- All right, it is 5 o'clock. I would like to call the September 25, 2025 meeting of the Bloomington Historic
- Preservation Commission to order. Tonya, would you call the roll, please? Duncan Campbell. Here.
- Karen Duffy. Here. Jack Baker. Here. Jeremy Hackard. Here. Ernesto Castaneda. Here. Reynard Cross. Sam
- DeSolar. Here. Melanie Dusner. Here. Elizabeth Mitchell.
- Daniel Schlegel. We have a quorum. Thank you. I will entertain a motion about the minutes. I'm going
- to approve the minutes. Do I have a second? OK, I'm going to have a second. Ernesto. Ernesto. OK, we've
- got a motion on the floor to approve the meeting minutes from September 11
- And we'll go ahead and take a vote on that. Jack Baker? I will abstain. I wasn't here. Absolutely. Jeremy
- Hacker? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Bernard Cross is not here. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes.
- And we have four yeses, one abstained. And the minutes are approved. Excellent. All right. All right.
- Moving on to certificates of appropriateness.
- We're going to start tonight with a couple of staff approvals. First item being COA 2563 for 924 West
- Kirkwood Avenue in the Near West Side Historic District. Petitioner is Isaac Reed. 924 West Kirkwood
- is a severely altered but nevertheless contributing Elplan Cottage. Prior alterations included
- the replacement of windows, door, and a rear addition.
- In May 2025, work began on the replacement of the front porch columns and railings without approval
- by the Historic Preservation Commission. After work was paused, the owners received COA 2537 with conditions
- that the railing and front door be rebuilt in a style more faithful to the historic design of the house
- and under the condition that the petitioner get staff approval on the post and beam configuration and
- door slab. Some disagreement ensued between the contractor and the members of the commission
- over whether it would be feasible to sister the roof beam at the front of the porch rather than build
- a full height post to the east of the front steps. The subsequent request here is to construct a full
- height post to the east of the front steps with the profile that matches the other full height posts.
- Staff approved COA
- 2563. Because the porch at 924 West Kirkwood was substantially rebuilt, the new structure will have
- to meet new contemporary building code. When COA 2537 was issued, two alternative proposals for getting
- the porch roof off to code were suggested, either thickening the beam over the entryway to the porch
- or building a full height column where a half height column had stood previously in order to support the span.
- The former was approved as a preferable option by the commission and staff recommendation because it
- would not result in a further change to the exterior appearance of the porch. A builder representing
- the applicant preferred the latter option because, in his opinion, sistering the roof beam would mean
- further alterations to the porch roof, which may have to be substantially rebuilt. While the 10 plus
- foot span of the roof beam could have been supported by a thicker member,
- Submission of this subsequent application demonstrates that there would indeed be substantial challenges
- caused by sagging and uneven roof beams and a fragile roof joists on the south side of the porch. While
- the addition of a full height post would not be faithful to the historic design of the porch, alterations
- to the roof beam may also necessitate alterations to the porch roof. The alteration proposed in this
- application would not be out of keeping with the designs of other contemporaneous porches
- in the Near West Side Historic District. Okay, next item, COA 2565. This is for 202 East 6th Street,
- the old library. Now the Monroe County History Center. Petitioner is Daniel Schlegel.
- Dear Noah, we propose to have the lights installed under the awnings at the History Center. The reason
- for this is that a pair of globes by each door front and back are meant for ambiance, but not actually
- useful. The Monroe County History Center has been increasing our programming and activities, which has
- led to more programming after hours, which can run into the night. We fielded complaints from various
- visitors, members, staff, and volunteers and the public over our lack of lighting. From records I have
- found, there have been three different attempts at installing outdoor lighting in our lawn.
- but a visitor will notice that there are no exterior lights that still exist. Or after hours, visitors
- have taken that into their own hands and that lighting no longer exists. For that reason, we wanted
- to have lights in a secure location that is not vulnerable to being removed without our knowledge. The
- awnings that are securely attached but will provide the ability to have light shine through for both
- our visitors to see the way on sidewalks after dark and to discourage after hours visitors from staying
- in the doorways.
- Cassidy Electric has been on site to view and make recommendations for the placement and the type of
- lighting for a location. Under the awning was the ideal place because it will not change the look of
- the exterior of the building. The only difference being that people will be able to see when it is dark
- outside. The proposed light will be a bar of LED lights that is tied into the already existing electrical
- line for the globes on either side of the front and back doorways.
- Please reach out to me if you have any additional questions. Daniel Schlegel. Staff approved COA 2565.
- While the work proposed is an alteration visible from the public right of way, the new light fixtures
- will not be visible aside from the effect of adding bright LED lighting under each of the entrance awnings.
- Okay, moving on to staff reviewed certificates of appropriateness.
- At this point, I would like to read the 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.
- We'll 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 the question is directly addressed to them.
- If a member or the public or petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand until recognized by
- the chair. Upon completion of public comments, the chair will entertain motions from the commissioners
- regarding the relevant certificate of appropriateness or demolition delay. Once a motion is made by
- a commissioner, the chair then opens up a discussion of the item for members of the commission only.
- The chair will call for a vote once each commissioner has been given a chance to comment on the motion.
- We encourage all commissioners, petitioners,
- and members of the public to be civil and respectful at all times. Thank you. All right, first item
- of the evening, COA 2554 for 301 East Glendora Drive in Matlock Heights. Is anybody here for this item?
- Okay, I've subsequently heard that the work described partly in this application has been completed.
- without a COA being issued. So it is legal here. Yes. Hi, how are you? I'm replacing Anna. She couldn't
- be here. So in this case, given that we have not approved a COA, do we issue a notice of violation?
- Or do we just hear the COA through and deal with it at that point? I think that there's a bit, is my
- understanding,
- applicant has not shown up right yeah I think it's appropriate for to put into the record items can
- be reviewed without the applicant present but I can't write a staff recommendation which I have so he
- would have had to tell me that he was not going to be here which he does not
- Is an option to deny? Well, it is an option. I mean, we could continue this and see if they actually
- do show up. That said, both you and I have been out to see the site. The work has been done. In my opinion,
- the work has been done in a manner not exactly the way we would like to see it done.
- So until they show up, I'm happy to just issue a notice of violation and start that clock ticking. Do
- we need to vote on that? Sorry? Do we need to make a motion? Does that need to be a motion? I will make
- a motion to issue a notice of violation at this address, do I? Second. Do we have a second?
- Thank you. There's a motion on the floor to issue a notice of violation to the petitioner in COA 2554.
- We'll go ahead and take a vote on that motion. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda?
- Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. OK, so that's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in favor.
- Motion passes.
- Okay, next item. COA 2558. Applicant is Simon Ladd. This is for 702 West Kirkwood in the Near West Side
- Historic District. Is the petitioner present or somebody representing the petitioner? There is a Jennifer
- online and I've asked for their last name and there's a Richard Lewis. I could ask
- the Jennifer to unmute. But I have asked in the chat if they could provide. OK. Yeah. Here.
