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.