2025 meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission to order. Would you call the roll?
Certainly. Duncan Campbell. Karen Duffy. Here. Drew Heron. Jack Baker. Here. Jeremy Hacker. Here. Ernesto
Castaneda. Renard Cross. Here. Sam DeSolar. Here. Melanie Duesner. Daniel Schlabel. Here. We have quorum.
I will entertain a motion on the minutes. I move to approve. I'll second. Call the roll. Sorry. The
motion second was Daniel. Yes. Yeah. OK. We'll go ahead and call roll for the approval of the minutes
from October 23rd. Jack Baker. Yes. Jeremy Hackard. Yes. Raynard Cross. Yes. Sam DeSolar. Abstain. Daniel
Schlegel. Yes.
That is four. Minutes are approved. Move on to COAs. So we're going to start off tonight with some staff
approved COAs. First up, COA 2572 for 118 North Walnut Street in the Courthouse Square Historic District.
Petitioner is Eric Stanley.
This is the Wiley Building in 1900, circa 1900 commercial building with a severely altered storefront.
Within the last 10 years, the standard unoriginal double doors have been replaced with a double casement
window. The request, this application is being submitted for the proposed removal
of a limited portion of the existing storefront at 118 North Walnut Street, comprised of a transaction
window with a glass transom above to be replaced with a single pane of glass. The proposed replacement
glass pane is the center of the three-pane section of the storefront. The removal of the transom in
addition to the transaction style window would allow the new pane to align with the height of the adjacent
exiting panes.
The proposed new glass is to be the same color as the adjacent glass. If any portion of the storefront
jams or sill require replacement or refurbishing, once the transaction window is removed, the aluminum
storefront will be replaced in kind in both color and profile to match the existing storefront. Sincerely,
DLR Group, Eric Stanley, AIA. Staff approves COA 2572.
The alteration proposed to this non-contributing window would maintain the existing scale materials
and overall appearance of the storefront, with the exception of converting the double casement windows
into a single pane. Although this design would not attempt to replicate the building's historic appearance,
it would be more consistent with historic storefront window configurations found in the district. OK.
Moving on, another staff approval COA
2574 at 208 East 15th Street in the Garden Hill Historic District. Petitioner is Tina Sums. The request
here is for a rear privacy fence. 208 East 15th Street is a side table, 1928. Minimal traditional house
with a classical portico. It retains a high degree of integrity. This proposal out.
the plan for the installation of a six foot pine privacy fence on the above reference property. The
project is intended to enhance the property's privacy and provide a safe and secure outdoor space for
pets and children. The fence would be a severe weather doggie or privacy fence, six feet unpainted wood.
It would be installed along the property line entirely within the designated setback area and not extending
into the front yard setback.
A site plan is attached for visual reference. There will be two four-foot gates. The fence would not
be installed within the front yard setback, which limits opaque fences to 42 inches in height. The fence
would not obscure visibility on roads or sidewalks. All necessary permits will be obtained prior to
construction. The following documents are included in your packet. A site plan showing the exact location
and dimensions of the proposed fence
A diagram or image of the six-foot fence style. A couple of bids. We believe that this project aligns
with local ordinances and will serve as a safe and aesthetic improvement to the property. We are available
to meet with the Planning and Transportation Department to discuss the proposal further. Respectfully,
Tina Sims. Staff approve COA 2574.
The proposed privacy fence would be set back from the front elevation, not obscuring the house. It would
meet the unified development ordinance guidelines. I believe that leaves one more staff approval, COA.
COA 2575 for 818 East 3rd Street, the Tri-Delta House. Petitioner is Leila Taylor. The Indiana University
Tri-Delta House is an individually listed
as a local historical district. The building demonstrates a high degree of integrity. On July 24th,
COA 2542 was issued for the installation of a standing sign. However, the dimensions of the proposed
sign have changed from 60 by 18 inches to 50 by 36 inches. They will still be installed on 48 inch wood
posts. You can see on the right the previously
approved design on the left, the modified design, and staff approved COA 2575. The proposed sign is
modest in scale and design, similar to many other signs on the IU campus. Its location on the lot does
not obscure or damage any historic features, and the alteration proposed for the design are no less
appropriate than the previous design. Procedural statement, sure.