- Am I on here now? Yes. Yes. Yeah. OK. Sorry. I'm kind of new to Zoom. That's OK. Would you mind stating
- your name and your relationship to this? Yes. I'm Jennifer Milner. I'm Simon Ladd's wife. Thank you. OK.
- 702 West Kirkwood is a slightly altered T-Plan cottage with a five-sided 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 windows topped with transom lights. A COA application for retroactive approval was denied,
- and so the petitioners are returning with a proposal to install windows that match the originals. The
- request to whom it may concern
- We will replace the windows with windows that are the same dimension and look as the original windows.
- Materials to be used are windows and wood. Simon Labrentos. Subsequently, some follow up that I received.
- The opening of replaced windows is 84 and 5 eighths by 34.5 inches. The width of the old windows is
- 78 by 31 inches.
- We discussed pricing with universal windows and caulking windows. The frames will be wood unless we
- are allowed to use vinyl. They of course would be the exact same look and the size just better energy
- use if possible for us to do. It would be a custom profile. Let's see. So you can see here currently
- with interior windows look like.
- These are some examples of original windows similar to what were replaced. Staff recommends approval
- of COA 2559. Although clarification will be needed on the exterior trim for the windows proposed, replacement
- of the former windows with custom windows built to the size and configuration of the originals, some
- of which still exist elsewhere in the house, would resolve the outstanding violation of this property.
- Does the petitioner have anything to add?
- Questions? Jack? Looking at the window in this picture, is that representative of the original window
- or new window? The ones on the left here, those are some originals. I guess I'm talking about the one
- on the right. The one on the right, no, that's the replacement configuration. That's a replacement.
- That's the one that triggered the violation. Yes, and then the small window above it also triggered
- the violation.
- And so they're proposing to put windows in. Are we going, is the height going to take up all the way
- from the bottom to the top of the small window? Is that the 89-inch vertical dimension? I'm just wondering,
- is the top window that's going, obviously it's going away at some point, is it going to be blocked over
- or is it going to be occupied by window space?
- That's the two windows occupy the original rough opening. And so once the replacement windows are taken
- out, they will replace that with, my understanding is, a window that matches the size of the original
- window, which is the full height of that opening. Yes, and then I'm also asking about that upper window.
- It disappears, correct? Yes. And it's either blocked over or probably taken up by the window.
- That window is within the original space. Thank you. No questions. Do we have a sample of the replacement
- window? We don't have anything from them. We have what you heard.
- Yeah, it says that they're going to match them exactly, but usually you require some evidence of that
- to be blunt. I can't imagine approving it without something like that. Question and comment. Yeah. Well,
- that was going to be my question. And also to add to the details,
- how is the trim around the window and the exterior is going to be matched. It would be important to
- show how they're going to address that. We would like to see the specifications for those windows that
- we want to replace with. That's it. All right. I think you've covered my questions.
- Yeah, I think we're at the point where, sorry? Public. Oh, public. Does anyone from the public have
- a question or comment on this item? Anyone online? No. All right. If you were asking the petitioner
- if she can hear the questions that you had. So I don't know that any of the questions were addressed
- to the petitioner. My apologies. No, that's all right.
- So I think we're at this point where we entertain a motion. I might suggest we continue this to give
- the petitioner a chance to get us either a window sample or specifications for the window that they're
- proposing as well as a profile of the trim that they're proposing to install. I hear a second. Discussion?
- Jack, comments? I agree with you. We need more detail. We need to see something, whether it's a sketch,
- an architectural sketch or a home sketch, whatever. But we need to see something in detail that shows
- us the trim in the window, proportioning, sizing. I think in all cases, we need something like that
- to give us some data to work with. Jeremy? I agree with Jack. Karen? Same. Kelly? Comments in keeping
- with the motion. We need more information.
- Do you have more information, Duncan? I think you already commented to that, in fact, as did you. So
- this is to the petitioner. So what we're asking you for is a cut sheet or a window sample that represents
- the sizes and profiles of what you're proposing to replace the original windows with. Do you feel comfortable
- being able to get us that? Yes. All right. Can you, for the record,
- state that you agree to the extension of time? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I think we can call the vote
- to continue. And for clarification, who provided the second on your motion? Thank you. Thank you. OK,
- so the motion is to continue to allow the petitioner more time to provide samples. We'll go ahead and
- take on the vote to continue. Jack Baker? Yes.
- Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Renard Cross? Yes. Sam Desola? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes.
- That's 6-0. That motion to continue passes. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to one
- of the commissioners, and he'll get you in touch with us. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
- All right. Next item, 704 West Wiley Street. This is for COA 2560.
- Is the petitioner or somebody representing? Here. Perfect. Okay. Built in 1925, contrary to state survey
- records, 704 West Wiley is a small side gabled house with a rough faced cement block foundation and
- a front porch with a flat aluminum roof and metal railing and posts which were added in the late 60s or 70s.
- There's a long list of materials, which I hope you can all read. I'm going to read the short version
- of the written description. We have proposed to remove the existing deteriorated concrete porch, instruct
- a new porch structure in its place. The new porch will be slightly wider than the original to improve
- function while maintaining a design that is compatible with the historic character of the house. Treated
- four by four posts will be spiked and set into 5,000 psi concrete within the post holes.
- Then covered with vinyl sleeves, painted with a special vinyl paint for protection and appearance. The
- pores will be framed with treated lumber and finished with vinyl siding, soffit, fascia, and gutters
- to match the existing home. The roofing system will include roofing tar paper underlayer, a roof starter
- strip, and asphalt shingles to ensure water-type and durable installation consistent with the existing
- structure.
- A black aluminum railing will be installed for safety and aesthetics. Does the petitioner have anything
- that he'd like to add? No. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. It's just making the porch a little
- wider. Most of the residences on that section of West Wiley do have open front porches. I don't know
- that there's any that are closed in. Some have railings. Some do not, obviously.
- railings are a good idea. So I haven't owned a house that long, but we're just trying to make, we've
- done a number of upgrades and we're just trying to continue that trend. Thank you. Staff recommends
- approval of COA 2560. Of the porch materials, only the foundation appears to be original to the house.
- Depending on when the posts and roof are installed, they may have gained significance of their own right
- But judging from aerial photographs, they were likely installed after 1967. The overall design proposed
- for the porch does not detract from the minimal traditional design of the house or obscure
- its character-defining features. Because of the porch's closeness to the setback line, there may be
- difficulty with demolishing the existing porch and rebuilding a new one to size. I believe the petitioner
- has been in touch with planning about this, and they've gotten that squared away.
- In this event, it might be worth considering expanding the existing porch with a rough cement block
- foundation rather than removing the original materials. But as this is presented, I think it meets district
- guidelines. Thank you. Questions? Yeah, first question is, in the SNAP recommendation, that word at very last
- series of words then removing the original material. Was that the word you wanted to use or was it reusing
- the original material? Removing because the proposal here is for removing the cement block stoop. Replacing
- it with the wood framing porch. Is the thought here then to place this new porch or rebuilt porch on
- the original foundation? Is that what I'm reading here?
- that there is an existing foundation and they're going to build on that. I can clarify a little bit.
