The HBC itself doesn't really control any purse strings.
- We do have some grants we administer, but it's hand money. So that's probably going to be a pro forma
- position if somebody wants it for their resume. And secretary position, that currently consists of work
- that Tonda is doing. So that's probably going to have to be a conversation within the hand department.
- So that currently involves hand city personnel. So that's stuff that we're going to have to figure out
- before we get back to you.
- In two weeks. Well, and from what I understand from that secretary position, we can elect somebody who
- is not on the commission to serve in that role. So we could conceivably elect Honda as a secretary.
- So. Are there any questions about any of this? I'll go around to Jack. Do you have any questions about
- that? Couple of comments. I did ask.
- recently, are we operating under Robert's Rules of Order? We seem to have been transitioned over over
- the last year to Robert's Rules. I personally think it's a great thing to have done. And this suggests,
- yes, we definitely are operating under Robert's Rules. I had to ask about those who are consistently
- absent from
- the commission and how we can handle them. Other commissions have done certain things. It's here. There
- is a procedure. I don't know whether it's a requirement or it's up to the commission to carry through.
- This doesn't say, it implies you can do something, but I don't know if it really is saying you must
- do something.
- Well, the attendance requirement is in the code. And so it's three consecutive meetings or four meetings
- over the course of a 12-month period. And that and moving out of the city are kind of the two things
- that you actually work at your position if you need either of those criteria. So there is an opportunity
- if somebody wants to explain some extenuating circumstances. And I think that would probably be the
- city clerk that would then
- make that determination because the deputy clerk is actually over all of our boards and commissions
- she's been identified as the person at the city that oversees everything so we'd have to figure out
- what that process is if somebody were to consider extenuating circumstances but it also says that that
- means that then you're on notice that it happens again that's it so um so that is a kind of a hard and
- fast i don't know how tight everybody's been with reporting that but we
- also worked on a new code of conduct and it really just repeats these same things. Like I understand
- that I have attendance requirements and that if I miss this many meetings that I forfeit my position.
- I understand I must live in the city. It basically just goes through and puts on one piece of paper
- what everybody is agreeing to but wasn't necessarily presented to everyone as your agreement as an appointed
- commissioner.
- And I think people will sign that at some point, right? Yes. So we will be doing some training with
- the clerk's office where all of our board and commission appointees will have an opportunity to get
- trained to go over all of these things and see that code of conduct, which does serve as an affidavit.
- So you would sign that and say, yes, I understand that this is what I'm being held to. And in that way,
- there's no misunderstanding. Nobody feels like they weren't told.
- And the city clerk also has a record of the fact that somebody's received a training and signed that
- document and agreed to those criteria in terms of service. So some of the other things that are in that
- are things that you all already follow, like conflict of interest, recusing oneself if you've got a
- financial interest, or even the appearance of
- you know, as a special interest or a conflict. So we really tried to just stay high level at what's
- required by state law and by local code. And then did use some of Robert's rules language about,
- you know, decorum and treating people properly and respecting the chair and that kind of thing just
- to make sure that everyone was clear on kind of the rules of the road for meeting procedure. Jeff, questions
- around this?
- Melody, I know you just walked in. Aside from feeling a little under scrutiny, probably. Karen? No questions.
- Duncan, anything right now? No, so this is, so the four, it's four per year, okay. Yes. Okay. No, I
- don't think I have any questions or anything like that. I suppose we should open this up, see if, does
- the public,
- have any comments or anything regarding this. I would have been really surprised if somebody did. But
- that's OK. So I guess next steps, we'll look for the next meeting, a redlined version of the changes
- to our rules and procedures document to make sure it aligns with this. We'll be able to review it.
- And take a vote on it. And then I would encourage folks to just look at the rules and procedures anyway.
- You should be somewhat familiar with them. But if there's anything in there where you think maybe it
- needs a tweak or an edit or something along those lines, I'd encourage you to bring those ideas to the
- meeting and we can have a discussion about that then. And if we need to have it continue over a couple
- of meetings, I'm totally okay with that. Sound good?
- Notebook sort of authoritative notebook that we gave to all the new members and we still do that. Yeah,
- and is there any Opportunity to for those members new members to train or well that's part of what the
- training is for as to Is to identify for each Commission so some of its general right things that apply
- to every board and Commission are
- like residency and attendance. Those are the two that are kind of the easiest. And then some things
- are specific to your board or commission. So there would be kind of two pieces. One is everybody goes
- to the general one together. And then we would do like maybe a part of a meeting where we would go over
- the things that are specific to this board and where the resources are, where the state code is that
- your statutory authority comes from, where maybe where you can find the secretary's standards, the interior
- standards.
- you know what I'm talking about, the federal stuff, and all of our rules of procedure as well so that
- people know where to find those documents. So is that current? That's what used to be in the notebook.
