I'd like to call up on date, are we? The Thursday, June 26, 2025 meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission to order. Would you call the roll, please? Yes. Duncan Campbell. Karen Duffy. Jack Baker. Here. Jeremy Hackard. Here. Ernesto Castaneda. Here. Reynard Cross. Here. Sam DeSolar. Here. Melanie Dusner. Here. We have quorum.
 All right. I will entertain a motion about the minutes. Move to approve. Second. You call the roll. So it was motioned and second, and up to approve the minutes of the June 12th meeting. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes.
 Reynard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Minutes are approved. All right, moving on to part four certificates of appropriateness. I'll read the thing. Where's my thing? Maybe I'll just have it. I'm going to have this thing. I'm going to get there and use this thing. All right. You have the thing?
 Thank you. All right. For each item, following this, the Historic Preservation Program Manager will first present a staff report. We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional information followed by a round of questions from each commissioner. We ask that petitioners, the public, and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed by the chair unless a question is directly addressed to them. If a member of the public or a petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand
 until recognized by the chair. Once a motion is made, we will then open up the discussion of the item from members of the commission. We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at all times. COA 2534. Petitioner is Blake Rowe. The address is 228 West Kirkwood Avenue in the Courthouse Square Historic District. Is the petitioner present?
 Yes. OK, great. Currently, this is a vacant lot at 228 West Kirkwood. It was occupied by a three-story brick building in the mid to late 19th century, but appears to have been vacant since at least 1897. The adjacent building currently located on the corner used to be Smith Holden Music Store. This item has been continued from June 12 over objections about the scale of the music score.
 on a metal sign on the west facade. In the revised design, this has been scaled down. This request is for a new structure to be constructed on a long-time paved parking lot. The lot is within the Courthouse Square Historic District and is very narrow, 18 feet by 132 feet long. It is adjacent to the Smith Holden Music Building, which is listed as a contributing structure. The proposed building has received BZA approvals
 The structure will be three stories in height and it is our intent to provide a reference to the once visible music score that was located on the party wall of Smith Holden building. Materials to be used include limestone and brick masonry on the three visible facades. Patterning will mimic the expected downtown window openings with two over one openings and the Kirkwood facade will align its major elements with the Smith Holden building adjacent to it.
 The windows will be double hung Anderson 100 series with a fiber X frame. The storefront material will be dark bronze aluminum paneling. Staff recommends approval of COA 2534. The proposed design for 228 West Kirkwood references the history and architecture of the Courthouse Square historic district without establishing a false sense of historical development.
 In height and setback, it matches the adjacent contributing buildings. The use of brick and limestone as primary materials, as well as design elements referencing 19th century commercial buildings, relate the new construction to its context, while dark bronze aluminum panels and garage doors distinguish the building's age without clashing with the general aesthetic of contributing buildings. Located at the side of the Smith Holden building on the corner of Kirkwood and Morton,
 This new deconstruction would not obscure the building's primary elevation, but does cover the windowless secondary elevation. While there was a building here prior to 1897, the lot has been unoccupied ever since, leaving an exposed internal break wall. Longtime residents will remember the score to Hoagy Carmichael's Stardust, painted on the side of the Smith Holden music store. The proposed design references this with the addition of the first line of the song along the west cornice line.
 Since the petition was last presented, the scale of the notation has been diminished and clarifications have been added for the materials on the balconies. Does the petitioner have anything you'd like to add? Yeah. I'm Doug Bruce, the architect. I'm sorry I wasn't here last month. I was out of town. A few things. First.
 My mother's name was Star, and my grandparents named her because of the song Stardust. So this has particular meaning to me. Everybody that grew up in this town remembers the musical score along this wall. And so part of what we wanted to do was just kind of pay homage to that. I scaled it down a bit, if you make it any smaller than what we've got. And it's going to be like a metal or steel framework on the brick.
 It's not going to be even seen as visible as that, which has kind of a white background to it. So it will kind of disappear, but also people will kind of get a smirk on their face because of the, if you know, you know. We really kind of wanted to screen the whole building at one time with something kind of neat, but we also need egress windows. I think it's a great addition. I've never worked on a site that was only 18 feet wide.
 So there's a lot of particulars with this. We received quite a few variances from the BZA, but this is as particular as any site in Bloomington is.
 I think it'll really cover up that wall that, if you remember, the mural was taken down because the anchors were damaging the masonry wall. So this will help shore up the Smith Holden building and add windows and life to part of a facade or area of the town that really needs to complete that block. And I have a BZA meeting at 5.30, so thank you for having us first on the agenda. Thank you. Try to be quick. Questions? Jack?
 Just a clarification. Looks like the full facade I'm looking at here are facing west is all brick. Where are the metal panels? Those are at so the very top that you probably won't see from street level from that elevation the that's right there by the cursor. Those are stairs and elevators to make the roof accessible for the two units that are there. So those are up and those are back against the Smith Holden building and so
 I highly doubt that they're going to show. They're not out towards Morton Street. They're pushed back. So it's just the penthouse. That's right. That's right. And they match the metal. If you look at the facade that's there now, the Smith-Holden building had an addition added a few years ago. If you look, you can just start to see it there. There's a story added to that building that's the same panel. Thank you. Sure. Jeremy? No questions. Melody?
 No questions. Any questions from the public? How much from the public on this one? I had one question you mentioned earlier. I was happy to hear it. That the score at the top, you actually can see through that. So you're not going to see that white. That's right. I think for me, that was the only objection. I actually really, really am getting common to you. Just trying to refrain. So no more questions. Thank you.
 So I think we can open this up for a motion. I'll move to approve CLA 2534. Second? I'll second. All right. Let's discuss. Comments? Yeah, I'm happy to see that corner filled in. I think it was just waiting. And I'm glad that it's going to go to the building next door, too. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Bruce. Thanks for all these updates. It works for me.
 Yeah, the updates work for me also. I think they're a great size and scale. Molly? Work for me as well, thanks. Looks like a great building and I appreciate the score being up. Jack? I think it looks like a great project. It's about time that that area gets filled in. It's been a parking lot and been all kinds of trouble there for many, many years and difficult.
 And I don't really care how big the music score is up there, big or little. I'm happy with it either way. It's going to be a fine thing to point at. People come into town, they'll have some connection to the building, I think. I kind of want to second everything that I've heard. I think my only reservation, which wasn't much of a reservation, because I was very excited to see the score when I first saw it, was I just didn't want to see all the white up there. I think that was just a rendering issue. But I'm rather envious.
 of this project, because that looked like a really fun thing to do. And I think you all did an amazing job by giving all your psych constraints. And I'm very pleased to hear it's gone through the BZA. And I think we can get you on your way in good time here. Thank you. Should we call the roll? Are you ready for a vote? This would be a vote on COA 2534, recommended by staff.
 We'll go ahead and call roll. Voting members, Jack Baker. Yes. Jeremy Hacker. Yes. Ernesto Castaneda. Yes. Raynard Cross. Yes. Sam DeSolar. Yes. Melanie Dusner. Yes. And that motion is approved 6-0. Thank you. Thank you. If I want anything, it's that on the rendering, at least probably denote that there's not a white board behind the sign. Thank you. Congratulations.
 All right, moving on next. OK, this is COA 2537 for 924 West Kirkwood Avenue. In the near west side, an historic district. Petitioner is Adam Bowen. This is a severely altered L-planned. Is the petitioner here? Is the petitioner here? I'm here for representation. OK. And your name? Isaac Reed. Great. OK.