- The original porch is six feet out from the house, eight feet wide. And the new porch will be 20 feet
- wide and still come out six feet. So it wouldn't, you know,
- fit on the original foundation, maybe on the outer wall runs parallel with the street, but that would
- be it. OK. So there's another question here. Because of the porches closeness to the setback line, it
- might be difficult in demolishing the existing and rebuilding with new one to size. And in this event,
- it may be worth considering expanding the existing porch. I'm not sure what that all is saying.
- I guess this sort of came out of a conversation I've been having with somebody in the planning department
- who wanted some clarification on where exactly the new porch would extend to in the site plan, which
- looks like it's the same line as the existing porch and whether that's going to meet setback requirements
- for this neighborhood. Because as is the case with the previous porch that we looked at for
- the posts, if the original structure is removed, whatever is going to be built there has to meet current
- codes. So that would mean that if this does not meet setback, it would have to be built back to a size
- that does. So the last I heard, it sounds like this new porch that's being proposed would meet the setback
- requirements for this neighborhood.
- But Eric might have to answer this. There might be more leeway with expanding the existing porch if
- it were not demolished in the first place, and if it were built out to a greater width. But I don't
- think that's something we have to consider right now. Are you sure? Did you have something to answer?
- Well, just the setback question, I have a different
- an additional site map other than this. I didn't make a bunch of copies, but if you're welcome to look
- at it. But in talking to the building permit office, they said that the site map, the second site map
- that I additional when I submitted, they said our setback was now at 17 and a half feet, and it was
- 15 feet was the norm. And they suggested I could do one of two things. I could either make the porch bigger,
- or I could just submit a request for minor modification request, which I did, and that has been approved.
- Right. Thank you. So then is the depth of the porch still six feet, or is it? Yeah, no, it's still six
- feet. OK, thank you. Gary? Are the shingles on the porch going to match the current house? Yes. Gary?
- No other questions.
- No questions. No questions. Does the McDowell Gardens have anything to say about this? I haven't heard
- back about this one. Does anybody in the public or online have any questions, comments on this item?
- All right. I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve COA 25-60. Thank you. Second.
- Thank you. Comments? Ernesto? No. Duncan? No. Renard? No. voting? Karen? No. Jeremy? No. No comments?
- Looks good. I think we can take a vote. OK. There's a motion on the table. On staff's recommendation
- to approve COA 2560, we'll go ahead and vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda?
- Yes. Renard Cross? Yes.
- Sam DeSolar. Yes. Melanie Dusner. Yes. Motion passes 6-0. Thanks very much for coming in. Thank you.
- All right. Have a good night. All right. Next item, COE 2564. This is for 918 West Howe Street. I believe
- the petitioner is present. Yes. OK. Currently, this is a vacant lot.
- The lot at 918 West Howe still has a cement block garage built in the 1960s, but the primary residence,
- circa 1910 Gabledale House, was demolished in 2019 at COA 1940. The petitioner, a new property owner,
- is proposing to build a single story house with a similar footprint. My proposal
- is for a new construction of a principal building on lot 15 of the John Weaver subdivision of the Greater
- Prospect Hill Historic District. Currently the lot has an existing building in the rear northeast corner.
- The proposed principal building will be a gabled L house of 1,733 square feet of heated space, 583 square
- feet of unheated space. The height of the house is 22 feet, seven and a half inches at the ridge.
- It will consist of one story with three bedrooms, two baths, and an attached one car garage, a front
- porch and screened porch. The attached garage is at the rear of the house and will be accessed from
- the alley. This is the former house. Proposal materials include asphalt shingle roofing, smooth fiber
- cement board siding, an exposed split face concrete block foundation,
- Double hung windows with the vinyl wrapped exterior casement windows for the bath and garage. Vertical
- grill in the upper double hung windows. The door will be an insulated metal door with fixed window panes
- in the upper part. Front porch will have a concrete block foundation with six by six painted cedar posts.
- The back porch will have a wooden deck painted cedar posts and
- painted treated lumber, six-inch aluminum gutter. Does the petitioner have anything that she'd like
- to add? Staff recommends approval of COA 2564. The size, outline, fenestration, and setbacks of the
- proposed house closely resemble the surrounding homes as well as the previous building on this lot,
- which are exemplary
- of the contributing buildings in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District. The materials proposed
- are recommended by the district guidelines. The proposed garage is located at the rear of the building
- and would be accessed by the side alley. As of yet, no proposal has been submitted for the demolition
- of the existing garage. One thing that I will mention at this point is the site plan that you received
- in your packets and over email.
- I guess I'll finish off and ask questions. Is for a setback of 14.99 feet, I believe. And the setback
- requirement here is 15 feet. So I have since received a new site plan with a 15 foot setback. I think
- if we're going to approve, I think we can conditionally approve for
- a 15-foot setback rather than a 14.99-foot setback, unless that raises any further objections. So questions?
- Ernesto, questions? Can I pass? Sure, now. Thank you. Who was holding the dumb end of the tape?
- I mean, that doesn't seem material-like. Thanks for straightening it out. I like it. It's compatible
- to the neighborhood. I just want to make it clear that 15 feet is 15 feet. I don't think you can show
- it. I just want to make it clear. Any questions, not clarifications? No questions. There you go. I'll
- bring it back around. Yes, don't you worry. Questions?
- And Noah, did we hear back from the neighborhood? Yeah, I heard back from the neighborhood on this.
- Everybody agreed that I met district guidelines. There was a question about style being sort of Victorian
- form with craftsman features. No objections to what's been proposed. Thank you. Jeremy? No questions.
- Jack? No questions. I have a question. I was going to come back to you. Thank you. No, I am. Ernest,
- I have questions. Thank you.
- question for the petitioner. Do you know the finished floor elevation relative to finished grade? Would
- you speak up? Do you know the finished floor elevation compared to the finished grade? Precisely, is
- there a recommendation, is there a specific? Well, I was just looking at the
- renderings here and the porch doesn't have a railing so if you're going to be above 30 inches above
- finish grade you're going to be required by code to have a railing. I mean if we can I'd probably like
- to be 16 to 20 with the foundation on top of that so we should be well under 30. Okay that's all I have.
- Okay yeah questions so Scott and the rendering
- It's got like stained columns in the list. It says painted wood columns. Right. I agree. And they won't
- be painted. OK. And what kind of exposure are you going to have? What's the siding? Is it 4-inch, 6-inch?
- How? What do you recommend? I've done five and what do you think? So right in the middle. OK. That hasn't
- been specified, but. Yeah.
- I'd say no wider than five. Thank you. That covers my questions. Any questions, comments from members
- of the public? Or anyone online? Possibly online. Yes, Richard. Yes, hi. Good evening. My name is Richard
- Lewis. I live in the Prospect Hill neighborhood, and I serve on our greater Prospect Hill district design
- guidelines committee.