- Yes. And that's currently in that copy of the ordinance. I don't know. I'm going to have to check and
- see if there's any changes we'll have to make to that notebook.
- It was just for orientation, basically. Yeah. No, I think that's a good idea. I don't know. I'm kind
- of a hard copy person. I like my stuff in a notebook. I find it easier to use for reference. Exactly.
- But yes, those are the exact kind of things. So we want to make sure that all the appointees know where
- to find those things for their board or their commission because it just seems like sometimes people
- don't have access to all of that kind of the first few meetings. You kind of learn it as you go along.
- So. Years ago we did a series of educational, I think we probably did them on tape, but we actually
- taped them in a meeting, a special meeting that we scheduled. We did one on what the national register
- is and what it means and how it applies to local designations. I can't remember, we did two or three
- of them. They're probably in Noah's office. Nancy Houston guided that process. I think I did one on
- takings law or something like that. And they were, they're basically training, they're meant to train
- commissioners. And so I think we had a way of making those available if anybody wanted, if they could
- watch them in their own time as opposed to doing it all together. But I'm just saying we have these
- educational sort of background things that go beyond the immediate considerations of CMA evaluation.
- Those would be good to have, because when I joined, I didn't get any videos or anything. It was more
- of the, here's the procedures, here's what we're doing. They're basically a 45-minute presentation,
- so they're pretty thorough. We can see if that's something that we could have digitized and put on the
- website or updated. I don't know if they're in long-term storage. I don't know if they're specifically
- those videos.
- Yeah, anything like that too. I've got a lot of students that are getting interested in historic preservation
- because I'm doing this. And so anything that's an easy way for me to show them what we do, what the
- principles are. I mean, I've been forwarding them certain things, but maybe starting by
- you know, watching the recording of the meeting isn't the most exciting way to start. The videos,
- the videos. Yeah, there's a ton of resource at the National Park Service website. I mean, it's endless.
- It's just any question about any of what we talk about and way more. There are presentations as well
- as info, podcasts and stuff like that. Perfect. Thank you.
- All right. Well, I think we're good on this item. So thank you very much. I appreciate that. I think
- the next item under new business is violation enforcement proposal. So Noah. OK. So this is going to
- be a little bit tentative because I know and I had some stuff of her own that I think she was interested
- in adding to this or commenting. This is a discussion that I've been having with both Anna Holmes and
- Anna Gillian Hansen about
- As I mentioned in our previous meeting, establishing a more consistent system of enforcement for violations.
- So the proposal as written right now would be that once a notice of violation has been sent to the property
- owner, the property owner has 30 days in which to respond by applying for approval or correcting the
- violation. Once this period has elapsed and a retroactive certificate of appropriateness has not been accepted,
- Daily fines of no more than $2,500 are imposed until the violation has been corrected. If the fines
- are not paid and the violation is not corrected within 30 days from this point, a lien will be placed
- on the building. And this is mostly drawing from Title 8, Chapter 16 of the Bloomington Code of Ordinances.
- One thing that Anna Hansen mentioned that we might want to consider if we decide to take up
- Adding anything related to this to our rules and procedures is that there might be circumstances in
- which somebody takes steps to comply, but materials may not be available within 30 days, in which case
- we might want to consider how that's going to work out, say if they have to custom order something.
- Is there anything else that you would like to add at this point?
- No, we had a brief conversation with Anna Killian about how this would work and kind of flow into hands
- larger enforcement process so that it's not just historic preservation enforcement it's actually part
- of the city's enforcement process. So I think that's another piece which is just on our end of the mechanics of that.
- But yeah, looking at state law, because there's some language in state law about no less than 10 days,
- no more than 60 days to correct deficiencies. So we'd want to come up with something that was attainable
- for people. And I think we've had the conversation before in this group that you don't want to hit people
- with fines so high that they're unable to do the work, because the goal is to get the work done right
- and to get it done correctly and go through the process. So I think finding that balance of what is
- enough to make people
- Comply, it's not just the cost of doing business, it's actually a fine that hurts a little bit, but
- doesn't prevent you from actually doing what you need to do. But the materials issue, we hadn't thought
- about until Anna brought that up, that there may be some legitimate reasons why people can't meet some
- of those deadlines. And so we were kind of talking through, so then what do you take as evidence of
- progress? Because we've had that situation before too, where someone says, oh yeah,
- I'm going to order it. Oh, yeah, I'm going to do this. And months go by, and kind of nothing happens.
- So I think that's probably something that you all will want to talk about, is what that process would
- be if somebody could not reach a conclusion within the allotted period of time. So I think- Should we
- talk about concluding the project? Because we give two years for a CFA, don't we?
- I mean, that's the idea. So if that's a new C of A, it becomes a new C of A. I'm sorry.