 924 West Kirkwood is a severely altered but nonetheless contributing L-Plan cottage. Prior alterations included the replacement of windows, doors, and a rear addition. In May 2025 work began on the replacement of porch columns and railings without approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. Work has paused pending approval of alterations and the resumption of the building permit.
 Others' requests include several parts, including the repair of the limestone porch footer. The replacement of the 32-inch wide front door with a 36-inch wide front door is located on the east side of the L there. The posts will be wrapped with smart side product. Prior, they were wrapped with non-pressure treated 1x6 and dimensionally
 and visually they will be the same with slightly different grain variation. The composite railing also matches the railing that existed prior. It's just a material change. We preferably wanted to do this with composite and smart trim because of its resilience. The deck will look as it did before, just cleaner and not deteriorating. So this is what the porch looked like prior.
 Um, this is what it looks like now, as well as what's being proposed for the, uh, new railing. Um, staff recommends continuing COA 2537 pending more information. Um, just so I can have more information to show, um, work that they're proposing to do on the house, most of it's internal. Um, so that's outside of the commission's purview.
 This is a mock-up of the door that they're proposing to add onto the front of the house. Back to the staff recommendation. Staff recommends continuing COA 2537 pending some more information. The existing door does not appear to be original and while the proposed replacement is somewhat wider and has a somewhat different design, it would not constitute a significant change in appearance or the replacement of original materials.
 The replacement of the deck boards with wood does not constitute a significant visual change and falls more into the category of maintenance. The applicant suggests repairing the porch footer, which is rough cut limestone. For the sake of clarification, repairs should consist of the use of like or same materials, which have been removed from the porch, removed for the porch alterations but still remain on the site.
 The applicant proposes that the posts and railing will match the previous design, but the post will be sided with composite siding. While this would be an acceptable proposal, the submitted designs for the porch railing has some significant design differences from the previous railing, and the designs for the posts have not been submitted. In short, the proposal as written should meet district guidelines, but further clarification is necessary for the design of the porch posts and the reconstruction of the footing. Does the petitioner have anything he'd like to add?
 Yeah, I do. So aesthetically, on the exterior, right, the deck has been there. I mean, parts of it have been there since, I think, it was 1897 or something of that nature. So I mean, it was two inches out of level. Everything was rotten. And essentially, we were just
 matching the aesthetic that existed previously repairing the structure and The post the post thing they were previously wrapped in yeah one by material which made them dimensionally one by six because they were four by fours, right and The intention is to do exactly the same thing and put the same trim package
 on the corners and tops and bottoms and keep everything the same as it is a portrait painted multiple times which we're not going to do unless it's a necessity but to just make it okay you know there it wasn't really much beyond that so we didn't I had talked I had emailed Noah months and months ago about this product and said we didn't intend to change the aesthetic but
 we were going to work on this house. And I was under the impression that we were good to go, basically, because he said as long as we're not altering the aesthetic of the front of the house, then it wasn't in the historic society's realm of decision making. But we'd really like to get the ball rolling on it because
 Adam, who's functioning as the GC on this job, it's essentially an investment for his company, BluffBog LLC. And he's going to be losing money towards college move-ins already, probably. So I don't know what we can do to push it forward or what I need to contribute.
 But I'd like to do whatever we can to expedite it. Yeah. Yeah. Questions? Ernesto? Yeah, a couple of questions. What kind of wood are you using for the railing on the front porch? I'd like it to be the composite railing. So if you look previously at the existing porch, it is the square top rail with the square bottom
 essentially what changes in the composite railing is only the dimension of the bottom and the material used. Why not replicate the new old post that is original? The post? Yeah, the new old post. Why not replicate the same dimensions and size? So I did actually submit an alteration that matches that.
 That was what the second drawing was. Is it this drawing or the second drawing? This drawing doesn't match what the original picture is. Right. That doesn't? No. A four by four is three and a half by three and a half. And those books are three and a half by three and a half. So the four by fours, I guess, don't match. All right. Yeah, no. So one more question is, well,
 My question was leading to, is it going to be painted if it was going to be like wood, no synthetic material? Yeah, well, we were going to go with white on the railing. OK. Right. Question for staff. Noah, do they have to, is it allowed to do synthetic material as opposed to what it was there before? If it's like LP, that's something like that, like composite wood, yeah, that would be acceptable.
 OK. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Any questions? One question. The COA mentions a window replacement. I didn't see that. Is it the transom? We didn't plan on doing anything to the windows, but putting new. What they had in there was these vinyl devil hungs that you can see right there. And if we needed to put it, we still have those exact same windows there, actually.
 But if we needed new windows, we were just going to match that exact window and put, there's five of them over there that are all the same exact size. Yeah, they're all vinyl devil hunks. The COA form. You know what I'm talking about? It checks. There's a little check by windows. But there's no materials pertaining to windows. I might follow up with that. We'll get there.
 I have a thought. Bernard, you have questions? Yeah, not really about the project. Are you Adam Boyd? No. No. What's your name? My name is Isaac Reed. And how are you connected with this project? Well, I was originally working on it, and then my dad was working on it. Adam is located in Indianapolis, so he's not here every day, basically. So I'm just basically a sub. And it said your work was started in?
 me about approval? Yeah, yeah. Can you speak to that? Well, it was a repair, so I guess he wasn't under the impression that we needed approval necessarily. Okay, but are you in a position to speak to these repairs when they were started? Yeah, they were started before the May 25th date that I saw up there. They were started earlier in May than that, yeah.
 Okay, and I'm just concerned as to whether the owner knew that it was a historic district and a COA was required before the repairs were started. So I told him that I had emailed Noah months ago before we ever started working on the project about it because I'm not sure who it was necessarily, but somebody referenced that it was a historic property.
 Right. Yeah. And did you receive a, well, I take it from what's written here that you did not receive a COE before the work started in May. Correct. Because when I had reached out originally, I told them that we did not plan- Reached out to who? Noah. Right. Okay. Yes. So when I reached out to Noah originally, I told him that we didn't plan to modify any of the exterior aesthetically, which still is, we were keeping the same aesthetic is what the intention is here.
 I can give a little more background as well. I think there's been sort of a series of miscommunications, one of which being we had discussed an email replacing some materials, including replacing the decking there, which generally that's outside of the purview of the commission that's more sort of replacement in kind. In terms of the railing and columns, it wasn't clear to me
 You know, you had initially said in the email that the appearance would be maintained. I think we need to make sure because the plans I'm seeing, it shows something a little different. So I just need to be clear about what's being proposed. And then the reason that it got halted at the level of planning is because there were some details in
 You know, the porch modifications that were brought up that it turned out may rise to the level of needing to be reviewed by the commission here. That just weren't clear in the application that was submitted to the planning department. So I think we need clarification basically on some of those changes. I see. So what are you specifically asking me for here?
 And I see two photos here. Are these photos? Three photos. Could you tell me what the context is or what these photos represent? Oh, sorry. This one, this one, and this one. That's three. I'm seeing three of them. OK, so the two prior ones are
 the condition that the deck was in when they bought the house, basically. What year was this? Oh, I don't really know. Estimate, 20 years, 30 years ago? Probably 20 years ago. OK. Yeah, probably 20 years ago. And they're painted in different colors. Right. So it wasn't deemed historic until after he had owned the property. So it was deemed historic right before he
 left or something he got some letter in the mail that said congratulations your house is deemed historic right and they had painted prior to that so this is what it looked like when it was designated yes yep yep and can you say how long ago that was can anybody say how long uh i i could not tell you 2000
 19 is when it passed. But 2021 is historic. So this is what it looked like four years ago? Probably, yeah. And this is what it looks like now? Correct. What happened? We tore off all the deckboards, the railing. We put posts back where they were.
 and kept everything else as is, including the roof. The footer got pulled out, but the block is still there, and it's getting replaced with the same block. Not even the new block off the yard, it's going to be patched in with the same block. It just started as a repair, and once we got into the deck, everything was rotten, essentially. OK.
