April 10th, 2025, meeting of the Lamington Historic Preservation Commission to order. >> Call the names. >> Elizabeth Mitchell, Ernesto Castaneda, Daniel Schlabel. >> He's here. >> Okay. Sam DeSaller. >> Here. >> Reynard Cross. >> Here. >> Jeremy Hacker. >> Here. >> Melody Dusner. >> Here. >> Duncan Campbell. >> Here. >> Karen Duffy. >> Here. >> All right. Does anybody have anything? I've got one item on the minutes, and that's a comment on page -- where are we? Page 10 under public comments, where it says, I allow for public comment, which I did. But the only thing is that in order to get more in line with Robert's rules, we have moved public comments prior to the commissioner comments, because otherwise they wouldn't have any chance to say anything. So you would just strike that note or amend it to reflect that. >> Commissioner comments, I have two comments in there, and the second one that says 1980 master plan should be 1990 master plan. >> I see what the problem is. >> Yeah. >> I misrecorded it again. >> Do you have anything for the minutes, Daniel? >> No. >> I'm one of the ones who made amendments. I will move to approve the minutes with the proposed amendments. >> Sam, you made the motion? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Daniel Schlagel? >> I'll let him stay, and I wasn't here. >> Samuel Soller? >> Yes. >> Reynard Cross? >> Yes. >> Michael Baker? >> Yes. >> Jeremy Hackard? >> Yes. >> Melanie Duesner? >> Yes. >> Motion carries 5-0-1. >> All right. Before we start, you might let people know, if they're here for other cases, that there are two cases where the petitioner is not here today? >> As far as I know, two of the petitioners for agenda items, COA 2515 and 2516 have asked for these items to be continued until they can submit revised plans. >> That's both the Garden Hill ones. If the Garden Hill petitioners are not present and so they're going to be bumped to the next meeting. >> That is the last I've heard. >> I had been asked about -- Carrie had asked me about Sherry, whether she was going to attend. >> Sherry had wanted to attend but he doesn't have the revised plans yet, unfortunately. >> Sherry. >> Yeah. >> Does that mean we should go home? >> We could be entertaining. >> I put the coins in the meter and it's not recording what I'm putting in there. >> Well, I have the stuff in the packet and in the PowerPoint in case one of them does attend. So that's just the last that I heard. >> We greatly appreciate the APC's comments in the last three weeks ago, trying to make projects so much better. We appreciate that. Will there be an HPC in the future, Jack? I hope so. I empathize with your concern. >> Thank you. >> All right. Our first COA for the evening is COA 2518. This is a staff approval. The address is 515 South Hawthorne Drive in the Elm Heights Historic District. Petitioner is Kathleen Bethel. The request is for the removal of a sick, mature pin oak tree from the front yard. This 1935 colonial revival garrison house has two mature oak trees in the front yard. The northern tree has been inspected recently and several health problems have been identified that could damage the tree and surrounding buildings. Staff approve COA 2518. While the trunks of healthy oak trees can hollow with age and this tree is still sprouting foliage, the report and visual evidence presented show several factors that endanger the tree and the surrounding properties, including large dead or dying limbs, root rot, and rotting trunk cavities. Considering the risks that this tree poses to the surrounding properties and its numerous health issues, removal of the tree is an appropriate remedy. Thank you. Next item is COA 2519. This is also being handled as staff approval. This is for 523 West 7th Street in the Near West Side Historic District. The petitioners are Jennifer and Jay Kincaid. In August 2024, the Historic Preservation Commission approved COA 2428, proposing the construction of a new home on an empty lot in the Near West Side Historic District. The petitioners had indicated a desire to build fences and install solar panels, although these plans would have to wait pending further considerations. Now that the applicants are prepared to present a plan for these additions, they were returning to the HPC for review. The request is we are requesting approval to install a six foot high fence along part of the west side of the property facing Jackson Street, where a four foot fence would otherwise be the high limit. A six foot fence is already permitted and will be installed on the east side and rear side of the property. We request permission for a six foot fence to continue around the rest of the backyard in order to address several important concerns related to security, privacy, and aesthetics. First, the fence will serve as a necessary barrier to protect our vegetable garden from the local deer population, which frequently damages plants and disrupt landscaping efforts. A taller fence is essential to effectively deter them and maintain integrity of our outdoor space. Additionally, the fence will provide a practical solution for concealing trash cans from public view, ensuring a cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing streetscape that aligns with community standards. Most importantly, the six foot fence will enhance the security of our property by creating a defined boundary in the backyard that discourages trespassing, since a four foot fence would be much easier to climb over the front fence and side yard along the porch would have a shorter picket fence. So it is just the backyard that would have a more private area, enhancing safety and security. Furthermore, a property is directly across the street from the two story church property on Jackson Street, including a building with residences, as well as individuals seeking shelter on the church steps. There are often people congregating in close proximity, increasing foot traffic near our home. Without a six foot fence there is a direct line of sight into our backyard and living spaces, impacting our family's privacy. This is a unique situation in the neighborhood along a narrow street, putting more people in the immediate vicinity that would otherwise be present on a neighborhood block. Given these considerations we respectfully request approval for this installation and appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Jenny and Jake and Kate. This is the plan that's been proposed. Per district guidelines and UDO the six foot high barrier fence would be set back behind the front facade of the building. And the front yard picket fence meets the district standards of four feet in height, as well as material standards. The rooftop solar panels are located, or will be located on the rooftop close to the pitch of the roof line near the rear of the house. And here's some photo references that were sent to me of the choice of materials and designs for these two fences. Staff approved COA 2519. In the near west side fences and rooftop solar panels are generally handled as staff review. The four foot picket fence in the front of the house and six foot high vertical board privacy fence in the rear meet district guidelines and the proposed rooftop solar panels are located in an inconspicuous rear location. All right, next we'll move on to commission reviewed COAs. If anyone was here for staff review you don't need to stay for the rest of the meeting. Thank you for coming. So the first one on our agenda is going to be COA 2515. I might read the thing. Procedural statement at this point in the meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission will hear petitions for certificates of appropriateness, followed by demolition delays. For each item the Historic Preservation Program Manager will first present a staff report will then hear from the petitioner if they have any additional information followed by a round of questions from each commissioner, we asked the petitioners, the public and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed by the chair, unless a question is directly addressed to them. And if a member of the public or petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand until recognized by the chair. Upon completion of public comments, chair will entertain motions from commissioners regarding the relevant certificate of appropriateness or demolition delay. And once a motion is made by the Commissioner, the chair then opens up discussion of the item for members of the commission only chair will call for a vote once each commissioner has been given a chance to comment on the motion. And we encourage all commissioners petitioners and members of the public to be civil and respectful at all times. Thank you. Do we have anybody attending tonight for COA 2515. Online. If nobody is present for this item it'll be continued. Next item. Is anybody here tonight for COA 2516. Yeah, just to check in. How long do these have left on the on the clock. COA 2517. This is for 807 West 8th Street in the near west side historic district. The petitioner is Stephanie Downey. This is a severely altered T plan cottage built circa 1910 here is the petitioner in attendance. All right. The proposal. We plan to redo the facade of our house to more closely match what would be appropriate for the original house changes include replace vertical siding with horizontal siding install vinyl siding. The plan is since been revised to change that to smooth fiber cement siding. I understand. All right. Outside Corners J channel on front of the house. Trim out windows similar to originals around the side