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, then hear if the petitioner has any additional information,
followed by a round of questions from each commissioner. To ask the petitioners, the public,
and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed by the chair, unless a question is directly
addressed to them. If a member of the public or a petitioner wishes to comment,
Please raise your hand until recognized by the chair. Upon completion of public comments, the chair
will entertain motions from the commissioners regarding relevant certificate of appropriateness or demolition
to life. 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
the chance to comment on the motion. We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the
public to be civil and respectful at all times.
Okay. Our first commission review COA of the evening is COA 2570 for 212 West Kirkwood in the Courthouse
Square Historic District. Petitioner is Ron Walker. Built in 1882, the Bundy Hotel or Irish Lion...
Is the petitioner present? Yes. Okay, thank you. The Bundy Hotel or Irish Lion building retains all
of its original ironwork with its pressed cornice and brackets.
with its pressed cornice of brackets and medallions and the cast iron columns with their fluting and
detailed bases and crowns. Limestone coins at the ground level separate the two sections of the building,
which is also reflected in the brickwork at the cornice. On October 9th, the COA was approved for the
replacement of the existing windows. This follow-up proposal was submitted for the October 23rd meeting
of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission and continued at the request of the
petitioner wish to change the proposed mullion arrangement for the storefront windows. The request,
as part of the renovation of the former Irish lion, we seek to make modifications to the storefront,
the first floor south exterior. In summary, we seek to take two primary actions. One, remove the nonhistoric
architectural feature, the door and alcove,
that objects on the left west end of the storefront and align the double door entrance so that the doors
are centered in between the two columns. As part of this, we would replace the windows so that they
were even and balanced or symmetrical on each side. The existing storefront consists of single pane
glass. The wood construction was most likely installed when the Irish lion was created in the early
1980s. The current glass is not energy efficient.
and the wood construction is in poor condition and has not been maintained. Our intention is to replicate
the trim with new construction while centering the double doors, creating a symmetrical facade. New
doors would be constructed to match the existing doors. The only difference will be insulated glass
panels will replace the stained glass that was added by the Irish lion. The intent is to provide maximum
daylight to the interior.
In summary, the front facade will be rebuilt with energy efficient material while matching the existing
wood trim and profile dimension. And the existing black color of the doors will be located to make the
front symmetrical. Although not depicted in this rendering, the pediments and other details on the front
door will be replicated. The wall tile and the vestibule is to be replaced with tile imitating the historic
tile on each wall of the exterior entrance.
and staff recommends approval of COA 2570. Comparing the oldest available photographs of the Bundy Hotel
with its appearance from the same angle in 2025, the primary entrance appears to have been moved off
center in the last century. During this time, the storefront has undergone several changes, including
the addition of an alcove door on the west end of the facade and the addition and removal of a canopy.
The current fenestration pattern and materials, as well as the proposed alterations,
do appear very similar to the building's original appearance. The front double doors were already in
place when the building was last renovated and are most likely original. Old holes and impressions in
the doorway indicate, however, that they may have originally been hung differently. The stained glass
was installed at a later date as well. Overall, the condition of the doors have deteriorated and repairs
may be difficult or ineffective where wood is missing.
Does the petitioner have anything that he would like to add at this point? Hi, Ron Walker with
CFC Properties. We continue our work on the property and I wish I could describe what we were doing
as eloquently as you just did.
But our goal, we have two. One is to maintain the front feature as much as we can. But we also wanted
to achieve symmetry there. That was an important point for us. And if any of you have ever been to the
Irish Lion, I've probably went too much for a period in my 20s.
You never use the front doors, the main front doors. You always use the side door. And we really want
to make that a more accessible entrance. We want to bring more light into the first floor of the building.
And we really intend to replicate, save where we can, but replicate where else where we need to what
you see currently and what you've been accustomed to seeing for decades.
down to the pediments and every feature that we can. That is our goal here. We think we'll use more
energy efficient materials. Some of it will be newly constructed. That's our goal with this property.
I think this could be our last request. I'm not sure if we would have anything else that we would be
doing in this property that would require one. Thank you.
Uh, questions. Jack, you have questions? No more questions. Jeremy, you have questions? Uh, Noah, just
in terms of the doors being centered for buildings like this, was it ever common for the buildings to,
or the doors to be originally offset like that? Or can we say for certain that it's definitely something
that happened later? Um, I mean, at least for this building, we can tell that it was done later, um, because,
I wish I had a better comparison photo in here, but you can see the sort of like Edwardian looking picture.