 Any more questions? All right. Elodie, you have questions? Not now. Questions? Just to clarify about the block, so is the intent to put the limestone back? Yeah. That same exact limestone. Jack, you have questions? Or are you done, Jeremy? Any other questions? Jack, you have questions? Yeah. I don't feel like I've got enough information here to really make a decision on this.
 My question is, what's this porch going to look like? I don't see anything that tells me really what the overall design of the porch is. I don't see a foundation. I don't see a railing in a drawing of any kind, any sketch, at least a sketch or more to, I think, show what this looks like. My question was, too, was basically going back in place, and I think the answer is yes. Although what I see there as a,
 preliminary design on this, that's still not going to look pretty closely like the original porch foundation. There's a single, I'll call it beam, but banjoist or whatever on it. This has a double. There's not much room to get foundation under there, so I'm wondering how that's going to be handled. I still don't have a good feel for what this banister is going to look like.
 Are these posts on the quarter planning to go down and become the quarter where there's masonry on either side, or is the masonry going to join and be a continuous band of support under the ports? Those are things I just can't make a decision on right now. So I'm going to support it.
 I'm going to support staff on continuing this, because I think we need additional information before we can really decide anything. A pair of windows are not part of the concerns. I guess I'll ask you, Noah. I mean, we don't know what the original windows looked like. They got vinyl-aced. They're in placement. Say, I'm sorry, say again. They're in placement vinyl. They still got them on site.
 Right. I guess at this point, are we at all concerned about matching an original design that was removed from this house? That's my question. Yes, we have vinyl windows. Is there a concern about what the original window looked like? I mean, really, the concern would be to match the size and operation of what's there, unless there was some sort of documentation of what was there before and the petitioner wanted to take it back to that.
 I have questions about that. I don't know if it's a real issue or not. Door design, I'd like to see what the door looks like. Okay, so you can see here what's currently on, kind of. That was their picture. Right, this is the one that's being proposed as replacement. Sort of one over two panels. That's an exterior door? Yes.
 And it's a 36 inch wide door as opposed to a 32 inch standard door. It looks like a pre-case 36 inch standard door. Metal? Wood? It's metal. Oh, it's actually fiberglass. I'm sorry. Sorry. Well, those are my questions. I just feel like there are answers. OK. I've got some questions too. Noah, would you go to the
 So this is the current condition, right? Yes. So dimensionally, how much structural water are we talking about? How deep is that, those two beams that support the porch right now? Okay, so those exterior bottom boards that are there are coming off. They don't need to be there, but we were trying to close in the crawl space a little bit more.
 makes any sense. It does. So basically you're going to keep that top board and the bottom boards are going away. Yes. That's very helpful. The structure of the deck itself is two by eight. Underneath it there's an inset beam on the inside. Basically what you're going to see from the street is that top board with all the limestone masonry underneath. Correct. That's heartening. All right. So next question.
 Is it looks like that's the door in the picture that you're talking about replacing? Yeah. Into the 32 inch and it's like a six, six, eight, six, six existing. And then there's a transom above that now. Yep. So what is your plan for the window above? I mean, we were going to eliminate it, frankly. I wanted to put a door with a window in it up there for the homeowner.
 thought that it would be faster approval if we matched the door that was there, basically. Gotcha. So that's why we went with the solid door. Gotcha. So the next question I got is like, on a previously built house versus this house, you got your corner column and then the one immediately to the left looks like it goes all the way up. Is that true or is it just the way the photograph looks? It looks like it's got some white thing hanging on it. Does that one go all the way up to the beam?
 Oh, yes. And the original one, it did not. No, but to meet spam code on what is existing up there, that's what we had to do. OK. So yeah. Yeah, you are correct. For the unenlightened, could you give more information on spam code? So up there, what is up there essentially is
 would be a four by four, um, spanned over 12 feet. Right. They need more beam up there. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Why not just put more beam up there? Um, because there's not enough room with the roof line the way it is. The roof is pitched. If, if you got, if you saw the roof from the road, it's already at a two pitch. Most of the roof is already at a two.
 I apologize for horning it on your own. No, we'll get there. But I know what you're saying. We'll leave that for discussion. Yeah. Thank you, Renaud. All right. And then dimensionally, the picture on the right, or the left, my bad, my other right, you've got these, it looks like two inch by two inch vertical things about, I don't know, eight inches, six to eight inches on center.
 And you've got beefier lumber there than what you're proposing in your sketch. All of yours are two-by or four-by. Do you mean the spindles? Yeah. Oh, those are two-by-two. Those are two inches by two inches. Those aren't one-and-a-half by one-and-a-half. I can guarantee that. They are. I have them on the job site. Okay, I love that.
 I have those on the job site because we were going to match that whole trim pack. Okay. Well, okay. They're two by two. It's that, that railing was a afterwards thing that happened. Um, and they, they were like four inches on center, but I can't, I also, I have to do less than four inches on center for the building. I hear that. I hear that. Yeah. All right. Um, you have any comments or questions from the public? Anybody have a line?
 All right, I will entertain a motion on this one. I move the motion to continue this project. Do I hear a second? Second. OK, let's talk about it. With your permission, I would like to do what in my head is a summary of what I hear everybody asking for. And then if I've missed anything, and I think there are a couple of things we haven't talked about.
 Let's add those on. I think what the commission needs to see from you is an elevation of each side of the porch, showing every piece of railing, every spindle, because what you've shown us is a partial sketch and not the relationship it has to the columns, not the relationship it has to the front elevation. It's a long story, so you've got to listen to the whole story before you jump in there. So elevations of each side of the house
 what we're looking for, because right now what we see, what I've heard you say is we're gonna match it exactly, and then the sketch that you've given us does not match exactly what we're seeing. There are different structural sizes, there are different structural members, and so that's problematic. There's no vertical two by four on the existing railing. We see an on edge two by four there, which is not in the existing railing. So we need to see
 what exactly it is you're proposing for every side of the building that's invisible from the public right away. I think the other thing that we're concerned about is I understand structurally you have to comply with code, but I think that there are other ways by sistering on members on the inside of that beam to get you enough structural meat to hold up that roof. You wait for the story.
 So I would encourage you to explore other avenues to replicate the existing rail if you want to get through this commission. Third thing is the door. I don't think anybody likes your door. I don't like your door. I think my big issue with your door is you're changing the proportion of the existing opening, and that's problematic. You're talking about eliminating a transom that faces the public way,
 And that's problematic. So what I would like to see is a door. It doesn't have to be the door that you showed. It doesn't have to be a solid door. It could be a door with glass. But I think on a house this old, wood doors are great. Doors and windows are great. Something that sort of looks like the style of this door, which neither the door that's there or the door that you're proposing look like would be great. But getting rid of a transom is problematic.
 And then what was the last bit? I'm really happy to hear you're doing limestone underneath. I don't think anybody's got a problem as long as you're maintaining the existing opening size of all the windows, putting replacement windows in there. If they're double hunks, put in some new double hunks. If they're single hunks, put in some new single hunks. If they're vinyl, if you want to upgrade it, great. If you don't want to upgrade it, you can use vinyl, because that's what's there.