certain teen sorry certain teed Main Street colonial white five inch horizontal. That would not be vinyl signing at this point. Add five inch shake from royal siding and a new 1.5 square foot louvered attic vent to the gable replace the metal porch posts with six by six white turned Douglas for posts. The window and door trim replace the two front windows, one oversized still flashing windows supplied by customer dispose of old windows to match the other windows we replaced on the side of the house last summer. The porch will we be replaced with a windgate double hung 32 by 60 window, and the one not facing the porch will be replaced with a windgate double hung 72 by 60 window The house recommends approval of COA 2517 807 West 8th Street has been significantly altered. Some of the most noticeable exterior changes include the vertical siding on the street facing facade changes to windows and porch elements. The house was likely built with clabboard siding and wooden square turn post on the front porch, which were typically typical features of these turn of the century tea plant cottages. The replacement of the siding on the primary facade with horizontal fiber cement boards and the iron porch posts with turned wood meets district guidelines and are appropriate to the style of house. The shake siding proposed for the gable and attic vent also meet district guidelines and are complimentary to the house's design. The current windows on the primary facade are modern replacements and likely different size from the originals, which typically would have been tall and narrow. The proposed replacement windows, while larger than the current ones, would not entail a significant change to the house's already altered fenestration. The current window on the L is 68 inches wide and 44 inches high. And the porch facing window is 28 inches wide and 44 inches wide. That would be 72 inches by 60 inches and 32 inches by 60 inches respectively. Does the petitioner have anything to add. Commissioner questions jack questions. Jeremy. The siding. Is this also going to be the new setting, going to be installed on the best would be on the west side as well as it just along the side facing the street. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I guess I had the same question is he is the current siding on the. Side in the picture we're seeing. Deciding on the front right now is the vertical vertical we have a picture of the side. I'm going to check I think we might have one of them. We have one in the packet. Yeah, that's the great final signing. Yeah, so that that's to remain in the, and there's an equipment board on the front. Yeah, it's a four, four inch four inch vinyl side. So you're going to match that reveal on the front. Yeah, we want to like carry the same lines across. Matching like vinyl up to cement board siding. So we're gonna have to do like a five quarter inch trim board on either side with a J on the vinyl and a budding on the cement side. Great. That was my next question. Thank you. Daniel questions. Questions. Any questions, comments from the public. Thank you. Talk about the Gable. I'd love to know about the Gable. And there's a couple of clarification material. There's a couple of clarification questions I like, because on that slide that was just up there. So that's sort of the profile of your turn post. And then at the bottom it says like nine, it looks like a foot but I'm guessing it's not nine feet. Any questions on this accurate, because on the other one it says it's a six by post turn post six by six in this direction, it's nine foot tall, so eight foot from the cement to the Eve so we'll chop foot somewhere. That makes a lot more sense. Great. And I want to do like a decorative bracket like the kind of you see on the tracks those like deck brackets you know they're meant to be exposed metal. It's like real thick, and it's got sort of like a scallop shape on it. Can you. So the other question I had was, and forgive me I know I might have mentioned it. It says Cyprus vinyl shake on the photographs but I heard some mention of, is that also still going to be vinyl, or is that going to be a fiber cement. We'd like to use vinyl for that, because it's way more cost effective. You know like doing the Cyprus is sort of like just like the style the name of the thing that the deciding company makes. It's not like actual Cyprus would right. I think. Having heard questions I can entertain a motion. And we approve COA 2517. Second. Second. Comments. Jack. I agree with the stats staff assessment. I just want to compliment you guys for working on this house and trying to make it. And working with a look like the local committee as well to get their feedback. I'm just excited as well I think this is going to look great, especially turning it back closer how it's supposed to look. I think it's wonderful. I just want to add thanks to the applicants for working so nicely with and responsibly with the committee, the neighborhood design committee. They took very seriously every, every point that we made an explanation and in trying to help them. When they first came and I think the house looks great. I mean the original form is still there, which is really nice. I mean, and the alterations to that by way of window and, you know, you're, you're taking care of those getting it back to a more compatible. I would second most all you said, and thank you for bringing it much closer to the way it was probably meant to be. Thank you. I think we can, unless anybody has any other comments. We can call the vote. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. You don't have to stick around unless you really want to see next item is COA 2520. This is for 324 South Rogers Street in the Prospect Hill Historic District. The petitioners Jamie Galvin 324 South Rogers Street is a turn of the century to story free classical house designed by Bloomington architect john Nichols. In 2019 the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission approved the removal of aluminum siding and the addition of a balcony on the North Gable with the condition of staff approval prior to the removal of any decorative detail that may be found under the aluminum siding. This was COA 1948. Work proposed in COA 1948 has not yet been undertaken, and the COA expired after two years in October 2021. Work approved in an earlier 2019 application, including the addition of a shed dormer on the west elevation and several sun tubes had been completed, however, November 2024 the house was damaged in a fire causing substantial damage to the interior, as well as windows doors and siding. This proposal includes the removal of aluminum siding on the home. East and south facing Gable details will remain to rebuild and substantially, this will be replacement on the chimney on the east side of the home. Adding a balcony to the north Gable, as was previously approved in COA 1948. Replace damaged skylights previously approved, replace windows and doors to remain the same size and configuration. The windows and doors will be wood or wood clad in a replacement style to mimic the original design. Original siding will be restored when possible. The original siding will be replaced with wood board siding installed to copy the original exposed siding. Staff recommends approval of COA 2520 conditional approval with staff approval prior to removal of any decorative detail that may be found under the aluminum siding. The proposal includes the addition of a balcony that had been previously approved by the Commission. The rest of the application concerns necessary repairs, which would restore historic features damaged in the 2024 fire. Design guidelines recommending against synthetic siding refer explicitly to vinyl and aluminum siding applied over clabbered which would damage original historic materials and create a nonhistoric appearance. Historic siding details hidden under the aluminum siding may not be determined until they are revealed, but considering the urgent need to reside the house. These features may need to be addressed as they are uncovered staff review of replacement doors may be necessary to confirm the match to originals. So, a lot of these pictures were included in the last co a that was received in 2019. So, the skylights, those are already on that dormer has since been added on the rear of the house. So this balcony on the north side is not yet been added on that is been brought back in this proposal. Any comments from the petitioner. Any questions from the commissioners Jack. I understand correctly that the house is largely covered with aluminum siding now. And during the renovation, during and after the renovation that loom siding will largely remain or was the plan to replace all the loom siding during the process. The entire building. In terms of reuse of materials, is there a plan to reuse windows doors such as this progresses. The damage from the fire of the building, none of the windows, original to the building on the store hall. Prior to the fire, the windows were 90 to 98% original windows and so previous engagements with the committee resulted in adding storm windows to protect the historical nature without replacing. In this particular case, resulting from the fire, 90 95% of the windows have been destroyed due to the amount of heat. And fire that pillow from those windows. Thank you. On the balcony. Have you consulted with a structural engineer. The consultation with the structural engineer was done prior prior COA that was submitted on for the design the interior of the attic is was to be built as a living