It doesn't have that alcove in the side. And the double doors are more centered than they are now. Also,
there's a few more details. I went out to the property with Ron and had a closer look at the alcove.
You can see there's some modern two by fours in here where that alcove was
built at a later date. Probably, I don't know if this was when the Irish line was put in or before then.
And also where some of the older trim has been covered up where that alcove was added. So, I mean, it
does look like, yeah, these doors were originally centered. Okay. And then my other question is for
the petitioner in terms of the double doors themselves.
You're saying you're going to have to replace them completely. So what are the current issues with the
two existing ones? If you were to look at them, you would see how they've been patched together. They're
not a complete door now. There's some modern hardware on them that is not historic. Some of the original
main piece of the door has just been
augmented significantly, obviously. We think probably late 70s, early 80s. With the Irish line. Yeah,
we think so. And it's just there's not a lot of structural, what's the word I'm looking for, integrity
to them anymore. And so we've looked at them, but our carpenters, the Pritchett brothers, don't believe
that they can be maintained if they're going to actually be used as a burrow away. OK, so. Thank you. Karen?
Will, I have a follow-up question to Jeremy's. Is your plan then to find historic hardware to put on
the replica doors? You mentioned the current hardware is not just enough. Yeah. We could look for that.
Yeah. I think that'd be very welcome if we could do that. That's all? Yeah. Any questions? Daniel, questions?
Okay, I've got a couple of questions. So it sounds like you're replacing the front doors. The existing
front doors have this sort of ornamental applique on the outside and they have it's sort of a half three
quarter like a wood door. One of the things I'm a little concerned about is like you say, you're going
to replicate a lot of stuff. So would you just walk through? Are you going to
replicate the how about the sill meets the ground that little knee wall under the the existing windows
that you're planning on replicating the profiles and the the wainscot on the exterior of that yes okay
and then the trim above the door in between the transom and the double doors and then you're using like
a wood replacement door for the double doors yes okay
Okay. Absolutely. And are you planning to replicate the applique or just like plain wood double doors
or what's the? We're planning to replicate for the most part exactly what you see there. Okay. Yeah.
And I guess the other question I've got is in plan, I'm assuming you're going to go back to where those
windows are, sans the alcove.
So you're matching that line. You have the columns, which are staying in place. And then there's that
whole line of stuff. And you're centering the doors, which are basically the same size. Yes. Yeah, yeah,
yeah. Yeah, you're correct with that. OK. Yes. I think that's all I got. OK. Yeah, good question. We
do plan to go back and stay in that line with the entire front. Yeah, I'm totally behind this. So I
just wanted to check in and not my eyes. Good, thank you. Do we have any questions or comments from
the public?
Yep, over there. What are you going to do with this stained glass? I don't know. It's green. Yeah,
it is. I was wondering that myself. We haven't gotten to that point yet. But we may try to use it in
the next use of the building. Anybody online have a question? I don't see anybody standing around.
Thank you. I will entertain a motion on this one.
I recommend approval of COA 25-70. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you one, Daniel.
There's a race. Jam me on the schedule. Comments? I'm excited with the photos to see it re-centered
again like it should be. I think it's going to be good stuff, so I'm excited for this. Thank you.
You know? Oh, I like it. If you don't mind me asking, what are you going to use the building for?
The concept is still to be determined, but we, exact concept, it's gonna be open for future food and
beverage. Okay, cool. Yeah. Karen, come in. Oh, I like it too. I think the centering makes a huge difference
visually. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for taking care of this building. Yeah, you're welcome. Yeah,
I'll pass that on. Glad to see it's going back in something of an original form. I've always enjoyed
looking at the building
that has nice, just nice characteristics and I'm glad that we're keeping them and keeping them up to
date, modernizing and at the same time weatherproofing and taking good care of the building. Thank you.
I want to thank you for taking good care of this. I think it doesn't exactly match the historic photographs
but more light, not a bad thing and you know you're keeping with the spirit of the building and
It's definitely an improvement on what's there, so I greatly appreciate what you're doing. I think we
can call the roll for a vote. There's been a motion and a second to approve the COA. We'll go ahead
and vote. Jeff Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Daniel Schlegel?