- As Noah mentioned, he did reach out to us, and we submitted some comments. In general, favorable. I'm
- speaking now of the individual member of the committee, not on behalf of the committee as a whole, because
- I think I had the most detailed comments among the group, which, again, were generally favorable. My
- comments were sort of mixing two styles here, which I am neutral about, but it is sort of a Gabledale
- cottage footprint with
- craftsman-style details like an eave bracketing. My concerns principally are about fenestration, that
- these front windows on the public way facade, the primary bedroom window and the living room window,
- are quite a bit shorter and squarer than they would be in an historic house. So it's possible to recommend
- a taller type of window
- to give that more sort of narrow, tall that is compatible with the style around them. And then a greater
- concern for me is that these are four over four panes shown in the renderings, which are neither Craftsman
- nor the late Victorian cottage style. For the cottage style, it would be single pane over single pane.
- And then Craftsman, it would be either
- three over one or four over one, which is sort of reflective of the door in the rendering. So I guess
- my questions, personally, as a member of our design review committee would be, could some of that be
- adjusted so that at least the public facing windows are more compatible with either of those styles?
- But in general, I think it's a thoughtful design, and in general, the comments from our design review
- committee were positive. Thank you.
- All right. I would entertain a motion. I'll recommend approval of COA 25-64. Do I have a second? Second.
- Pick one. I'll do it. I'll say it.
- All right, let's talk about it. Comments, Jack? I don't really have any comments. I understand what
- the gentleman is saying. I'm not an expert in design of houses in terms of look. So I'm just not going
- to make any comments about that. Thank you.
- Karen? No comments. Melody? No. Hillary? I already made mine. There's a process in this game. Duncan?
- Well, I sort of get what Richard Lewis is talking about. I mean, it's a little bit of a mixed metaphor
- style. I don't find it all that objectionable because I
- I want it to look of today's period, let me put it that way, than rather just a replica. But I think
- the taller windows would be nicer on that facade, my personal judgment. And I think I understand where
- he's going with it. I don't have any objection to the bracketing. There's a slightly altered pitch of
- roof and the porches.
- historically accurate to 1910 through 30, which is what this neighborhood is primarily. So there are
- a lot of different things that make it a contemporary building, but I find it overall the compatibility
- is there. So that's my major concern. I mean, it's got an attached garage too, but not a lot of the
- houses didn't. So I do kind of, I am kind of curious about what happens to the garage that is there.
- if that stays there. I think if you really drill down on it to redesign it, you could make some of those
- suggestions would be improvements, but I think that's really, I think it's pretty darn good as it is,
- but better than most of what we see. Yeah, I agree with
- With Duncan, there are details there that are not necessarily exactly how the neighborhood is.
- Taller windows, those brackets are not typical. There's a lot of detail involved in that porch. I mean,
- porches are such a critical element of those houses, so it would require to detail it even more.
- I agree with Duncan. I mean, overall, it looks good. And kind of back on that, I think the petitioner
- did a good job scaling it to the neighborhood, making it enough proportional that it's going to blend
- just fine. And I think the height of the foundation is there's a lot of houses with a lot of varying heights
- along that street anywhere from six to eight inches to 30 inches. So anywhere in there, you're going
- to be fine. And the materials are pretty spot on. I do agree with both of you that taller windows and
- maybe a one over one would make it more attractive. But I'm not going to let that stand in the way of
- approval. So I think it'll fit right in. And thank you for doing such a good job.
- Would you call the vote? Certainly. This is on COA 2564. I'll put a motion on the table to approve based
- on staff's recommendation. And Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackert? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes.
- Renard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Duesner? Yes. That motion passes 6 to 0. Thank you for
- coming in.
- Next item, 1025 East 1st Street in the Elm Heights Historic District, COA 2566. Petitioners are Diane
- Riley and Giles Knox. Are the petitioners present? I am, yes. Great. Then you're Giles, right? Yes.
- Of course. OK. 1025 East 1st Street, the Charles and Cecile Waldron House is a two-story, three-bay
- American four-square with art deco-inspired details.
- It was designed by his stone carver, Chris Donato, and is similar to other homes he designed on the
- street, including 1111 and 1019 East First Street. The walls are ash or limestone with art deco carvings
- under the windows and surrounding the door. The hip roof is asphalt. Three original three over one wood
- windows are located on the second floor. The small porch with limestone newels leads up to the original
- door, which is next to two original three over one wood windows.
- A small wood clad addition is on the west facade. On the request, we are planning to, we are applying
- to replace a chain link fence currently behind our house and with the permission of Bill and Marlene
- Newman at 1107 East 1st Street, a stretch of our neighbor's chain link fence between our two backyards
- with an eight foot tall fence made from wooden posts, wooden picture frame windows, rigid wire, a sheep
- and goat fence or horse panel,
- and four gates of wooden frame and wooden sheep and goat horse panel. Unlike in the photos, which I'll
- show you in a second, the four by eight panels would be turned vertically so that we can dispense with
- the visually distracting upper wooden planks. We see the attached estimate, which has a drawing of the
- dimensions of the fence as well as its relationship
- to the house. So dimensions here are written in. It's not quite what this lot looks like, but hopefully
- that gives an indication. I've also attached some photos of the front facade of the house and the backyard.
- The opening between the house and the garage where we'll put one gate.
- and the area between the Newman's house and our house where we will put another gate over here. There
- will be a third gate at the back of the property to allow line access and a fourth gate not indicating
- the estimate between our property and the Newman's property. The fence will be exactly the same place
- as the current chain link fence. I've also attached the survey carried out by Kevin Potter in
- I have checked with Brian Blake at CBU and Karina Pazos and Katie Gandhi and Planning and Transportation.
- They have no record of any easements at the back of the property or elsewhere. I've also emailed our
- neighbors to the west, Russell Pleasance at 1019 East 1st Street, Aviva Carla Mintz-Tavell, 914 East
- University Street, and Bill and Marlene Newman, see above.
- And I'll seem happy with the fence type we have chosen. Does the petitioner have anything that he'd
- like to add? No. Do you want to keep the deer out? Yeah. It's a big concern in El Heights. I will say
- there's been some difficulty proving whether or not the rear alley here has been vacated.
- So that would determine ultimately the length of fence that can be built. The staff recommendation is
- conditional approval of COA 2566 to either the length that's been suggested by the applicant or a shorter
- length if it turns out that that alley cannot be built in. The proposed fence would not obscure the
- view of the house from the street and would be made of appropriate materials that
- appears to meet UDO requirements on height and setback. There's been some uncertainty about the length
- of the backyard and whether the unimproved alley at the rear of the lot has been vacated. Because the
- proposed fence appears to meet district guidelines, staff recommends a conditional approval of the fence
- to a length determined as acceptable according to the parcel's property lines. And if I can add on to
- the issue about the length of the lot from legal at some point.
- I don't know if you want me to do it now. Honestly, why wouldn't you do it now? Do you want to put up
- that original, I think it's like a 1926 plaque we looked at? One thing that was very helpful in this,
- in looking at the length of the lot, was that the applicant had done a, I think he did a title search
- or provided a title search. And they went back, I think, to 1940.
- Yeah, and there was a document that was included, I think, with the title search that had like a 1926
- plaque that does show an easement across the back for an alley. So this is lots 99 and 104, which you
- can see here with the 16 and a half foot alley in the north. So that's the 1926. Was it Merck? Is that
- what it was called, the Merck Platt?