 From the commissioners, did I miss anything? I just want to add a little bit more on the front door. The transform window needs to be put back as the original. Also, we would like to see more details related to the foundation, because the original foundation was serving completely as the base for holding up the columns. And now you have the columns going through
 So I'm curious to see how that's going to be resolved. I'm so glad that we have these lovely, lovely photographs of how this house used to look at. So this should be your north star, really. I mean, there's so much to this set here. It's just too much. It's just too much. So I encourage you to, I'm glad that we have a commission to protect these houses.
 I don't think that. Go ahead. I just want to say a bit about the door on behalf of the committee, as well as myself, the neighborhood committee. We got the information on the proposed door. We didn't get all the details on the porch, so we didn't really discuss that. But even though a solid door meets our guidelines, we actually prefer and always encourage people
 to consider a half glass door. Did I understand you to say that's kind of what you wanted in the first place? Right, but existing is a solid door. That's why. Yeah, but that doesn't, because it wasn't an original. The solid door wasn't original. That's just kind of what they replaced it with. Yeah, so what was there, probably original, is
 what I have in my house. And they're up and down the street there and 6th Street. You'll see them all over. They're a transom window at the top and then half glass, top half glass doors and wood base. And even though there's only one, long ago, the second door was probably removed. It'll still fit in better to the neighborhood. That's our recommendation. Our guidelines pretty much say you can do whatever you want.
 And since you wanted the half glass door to begin with, I'd encourage you to go to come back with that. Any more discussion from any more things? Just one point about the whole approach to this thing. You know, my issues with this retroactive COA is I'm not going to board this commission again with a rant about it. It's already on the record several times.
 I would just take this opportunity again to bring the issue to the fore and seek to have it addressed in a matter which is satisfactory to preventing things like this from happening, which I don't believe has happened as yet. So that's it. All there is. Any other? OK. Are you sort of clear what we're asking for? Yeah. And I would like to provide a couple points of clarity.
 The posts that were existing before were not sitting on that footer whatsoever. They were sitting directly on top of deck boards. They weren't mounted to any concrete footing. That's a separate issue, right? Right. I understand it was not a great shape when you got there. You had to rip it all out. You're making it better. We like that. That said, it's got to look the way it was, or it's got to look in a way that you get approved before you put it in.
 Even if it's like falling apart, um, this commission has to review, unless you're putting exactly the same size boards in the exact same size place, we got to look at it. And there are significant changes to what was there, to what there is now, which is why people are concerned. Yeah. I mean, it's just a homework trying to fix their house, man.
 I hear that, but the homeowner also has to realize they're in an historic district and living in an historic district, you got to jump through some extra hoops. Yeah. So, I mean, it's, it's part of protecting the neighborhood to make it look and feel the way the neighborhood wants to look and feel. Okay. So, I mean, it's a collective thing. So if the homeowner is not happy with the way the guidelines are working, they can talk to the, you can talk to your neighborhood and see how can we change this to make it work better for all of us.
 So you guys wrote the guidelines. When I say you guys, I'm talking about each neighborhood writes its own guidelines. We just follow them. So talk to your guy. Have him talk to the people on the commission, or not the commission, but the neighborhood design review commission in the neighborhood. And get him on board with being a part of the neighborhood. Anything else?
 I think you know I don't think you're too far off might not sound like it but I think especially with your comment like you're gonna pull the bottom boards off I think everybody had the heebie-jeebies about oh what are they gonna do but I think
 Most of the stuff is fixable. I'm an architect, so I can cause all kinds of trouble that way. Can I call the vote? And there's no one in the public. So there's a motion on the floor to continue COA 2537 to a future date for more information. Go ahead and take a vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes.
 Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Renard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. The motion to continue passes 6-0. So give us some drawings, and we'll see you next time. OK. That's like in a month, probably. Oh, two weeks. Two weeks. OK. Thank you. That'll work for you. Thanks for coming in. OK.
 Next item, COA 2538 for 906 West 6th Street in the Near West Side Historic District. Petitioners are Keith and Danielle Bowman, who I don't want to keep too long. This is a slightly altered T-Plan cottage. Is the petitioner here? Yes. 906 West 6th Street is a T-Plan cottage in the Near West Side Historic District.
 The building was fairly unaltered until the previous owner made a number of changes that were not authorized by the Historic Preservation Commission or County Building Department. Shortly after the city and county established contact with the previous owner, the property was sold without the violations being reported. The new buyer is seeking to rectify outstanding violations and complete unfinished work on the house. Exterior alterations included the removal of side windows, the addition of a second window,
 On the east end of the porch, I'm going to pull up. The picture that shows. Yeah. On the east end of the porch, the removal of the porch facing door on the L and the removal of the chimney. The request is written, as the new owners of 906 West 6th Street, Bloomington, Indiana, we are responding to the previous owner's violation of Title 8 of the Bloomington Municipal Code, Section 8.
 Removal of chimney removal of front door and removal of windows for the chimney We are requesting a retroactive coa with hand as the chimney was removed by the previous owner The front door we will return The property back to its original condition by replacing the door that was removed Pictured here is still on site. The contractor took me around windows. We are seeking a retroactive coa with hand and
 For the windows that were removed by the previous owner from the sides of the house, we are also seeing an additional COA. For the front window that the previous owner replaced with two double hung windows, we would like to keep the two double hung windows at the front of the house over the porch area. We are proposing to replace four windows on the west side of the house as well as the one garage window with new windows. Materials to be used, aluminum clad wood,
 double hung windows. Siding, we are proposing to re-side with materials and profiles that are consistent with the historic character of the structures, the house and the detached garage. Also, there's going to be a replacement window. Materials to be used, LP smart siding, please refer to the attached PDF. We consulted the Monroe County Building Department, and siding replacement does not require a permit.
 Retaining wall we are proposing to rebuild the retaining wall in front of the house Along the sidewalk which has deteriorated over time It will be rebuilt to match the original location scale and general appearance the materials to be used the existing limestone We consulted with the county building department and the retaining wall reconstruction will not require a permit These improvements are intended to address the ongoing maintenance issues while preserving the overall
 Historic integrity of the property all work is intended to conform to applicable local historic district guidelines and preservation standards Does the petitioner have anything to add? Just questions Thanks for coming in and this doesn't sound like fun No The staff recommendation is conditional approval of coa 2538 with the removal of
 the second double-hung window added to the porch. The reinstallation of the original front door on the side L, whether functional or not, will restore a historic character-defining feature of the building. The repair and retention of the stone retaining wall with existing materials would help maintain a historic neighborhood feature into the future. The proposed LP clapper siding is consistent with disparate guidelines,
 provided it has a smooth finish and matches the profile of the historic material as described in the application. The Near West Side District guidelines pertain to alterations of street-facing facades. So the removal of the side and garage windows would be acceptable. Historically, the removal of minor chimneys not onside with chimney stacks in the Near West Side
 has been approved. District guidelines recommend the approval of replacement windows that match the size and operation of previous windows. As a replacement, front phaging porch window appears to do. The addition of a second double hung window immediately to its west, however, constitutes a more significant change to the front fenestration pattern, which is generally not recommended for the primary elevation.
 Therefore, staff recommends that the removal of the second window and the approval of the retention of its replacement, of the replacement, sorry, on the right here. OK. Before we get into Commissioner questions, have we heard anything back from the US side? Anything you'd like to add, Karen? I haven't seen anything additional. Oh, OK.