Yes. This motion passes 5-0. Thank you for coming in. Thanks to you all. Appreciate it. Appreciate it.
Thanks, Noah.
Okay, next item I heard from the petitioner that she's traveling today and won't be able to attend.
So unless I hear otherwise and somebody shows up for this item, it may have to be continued to the next
meeting. This is 2573. Just in case, would you like to kick this to the end of here? Sure.
Next item, COA 2576. Is the petitioner present? Yes. That's right. OK. 200 East Kirkwood. This is the
People's State Bank. Built in 1961 by Monocle and Wolverton, Inc. The Bloomington National Savings and
Loan Association building is rated notable as an international style commercial building. It was designated
as a local historic district in 2022. And several stories have since been added.
for the building's conversion into a hotel. The request is for the installation of a backlit sign onto
a marble curtain wall. I subsequently received some more information about this proposal in an email
from the petitioner, so I'll go ahead and read that application. Please note that the existing Blackstone has been
has several patched drill holes from the previous bank signage, hard to see in these images. Note that
a single half-inch hole with power stubbed through it already exists that will be used for the signage
power. Most importantly, note that the new signage, unlike previous signs, will be anchored to the wall
through vertical mortar joists so as not to add further damage to the blackstone panels.
This will easily allow for the signage to be removed and changed in the future without leaving a bunch
of holes. And furthermore note that the signs are cabinet signs, not individual letters. So it is easy
to drill mounting anchors at the joints and not create a shotgun of holes in the stone face. The hotel
is in the midst of amending our lease to include a lot of common space area that would include the Washington
Street side of the building.
Once this is done, we will be requesting that signage be allowed on the Washington Street side as well.
This was the original plan, but due to our lease space on the blueprint, the city said that we cannot
hang a sign there. We will be seeking that permission once I have the drawings. That being said, can
we request at this meeting, should the city approve that signage in the future, that we may hang a sign
on the Washington Street frontage in the same manner as the Kirkwood Avenue frontage. Thank you for
your time and I will see you Thursday.
This email was in part a response to the staff recommendation, which was against approval of
this application, sort of out of concern for protecting the black marble curtain wall. The building's
curtain walls and large plate glass window make sign placement a challenge, particularly if the marble
wall is to be protected. One way to prevent further damage to this material would be to attach the sign
to the awning.
Since the building itself is modern and the scale of the sign is not obtrusive, staff does not find
an issue with the design proposed. I will say what's proposed in this follow-up email, and sorry for
sort of jumping back and forth, for anchoring into the joists between the stones is different from the
proposal from Sign Solutions that you see in your packet.
So I think that may have to be a topic for conversation tonight. At this point, do you have anything
else you'd like to add? No, I think you said it very well. I mean, yeah, the Science Solution people
have told us that they, instead of putting into the black marble, Teresa, a better way to not
To protect it more would be to go through the joints so that there would be minimal damage, if any,
to that. So I felt like this was a really good solution to what was proposed. All right. Questions?
Shannon? I just wanted to make sure. So you said in your follow-up.
I couldn't read it back here. That there's already power through one of the previously drilled holes?
Yeah, you can see in the sign, when the hotel did theirs, you can see a little dot on that picture.
Yeah, right there, there is actually power that's already been put there. The hotel did that, I think,
when they were building out. I just want to make sure I understood that. Yeah, so the power is already
there. We don't have to. That won't be another hole in addition. No. OK. There's like a junction box
there. Perfect. OK. I think that's the only question I had.
We're not. No. Karen. No. Karen. Just forgive me if I missed this, but there's already kind of like
a, like I said, awning with a posh sign that's hanging down. Is there not, is it not like a possibility
to have it hanging from? Not according to the owner of the building. Ah. Maybe they kind of lost it.
I see. And we also didn't have it powered. I mean, that wasn't an option when we were doing this. I see.
So there's no power that would be, we would have to, I think I put in an email to Noah earlier was that
we would have to move the posh sign because our sign is square and it would definitely look funnier.
We'd have to put two of our signs and I did inform the owner to ask if that was a possibility and his
response was absolutely not.
So nope, I'm sorry to say. Thank you. The smacks of the signage issue we had with the donut shop down
the street. Question of sign with light. Seems to me we had similar questions. How does this fit with
city code on signage, especially the lighted signage?