- Let's see. Just a second, I'm gonna pull up. Um, let's see. Is this the Merckers edition or the... No,
- this is seminary lots 99104. Mm-hmm. Yeah.
- It was the Lindby Lewis edition, that one. Pull that up. This was a August 1926 surveyor, and it mentions
- this. Can you make that a little bit bigger? Yeah, it's hidden by the thing. This document does reference
- an alley. Maybe you can read it, the parts.
- There's a couple of references to the alley in here. Oh yeah, the alley between First Street and University
- is 12 feet wide and at the north side of the Platte, five feet in width. And it says, is given toward
- the alley remaining east from Merkers Addition south of Second Street. So this is the most, what I think
- is the most relevant platte that references the alley.
- And I did pull the deeds this afternoon and all the deeds are consistent, the ones that I looked at
- are consistent with the current deed that talk about the lobbying 132 feet in depth. And so because
- we don't have any proof of a vacation of the alley,
- and because you can't adversely possess publicly owned land, so it's not, you know, you can put your
- fence out there for 100 years, but you can't take it away from the government. I could do that for a
- private property, but you cannot adversely possess publicly owned land. I would recommend that the commission
- specifically put in the record that it has to be matching the deed, which appears to be from the 1995 deed
- the current deed 132 feet deep. So I would specifically not want to see this fence go into the alleyway
- that's platted. Having said that, the neighbors in this area could always go to the city council, who
- is the body that can vacate an alley, and could jointly petition and say, hey, there's never been an
- alley here. We don't want an alley here.
- I mean, there isn't an alley. Yeah, it's grass. And it's even been fenced off. Yeah, in one place it
- has been fenced off. But again, you can't adversely possess the public land. But you could always petition
- the city council to vacate an alley if you wanted. And then you could adjust the fence accordingly.
- But for this purpose tonight, I would, as the city attorney, feel most comfortable that the approval
- only be for a fence that's consistent with the
- applicant's parcel. Can I go ahead and speak? Yes. Okay, so our deed says that the property is 144 feet in depth.
- Is that based on the fence agreement that was somebody had done a couple years ago? No, that's based
- on the deed that Chris DiDonato originally, so the deed from 1941 when Chris DiDonato passed ownership
- of the land to the Waldrins and then our deed, both give a debt
- of 144 feet, and Russell Pleasant's property to the west has a depth of 144 feet, and the Newman's property
- to the east, their deed, has a depth of 144 feet. All those deeds are included in the package that includes
- those plaques. So there is a reference, I see the reference you're talking about in that old deed that
- at the very end says 144 feet.
- and seven tenths feet north and south. Earlier in the deed, it talks about 132 feet south and 56 feet
- east, which is consistent with other deeds. Because of this discrepancy and because there is that original
- plat that shows a platted alley and we have no record of it being vacated, I would recommend this commission,
- you know, follow, again,
- consistent 132 feet, which would exclude the alley. And there's certainly we can follow up, and if that's
- incorrect, and there's some legal agreement that we can find, I did see that we could come back to this
- commission and ask for an amendment of that. But at this point, I don't find enough proof in all the
- history of deeds to show that that longer
- um, death of a lot is the right death. Um, I will also say that, um, that I saw a fence agreement and
- I don't know if you guys haven't, some neighbors had done a fence agreement. Um, I have one here.
- If you, if the owners don't mind me pulling it up, it was, it was included in the title. Yeah, this was,
- Oh, this is included in the title search? I thought it was. I thought that's where you got it. Because
- I had received one in the zip file that had been sent to me. Oh, gotcha. Are you asking if I have objections?
- I mean, no. I mean, I was sent this. And yeah, do you have any objections to me pulling up this offense
- agreement to have a look at? OK. It appears that a couple of prior owners tried to agree with themselves
- that they were going to close the alley.
- and reached an agreement and recorded it, which again, wouldn't be binding on the public right of way.
- But I can see why the applicant might be misled by a prior owner. Let me ask you. That is not on our
- side of the property.
- fence agreement is not relevant to our fence in that that is for two properties that are on university.
- So the only reason that's in there is because the person who did the title search included it because
- it does not refer to an alley. But this does not cover our property. That's helpful. Thank you.
- Ask two quick questions, which might be able to circumvent all of this. One is, is the back fence visible
- from the public right away? So then is it under the purview of the commission? Well, the alley hasn't
- been vacated yet. Yeah, I just wouldn't want you to do something that would happen. No, no. But then
- the other thing that we could do is approve it for whichever case is approved by planning. Yeah.
- I don't know that it's going to be by planning. I don't know the planning is going to have to improve
- the fence, right? Well, you might need a building permit. I'm sorry, Eric, Rulick City for planning.
- You might need a building permit to build a fence if it's eight feet tall. And planning would review
- it in that regard. But if it's less than eight feet tall or doesn't need a building permit, then we
- would not specifically see this. Is it eight feet or full range? Well, it can't be more than eight feet.
- So the UDO restricts fences in the backyard to no more than eight feet tall.
- I believe that building permit is required for a fence over six feet tall. And this would be an eight
- foot tall fence? Yeah. So more than likely, they would need a building permit, and we would review it
- as part of the building. So we could approve this subject to review of the rear property line by planning?
- Well, we would not review the property line specifically. I mean, they would need to give us, I mean,
- they would show us a site plan.
- So what I'm trying to say is we don't care where the fence is in the back. You do. So we would like
- to approve this or not, depending on what other factors, for whatever condition, be it at the edge of
- the alley or at the edge of the property, as approved by planning. So can we ask planning to review
- this and sort this out after this commission has made a ruling on the appropriateness of the fence?
- Sure. Great. Well, that's my room. Well, it seems like legal would have to. Legal. Yes. I'm complaining
- with legal. Yes. This city will review to make sure the law line is where they say it is. Yeah, so I
- just want to de-complicate things a little bit, if we can. Questions? Ernesto? No questions. Duncan?
- No. Renard? Melody? Questions? No.
- looking at is in terms of its design. I see a couple of designs shown here. I'd be more comfortable
- if I had sketches that show the runs of fences, where it runs between house and across the back. Something
- that showed me the fence in more detail gave me some idea of the design of the fence because there are
- two different designs shown here.
- So your question is, what is the design of the fence? Yeah, what is the design of the fence? The fence
- can't be seen from the street. Is that? I thought that was the answer. OK, so if you pause those questions
- for just a minute, I have maybe a follow-up question, which will shed some light on that. So I'm looking
- at this plan here, which does not appear to reflect what's on the ground.
- The house has a little bump out at the alley, right, or at the driveway, and then the garage is behind
- that. And this plan shows a bump out away from the garage and doesn't show where the street is or where
- the driveway is. So I'm wondering how this plan here reflects or doesn't reflect what you have going
- on. So it's very difficult for us to determine
- where the fence is going to be seen or not, given what we're looking at here. So from the street, there's
- a gap of about six feet between the house and the garage. So you'd see that obscured mostly by the bump
- out. So that. And then on the other side of the house, the part you can be able to see is
- So I guess this is the only thing you've got in terms of a plan that shows where the fence is, this sort of
- thing from the fence people, the working fence thing. So all right. Any other follow up questions? Any
- members of the public have any comments or questions on this item? Jeremy, you're not a public,
- but hey. No, sorry. Did the district have any?