space. The majority of the framing had been construction in the building with the floor and the support walls supporting the former. The balcony was designed to go on that north side was not constructed. Due to the increased cost of lumber, as well as a injury that slowed down the construction. Thank you. You asked my question about the setting so no questions. So, from what you said that it sounds like most of are all of the windows are damaged in the fire, or I'm seeing the, well that's not the picture the picture with the shows the fire damage is just showing the front. It wasn't clear from the application. If all the windows are being replaced or, and then I noticed it said doors and I don't not sure where these are located when I when I drove by that earlier, it was, you can see all the way around the fire. The windows that are remaining on that have not been blown up from the fire have fractures in the original pain. Because of the fractures in the original pain. That window is destroyed, and the surrounding rain structure on the inside has also been destroyed and damaged from the intense heat. The original house maintained 90% of the original plaster, it was repaired in the store. And as the original plaster acted as a baking oven, which increased the heat and stress causing the windows to fail. If you look at the window on the right hand side of that picture being shown under the gable, it is largely intact. However, the majority of it that is intact or protection is a result of the storm window, not the original window of the building. I know. Any questions or comments from the public. Did you survive the fire okay. Yes, I worked across the street on the pink house. You unmute them and see if they. You're unmuted. Mr. Lewis. Yeah, I'm not sure. We can see the transcription. Just a moment here. No. Maybe if you turn on the computer for me. Oh yeah, I can try. That's just my mic though. We have a speaker in the lower right hand corner. Okay, try it now. Okay, this is Richard Lewis. We can. Yep. Okay, great. Sorry to take up much of your time, but thanks for listening this evening. I'm on the design review committee for the other historic district and have no official involvement with this historic district just want to speak out in support of my and his family and their rebuilding process. They're very confident that what they do. And this was a tremendous loss for our neighborhood community. Thank you. We have anybody else online. Okay. All right. Commissioner comments. Oh, yes, we need a motion. My bad. All right, we have a motion to second. Daniel. Comments. Well, not so much technical but sorry that all this happened. Lovely old house. I live in the next neighborhood south. It's always hard to see the house. They destroyed the fire. It's terrible. There is in repairing an old house, just being an old house. But after a fire and what I've seen here, you've got your work cut out for you to certainly hope well for you. I'm glad everybody safe, made it out okay. Wish you luck with renovating it. I support project supported to. Yeah, I'll say what I said, the first time they came through this, this is John Nichols house they're valuable in their own right. I'm really sorry the interior is damaged because about 50% of his contribution is in the interior, but I'm really glad it's being rebuilt. Okay, make sure the approval part Noah had suggested, so there's too many pages, the conditional with being able to that's a part of it correct, or do we need to make that to approve it as presented by staff. Yeah. Thank you for that clarification. So that would include. I just want to be 100% sure. So, okay. I'm really glad you restoring it like this I think it's going to look great when you're done so same. Nothing different to add. Thank you for taking it on. Yeah, I'm glad everybody's okay and later still won't work on it. Thank you. At this point, unless we have other comments from the public. OK. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Melody Duesner? Yes. Motion carries 6-0. Thank you for coming in. Good luck. All right, next item is COA 2521. This is 4702 West Kirkwood in the Near West Side Historic District. Is the petitioner here? Is the petitioner here? All right, petitioner is Simon Ladd. This is a slightly altered T-Plan cottage with a sort of a polygonal L. In 2025, the owner removed four wood-framed double-hung windows on the front-facing L and replaced them with double-hung divided light vinyl-- is it vinyl or fiberglass? I don't know. OK. Topped with transom lights. This application is for a retroactive COA, and it is in response to notice of violation 2502. New trim has not yet been installed. Doom may concern the materials used to repair the windows at 702 West Kirkwood Ave, where windows and cedar and pine wood. The measurements of the old windows are 30 by 80. The new windows are 35 and 1/2 by 65 and 1/2. The headers installed on the windows are 4 and 1/2 inches. New sills were installed. The transom lights were installed to keep the original height. The transom measurements are 30 by 14. We'll run through some photos. The windows appear from the interior. You can see what has been added between the replacement windows and the transom lights. These are original windows elsewhere in the house, as well as the newly installed windows as they appear from the exterior. Staff is conflicted on COA 2521. The two changes to consider in this case are the removal of historic materials and the changes to the configuration of the window openings. In the Near West Side Historic District, the replacement of windows and doors with the same size, configuration, and operation is generally exempt from review unless it entails the removal of a particularly significant historic materials. In this case, the previous wood windows, while likely original or at least very old, judging by their size and materials, have a fairly simple and replicable appearance. With transoms included, the new windows that have been installed come close in size to the historic windows, which still exist elsewhere in the building, and the arrangement and proportions of fenestration is not significantly altered. Transom lights are a common feature in turn of the century doors in the Near West Side, but much less typical of windows. Some unusual examples can be found on some secondary facades at 607 West Kirkwood and 514 West Kirkwood, and over some larger and more elaborate windows on other houses. In staff opinion, the main point of consideration is the extent to which the replacement window pane configuration conflicts with the surrounding buildings. Does the petitioner have anything to add? No, it's just that we had to put the-- when we replaced the windows that were there, which we decided weren't actually original to that. Like you said, we didn't have any headers above them. So we-- and then I saw those on other buildings, and I was like, I like that. Because those windows, I didn't special order them. It was actually-- most of them were rotted out in sills and everything and frames. So I've learned a lot. I've just never considered getting them from the tree festival, so it makes me happy. But now, now I know. Oh, go ahead, yeah, he helped-- I'd like to add something, too. On those windows that got removed, there were no window weights in them, no ropes. He had those zero headers up above that just hacked off, and they were just in there. The inside trim was particle board. So I will say that some of the windows were kind of dangerous, because the single panes wanted to fall out of them. Yeah, it basically fits the same holes. Very close, very close. You didn't have to take that in. You got just the frames of the window, basically. Thank you. Have we heard anything from-- There is a window on that building that does have a hatching tool. Does have a what? There is a window on that building, one of the older windows there that does have hatching on the side. So I'll remote several of these old houses, and sometimes you'll find that in a wall. This was reported to me by the Neighborhood Design Review Committee, but I haven't received comments on this item. It was one that came in last-- or the Thursday at the previous meeting. OK. Thank you. Commissioner, questions? Jack. I'd like to know what the plan for the trim is. I don't have enough data here to really make a good decision. I can't see what the plan is for trim around this. Well, so we have plans, and what I was thinking we would do is mock one up and see how you like it. Because our plan, I don't know if it'll work, because every time you try to do something in this old house, something doesn't work out the way you thought. So I hope our first plan works. I'm doing a slightly bigger trim of that last picture, right? So that trim and that signing that's on actually overlaps the old trim, right? That one's a fairly good estimate of it, right? I was thinking about maybe not doing that one, because it can't get much whiter. I was thinking maybe something a little bit whiter, and then something with a little-- I'm sorry, going like some sort of rebuild that comes out a little more like there. So like some of the houses I've seen around the neighborhood, instead of just a flat piece. [INAUDIBLE] Yes. Can you get more of your siding material? You have cement board-- Done before with that stuff, and we've made it out of wood. And painted it to match. You can do it, cool stuff to match it. Yeah, let's paint it. You could buy that. It's a non-asbestos material, but you can't buy it. OK. Well, a lot of houses in Bloomington used to be called Rancho