Is it allowed? What about light levels, that sort of thing? I'm questioning that. Do we want light at
signage here? Is this a question for planning? I think it would be a good question for planning to find
out if light at signage is allowed, first of all. Well, we have somebody from planning here. Yes, Joe
Patterson, zoning along the range of planner.
in our review of this. Yeah, we reviewed the lighting aspects and the character of the area and we felt
that due to the variety of signage in the area, you know, with your CVS, the freestanding sign across
the street with the church and the posh signage and other uses on Washington Street, we felt that the
signage kind of
the end with that variety of signage and the lighting. So we did not see any issue with that. Not an
issue with brightness. It's a backlit sign. So it won't be nearly as bright as you would have, I think.
They can be. Yeah, they can be, but no. That's why I'm asking questions. I don't think it will be. No
more questions. All right.
So how wide is the mortar joint? An estimation, probably about an inch. I don't think so. I mean, oh.
Quarter inch? Could be. So the anchors are a quarter inch in diameter.
I mean, this is a modernist building. And when you get past that, there are 3 eighths of an inch. But
of this era, they can be a quarter. They can be an eighth. So my big concern here is that if you start
drilling even into the joint, that you're going to damage the panels. And that's original material.
All of the storefront, all of the spandrel panels,
That's all new stuff. And I am much less concerned about mounting anything there. But I have concerns
about mounting on the original marble wall. Would you be amenable to putting signage either on or behind
the windows or the spandrel panels? I would have to.
consult the owner, for sure, on that. Not the owner of Gables Bagels, but the owner. Of the building.
Yeah, of the building. I think it would, by putting a sign like that on the window itself, a backlit
sign, it's going to not let light into the building. I mean, the natural light of these huge windows
that are there now, to put it on that window, I think, is going to create a... Do you know what I'm
saying when I talk about spandrel panels? No.
So would you go to the elevation if there's a... Wait, this elevation? The picture of the elevation
on Kirkwood. And zoom in on it, if you can. So that black stuff above the other, you can't see through
that. Correct. That's all spandrel panel.
That's what I'm talking about. Oh, up high. Up higher. Oh, I was still looking at the marble there.
I was like... No. See, all the marble is original material. All of the aluminum storefront, all of that
glass, all of the spiral panel, which is the window you can't see through that covers up the floor plate,
that's new stuff. So that's less precious. Sure. I get that. I understand that. That makes sense.
I guess my question for that would be that the point of signage is to be seen. And like in this photo
in particular, it would be difficult to see with the trees. And we have leaves on the trees nine months
of the year. And so that's going to make it less impactful for us. Is that glass to the left or the right?
Those are windows. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's where the store is. That's where they are. That's where
the store is actually. You can actually sign on the inside of the glass. Well, I don't know that we
can. It's pretty wide. I mean, it's from what I've seen, I think it's six inches wide. To put it inside,
it won't fit in that panel width. If you know what I mean, the window panel is not wide enough,
I don't think, for the
Well, the sign hasn't been made yet, has it? It is in production, yes. I mean, that was what the owner
of the building told us to do. He wanted that. I'll also speak from the planning department's perspective.
Window signage cannot cover more than 25% of an individual pan. OK. Thank you.
That's fine. But it's a huge pain, though. Yeah, it's a big pain. It is a big pain. It is a big pain.
Do we have any idea of the weight of the sign? I do not. Are we 50 pounds, 25 pounds, 15? It is a cabinet
sign, so it's made out of mostly aluminum. So it's pretty thin, or it's pretty light. It probably has
some depth to contain light. Correct.
That's what I said. I feel like one of the things I saw on there said it was like six inches wide. Six
inches deep. Yeah, sorry, not wide. So I couldn't tell you what that was. I think what I'm getting at
is if it's not too heavy, if it were 100 pounds signed, that would be one thing. But if it's going to
be on the order of I
would guess it could be, what is it, roughly 40 inches by 18, something like that. It's 50 by 24. That
it'll be light enough that if we weren't worried about the joint, a smaller holder in the joint and
a 20 pound sign, I don't worry too much about.
something heavier than that, I would. I'm just trying to get around what this really is and what damage
it might cause. Yeah. I had to go over and check the joint size before I came here tonight, but I did
not get that done. So I think we can do a couple of things. We can say, let's table this until the next
time around, and I'll go check the joint sizes. And if it's not a problem, it's not a problem.