- Yes, they have any I didn't get any objections. No. Thank you. In reference to Jack's question, though,
- he's not he's not seeing anything in the photo illustrations that secures for him what this vest looks
- like. So right there, Jack, how about that?
- Those horse panel, goat panel things are, that's what those are, but they're gonna turn them vertically.
- There's gonna be posts between them to secure them too, as I understand it, and there's gonna be no
- high rail. If that's what it is, you know, I'm happy with it. Although, see, there's another picture
- here of a different fence, and I'm just trying to discern which fence we're talking about. Yeah, the
- fence that people
- when Diane asked them to provide a drawing and they couldn't get it. So that really is the... So the
- design is... It's basically two panels, one on top of the other with a bar. No, okay. Oh, Diane, she's
- correcting me. Okay, so would you describe the panels? Yes, can I describe them? Please, please do.
- If you look at the...
- upper right-hand picture that has a four by eight panel of wire. Take that in your mind, turn it vertically,
- set it within the picture frame setting that you see in the middle picture. Rather than just having
- the bare wire, it's set within this picture frame inset, and those will be set between posts.
- The defense company hasn't built a fence like that yet, so they weren't able to provide us with a picture.
- So, okay. I will entertain a motion. Do I have a second?
- going to make a friendly, can you get a friendly amendment to what? Make a motion to approve C.O.A.
- with a condition of approval from planning department and legal. On the permanent vacation of the LA
- determinant? Right, depending on the legality of taking over the LA. Okay. Do I have a second to that
- motion? I'll second.
- All right, let's talk about it. You got comments, Jack? One comment. Deer are hard to keep out. My opinion,
- and it's only my opinion, is not going to keep deer out unless it's fenced all the way up to the eight
- foot level. That's the plan. That's the plan. They're pesky little creatures. I've got them in my yard now.
- Um, thank you, Joe. Jeremy, comments? Yeah, I think I was just more kind of trying to get a
- better understanding of how much was actually visible from the public right away and how much purview
- we really have that you can't really see it on one side and then I don't know about the other, so. Actually,
- on the other side,
- There's a tree. OK. Comments? Well, I just might note that Maureen Newman used to be a commissioner.
- And she's happy. I'm happy. So, Melody, do you have anything? No. Bernard? I'd feel a lot more comfortable
- if we voted on this.
- after the legal issues had been sorted out. Would you speak up? I said I'd feel a lot more comfortable
- if this came back to us after the legal issues with the boundaries were sorted out. It seems to be a
- somewhat complicated motion, especially with boundaries, boundary issues that need to be worked on.
- I would just prefer that this thing be continued. That's my comment. That's my comment. Thank you. Duncan,
- you have comments? I guess I'll comment on his comment. As long as it conforms to the legal property
- law, I don't have any problem with it. And I think our motion has covered us in that regard. We seem
- to be approving the fence.
- And the exact location, especially of the area where the alley is in dispute, has not been determined,
- but it's going to be determined, and that's where the fence is going to go. So we're not going to put
- the fence up before the thing is settled. Right. So I'm not too worried about that, Bernard. Any other
- comments, Duncan? No. I guess my comments, I don't have
- discomfort with the property line. My discomfort lies with the diagram not matching what's on the ground.
- And so I don't feel I know where the fence is going. I am concerned about, would you bring up the photograph
- of the house and garage? If you're fencing between a house and the garage, is it
- Is this supposed to be representing that little six-foot fence piece? It doesn't say there's a gate
- there. It says something that says DD on there. None of this is going to be drilled into the house,
- attached to the garage. It's just to the posts, right? Yeah. OK. So that, Olivia, is one of my concerns.
- But I am a little concerned. That was kind of my major concern.
- You know, it's basically an invisible fence as close as you can get. I mean, it's going to be eight
- feet tall. But yeah, I think just from that, that diminishes my concerns enough that I will support
- it. I think that's where we are.
- Take a vote. May I have clarification of the wording of the motion and the conditional approval? This
- is totally unclear. Thank you. Let me rephrase it again. Move a motion to approve COA number, again,
- Duncan County. 2566. Thank you. With the condition of approval, once planning and legal department have
- settled the location of the fence
- the back of the house. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, so we have a motion on the floor. We'll go
- ahead and take a vote starting with Jack Baker. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes.
- Reynard Cross? No. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes.
- OK, so there were five yes, one no. That motion of conditional approval passes. Thanks for coming in.
- Moving on to demolition delay. This is not 20.
- Sorry, this is COA. That's not right at all. This is DD 2524, so the slide is wrong. At 424 East Cottage
- Grove, the petitioner is Ernest G. This is a 1930 bungalow built in, or it's described
- sorry, in the state survey is a circa 1930 bungalow. But built around 1920, 424 East Cottage Grove is
- a pure middle roof bungalow with a gabled brick front porch. One of the two doors, Front Doors' original,
- was first owned from 1921 through the early 1940s by Thomas and Laura Todd, who owned a neighborhood
- grocery and dealt in real estate in their later years.
- After Thomas moved to a nursing home, the property was bought by Jenny Hinkle, who rented it out to
- a succession of tenants, mostly Indiana University students. Some short-term renters included Gary Stuck,
- a future professor of education at the University of North Carolina, John Goldbeck, now a biochemistry
- professor at Penn State, and Michael Mondovich, a member of the IU football team and later a coach for
- the Indiana School of the Deaf and the Blind.
- The request is for a full demolition. Staff recommendation is for the release of demolition delay 2524.
- All right. Does the petitioner have anything to add? Is the petitioner here? No. They don't need to
- be here for DDs? No. All right. Questions?
- Karen? No. Melody? No. We're not already done. Duncan? No. Sorry. Ernesto? I've got no questions. Do
- we have questions or comments on this one from the public? Amy Butler. My only question is, why demolish it?
- Is the house bad? Is there something wrong with it? You have a question? Doctor, this is John Butler.
- We're trying to save the houses in the Times Grove area. This house actually is maybe just beyond our
- proposed historic district. So we don't, I guess, officially oppose it. But we regret to see yet another
- house in our neighborhood being torn down.
- for really no good reason. Thank you. Do we have anybody online? No. Okay. I'll entertain a motion.
- I regret having to do this, but I'll make the motion. Move to release DD20.
- Do I have a second? Second. Anything to say? I agree, members of the audience. I hate doing this. I
- hate seeing these houses disappear like this. We have no control. And the only thing we can do is release them.
- I hope in exceptional cases that the house will be saved in some way, and knowing in most cases it will
- be destroyed. I'm sorry to say that, but that's the way it is. Is this the same stone carver from last
- week? It's from last week. The next house. Right.
- So essentially, more or less, follows the same justification as stone. No. It's not that Stonecarver
- did not live in this house. Oh, OK. He lives in the next house, or did. OK. That's my question. OK.