 Let's see. We really appreciate your willingness to put the second front door back on. And we questioned the retention of the new second window also. I think that's about it. We had more questions than anything else. You said you had some questions. And I might, I don't know.
 diverting from normal protocol. But if you want to just lay them out there, we're going to have some questions back at you. And hopefully, with comments and stuff, we can address those. First, I want to say thank you for your time. I respect the work that you do to preserve the community. When we purchased this home, we purchased from a flipper, an investor. And we were not made aware that permits weren't
 done. And so imagine our surprise when we get there for the first time and we see that stop work and all these other things. So we're here to do the right thing. We're fine. I'm OK with putting that door back, but I have questions on when we do, what does it need to look like? And then with the second window, I'm assuming that you want the one that's
 to the west closest to the door to be removed. We can do it. Obviously it's more another expense, which is fine. And then I have other questions about actual ornamentation, I guess. Are we allowed to put shutters on that front window, a window box underneath the window, those kinds of things. So. Okay. Hopefully we'll get to all that.
 Questions? Questions first. No, I have more comments than questions. Karen, questions? No questions. Bernard, do you have a question? Just one. I think I heard in your presentation, Noah, about the siting material being LP. Yes. I met with the county building commissioner earlier today.
 Um, and did a few things because we have a staff work right now because the electrical panel needs to be moved. Um, and so while I was talking to him, I know where am I getting with this, right? Um, he's a nice guy. Um, so originally in, in the write up, I said LP siding, but we would, um,
 prefer to keep the current siding if we can, um, and then feather in the new siding where the windows were taken out. So that would be our preference. But if we can't do that as we take that off, then we would do the LP siding. Right. And the current materials would? Yes. Okay. Because the LP would be the same dimension and finished? Yes. Right. And I heard you mentioned something about residing the garage also.
 We'd like to in the same material. Correct. Is that wood or is it? I believe that it's vinyl. So would you take the vinyl off and use wood or take it off and use LP? Um, we haven't gotten that far because I'm not sure that we are going to do anything to the garage at this point. Um, we would change the window since, um, we have to get other windows. Um, and then that back door looks.
 Pretty bad. So we would like to replace that, but the siding, clean it up and maybe keep it for now. Um, is that something that needs to be approved? The garage. As you can see it from any earlier street. Yeah. But yeah, I don't think that's a biggie. Um, are you in contact with the previous owner that
 didn't tell you all of these things when you sold the house and chasing him with a large metal. Anyway. If you want the name of the investment company, I'll give it to you so that you do not approve it. I've been trying to track him down. You are trying to? No, I did track him down eventually, but that was like the week that they sold it to you. I'm just saying, perhaps you should get a lawyer.
 I thought about a real estate attorney, but quite frankly, at this point, I'm not sure I want to spend my money there. I think I need to. OK, thanks. Questions? Questions? So how was it that you found out about all of these issues again? Or was it? So we closed down the house at the end of April, and then
 And they asked if he could push it up because, um, it wasn't supposed to be the end of April is going to be in May. So we pushed it up and then we were out of town. So a couple of weeks went by and we went to visit. And that's when we saw the stop work, um, and all the notices on the front door. Were you working with a realtor? Yes. Okay. And they weren't able to, they obviously didn't notice or see anything. Um, I don't think he was back.
 you know, to visit the house. So, no. So, yeah, talking to your realtor, to talk to their realtor, because, you know, they have some responsibility here. Yeah. That's what it is. Well, the seller and the buyer, he's the same. The realtor was the buyer. And he can get in touch with them. So we have some advice. Yeah, the realtor was also somebody that we had been in touch with with the city. We were trying to figure out what exactly happened here.
 Are you done Jeremy, sorry? Yeah. Okay, sorry. No questions, no comments. Okay. I guess the only question, a lot of questions have been answered, is when they put in two, would you go back to the before and after pictures on the front facade? So you got these two windows and you got the one window. Were the two windows of the same size that the one was or did they change sizes on you too? They looked the same. I think the
 The one on the right might be the original. I'm not sure. I was trying to look at it. We did take dimensions. Well, do we have any comments from the public? Jenny? Yeah. I just wanted to say you really should take photographs of the wall. I've actually walked through this neighborhood. That is a really cool wall.
 and encourage whoever you're rebuilding at to make it look like it did. Yes. Because if the stones haven't decayed, they're not splintering or dissolving or something. There's no reason. I know you're planning on using the ones on site, but having rebuilt some limestone walls or done brickwork on my house, if you're not real specific, sometimes things can fall through the cracks.
 Because that's the first thing you see, and it's different from everything else that's on the street. I'd be real specific about that. And are you going to put your rail back up? Keeping the rail? If you look, you can't really tell by the picture, but the stairs going up to the house with that railing there, it's probably, I mean, it's very narrow. That's why we're doing the retaining wall. If you drive by the house, you'll see it's probably, I mean, maybe 12 inches.
 Um, and so it'll be a little bit wider, but we will use the same materials and keep it the same. And it's, I think, less than four feet high. Um, I think we're at the point where we will. Oh, yes. Anybody online have anything to say? Okay. Thank you. So motion.
 Move for conditional approval of COA 2538. Second. Let's talk about it. Comments? Jack? I don't have very much to say. They seem to be covering everything well, removing the window, repairing that wall.
 will be a major expense, I'm sorry. Yes, I know. We have an estimate. I don't have really any comments about the door. Perhaps other commissioners do. The design is certainly fitting. Were you planning to paint? Were you planning to try to get down to the bare wood and coat it and leave the grain, that sort of thing? Yes, we'll sand it down.
 and then paint it like a, it's called winter ice. It's a very light blue and the trim would be a cream. And then the front door either will leave the front door as is, which is just the wood grain or we would paint it a teal color. Okay. I think we're in discussion. Yeah. Okay. So any other comments? That's all I have to do. Jim.
 point of clarification when you said recommend conditional approval do you mean as written by the staff report yes okay putting the front door back taking one window out fixing the wall what am i missing okay i think that's okay i think that's it all right i just wanted to clarify that's good and then i just string in the lp siding over that window and then lp siding on the garage
 and feathered in where it's needed or where it's required for existing work. I think my other comment is, I'm really sorry that this is happening to you. I mean, that's an awful thing to walk into just completely unawares. But I do appreciate you coming in and talking to us and working through this in the proper way. So I really appreciate that. Melody? I'm going to second that.
 Firstly, again, it's unfortunate that it happened. There is a low to zero cost option that you may have, and it's reporting the realtor to the professional licensing association, I think, or agency. What is that? Professional licensing agency. That is the state that licenses realtors, and they have a disciplinary process
 they would investigate and if there's any wrongdoing, they will sanction as appropriate. And if the realtor is also a member of the NAR, they also have a disciplinary process that will investigate and if anything was done incorrectly or if there was negligence, then there's a process.
 If your real estate agent is not working to fix this, then they are not working. He has been helpful. We have to get a permit for the house in terms of moving the electrical panel, the HVAC, and the plumbing. And for the electrical stuff, he has been helpful because we needed an engineer report. We needed a plot plan.
 something else I can't think of right now. So he is helping me with that. He needs to be helpful with this, too, is what I'm arguing. Right. OK. And if my memory serves me, I think part of the sum, there may be restitution. So it's not just making a few calls and putting in touch with people. There may be monies that may be on the table. OK. But don't quote me on that.
 We did hold back some money before we closed, but not nearly enough. Right. And I don't think you need an attorney for that. You can file a complaint on your own. And all the information, I think, is online. And you perhaps could get advice from the Bloomington board if you are layers with them. Other than that, what is recommended is
 OK with me. This is probably the first retroactive COA that I'm actually going to vote for. Happily. Well, when you made that comment earlier, I thought I'm in trouble. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So again, I'm sorry going through this. I think everybody who's here would be willing to help you get your project back on stream. Thank you. Comments, Karen?