And if it's not going to damage the joints, I'm not going to have issues with it. I would like to hear
from anybody if anybody else would have issues. How risky is it to be going into those joints with that
sort of like black marble material? If the joint is over a quarter of an inch, it's not a problem. If
it's a quarter of an inch, it's a problem. And those joints can be anywhere from 3 eighths to a 16th.
depending, I just don't know what it is. They are an expansion joint type, aren't they? No. No, they're
just mortar joints. So you put them in, apply mortar, that's what holds them in place. There is no expansion
to them, so there's no real damage to anything beside it or above it. So in other words, it's not putting
pressure on it. If you're drilling into that, you're just getting rid of the mortar.
Provided that the joint has the width. And these tapcon question for you, there's no sleeve on these,
right? It's just. I don't believe there is, at least. That's not what was given to me, the information.
Oh, yeah. OK. So if you're using quarter-inch tapcons. Yeah, I don't see any mention of a sleeve in
this. No, they shouldn't have sleeves. OK.
So we can either do this, we can continue it, check the joints out, or we can say conditional approval
based on joint size, or we can deny it and suggest somewhere else to go. So I think I've gotten a little
off track. I think I will entertain a motion of where we need to go.
Well, a conditional approval would be approval for basically what was described in the follow-up email,
drilling into those joints, and essentially would be accepting that the holes might be wider than the
joints. But we simply don't have that information right now.
I'm looking at the manufacturer's website for Tapcom. And for a quarter inch anchor, you use a quarter
inch bit, right? And if it's a quarter inch, that's actually kind of problematic. So it's got to be
at least 3 eighths of an inch for this to work. Well, it worked for me anyway.
Or bigger. I mean, the other thing you could do is go back to your sign manufacturer and can you use
more anchors that are three sixteenths? Depending on the size of the sign and patient. But what we've
gotten here from you is like a quarter inch. And that worries me. I mean, I'm happy to go back and ask him that.
I don't know why that wouldn't be a possibility to be able to do that, to do the smaller anchors, but
it would be more holes. I think he was trying to stay away from more holes. It's the holes in the marble
we care about. Yeah, I get it. Not the holes in the grout or the mortar. If you can get more holes that
are smaller, not a problem. I think we might be able to do a conditional approval
based on compatibility with at least a 16th of an inch smaller anchors than joint size. Verified by
no loaders. Verified by no loaders. Are you comfortable with that? Yeah, if I could get some follow-up
information afterwards. OK. You're done with that? Sure. OK. I'm going to do a trial balloon here. I'm
going to move me forward to our next meeting.
with the understanding that we'll be looking at joint sizes and possibilities for CAPCOMs or other kind
of holders for the sign. And we will resolve it by the next meeting and could go on from there. So we
have a motion on the table. Do I have a second to continue? All right. You second? OK. Would you call
the roll? Just a comment. Comment.
made my motion, no comments. Yeah, I think just figuring out the physics here is really important, at
least to me, because I think if we can drill in there and not harm the marble, then it's like, OK, this
is fine. I think we just need a little bit more information. OK, works for me. Karen? Yeah, sounds like
a good strategy to table it. Yeah. The motion, just to make sure I got it right, was just
get more information for the next meeting. And to find out if more anchors will work for the sign or
if they'll do it slightly. I'm going to have to get technical with this for a bit. Per our rules and
procedures, because this would go over 30 days and the commission's had an opportunity to hear it,
Continuing it to the next meeting would require assent from the petitioner. So you would have to agree
as well. So if you have an objection to continuing this, or would you be all right with continuing this?
Well, I guess if this means that I don't get a sign, if I do object, then yes, I guess I will agree.
I thought we'd be done today, so. It's hard to know sometimes. All right, so I heard that as an assent.
Is that clear? Yes. All right. Any additional comments from planning? Nothing else from planning. I
just got to make sure to seek public comment as well. Do we have anything from the public? Anybody in
line? I'm not seeing the person online raising their hand.
So the motion is to continue to the next meeting, pending information on connections and joint size.
Would you call the roll? Yes. OK. And this is for COA 2576, the motion to continue this to the next
meeting. For more information from the petitioner, Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Bernard Cross?