- Comments? Yeah. I'm going to go through this week after week after week, as I'm sure you've witnessed
- by now. And the only solution is to district these areas, and I would
- I would urge you to expand your boundary, frankly, but I'm not sure. I think it's completely out of
- our hands. You can vote no, but the only alternative then is to bring it to the city council. I mean,
- there are hundreds, there are lots and lots of arguments, sustainability, waste of money.
- blah, blah, blah. I'm sure you know what they all are. You wouldn't be trying to save your neighborhood.
- But the way that Ordinance is written, those are the only choices that we really have. And it's really,
- really unfortunate to sit here as preservationists and watch this happen, especially in this beautiful
- neighborhood. I don't have anything to add.
- at the point what we call that. We have a motion on the table to release the demolition delay 25-24,
- 425 East Cottage Grove. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Reynard Cross?
- Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melody Dusner? Yes. That motion passes 6-0. Could you read the statement? Today
- regarding the property located at?
- 424 East Cottage Grove, the Historic Preservation Commission declares that it got noticed 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. Okay. Thank you all for your patience. And a general question.
- Probably say that to the end, whereas it's a public comment for general questions. Next item is demolition
- delay 2518. I have a little bit of new information. I don't know if you want me to read through the
- whole thing again, if people are familiar enough with it. So I was asked last week to look into
- whether the other property in Bloomington that Ivan Adams lived at might be more representative of his
- career. So we moved in 1946 to, let's see, I have it written here. South Rogers, that's it.
- Now the property, the house that's standing down there at South Rogers now was built in the 1960s and
- the workshop building from
- the period where he lived and worked there is no longer standing. So the ranch house down there was
- built during the time that he resided at that property, but it was built much later in his career. But
- I'll show you in a sec, putting together a timeline of the work that he participated in.
- that has been identified. It's roughly split down the middle between his time residing at 115 on East
- 11th Street, sorry, East 12th Street, and his time on South Rogers. So, where are we? Where are questions?
- Oh, yes. It was a petitioner present. Nobody online. Nobody online. All right. Nothing bad then. Questions?
- Nope. Questions? Nope. Questions? I have one follow-up question for Noah.
- that the workshop where he did this work, is that still standing? I don't know where he did most of
- this work, to be honest. Basically, I know, or the evidence that I have, that he had a workshop at his
- second home is from interviewing a couple of his grandkids. I remembered one there.
- You know, there's nothing. I mean, there is a full basement here. I don't know if there's anything to
- say that he didn't work on stone in the basement. But the fact is we don't have any evidence that he
- did his work at this location. Thank you. All right. Comments from the public? Questions from the public?
- Raise your hand. Dr. John Butler.
- I do have some evidence that he did do stone carving at that house. There were four stone rosettes that
- marked the corners of the property. I know where one of those limestone rosettes is right now. The other
- three may still be on the property, but they're not visible. They would be either underground or removed.
- There's quite a bit of limestone. When I was a kid, there's a lot of limestone carving remains and stuff
- around the property.
- So he at least brought Stone home from his job and had it there. I didn't see him with the chisels,
- so I can't say. There was evidence when I was at the job. Second, as to the question of association,
- I think you guys are doing good work trying to cross all these t's and dot all these i's. But I also
- think it's sort of a,
- narrow view associated with, I think you could also use a much broader view associated with, and not
- necessarily have to prove exactly what statue was carved when. For example, Springfield, Illinois, his
- Preserve Abraham Lincoln's home and the whole neighborhood around his home. And really, he was a second-rate
- boyer when he lived in Springfield. His great deeds were done in Washington, DC. Gus Grissom.
- has a home in Mitchell. He didn't do any astronauting in Mitchell. That was done in space. Cole Porter
- has a home in Peru, Indiana. Well, actually two homes. I think one or at least maybe both are on the
- National Register. Cole Porter did all of his
- playwriting and songwriting in New York City, not in Peru, Indiana. The home is associated with the
- kids who grew up there. He didn't like the farm. Matter of fact, he never wanted to go back and wouldn't
- go back during the summer, which really made his grandfather angry. So in all these cases, in all these
- cases in Indiana, home and neighbor, Ann Lincoln's boyhood home is preserved in Indiana when, you know,
- really just by catching tadpoles or whatever. So association can be a very broad category.
- here if you want to use it. And I think Ivan Adams is certainly one of the best stone carvers that came
- out of the district, and I think this house is worth saving in terms of that. Thank you. Anyone else
- from the public? I don't have anything really to add on top of that.
- Your entertaining motions. I knew that we did. What's the opposite of release? I keep asking that question.
- Well, the options are to release or to recommend it for designation to the Common Council or to continue.
- But I would
- argue that we continue with some purpose in mind for the continuation. Right. And I'm just going to
- move that we send 2518 to the common council for designation. Do I hear a second? I'll second.
- Melody seconds. Let's talk about it.
- You got comments? I'm willing to go along with. OK, Jeremy of comments. Yeah, I hear where you're coming
- from, but the people that you listed are far more historical significance than the person that you that
- is mentioned here, so I sympathize with you. I hope you're able to get detonation around this area,
- but in this particular instance I just disagree. Thank you. Karen.
- This is a question. Sorry. That time has passed. Has there a time frame on this? We have until October
- 26 or something? 29th. 29th. That would lead me to think we could continue this. You could. That's not
- the motion on the table at the moment. No, it's not. No, I don't have a question.
- Noah, do you have? I just wanted to say thanks to Noah for pulling more works of art together and working
- to pin down a timeline. It's just really helpful. The point that the gentleman made was similar to the
- point I was trying to make last week. I mean, it speaks to association. And it's clearly associated
- with the gentleman, regardless of whether you use a broad or a narrow definition of the word.
- The debatable part, I believe, is historically significant to the community. The important word for
- me there is to the community, not to the nation or necessarily to the world. This is Bloomington, Indiana.
- I mean, every now and then a community gets a space traveler or a president. But there are people who
- are significant to, in their own way,
- to the community and culture, whatever that is. And that's the debatable part. And I believe that certainly
- to Bloomington being the limestone capital of the world, I dare say, and to have a stone carver of note
- who has produced works from Indian limestone and sent it across the country, certainly within the context
- of Bloomington, that is significant. And so I believe that this home being associated with this individual
- meets the criteria for historic designation. I mean, they're preserving my home in Jamaica, and I'm
- not even dead yet. So come on, people.
- I have a total good authority so. Duncan, comments? Yeah, and the comments that were made about,
- I'm sorry, Dr. Butler? He's absolutely right. I mean, there is no, there is nothing about association
- that means that that person has to have done whatever their trade was at the place that they lived.
- That's unheard of in historic preservation. And if in national register criteria you can have national
- slash world significance, you can have state significance, and you can have local significance, and
- they're all treated equally at the National Register. And so the fact that this man lived in a place
- where Limestone was capital and probably either came here or developed his trade because he was here
- and then sent it out into the world in what was obviously high artistic quality,
- clearly makes that significant. And so I don't have any problem by all the standards of historic designation
- that this house qualifies simply because the man lived there. Now, city council may not concur, but
- there isn't anything about the quote unquote association word that isn't being adequately fulfilled
- by what we're doing. So I think it's
- And let's be frank, we're trying to save these houses. And every once in a while, we get a chance to.