 Yeah, just thanks again from the committee. We know you come from Illinois. Did you make a trip over tonight just to be here in front of us? I want everybody to know. With my daughter. She's a student here. And I'll add one little comment in case you think that the second door has to be operative. It doesn't. Right. And that was one of my questions. Can it be in paste? Does it have to be flush?
 with the siding, like I'm just trying to get specific. The idea is you want to frame it out like it appears to be a door, but you can put like a framed wall behind it. You can put a mirror on the outside of it. So it looks like, you know, you're looking into something kind of thing. Okay. But we have had other petitioners come before us who wanted to close off a door on an historic house. We made them keep the door, but you know, for insulation purposes. So it doesn't even have to open? No. Okay.
 We only have purview over what you see from the outside. So as long as it looks like it did, if it's in the same position as that door would be relative to the siding, we're good to go. Put that up, put the trim back the same size and dimensions that the existing trim was, we will be happy. Okay. And it doesn't have to be that door or should it be that door? We would love it to be that door if that was the original door. That's kind of the point. Okay. Keep that door.
 I'll just strip the bit. You can put something right behind it, right? You can, like, an inch or something behind it, you can put a mirror or something, and then build a wall behind that. I'm not sure I follow. I'll draw you a picture. We can help you with that. Or you can just put a little table or cabinet that doesn't show above the glass, for example. I have a plow cabinet behind mine. So nobody can get in that way.
 It looks like a door. OK. OK. Comments. My turn, yeah. You have bought one of the most beautiful houses in the near west side. Oh, thank you. OK. It's beautiful. It sits up high from the street. I have driven by this house before. It's just gorgeous. It has the perfect proportions. Yes, it needs work. But I'm glad that you're here and you're trying to remediate what it was causing.
 right so that's great and I feel the same as everybody else here sorry about the situation that you're in but you are being proactive so the only thing that I would comment is you made a quick comment about shutters I don't think that I don't think that's appropriate for the architecture original depending on which neighborhood you're in just so that you don't go through the
 Process and expansive. I brought a picture just to show you. I don't think we have a regulation about it, but it's not. That was what I was thinking. If it's not in the guidelines, we don't care. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. And because they're removable. Just something to spice it up a little, but not too crazy. It's just that you wouldn't have found that originally in this neighborhood. OK. So no. Just no. You're allowed to do it?
 It's not recommended. You're not recommending it. Got it. Particularly, but we won't be upset or anything if you do it. We promise. I'm going to shoot you. Because it's removable for the next person. OK. It's just not part of the original. That's all. OK. But the shutters in the window box, I did not see in the COA, so that's not an issue. Yeah, that was an afterthought. The window box would be fine. Yeah, that's a removable thought of ours. OK.
 Put that in the middle there. We won't see anything. So I think we're at the point where we might vote on it. Call the roll. There's a motion on the table as presented by staff for conditional approval. We'll go ahead with voting. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Haggard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Motion as recommended passes 6-0.
 Thank you for coming in. Do you mind if I ask one more question? Yeah, sure. So the windows on the west side of the house in the recommendations, those can be replaced with similar windows. Yeah. Right. If it's like same dimension, same operation. Yeah. Mm-hmm. This double hung, put in a double hung. Yeah. Right. If it's, they don't care about material on the nearby site, right?
 So yeah, as long as it fits in the same opening. The one window might be a little bit longer than what's currently there to match the other window that's an egress. But you're going to put the same window in the hole, right? Or are you going to make the hole bigger? I'm going to make it a little bit bigger because the other window is... No. You might have to come talk to us. OK. Sorry. OK.
 Also, we do have zoom links in the packet if you want to attend remotely next time. We're happy to have you here. You don't have to do that.
 Okay, demolition delays. So we have two new demolition delays for tonight. Starting off 25-12, 430 East 10th Street. The petitioner's value built construction. Built, yes, the petitioner is here.
 Built around 1910, 438 East 10th Street is a pyramidal roofed cottage with a gabled bell, brick porch, and replacement windows and doors. The first renters to appear in census data and city directories were African-American migrants from Kentucky, husband and wife John and Georgia Buckman and their son Robert, and James Gags. John worked as a cook in a private residence, and James worked for the Showers Brothers Furniture Company.
 The house was bought in 1926 by widow Rosa Brown and sold the following year to Rex Forsythe, the owner of a butcher shop. For the next 30 years, the house frequently changed ownership with one notable resident being former Air Force Colonel and Professor of Air Science Marshall Hassan, an expert in polar warfare who lived at the house from 1953 to 1954. From 1955 through 1973, the house was occupied by
 the family of James and Lily Harris, and their 12 children. James worked a variety of jobs in his time at the house. Yeah, 12 children in that house. Well, some of them were different ages, so they moved out before. Jobs included baker, bill poster, and stagehand for the IU theater department. In 1974, the house was sold and has been rented mostly to students ever since. Staff recommendation is for the release
 of demolition delay 2512. Do the petitioners have anything to add? Thank you. All right. We have questions. Jack, questions? No questions. Jeremy? No. Melody? No. Bernardo? Karen? No. Ernesto? No. Do we have any questions or comments from the public? Any questions or comments from anybody online?
 Yes, I will entertain a motion. I'll move to release demolition delay 2512. I will second it. Let's talk about it. I'll reluctantly second.
 Any other comments? No. I think this is one of those. It's not a district. We got the two choices. Here we are. Call the roll. This is for demolition delay 25-12. The motion would be to release the delay period. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yeah. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes.
 Today regarding the property at 430 East 10th 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 a historic designation to the common council. Okay. Next demolition delay, um, 2513, SPOR 717 North Grant, same petitioner.
 built around 1910, 717 North Grant as a tea plant cottage with a limestone porch and low retaining wall. The windows and siding have been replaced, but the house still has a secondary primary entrance on the L onto the front porch. Addresses on this block changed in the 1910s, and contemporary maps on the block are not readily available. So the first verifiable residents are the Vandermen family, Harry, Leela, and their son Robert.
 The three ran a tailor shop and resided in the house from 1921 through 1937. In 1938, the house was occupied by the families of two showers, furniture, machinists, and was rented to a succession of families through the 1940s. In 1946, the house was bought by divorcee Pearl Jones, who resided in the house until 1953, renting to students and workers. From 1968 to 1970,
 The house served the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter-day Saints, returning to a rental house in 1971. Razadonic, host of All That Jazz on WFHB Community Radio, resided in this house as a student in 1971. Staff recommendation is release of demolition delay 2513. Anything to add about this property? Any comments or questions from the public?
 Uh, questions? Jack? No questions. Jeremy? Melody? Bernard? No. Ernesto? Come for me. All right, I will entertain a motion. I'll move to release 25, demolition delay 2513. I will second that. I'll second. Okay.
 Discussion? Any comments? Reluctance? We have next to no choices. I just want to put it out there that neither do we have somewhat of importance who once lived in the house, nor do we have any particular thing about the house that makes it
 ups its value compared to other houses that would cause us to have a case where we can present to the council. I just want to put it out so the people in the audience know why we have to do these things. We really don't have many choices. We have basically two choices that I know of, and neither one applies to this house or to the previous house. That's all. Thank you, Jack. Would you call the roll?
 This is for the motion delay 2513, would be motion to release. Go ahead and take a vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Duesner? Yes. And the motion to release approved 6-0. All business, I have one item that is the
 property that was nominated to City Council at the last meeting on July 12th, sorry, June 12th. June 12th or June 14th? June 12th. June 12th. Okay. 7-Eleven East Cottage Grove. I prepared a staff presentation, having had the opportunity to do some more research. Built in 1913, 7-Eleven East Cottage Grove is a pyramidal roofed cottage with two gable dells and a wraparound porch on two sides with four wooden columns.