Yes. Sam DeSolar? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes.
So that motion to continue is approved 5-0. Thank you for coming in. Thank you. We'll work through it.
See you next February. Thank you for your patience. Next item, COA 2577 for 703 East 7th Street in the
University Courts Historic District. Petitioner is Michael Chambly. Is the petitioner present?
Okay. I can probably unmute him as well. Okay. 703 Seventh Street is a two-story limestone craftsman
house with Italianate features. The facade is visible from North Fest and the parking lot and alley
to the north of the building. In June 2025, the property owner received COA 2532 for the replacement
of the rear single-story
shed addition. The fire marshal has since requested a revision to the proposed rear addition which would
allow more clearance for the kitchen exhaust which would extend the addition north another five feet
into what is now the parking lot. This proposal also includes the construction of a wooden deck and
ramp at the northeast corner of the first floor of the building. Just walking through this.
So to sum up in the architect's words from the previous application on May 15th, the scope of work includes
the demolition of the existing. Hi, can you hear me?
So I guess in short this involves the demolition of the existing rear addition, building a new rear
addition with a flat roof, entry door, installation of a new kitchen hood with an exhaust fan and air
system, installation of a metal exterior door,
be used LP smart siding with an 8-inch reveal. And this new proposal also includes the construction
of a deck at the northeast corner of the property.
The staff recommends approval of COA 2577. The proposed rear addition would replace the later addition
on the rear of the house and would not obscure the primary facade. It is compatible in scale and materials
to the original structure and is self-supporting and distinguishable from the original house. Adjacent
to a parking lot, its impact on the site would be minimal. The replacement addition would be very close
in size to the existing addition, and the added vent would be inconspicuous and located on a minor elevation.
The deck likewise would be minimally visible from the street and is appropriately scaled to the building.
Is there anything the petitioner would like to add? Is the volume up enough? I'm typing with him to
see if he's able to hear us in the meeting. And he is unmuted.
in the chat from typing. He might not be that familiar with Zoom. I cannot hear him. OK, he's not hearing.
OK. We have audio shared. Yeah. Picking that up. Yeah, the microphone is registering things. Yeah. There's
one thing in the chat. Is that not? Yeah, we're typing.
volume on your end. We're getting a statement via the chat. Yeah. And then I'll add, I'm just going
to do that, too. Why don't we wait, can we get two minutes? Is there a courtroom with them? Yeah,
there is a. You're going to have to pause. Two minutes? Sure.
Figure out this chat thing and then go back to the items. Michael, we just heard you.
So he says he's turned up his speaker volume, but no sound. Are you able to hear this right now? You
might be able to turn on the transcript if you click on the three dots in the corner and then for more
and then transcript. Are you telling me this? Yeah, yeah. Yes, yes. It should have been more clear.
So I should be typing this to him? Yeah.
I'm happy to have him call my phone and I could have him on the phone.
speaker as well. I'm a little bit worried that we can't actually communicate with the petitioner. Yeah.
And I don't mind as long as, I mean, he can just call my cell phone number and I'll put it on speaker.
I mean, tell him that. Will that be fine? I can put it up to a microphone. Yeah, let's just try that.
And we can repeat it if it's not clear. Yeah.
That's odd. So he's... Currently he's muted. Ask him to unmute again. Thank you.
Michael, you are unmuted. Will you try again? Nothing. Okay.
This is a Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Yes, this is Michael Chamblee. Oh, we're hearing
you on. That's great. We can hear you through Zoom. So would you prefer to talk through Zoom instead
of on the phone? Do you want to try speaking again? I don't know what's been said because I don't have
any sound. Oh, so I can't speak. OK, then I'm going to put you on speaker so you can hear us. And then
you just let me know.
So you're on speaker phone right now. I can hear him. Yeah. OK. That should be fine. OK. So I guess
he didn't get my presentation in that case. Let's see. Oh, I muted him. Yeah.
Okay. So Michael, you received a copy of this packet for this meeting, right? I did. Okay. I clicked
the link and I went through everything, but it just doesn't have any sound. I see the video.
That's good. So I just basically did a presentation where I went through my staff recommendation and
what you submitted.
Is there anything else that you'd like to add before commissioner questions? I'm sorry? Is there anything
you'd like to add before the commissioners ask questions? No, that's fine. I'm open for questions if
y'all need any. Okay. Great. So, Sam. All right.