- And we just complain that we don't ever have a chance. And here we are with a chance. So get behind
- it. And for God's sake, show up at the meeting and speak for it. Because nothing's worse than having
- a nomination for the city council when nobody on the Preservation Commission shows up, which happens
- too often in the past.
- if we're gonna vote for it, show up. And don't just sit in your chair. Find a reason to argue for it.
- And you'll have better luck. Yeah, I would be mindful of your time, everybody's time. I agree completely
- with Duncan's argument. There's a case to be made.
- about the patrimony that we need to protect. We're talking about a local community in Bloomington. That's
- our job, so I'm all for it. That's it. I'm having a more difficult time with this one than I thought
- I would. This obviously doesn't
- It's not architecturally significant enough to merit it on its own recognizance. I do find myself, over
- the course of this meeting, being more swayed by the local cultural argument. I am leery that the City
- Council will agree. I think they have
- They do not have the same set of concerns that we have. And the other argument that I was going to make
- was that we either designate it or we let it go. And the owner came into this process with the understanding
- it wasn't in a historic district. It was only a contributing house.
- Yeah, but they didn't know all of the things that you've brought forward or all of the things that Noah's
- dug up. That said, I still find myself a little on the fence, but I am, at this point, leaning positive.
- But I would also reiterate what Duncan said, is that you people, especially the people that
- that made the motion, seconded the motion, show up, talk about it, be willing to talk about why you
- made that motion, why you seconded that motion. And we may still lose, provided this goes through this
- vote today. But one of Bloomington's big problems is housing.
- And the kind of housing that's getting put up does not cater to people that are permanent residents
- here. And that is problematic. I live in a great little neighborhood that's full of 1920s bungalows
- and four squares. And I live in one of them. And I would not live anywhere else. And to see the housing
- stock that comes through here that we continually have to allow to get torn down just because the way
- the laws are structured
- is torturous. It's the worst part of this job. And the pay sucks, too. Yeah, I'm swayed. We got a shot.
- I think we're at the point where... I do need clarification on who made the motion. I was talking with
- Chet Renard, and then the motion, the language for that.
- I would like to have it designated. He wants to afford it to designation for the Common Council.
- Thank you. Yeah. Okay. And who was the second? I was. Thank you. So there's a motion on the floor to
- move to Common Council for designation. It's been moved and seconded. We'll go ahead and vote.
- Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? No. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Raynard Cross? Yes.
- Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. OK, that is five yes, one no. That motion passes. Today, the
- HBC declares that the property located at 1150 East 12th Street meets the following criteria for local
- designation referred to in the staff report. Where is it? Sorry. A1.
- A historic district shall include one of the following. It has a significant character, interest, or
- value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation,
- or is associated with a person who played a significant role in local, state, or national history.
- Consequently, the HBC recommends its historic designation under Title VIII of the Bloomington Municipal
- Code to the Common Council with the attached map, which... It's a parcel.
- And then, do we want to vote interim protection? Yes. Thank you. We need to make a motion to put this
- property under interim protection. I will move. So move. Do I have a second? Second. I'm going to have
- to read that. It's helpful. It is helpful. No, I can see this.
- That motion is on the floor. It's been seconded. We'll go ahead and take a vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy
- Hackard? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Renard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. That
- passes 6-0.
- Today, after a vote, the HBC recommends that the Common Council locally designate the property at 1115
- East 12th Street as historic and places the property under interim protection pending action by the
- Common Council under BMC 8.08.015. All right. Did I not?
- Sorry. 1-1-5. 1-1-5. I don't know. Please correct my number or my words. Sorry about that. So good.
- She got it, too. Yeah, she was like, nope. I think that was the last item on our agenda. Do we have
- any hold business? There was somebody who did have their hand raised online.
- I can read what they wrote. She had said that, I'm sorry I have to leave. This was Judith Barnes. But
- I'm happy to hear this spirited debate in favor of preservation. Thank you. My correction to the record
- is that I lived in the house until 1993, not 1991. Tony Kerrigan died in the house in 1991.
- And then I said that we'd make note in the chat. And then she said, thank you all for your consideration.
- I'm very heartened by these votes. Best, Judith Barnes. Thank you. Do we have violations? Do we have?
- I was going to ask Noah, can you make sure we all know when it's going before the council? I will. It'll
- have to be scheduled on a regular city council meeting. Thank you.
- They're doing budget stuff right now, so it might be... It'll be a minute. Yeah. There'll be a public
- meeting here first. I suggest all of you come too. We'll go too, sir. Just a minute. Old business. Old
- meeting prior to this meeting. Yes. Okay. Hearing none, we can move on.
- Oh, violations. All right. Well, there you go. Well, we just learned about a new one. The Matlock Ice.
- Yes. The other one that's on our radar right now is in the works of being resolved. That's the windows
- at 702 West Kirkwood. But Loteris is the only other one outstanding. And that's still got to run out
- of its clock.
- That's not until what spring. Right, anything else? Any new business people want to bring up? I was
- just asking Duncan the procedure for going in front of the City Council once we present this. This house
- that we just pass it on to them.
- Can you describe what the process is for everybody else that we're not aware of? So it's a lot like
- this, because it's proper rules. There's a staff presentation, which will be prepared by myself, as
- well as an ordinance that's drafted that the city council will have to vote on.
- What do you call the first hearing where they just introduced the first reading? There's a first reading.
- That's not really the important reading. That's just introducing it for an upcoming meeting. Confusingly
- enough, it's part of the process. Then subsequently, the item will be presented for a second reading.
- That's when I show up to present a report. There's questions from city council. Then there's questions
- and comments from the public.
- Then there's the city council vote. So we show up for the second reading. Yes. You show up for the second
- reading. Anything I'm missing Margie? No, that's generally it. Don't they vote at the third meeting?
- No, it'll have a first reading, which generally is just introducing it and then the vote will be second.
- Well, if they continue past midnight and someone has to leave, which often happens, then third meeting.
- So we'll find out the schedule of those meetings eventually. Yes. OK. And we'll send a notice to the
- property owner within 48 hours of tonight's meeting. And then we'll show up, too, and have other things
- to say. I think that's what we got. I know there are some comments from the public. I've been very patient
- with us. Thank you, Carly. The general question may not have anything to do with you. When the demolitions do occur,
- Who oversees the environmental impact of this? This week, 10th and Dunn was demolished. You had granted
- them permission to do this. It was an Amish crew that came in there. They did part of it. There was
- an insulation everywhere, old insulation, junk left everywhere. It looks terrible right now. Is there
- some body that oversees demolitions? I know it's not you. I would talk to the Monroe County Building
- Department. OK.
- because it was a mess. Yeah, and they will go down and have a conversation and maybe even more. OK.
- You can also complete, since it's in city limits, if you want to get online and file a new report complaint.
- That's great. Yeah, you, letter you, then report. Let me do it. OK, great. I think that's all we got.
- OK. Any other questions or comments from the public?
- Thank you so much for your hard work. I appreciate all of your time. I know I stretched out a lot of
- your media. That's why we're here. Thank you all. We are adjourned.