Deluxe. I like that name. Well, we've done that to that house, actually. All right. Here's another one that might be my dad. Those are my questions from a few years ago. So yeah, that house has had a lot of remodels over here. It's very hard to tell. So it's original. Thank you. Jeremy, you have questions? No. Are transom windows typical for this design of a house? Not really. Or not in this location over, you know, just front-facing windows? Thank you. Commissioner Carlos, your questions? I want to clear as to what is being asked. Am I being asked to approve this with the transom? Is-- Well, there are examples of it in the neighborhood. I-- I-- Do you have questions? Yeah. I'm trying to-- [INTERPOSING VOICES] I-- Once we get it turned down. Sir, sir, sir, can you wait until-- The difficulty I'm having is I see the damage, but I have no idea what it's going to look like or what-- what is it that homeowners are envisioning that it will look like when it's finished? I mean, I suspect that there will be trim of some kind surrounding it and, you know, that sort of thing. But there are examples and pictures, the normal thing that I'd see in a package of this sort, maybe a manufacturer's specification or-- or I'm at a loss as to what the finished product is going to look like. We have discussed whether or not to include a proposal for a trim in this application. I thought in this case, because this was a response to the violation, that that might be putting the cart before the horse. You know, I'm assuming that when these windows were replaced, there was a vision that they had something in mind as to, when we replaced it and put this new window in and the transom in and everything's finished, what was it going to look like when it was done? But what I see here is a half-finished window replacement, and I have no idea of what it is going to look like when it's finished. I'm having difficulty approving it, you know. You want me to come back to you when you've-- see if you're happy for the questions. Yes. OK. Yeah, well, my question is, what is it going to look like? What is it? And I don't think the homeowners are prepared to answer that question. So I am obviously not prepared to approve anything. But that's a comment I'm sorry. Questions? Tom, can you have any questions? I think that's already been answered, which is basically Bernard's question. What's the final going to look like? We need to know that. David, you have questions? That one. OK. Any questions? I got-- that's a can of worms. I'm not going to-- I've got no questions. Do you have a question? Yeah, I've got another question. It's not this bottle, I hope. How long have you owned this house? How long have you owned it? Yeah. 25 years. OK, and did you know you needed a COA? I have my parents owned it. Right. But I'm just trying to get a sense of, did you know it was in a historic district? And were you aware that you need approval before taking on-- OK, can you repeat that? Did you know that some kind of approval would have been required for you? No. Well, you knew it was in a historic district. I own several houses in these districts. I've never considered getting a permit for replacing a broken damaged window. I just didn't. So like I said, I've learned some things. And that's to your comment on what's it going to look like afterwards. When I received the paperwork, it said, stop all work. So my proposal is that what I want to do is I want to trim one out and find out what works and then bring that to you. If you don't like it, I'll rip it out and do something else. Right. I think my question is, you said that you've owned homes in historic districts. And you have realized that there are protections for buildings in historic districts. We don't really go outside of the initial structure. Most of the stuff that we do is interior. We're then replacing the siding, robes, mirrors. We haven't added onto a house. Or got anything other than a building permit for many years. And that's as honest as it could be. Yeah, no, I just never, never thought about it. But now I do. So I was trying to keep it so it does kind of conform. And I only thought about the transom because I've seen it in other places. I wanted it to look good. But yeah, I mean, that's my proposal. If you guys are OK with it, I'd just like to try one out. Thank you. And try to keep it to what I see. Thank you. I will entertain a motion. I move that we do not approve COA 2521. Do I have a second? I'll second. Good. Let's talk about it. You want to-- I think you might have, in your question period, might have sort of elaborated on-- I do not know what it is that I'm approving. And until I know exactly what it's going to look like when it's finished, I think we'll be doing every one of the service by proceeding beyond this point. So I'm going to ask the question that I think addresses why Noah was talking about, like why bother with trim. Is anybody OK with this transom and double divided, six over six, double hung window in place of a tall, narrow, double hung one-one? That was originally in the opening. No, I'm not OK with it. That's why I asked about the transoms if they were-- Yeah. I mean, they're common over doors. And over windows, it's very rare. I mean, they're usually either above entry doors for light or above interior doors for ventilation. But over windows, it's very odd. I find this whole configuration very odd. And so it's-- yeah, it's a little disturbing. You have a question or comment? I just support what Renard's talking about in terms of being able to see something that we'd actually be improving. That's always important. We'd ask that for pretty much everybody, seeing a plan laid out. So I fully support what he's saying. Yeah, I mean, the petitioner is offering to mock it up. But given-- I want to get some clarity about-- I don't want to waste anybody's time. I want to get clarity about, OK, if he-- is anybody OK with these particular windows, regardless of how they are trimmed out? And so far, I'm getting no's around the table. Daniel? No, I'm just agreeing. Anybody have other commentary? I feel pretty strongly that the window-style proportions actually was removed. It should be put back. It's an architectural house. This is an important house. And retaining the original look of the house, I think, is important to come along with a modified window condition with transom over something that was not in the house ever, and is an unusual design aspect in this town, in this area. I think that's a disservice to the house. So I feel pretty strongly that if such windows design the proportions such can be done, can be ordered, made, I think that's what needs to go back. Just to clarify for the petitioner and for everybody, HPC does not have any purview over anything that goes on on the inside of the house. We don't have any say over that. But for the outside of the house, if you're making changes, you can usually replace stuff in kind. You can do repairs. If you're replacing a double-hung wood window with the same size double-hung wood window, you can do that if it's not reparable. So anything else, more or less, has to come before the commission. And this is one of those that-- I'm glad it's in front of us. I'm sort of sorry it came here at this point. I think we are at the point where we take a call to roll. OK. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. One more question. Yes, sir? If we deny this, what options does the owner have, then? Can we explain what the options are to him? Oh, yeah. So the options are-- I mean, we can sit down with you and talk about viable options. But I think what I'm hearing from a lot of people here is we would like to see a double-hung window that matches the size of the window that was removed. And I think there's going to be a negotiation. I got to look at the guidelines, but there's a negotiation about what the material of that window is. So that's kind of what we're looking for, would be my guess. And then they can reapply? Reapply. In general, there's a timeline that's decided on by the commission for-- Right, to find the right NOV. Mm-hmm. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So we got to go around and vote on this thing. And the motion out there is to deny. So yes means-- yes means no. Yes means deny. OK. All right, Daniel Schlegel. Yes. Sam DeSaller. Yes. Reynard Cross. Yes. Jack Baker. Yes. Jeremy Hacker. Yes. Melody Duesner. Yes. Motion to deny carries 6-0. We're happy to sit down with you and talk through options. Thanks for coming in. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I wasn't. We got it. Next item, COA 2522. This is for 510 West Allen Street in the McDowell Historic District. Is the petitioner here? Yes. Great. OK. The primary structure on the lot is a slightly altered 1926 bungalow. The proposal includes alterations for a non-contributing garage at the rear of the lot. The garage for which alterations are proposed is a non-contributing garage located in the rear of the lot. The east gable side of the garage door faces an alley beside the Hoosier Heights climbing gym. The request is for a second story addition on the garage. No changes to the exterior garage footprint. Outside of the exterior, stairs to the second story entrance are proposed. Existing footprint is 14 feet by 22 feet. Exterior stair and landing footprint is 7.5 feet by 12 feet. The foundation and existing structure, we will underpin the existing foundation with additional concrete footings. We will also sheer up the existing structure to address some additional load. Exterior aluminum siding will be removed. The shingle roof will be removed. Gas and water to be brought to the garage from the house. Structural interior will be finished as a studio to serve as additional living and working space for the home's occupants, furnished gravel parking spot next to the existing paved driveway, proven dogwood tree inside backyard fence, move fence, and fence gate profile to accommodate gravel parking spot. The exterior will include 4-inch lap fiber cement siding to match the house's wood siding, resided in 2022, oral composite trim to match the house's freeze boards, drip caps, windows, and door trim to match the house, architectural roof shingles to match the house. Hello windows, wood interior, cloud exterior will be double-hung on both sides, sorry, double-hung on the south side to match the house windows. Two casement windows on east and west facing sides to maximize light and airflow. A second door, second floor entry door. Originally, two doors on the front of the house, one was entering the living room, the other entering the front bedroom. The latter was removed many years ago and placed in the basement. It is a three-panel door on the bottom with one large window light on top. I am planning to use it for the second story entry on the garage. Construction, lumber frame, framing, trusses, sheathing, created lumber for exterior stairs and porch landing, proxel-type insulation, guard rail will be 37 inches high, new garage door to replace the existing dented garage door, poured concrete footings, interior outside of our purview. These are the drawings that I received, as well as a model proposed design for the second floor layout. And an example of the type of stairs that are being proposed now, as well as the replacement garage door that's being proposed. Staff recommends approval of COA 2522 If the garage at 510 West Allen were built to a height of 21 feet, it would be minimally visible from the street and likely not visible from directly in front of the house, although it would be visible from the connecting alleyway. Although district guidelines encourage that roof lines on accessory buildings match the pitch of the primary structure, here a gambrel roof may work to the design's advantage by lowering the visible profile of the new construction. The McDowell District guidelines encourage flexibility. In considering the limited scale and visibility of this project, as well as efforts to relate the proposed new construction to the primary structure, in staff opinion, this proposal should be reviewed flexibly. While the written description and materials provided give a clear indication of the exterior materials to be used, the elevation drawings may need some clarification of details that are not visually indicated. It should be noted that planning and building code considerations, including side setbacks and fire code, may necessitate easements or revisions to this plan. Revisions would have to be brought to the Historic Preservation Commission for amendments to be approved to this plan. Does the petitioner have anything she'd like to add? I'd just like to say that I think you said that the house was clad in cement board siding. I actually restored the lap siding that was there. And so the house is wood. And there is no wood underneath the aluminum siding. So this would have to be cement board. Also, I am trying to relate it to the house. I do recognize that the roof line is-- I find it challenging, because I'd like to have a roof line that emulates the house. But I am trying to keep the profile low. And there are several examples of amble roofs in the neighborhood. Thank you. Do we have anything from the Neighborhood Design Review Committee? Yes. We are next door to her. So we would be most affected by what she's wanting to do. Also, we share a sewer line hookup. So again, we would be affected most about this. The fact that this is going to be like a limited access, meaning maybe one person, maybe two people, would possibly be living there and not full time would really affect it as far as we're concerned. But most of all, I mean, her house is very small. It's smaller than ours, which is right next door. So this would give her extra room and the flexibility of her guests to stay in a place and be comfortable. And I see no problem. And actually, Karen has been very good because before she started this, she talked to a structural engineer about this because adding a second story and making a living quarter, she wanted to make sure it's safe for the residents there. And so she's addressing the foundation issues as well, which I think is very good. So we definitely approve it. And we see no problem with it. We see no problem with the roof line because if anyone is taller than four feet tall, if you have a pitched roof, they'll be hitting their heads except for in the center of it. So the gable works better for her. And I will also say that I have been in touch with planning, somebody from planning, and I'll meet with them about the variance that I will need on the alley side and on the side that I share with the ashes. And then I did speak with the structural engineer at the beginning. And I've also been in touch with the utilities people to consult about the sewer, because we do-- our sewers intersect before they go into the city sewer. Thank you. Thank you. And we in McDowell are preservation light to an extreme. We actually got some protests. But if we approved the rope room for Hooters Heights Climbing Facility, the big, ugly building, yeah, we're pretty permissive. And we're eager to see Karen get whatever she wants. Thank you. Questions? I'll start with Karen this time. Sorry. I don't have any questions. Thank you. Dan, you have a question? I think it's covered everything. Something? So is this now an ADU? Not now. It's a garage now. But I think you're applying what I'm hearing is. Application for use. My interest is to expand my living space and opportunity for, I guess, to stay there. My second bedroom is used entirely as my art studio. So I don't have another place. But legally, yeah, the ADU. So I guess that's not our purview. But I'm just wondering if that's permissible here. I mean, as long as she does the deed restriction, it's totally doable. And as far as planning, I mean, that's a planning question. So that's a conversation that she's going to have to have. Oh, do you have questions? No. No more questions? Jeremy, Jack, a couple. Have you had-- I'm getting simulances here that you've had some conversation about the project. Have you run into any roadblocks on this yet in terms of zoning setbacks and such? Or does it look like you have a straight go ahead and-- Oh, no. I spoke with Eric Rulick of planning. And I will need variances to apply to the setbacks for the alley. And on the side of my neighbors, the ashes, we need five-- he said that as a single story structure built in 1960s, this is what it is. But if I build up, I will need to apply those codes for setbacks. And this building does not meet the standard. So it will need to have variances for that. And I may need a variance for the fire code as well. Thank you. We talked about the height of the building needing to be really no taller than the existing peak of the house. It's a single story house with a peak of what? With a peak is 18 feet. 18 feet. And this is 21, roughly? And that's, according to the neighborhood rules, were within reason? Well, part of my rationale for suggesting approval is you'll see this house is on a slightly higher elevation behind a retaining wall. So having a roof line that's slightly taller will probably not be visible from most angles on the street. You would notice it if you're in the alleyway. And going back to the roof line issue, I think this is a particular case in which going for a gambrel roof line instead of a gabled one that matches the house's design. That creates sort of a lower profile for the roof additionally. That-- yeah. Good. Thank you. It's way behind the house. Also, yeah, this is pretty far back. Yeah. There's, right, some pictures of the lot on the back of it. You've answered me well enough. Thank you. OK. We don't have any questions. Thank you. I think we're-- anything from the public? No. Anything from the public? All right. I can entertain a motion. I'll move for approval. COA 25-22. Yeah. [INAUDIBLE] Gary. [INAUDIBLE] All right. Comments? Comments? Gary? I agree that the unusual shape of the gamble roof is a good trade-off for the height. I don't know that you'd see it on the street when I went there. It took me a while to even find the alley and back there. Who's going to know unless they stumble across it? Daniel? No, mine was about that, but Noah addressed that earlier, so I'm all good. Melody? No. No? I'm good with it. Karen? Just laying a little groundwork with questions. I live in the neighborhood, obviously, and I looked at the square footage of this. It's 307 square feet, which is small compared to the houses we talked about, 1,500 square feet. Seems to fit the guidelines. The height, I don't see that as an issue. And the visual compatibility of that gambrel roof, it bothers me a little bit, but there are probably half a dozen similar roof lines like that in the neighborhood. So in terms of the flexibility, compatibility, I think we can be flexible there. I'm a little worried for the code issues, and I hope that all goes well. But I'll work on this. Yeah, I guess my only comment would be-- well, I think McDall Gardens is a fabulous neighborhood. And glad to see you guys here. And I guess my only real comment is that if you have trouble with the variances, you will more than likely have to come back and see this again based on where it is on the site. But yeah, I think ADUs are a great solution. I think they help anchor a neighborhood and make it more resident-owned and occupied. And it's one more shield against friendly development. But not by right. I'm so pleased that she's had to come to you guys and that she'll have to go through-- you wouldn't want these just jammed in with the neighbors not having any say. Since you're an historic district, you've got to come say hi. That's not a bad thing. We're friends. You know, historically, when we've done approvals and they're headed to plan commission, which this may well be, we have sent a representative to speak in favor of the project. And so, you know, you're the chair, but we could make that available to her if she wants. I'd be happy to come chat with them if it would be of help. And we can also, as part of our motion, say that we would support a variance. We've done that in the past as well. Would a friendly amendment of supporting the variance be all right? OK. I think we're going to call the roll. OK. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. Sam DeSaller? Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Melody Duesner? Yes. Motion carries 6-0. Thanks for coming in. Thanks. And on a historic note, the house itself was built by Reverend Kai Grail, who was part of the Lincoln's history. Did he serve at the church next door? No. The one on-- Lincoln and-- No, no, you've got the wrong one. It's on Washington, near-- near Grail. OK, no problem. It was like a free Methodist church. Yeah. I hope we didn't offend anybody. [INAUDIBLE] Next item is demolition delay. We have one demo delay for tonight. DD2507 for an outbuilding at 720 South High Street. The petitioner is Leo Pilachowski, and the proposal is for full demolition of a garage and workshop. 720 South High Street is a 1930 two-story front dormer break bungalow with limestone architectural features listed as notable on the-- Does anyone need to be here for these? Not necessarily, but if there's any questions or-- Do you, sir? Anything needs to be addressed. Listed as notable on the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory for its high degree of integrity. Behind the house, parallel to East First Street, is an 864-square-foot wood frame garage and workshop with a set of doors running half its length along the east side. The building has been added to several times, including a small addition on the west end and a shed roof office addition on the north side facing away from the street. The garage retains many of its historic materials, including windows, doors, and some interior mechanical equipment. There are also structural issues, including a cracked slab foundation and decay resulting from neglect. The date of the garage's construction is uncertain, but it was likely contemporaneous with the house, which was built by stone carver Henry J.B. Andrews. Andrews served as a military engineer in World War I, suffering serious injuries. After returning to the US, he married his wife Edna and worked in a local quarry. The 1930s, Andrews went into private practice running Bloomington Monument Works out of the garage pictured. Andrews served as a grandmaster at a Masonic Lodge. His practice passed on to his son Charles in 1977. Charles Andrews also lived in the house and worked out of the garage until 1987. For most of this period, Bloomington Monument Works was one of Bloomington's primary monument dealers. The property remained in the hands of the Andrews family until 2024. The request is for full demolition. The staff recommendation is for the release of demolition delay 2507. Both the garage and the house at 720 South High Street have architectural significance and social significance for Bloomington's limestone industry. It is unfortunate that the garage and the workshop has not found a new use since Bloomington Monument Works vacated the building. The building likely can be restored, though substantial work would be required for nearly every part of the building. Without the garage, the house would still be a notable property, although this building certainly contributes to its architectural and historic social context. Does the petitioner have anything to add? No, I-- we purchased the building in December last year, mainly because of the-- we saw some of the bidders that were bidding on it and looked at their history in Bloomington, and we were pretty sure that they would apply for a demolition permit and build a-- in the past, they had built student housing. Quite frankly, had I known that second bidder, second highest bidder, who he was, I wouldn't have withdrawn my bid, because that person has done a-- seems to-- an investor from California seems to have done a decent job in Bloomington, and I think that he would have done a good job, but I didn't know who was going to do it in the neighborhood. So my wife and I own the house just south of it. It's in the new house, the red house that's there on that area, and we thought that to have some control over what happened in that lot, we'd make a purchase of that. I will tell you, I'm not in the position of doing the rehabilitation of it, of the house itself, and my plans are to-- I know what it's going to take. My plans are, if that's feasible, to have someone else purchase the house and do it. I'm not worried about that. But we wanted some control over what was going to happen so that it wouldn't be transitioned into something other than a single family house in the neighborhood. I will say that the garage is kind of a-- it's not really a garage. It's not deep. The size of the slab is not deep enough to be a garage. It's only 16 feet, essentially. So that's not really deep enough to have a-- put our cars in that, not to be done there as a garage for the house. The notable part of the construction inside is what holds up that I-beam you can see in the center. But the rest of the houses, the rest of the garage is structurally-- except for holding up that I-beam, the rest is structurally bad. And although you didn't see in the picture, the north side of the garage is pretty well bad. They let it deteriorate for the last nine years. The lady who had a lack of stake there moved out. There were some problems with the three owners deciding what to do. And so it sat there for nearly 10 years. The house and the garage pretty much with no upkeep at all. And the neighborhood has been complaining about the garage for a long time. I've got a lot of complaints since I bought it. And having a demolition permit will open up the possibilities of what to do with that garage or that outbuilding in the future. And just the same one, I think the outbuilding was built about five years before the house for a couple of different reasons. So it's in the 1920s. It's an outbuilding still. Thank you for taking the time to listen. Thank you. We have questions. Do you have any questions? Jeremy? Clarifying question. The demolition is for the garage, not the house. Right. Thank you. OK, are there any questions? Duncan? So if I heard you right, you're going to resell the house. We don't know yet. It's taken four months just for me to get the liability insurance on the house. So I haven't done a lot of stuff on it. We have inspected the house for what it takes to rehabilitate it. And it's unfortunate the house has got major problems. But we haven't decided yet on what to do with the house. And I'll be quite honest about that. I don't know what to do with the house yet. But the garage-- the outbuilding has been a problem with the neighborhood for a long time. People are worried about animals and that and whatnot. So I just want to have the option in the next year to be able to demolish the outbuilding that needs to be done. And that's why I've applied for it this time. I didn't apply to it until I had my insurance. So I knew I had the insurance on it. And I had a binder on that. But it's taken a while. OK, thank you. Questions? For something like that, are you aware of Bloomington restoration, how they would take significant windows or any other pieces? I do plan on approaching people that I've been told that want any of that house before it is done, any parts of it, including the lumber. Some of the lumber is good. Some is not. So I do plan on approaching a lot of people that would want that stuff and give them a chance to have it. That was all I had. Thank you. Thank you. No questions. Do we have any questions or comments from the public? Anybody on the line? Nope. All right. Anybody want to make a motion? I'll move to release demolition delay 2507. Second. Let's talk about it. Thoughts? OK. It's a tough one. It's a notable structure. I'm fairly new to the commission, so I'll be interested in any other comments made by commissioners tonight. I'm inclined to vote to release this building, but I hate to do that. I took a look at it. I've been past it. I made a rough estimate just in my head of what would it cost to repair versus build a new building of this type. And that answer is, like, way too much. The proportion of repair costs to new build costs, in my mind, is beyond what a contractor with anybody would want to do, just non-economic. Hate to see it go, but with no one coming forward to do something with the building, what would you do with the building there? I'm going to vote to release. Duncan, you have thoughts on this one? Well, the reason I ask what I ask is I totally understand where the petitioner is coming from, and I sympathize with the situation. But I always