 Windows, siding, railings, and doors have been replaced, although the house still retains its general form. Limestone retaining wall and doric porch columns. Subdivision in which the house was built is known as the Andrews Division and is roughly bounded by Fess, 10th Street, Woodlawn, 11th Street. The land was subdivided by Showers Brothers Furniture Carpenter David Andrews in 1906.
 The house's builders and first occupants were dressmaker Mary McCain and her husband Horace, who was a cabinet maker at Showers Brothers Furniture. The couple had been farmers in Greene County prior to moving to Bloomington and had seven children, not all of whom lived at 711 East Cottage Grove. They moved out in 1926, selling the property to Earl Hettle, a house painter, and his wife Mary. From 1931 to 1933, the house was occupied by grocery clerk
 LJ St. Clair and his wife Lucille. The St. Clairs would leave after establishing their own grocery in Ellitsville. Between 1934 and 1936, the house was occupied by insurance salesman W.R. Weaver and his wife Eliza. The longest term tenant, Bessie Harrell, was a widowed elementary school teacher who occupied the house from 1936 to 1945 with her daughter, Phyllis.
 1940s through 1954, the house was occupied by Bloomington Indiana account, sorry, Indiana University accountant, Richard Hickman, who served as a grand master for the Bloomington Mason's Lodge number 22. Um, in 1955, the house was bought by Madeleine, sorry, Madeleine Ferris, a longtime employee of the Indiana University Correspondent's Study Bureau and a family run meat market.
 model inhaled from a prominent family of local Presbyterian abolitionists who migrated to Monroe County in 1821, becoming one of Bloomington's founding families. One of the early farmhouses is listed as a local historic district. Until 1955, the family owned a farm north of 17th Street that was sold to Indiana University for the construction of the IU Memorial Stadium at the cost of $200,000. Proceeds from the sale were divided 17 ways between family members,
 and Madeline used her portion to buy properties at 7-Eleven East Cottage Grove and 7-Eleven North Park. Madeline and several other family members resided in the Cottage Grove neighborhood and owned a number of rental houses in the area, including 7-Eleven East Cottage Grove. Under Ferris ownership, residents included Robert and Crystal Hall. Robert was a postgraduate student in the music school and taught band at a local university elementary school.
 1958 through 1959, record salesman Earl Whitmer and his wife Marguerite. 1960 through 1961, Westinghouse engineer Robert Harman and his wife Carol. 1962 through 1965, J.C. Penney's associate Ralph Percy. 1966 through 1968, banked goods salesman Paul Hollingsworth and his wife Linda. From 1969 on, the house was rented to students. Unfortunately,
 Most of their names are not recorded in censuses or directories. Model and Ferris' son, Dr. James Ferris, sold the property in 1983. The house at 711 East Cottage Grove must be judged based on the preceding characteristics on the left-hand side of the slide for its eligibility for individual
 its designation. In and of itself, the house does not have a close association with an individual or historic event or trend that's played a significant role in local, state, or national history. The house demonstrates a strong integrity of form, if not materials. And it has somewhat more elaborate form than many other contributing single-story pyramid-roofed craftsmen-built houses with free classical elements and a wraparound porch and modest colonnade.
 In Bloomington, the period in which the house was built is mostly characterized by free classical Queen Anne and folk Victorian and early craftsman designs. Many contemporaneous buildings of these styles can be found north of Indiana University's campus and south and west of downtown Bloomington. Of the criteria laid out in Title VIII of the Bloomington Municipal Code, 711 East Cottage Grove comes closest to meeting 2G, exemplifying the built environment and the area
 characterized by distinctive building style. In this respect, its form and classical details are characteristic of the Carpenter-built cottages with classical or Victorian elements popular in turn of the century Bloomington, often built by Showers Furniture Company employees. Located immediately to the north of University Court's historic district, the so-called Andrews Park study area has been identified by the state historic sites and structures inventory
 as an area potentially eligible for designation. Most of the buildings in this area date to the early 20th century, shortly after the Andrews subdivision, and many are owned by Indiana University. Owners of prominent local businesses, including Ingalls Hamburgers, the Book Nook, and the Ferris Meat Market lived in this neighborhood. Although this neighborhood has seen widespread demolitions by Indiana University along its western edge, leaving large swaths of this area vacant, the remaining streetscape retains a high degree of integrity.
 Despite its alteration, 7-11 East Cottage Grove is an attractive house with a high degree of architectural integrity and its characteristic of much of the surrounding built environment. Based on the criteria presented by Title 8, however, it is hard to make the argument for individual listing. Staff does not recommend the designation of 7-11 East Cottage Grove.
 Are there any questions from the commission? Yes. Let's go around. Mm-hmm. Uh, Renard, looks like you have a question. Yeah, I just wanted to know, how did this come up for designation again? Last meeting. It was put as a demolition delay. There was a discussion. OK. I think the understanding was that this house was owned by the Ferris family. Right.
 Underground railroad. Yes. That said, this is a rental house owned by them much later. And they didn't actually live there is what I'm getting from this report. So in the previous meeting, somebody from the neighborhood had come and provided some additional information about owners. Looking more into that information, it turns out, you know, owners who happen to come from a prominent local family. I'm looking further into that. It was bought by some members of the family in 1955.
 who didn't reside there. In part of the conversation at the last meeting was that the eligibility of this house may hinge on its connection to significant local individuals. Right, I remember that. I noticed in your presentation you didn't mention it, so I was puzzled. I don't know. Well, there is no connection. Right, right. Well, the connection is ancillary and financial and after the fact. OK. Well, I do discuss.
 or buying it in the recommendation or the report. In 1955. Yeah, 1955. Well, past the Underground River. My clarifying questions were, so this house was built significantly after the Ferris family moved here as settlers to Monroe County, correct? Yeah. So it was built in 1910. 1913, yeah. And they came in the 1820s. And so if it was built in 1910,
 It could not have been part of the Underground Railroad, because that's how time works. And we know who built it as well. Really? You don't want enough satisfaction. Yeah. Any other questions, Jeremy? Yes. I guess I have a question of how we would want to proceed forward with this, given the research that NOAA has done. I know at the previous meeting, we voted to recommend this to the Common Council based on the fact
 that it was significant because of the ferris connection of the early settlers in the Underground Railroad, that does not seem to stand. So there are options perhaps that would we want to discuss of would we want to revisit that vote and possibly put it on an agenda for the next meeting to vote to rescind that recommendation.
 based on new research that NOAA has done, has been verified. I'm just asking that question. I think it's worth talking about. Let's go around the table. I don't think everybody, if anybody else has questions. I think that's a good question. Jack, you have questions or thoughts? I think NOAA in doing the additional
 Investigation basically summed up tonight that you just don't recommend, doesn't think that it'll work, that it'll get through. Is that correct? Yes. So the investigation's been done and there is no more. Yeah, it's not enough air to make it work. It's not enough. You have questions or thoughts, Melody? Sorry. No, you called on her. Oh, we'll get there.
 potentially take us in a different direction. So we can talk about this another time. But you mentioned that the Andrews Park study area has been identified by the state historic sites and structures inventory as an area potentially eligible for designation. Where is that discussion? It would be my question. How far along is that discussion? I mean, it hasn't really been a discussion here recently.
 There have been various neighborhoods in the past too. I mean, obviously we have lots of historic districts where areas that were, you know, investigated on the state survey have since become historic districts. Is this one that the subcommittee is looking at? It is not currently. However, that said, I think the real discussion started at the last meeting when the neighborhood resident came and they were very concerned that this house might be torn down and it still might.
