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.