feel like I hate to approve demolitions when the owner is acknowledging that they're going to release the property, because maybe the next guy who buys it wants that building. I want to say, I will not demolish that building if I'm going to release the property to someone else. The demolition permit is a year. I get a year from this approval. That allows me to have the option, if I do release the building to someone-- sell the building to someone else, that they have the option of doing what it is, but they have the option without having to vote for this board again. And that's one of the reasons why I'm doing it at this time. And I will make a decision before a year is up about what we're going to do with it. And so that's to provide the most options to both for myself or for any other party. So it sounds like you're willing to sell it with the building still there. Yes, unless I get a complaint for condemnation because of the quality of it, some neighbor complains, and the city comes to me and wants to do something. Yes, my plan is to wait right now. And it's only a short time. I've waited for four months because I didn't have an insurance binder until-- I still don't have it yet, but I know I'm going to get it next week. So that's basically why. This is future news, too. Sorry? It's future news, which we have no purview over. But I know what you're saying. No, I'm just making my comment that I would be reluctant to approve this pending the possibility that somebody might want to use it. And I have my own history with this building. I used to buy limestone out of there. I knew that family. And I was familiar with another monument manufacturer in Indianapolis. I know they did business together. I've been in this building several times, but when it was active. Just one comment. It would be great if the manufacturing used was grandfathered. But it's not. It's a residential zone. It can't be brought back. So people wouldn't be able to manufacture it in Indianapolis. Well, but they could use it for their own use. That's my only hesitation. I understand. It's happened before that people come in and say, well, it might be that somebody wants to demolish it, so I'm going to get the demolition permit now. Well, let's wait and see if that person wants to demolish it. So that's my quandary. And this is one of those where we say, we designate it, or we let it go, because it's not in a district. I have no options. Yeah. Thoughts, Renard, comments? Yeah, I just have a couple of questions, and it's really just to get the facts straight in my mind. The house is notable. Is the garage also-- The way that it's surveyed, IHSSI, Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory, there's one site listing that includes both buildings. Well, that site listing-- here's where it's complicated. That site listing for the site is notable. And for a site that contains multiple structures that are surveyed, there's usually just one survey rating. But within the property card, it will say how many contributing buildings there are. So a site, as many that we see are, will be rated as contributing, but will have one non-contributing building, which might be a garage. This one is listed as having two contributing buildings. So that means that the rating of the garage would be either contributing or notable. I think, yeah, this garage has enough integrity, enough historical background that I would consider it a notable structure. OK. You said you would, or would you-- I would. I don't know if Duncan would agree. So my second question is, in your staff recommendation, it speaks to substantial work required. And that's your opinion. But for the homeowner, have you done-- have you gotten any kind of report from an engineer, architect, builder, as to what it would take to restore this building? My contractors will look at it. OK, and engineering-wise, they think what we've done. And as the other gentleman, Mr. Baker, said, the cost of rehabilitating it is substantial. Mainly because the whole foundation's why it has to be replaced. The-- it's complicated situation. So it's extremely expensive to rebuild it, OK, to making things as it was before. And most of-- many of the windows are not-- everything is repairable, OK, and they have-- especially because they're wood, and the doors are repairable. But you can see, from looking at the windows in the back there, how they've sloped downward into the middle. So you can see how the foundation has gone there. The foundation's gone in the front. So yes, I have looked at it. It is-- the real problem, and the reason I'm here, is because the neighborhood has been worried about that for a long time, with what's there, the openings, the animals, and whatnot. But mainly because I'm concerned right now that the city may ask me to-- somebody may complain about the city may come back. Another department may come back and ask me to do something with it. And I want that option in the next year so that I don't have to come back to you, and I don't have to come back to them. And that's one of the reasons I came here. Thank you. So I mean, this building, for me, is integral to the rating of the structure as notable because it was, as the petitioner noted, probably there before the house. So it was the thing that supported the family. It's how they made their living. And in some ways, part and parcel, the same thing. That said, is it notable enough as for these two buildings to landmark it? And that's where I don't think I'm willing to go. And given that, my path is fairly clear. And I would very much like to see this garage and house stay and see it get restored. But am I willing to take this to the council? I don't think I am. So we have a motion on the table? Yes, we do. Does anybody else have any commentary? All right. And would you remind us what the motion on the table is? Yes, the motion is to release the demo delay. Call the roll. Sure will. Daniel Schlabel? Yes. Sam DeSaller? Yes. Renard Cross? Yes. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Melanie Duesner? Yes. Motion to release carries 6-0. Thank you for coming in. Yeah, you need to read the thing. Today regarding the property located at 720 South High Street, 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. HPC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the Common Council. Thank you, sir. Unless we have anything we want to address in old business. Do we have any feedback from either Willow Terrace or the sidewalks or any progress on those fronts? Well, I will say there was one violation that I brought up where a couple of original screen doors had been removed from a house in the near west side. Those have since been put back. They've been painted, but that's not something we review for that district. Willow Terrace, we checked in with the regional distributor for the tile. They have not received an order. They sent out samples late last year. Just jot my memories to the issue with the tile again. Well, the issue in the first place was that it had been removed without the COA. Right, which property was it? This was for Willow Terrace apartment building on Fess. Next to the restaurant. Is that the one where they said it's going to take 10 months for the tile to come? Six. Six months? Yes. And you're telling-- but my understanding was that the tile was ordered, but it would take six months to get here. Are you saying-- They said that they had gotten an estimate for six months. So this gets a little complicated because we have given them a COA to replace the roof with this tile. And that COA gives them a discrete amount of time to deal with it. So until that time runs out-- OK. I don't see that we have recourse. OK, so keep it going. Yeah, I think that's right. We are, however, putting together a case file so that we can be sure we are documenting all of the steps that have been taken in the communication so that we'll have that track record in the file if indeed the tiles don't go up by the time the COA is expired, which hopefully they will. Thank you. So nothing further on the historic pioneer sidewalk from the city? The historic sidewalk, that's going to have to be a conversation between hand and building an engineering department to come up with plans for some options we can do with that. One of the issues there now that those stones have been moved is accessibility for people who are visually impaired, where there's the accessibility issue about being able to walk on them, which right now they're not really set where anyone can walk on them. There's that issue. There's also the issue of if they were to be moved back to where they were taken from, that would, to my understanding, be an impairment or an impediment for people who are visually impaired, might not be aware that they're coming on to pavers that are set differently. So we're going to have to come up with some other plans and present those to the commission. [INAUDIBLE] I'm not quite clear why this is a hand issue all of a sudden and not a preservation commission issue. Don't we have purview over what happens to that sidewalk? You will. You do. We do now. And so you just said, I thought that hand would give us some options. We're talking about the IU property. Yes. It's actually not subject to the Historic Preservation Commission. There's sovereignty of law. And I'm sure that you can speak to that. Unfortunately, when it's IU property, a state home, it is excluded from an HPC's purview. It was designated. It wasn't designated before they formed it. My understanding, the interpretation from the legal department is that it is exempt