- Sorry. You just lost your job. Building this new packet layout around that robot voice. I'm glad it's
- working. So I mean, I'm not suggesting we solve this problem right now, but normally that
- Once the violation is resolved, it creates a new C of A. And then under normal procedure, they would
- have two years to complete the project. Right. I think we're talking about in the instance where someone
- does not come back in with the COA and leaves the violation uncorrected and hasn't put in an application
- for a retroactive COA. So there's a continuing violation without a pending application for you all to consider.
- when you start throwing the money. Exactly. We're trying to be a little bit more sort of here is the
- full procedure for how this is going to work out and be clear about it. Did you have something you wanted
- to add? I was going to say one of the difficulties is if you've ever been fined by the city before,
- and I hope you haven't, usually those payments are made through a system called EPL, which is one of
- our, it's basically our permitting software.
- And very little right now of what I do goes through EPL besides basically as a reference and something
- that goes through the planning department. So this system would also become less complicated. We get
- it integrated with the rest of the city permitting system. So
- So in these under these rules, I don't think there's anything about adjudication in the ordinances there.
- In other words, who decides if the penalty is going to like normally we've reverted to legal and they've
- made that decision, which I haven't agreed with all the time. But but I don't remember in the ordinance
- if there's actually any.
- wordage for us adjudicating these issues. Right, there's not. I mean, the language does specifically
- say that it would be referred to the director of hand and then legal would make the determination on
- the fines. So I think, you know, we will probably need to have a full discussion about what you guys
- would like to see. And then we'll decide what goes in your in your rules and procedures and what becomes
- just sort of this is the guidelines. And then Margie and the legal office to use that as as they determine.
- you know, what fines to assess. Exactly. Exactly. So I wanted to bring this up because I know last that
- the last meeting we had that case in Elm Heights with the windows and I know we're supposed to be making
- substantive decisions based on whether we accept the windows that they put in, whether they were done
- without permission or not versus what the such a safer
- purpose of discussion following the secretary's standards. And that sort of seems like the limit of
- our decision making, the basis for our decision making. On the other hand, when you have a violation
- linked with not doing the right thing, it seems like we're also, we are adjudicating in our decision
- to decide whether to deny or permit. And so for my part, sometimes that's based on how
- how bad a violation I think it is. We've had violations where the same person's been called in for the
- third time. And so I've never been clear in the ordinance exactly what are we voting on in that case?
- If you're voting for whether or not this person's committed a crime, that's actually not our purview.
- Right. Well, like we talked about last week, I think when somebody brings a case,
- The job of this body is to look at the standards that are set by the design committee of the neighborhood
- and to determine whether that application meets those standards. And I agree, Duncan. It's very hard
- to divorce that sometimes from somebody that you've seen repeatedly doing the same things. I mean, it
- does get really frustrating for this body to not be able to say, gosh, this is the seventh time we've
- seen you this year.
- But really, in order to be the objective historic preservation experts that you are, the standard is
- what you want to base your decisions on. Do we have other sort of comments or questions? Jack, do you
- have anything you want to add on this? No. Jeff, John, Melody, Karen, Duncan anymore? No, I still think
- that's an issue, a problem. But sometimes I
- I don't want to beat this to death, but sometimes if you see a violation and somebody comes in sort
- of hangdog like, oh well, if I'd known, but they still didn't do the right thing, it's very hard to
- trust their response. And I guess I feel like there ought to be some punishment for breaking the rules.
- and trying to act like you didn't know. But without going to court, how are you ever going to decide
- that? And even then, how could you? I think that's right. So really, the tools you have are denial or
- continuation until they come back with something that's correct, or enforcement through giving them
- notice of violation and actually following up with fines, and then going to the lien status. Those are
- the tools that are available to you all. And that's why I kind of like this is
- It'll help, I think, solidify some of this stuff, make it less murky of where we're going to go with
- some of this. A comment I had on this particular draft of things, I think it needs to have a more active
- voice in saying who is exactly doing what. It's a little bit too passive right now, like things are
- happening, but it's not saying who is doing these things. And so I think we need to make sure for each
- one of these, you know, it says once a notice of violation,
- has been sent, okay, who's sending the notice of violation? So it's going through and making sure we're
- hitting that on each and every single one of them, because if this is going to be like a roadmap and
- this is how we're handling it, we need to be absolutely clear about who's doing what. And so I think
- just kind of going through the fine-tube comb on that would be really, really good. Okay, are there
- any public comments regarding this item?
- I was going to be surprised again if it was. OK, thank you very much for that. So then I think we move
- to do you have any other new business? Unfortunately, I don't see anybody new online. Well, no, he's
- not here for that. So old business. Noah, do you have any old business? I don't have any business for
- this evening. OK, next up is commissioner comments. Does anybody wish to make any comments today?
- Any additional comments. All right. Next up public comments. Are there any general public comments that
- people would like to share. No. OK. Well hearing none that brings us to the end of our agenda. So this
- meeting is adjourned.