 But we have these two choices if it is not an historic district. And if they are worried about their neighborhood, I think that most historic districts and the really only successful historic districts are ones that come from the people who live there. And so I am very hopeful that, I mean, this is kind of a hard way to start it, but you've got to get something to get you going. And I think there's still enough
 Historic fabric in that neighborhood for them to come together and Propose a district but You know, I think we could reach out to that neighborhood and let them know about our first Thursday meetings and You know offer them whatever help we can help Just a question you mentioned a while ago about
 discussing it at our next meeting. Is this not on the table for a vote in this meeting? I think it could be, but that's okay. The last meeting I had yesterday with Sam and Jeremy, we discussed this option that if the commission decided that they wanted to make another motion related to this item, how would that be done?
 Since it hasn't been noticed in this agenda as an actionable item in advanced, there would have to be a two-thirds majority vote in order to take any sort of action on it. And we were kind of also thinking just in the terms of clarity and transparency for folks. Do we want to put this out?
 people have time to respond to it. That was kind of the idea. I mean, we could theoretically do it today, but our thought was the... I wasn't suggesting it. That was the clarification. It's possible, but the constraints are stronger. Instead of a half, you know, a majority to pass, it's two-thirds. Right. I'm all about giving people time to think about something. Right. And how are we for time on this thing? It's got, let's see.
 90 days it started. When did this one start? Well, also another thing about this is this is not yet under interim protection. I mean, the demolition delay is still going. Let's see when it started. I think it started late May. So roughly another couple of months. So the idea is we let people know we're going to talk about it at the next meeting.
 And then we vote whether or not we want to still forward it to common council. And if so, then we vote to give it interim protection. And if not, we vote to rescind and release. OK. Does that make sense? Yeah. All right. Questions, thoughts? Would some of the people from the neighborhood that were here last time
 be notified, especially, or not? I mean, it's noticed and no more noticed than it was before. It's a public notice. It will show up in the minutes, just like it did the last time. I will say I did receive a subsequent email from the person who came from the neighborhood who also reached out to former owner Dr. Ferris, and he mentioned that
 He had interest in maybe trying to find people who were interested in designating this neighborhood, but recognized that this building probably isn't eligible as a district. Dr. Ferris recognized that? No, the person who came to attend our meeting. OK, thank you. I have a question, yes or no.
 Do we have to rephrase, if we were to send this to current council, do we have to rephrase the fact that we support this designation as opposed to as it is now? Because you're recommending not to. It's already been voted. So we don't have to rephrase it. We just have to vote. Do we want to keep doing this? Do we not want to keep doing this? OK. But if you do continue to do it, you need to place it under interim protection. Right. OK.
 So I do agree with you about giving people time to reconsider and recruit. Maybe this is a spark that motivates other neighbors. And if it doesn't, it doesn't. That's it. All right. Jeremy? I did want to say.
 for some of the demolition delays going forward, there's another option that we can do, which is to vote for a formal review for historic designation. So it's in between completely releasing it and voting to protect it. So it's an additional step that can occur. It's on this sheet that I read off of from time to time on the demolition delays. So that's always an option going forward, where if somebody in a meeting raises questions and we wanna look into it a little bit more, we can say, okay,
 hold off a second, do some additional research. It gives us a little bit more time to come back without having to just send it to the Common Council. So it's kind of like an in-between option that we could have for these sorts of things. Yeah, it won't allow us no one to do some extra research. The sort of additional information. And it's still under demolition delay, so you don't need the interim protection yet. And I think arguably that's what we
 probably would have wanted to do with this. Yeah. So good. That's correct. All right. So you are going to make a motion. Oh, do I have any comments or questions from the public or this one at this point? No. Okay. And you're what's the timeline though for what you're talking about? Is it still the 90 day demolition day or demolition delay?
 Right, it doesn't extend the timeline unless the petition requests. I'm saying next meeting. Yeah. Because I can extend it in under 30 days, but I don't want to. I don't think we need to do that. I don't think that's necessary. No, my recommendation would be to put this on. I don't know if we need a formal motion for this. To put it on the agenda for the next meeting? Yeah, I think we put this on the agenda for the next meeting to, I'm trying to think of the right wording here, to rescind the vote to send this to common council.
 as a discussion topic that we can then do and then revisit. Do we need to make a motion for that? I don't think so. Because we're just asking you to know when to put it on there. It'll be noticed. It'll be. It's read into the record. It'll be part of the minutes. Yeah, I just want to make sure people know that. Yeah, that is coming. Good idea. All right. I think we have anything else? Any new business people would like to bring up?
 I have a little bit of new business. As you guys probably know, I'm from the Elm Heights Historic District. And we are going over guidelines 10 years. Jenny Southern.
 We are going over our guidelines to, we've had some comments from you guys that they're a little bit intractable. And there's always, we have like 250 houses in our historic district. So there's always some people that would like a total rewrite. Some people are perfectly happy with it. And some people just don't care. So we have been trying to get together a group to review them.
 five people that have volunteered now to do that, to review them. I'm on that little committee. I'm told I need one of you guys to kind of hang out with us. It shouldn't be a long process. And give us advice and input and help out with any changes we need to make. So. Fishing for volunteers. I am fishing. Any fighters?
 I mean, you know that we meet the first Thursday, right? Right. We can fold you into that. When are you proposing to meet? I'm totally flexible on it. So one of the people on it is Barry Clapper. She's a local architect. So we'll probably try hard to work around her schedule. She's booked up right now. So it'll be soon. We'll have a public meeting probably before.
 for public input before we actually start meeting as a committee so that we can hear all the dirty laundry as possible and then have that for the committee to work with. I'm probably the most recalcitrant member of the commission on this subject, so I should probably sit down. If you can get it by me, you can get it by anybody. Okay. All right. I didn't mean to steal your stuff.
 I said on this subject. Do I hear two? Do I hear two? Based on my availability, if there's a meeting coming up and I'm available, I'll go, you might have two. I'd be still in my heart. We can't have three because then we got to notice it. The rest of you are out. You guys can interchangeably come. We'll do rock, paper, scissors. That's right.
 Anyway, thank you very much. That's hard to ask, and that we are working on it. I just wanted to make point of information, maybe a clarification. Modification is that I would say that, well, the guidelines stipulate that there has to be a public meeting to invite people to participate. So there might be more people. But I also want to qualify. I don't think it's to air dirty laundry, I think. And I've said this to some of you before. I think that this is an opportunity
 draw out the positive aspects of historic preservation and to bring the guidelines up to date so that there's fewer points of contention and revision. And by the way, my name's Eric Weston, I'm the president of the Elmites Neighborhood Association, so I just wanted to make sure that there's this
 I think there's a positivity moving forward as opposed to all my ominous, you know, like importance. So, but Jenny's been through this. I mean, we, we, the neighborhood has Jenny to thank for moving this forward oh, so long ago. And so I, you know, and whenever I have any questions, I ask Jenny, I say, Jenny, what, what happened? So yeah, we're in a very good place. I think so. Thank you.
 So we're working on it. Please be patient, and we'll try to get a product out for you. If you would yourselves like to write me, Noah has my email address. It's pretty, it's just my name reversed, at yahoo.com. If you would like to make comments or something to me, and we can also use that, and we don't mind getting input from you at all, because we know you're the guys. We can write up all the plans we want, but you guys are the ones that put them in motion.
 Please feel free, okay? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody have a mic? All right. I think that is the end of the agenda, yeah? Unless there's anything else then we can adjourn? Yeah. Hearing nothing further, let's adjourn.