from your purview. Because it's owned by the university. And it is, which is state owned. So hold on, I'll find the reference. There's an ownership of a designated property eliminated from purview simply by-- It's the state likes to pass regulations, but doesn't always like to apply them to itself. And so there is language in the state code that says under the law of sovereign immunity that the state does not have to follow local ordinances and rules. And so in this instance, it's a state owned building. And they do have to comply with federal ADA and the accessibility requirements, but they don't necessarily have to follow our historic preservation requirements. And they own the sidewalk in front of their building? The person that owns the building is responsible for the sidewalk in front of their building. Well, I'm responsible for my sidewalk, too, but I don't own it. Isn't there a difference? Isn't there a difference? Is the sidewalk city owned? My understanding was that the owner of the sidewalk-- or the owner of the property was responsible for the sidewalk in front of them, even though it is a right of way. But what you're saying is ownership and responsibility are two very separate things. We can dig into it some more. I think we've been talking about it in our department, and that's what we come up to in terms of the responsibility and our ability to enforce with the university. And I think we're at the point now where we're going to try and get a resolution that may not have to do with who's responsible or who's at fault, but how we move forward to really try and make sure that we keep our history intact in a way that's a little bit more collaborative and finger-pointing. Yeah, this came up when the designation happened. It was quite a bit of discussion about who owned it. OK, I'm happy to look back into that, Duncan. Thank you for bringing that up. Saying that the university suddenly owns their sidewalk, that-- No, but the adjacent property owner, they are responsible for the maintenance of that sidewalk. And unfortunately, they received a lot of ADA complaints. So they do have a responsibility to comply with that, whereas this is a little bit of gray area. Yeah, and at that point where they were getting complaints about ADA accessibility, the HPC did offer them some options that both retained the historic sidewalk and allowed for an accessible route. So there's-- I hear what you're saying, but I also think somebody-- there was a big miscommunication somewhere. And it would be lovely if we could get that rectified in some way. End of the old business? Unless there's any further discussion of old business or violations. Some of you attended the first historic district subcommittee meeting. I don't know if you want to take it away, Sam, but-- It was actually fairly well attended. And it turned less into-- I was actually hoping that the first meeting would be like, what is the duty? What is the purpose of this subcommittee? But one of the basically understood duties of the subcommittee was to review neighborhood guideline submissions. And we spent a good chunk of the time reviewing neighborhood guideline submissions. So we kicked it back to the-- there were some additional neighbors that came to that meeting and wanted to have some more input on the guidelines. And they successfully negotiated for an extension of 90 days. And we gave them our feedback on the guidelines to date. And I think we'll be seeing those back in the summer. I think that's where we are. I think Renard, and Duncan, and Jeremy were also there. You have? Oh, and Karen, sorry, my bad. That's all right, I was late. Oh, there are a lot of people. Oh, yeah, you were gone. Sorry, because we had it at-- Daniel very kindly offered us in space. So thank you, it's a good room to have stuff in. It was a good meeting. Yeah. Good discussion with those other neighbors. I missed the beginning of it, so did they come in with a little bit of an aggressive attitude? Oh, really? No. No? OK. I thought they were very respectful, but they were-- I just wondered. They wanted to be a part of the process, and there was some mea culpa there because the process had been going on for some time, and they hadn't heard anything from them. But they're like, yeah, but can we talk? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I thought that was good. Hopefully, in the next one, we'll talk about what else we want to incorporate into those subcommittee meetings when we're not doing guideline review. Are you seeing these as like a regular-- something we should do, like quarterly, or put on a regular schedule, or just on demand, or-- right now, they are on the books for every first Thursday of the month at the Monroe County History Center at-- what time is this? 4. 4 o'clock. Every month. So if you can come, great. If you can't come, that's fine. But we're going to be having them and noticing them, because we have at least three voting commissioners probably showing up, so we've got to notice them anyway. So they will be public meetings. Good. Comments? Jeremy. Well, if we're done with this, I have a question. So the mill, the wall, that's-- could staff kind of brief us on what's going on with that? I probably should do it. OK. I'm the executive director of the RBC, and it's RBC-owned. So unfortunately, the wall's integrity is compromised. It is as much as 4 and 1/2 inches out of plumb. We're not exactly sure how that happened. It probably is a result of hurt of the remodel that took place, but we're not exactly sure. So at this point, it is unsafe for anyone to be within 20 feet of the wall. We had to take some emergency measures and put some initial shoring up, just to stabilize. Yes. And this is the south wall, south exterior wall? Yeah. And so it's adjacent to the event space. So unfortunately, that occurred. We're in the process of getting beds. We're very much aware of the fact that it needs to come through the HPC. So we prepped a COA, but we just don't know what we're asking for quite yet. So we've got a structural engineer involved. But I have a feeling we'll be seeing you very soon to discuss this. So that's all I can really say at this time, but it's something that we had to do. But this wasn't something that was apparent at building close out on the renovation project. No, it was not. It was not. And so the mortar is compromised in between the brick units. So there are loose bricks where some-- especially at the top. It is possible that the 20-foot distance required at this point may be reduced with the shoring. But we're waiting for documentation from a structural engineer to say so. But we're hoping to get this repaired as soon as possible. As part of this, I might suggest it might be worth getting said engineer to look at the rest of the building. I absolutely have already said that. We need to look at the entire structure, make sure that every building works together. We can't just put a Band-Aid on one particular repair. So yes, we are. Great. Thank you. Yeah, we're sorry that it happened. So great. Any other comments, questions? Thank you. I think one sort of procedural nugget I want to try to work out, and it has to do with most violations and subsequent certificates of appropriateness, because one of the things that we're running into on Willow Terrace is we gave them a COA. And they've now got, what, two years to complete it or squander. And in some cases, that's not a great amount of time. And in a case like the one we just saw before us, how is there a way to handle a notice of violation without a COA? Or is that appropriate? Well, there's another option for restoring the building back to how it was prior to the violation. So that's within the purview or the power of the HBCE, too. Basically, put it back the way you found it. And in the past, we've done some-- I believe we set some deadlines for some of those, like 60-day windows. OK. So I might argue that instead of issuing a COA for some of these violations, we just asked them to correct them. Like I said, there was one of the previously outstanding ones that has been restored, but that didn't come to HBCE yet. I found out later when I asked for follow-up and then drove by the joint. Any other thoughts on that one? No, I mean, what's tricky is when you don't necessarily want them to put it back the way it was, or they can't put it back the way it was. Windows, people, they go in the dumpster faster than you can breathe. It's very rare for somebody to save them, especially if they're convinced that they're no good, which is why they're supposed to come in first. I mean, that one with those windows and those transoms, that's just a tragedy. I'm sorry. And I don't have a whole lot of sympathy with the people that did it. But if we can order it, put it back, that's a load. That's replica wood windows, new replica wood windows, at the least, not to mention the labor. >> They lived in that neighborhood for 25 years, he said. So they were there through the whole process. They were there for the national register thing, if they paid any attention. Plus, they get postcards every year reminding them, you live in an historic district, be sure to contact us. >> I get mine. There are certain property owners that own quite a number of houses in historic districts and certain property management companies are acquiring a number of properties in historic districts and need to train them up. >> All right. >> Keep them accountable. >> Well, thanks all for coming in. There's nothing else. You should all adjourn. (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music)