Questions. Well, I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at. So I'm going to ask questions about the sighting.
It looks like it appears we have a stair and sitting under it is
part of the existing building that's being renovated, but I can't tell, am I looking on the north elevation,
the new work, is it defined by some sort of lap siding or what am I looking at there? Right, we were
gonna use kind of a horizontal lap siding. Smart side, it's a synthetic kind of a wood siding.
It looks like wood. Because that's what they have now is basically horizontal siding on that addition.
And we're just making the addition that was made to the building in the past years of four feet more
towards the north. Yes. OK. All right. I'll save my questions and I'll have the commissioners to ask now. OK.
or Jeremy, no questions? No. Karen, questions? No questions. Bernard, questions? No questions. I think
you can go back around that way. Unless you want to get your steps in. Get your steps in. Do we have
any comments or questions from the public or anyone online? All right, I will entertain a motion. I
move to approve COA 2577.
Do I have a second? Daniel seconds. OK. Comments, Jack? No, it seems it's a matter of moving a wall
basically three, four, five feet. If I understand correctly, I have no real issues with what they're
doing. Chairman? It's not interfering with the really sort of the significant elements of the property.
It's on the backside. I have no problem with it. Chairman? No problem.
I know. Yeah, I feel it cleans up the property a bit, so I have no objections. I think we are at a point
where we have any comments from the public. I think we can call the roll. OK. And so this is on COA
2577. We'll go ahead with voting. Jack Baker? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Renard Cross? Yes. Sam DeSolar?
Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. That motion passes.
5-0. Thank you for coming in. All right, so you got that, Michael? Yeah, it's great. Thank you so much.
Great. All right, have a good evening. Mm-hmm. OK, thank you. Bye. Oh, I'm on that. Thank you.
Thank you, Tom. Sure. We have one demolition delay for this evening. It's a demo delay, 25-25, which
we've seen before.
The petitioner has let me know that they're still waiting to hear back from a structural engineer, so
they're not going to be attending this meeting tonight. I mean, you can consider it whether they're
here or not, but they would like to come back on the December meeting, which is still within their time frame.
So does anybody have objections to, is it continuing this one? Is that the thing? I think we can just
continue it. We're within the 90-day demolition delight period. Do we need to vote to do that?
I think so. Yeah, why don't we go ahead and do a motion? So move to continue. Second. Renard, second.
Jeremy, first. I'm sorry, who seconded? Renard. Thank you.
It's been moved and seconded to continue demolition delay 25-25 to the next HPC meeting. We'll go ahead
and take a vote. Jack Baker? Yeah. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Bernard Cross? Yes. Sandra Soler? Yes.
Daniel Schlegel? Yes. That motion to continue approves 5-0. Do we have anybody online or in the audience
for the Tri-Delta? Right. Application? There's nobody online. All right, so I think that one
We continue that one as well. Is that still within the time frame? It is, but I mean, regardless, if
they don't come, then that doesn't count for the time running out. OK. Good enough. All right. We are
through our DD. Do we have any business? Do you want updates on violations? Oh, yeah. I love updates
on violations.
So there are two pressing violations right now. 702 West Kirkwood, I've sent a letter requesting that
fines be paid within a 30-day time frame from when the letter is sent. So they have received that. I've
received an application from a contractor working for the property owner for installing a trim around
the window
I'd like to get the issue of the fine resolved first. Do we have information on the actual windows yet?
Oh, they haven't sent a proposal for replacing those windows. OK, just the trims. And also, I need to
get sort of a final sign off from my troika on sending out the violation, notice of violation, or sorry,
not notice of violation, the request for fines for
301 East Glendora, but that one will also be going out. Are you all familiar with that one? This is
the basement window which was put in retro. Have you heard anything from them about actually coming
forward with COAs or anything like that?
They had stopped responding to my emails, and they didn't respond to the notice of violations. OK. So.
Well, they might start responding to fine. The finest, very appropriate message. OK. That was blatant.
Yeah. What else we have? OK, that was. New business. New business. Have I got new things? The tour?
Did you want to try the tour? Oh, we have the Near West Side Tour on this coming Saturday through the
History Center.
John Summerlot's going to give a presentation at Banneker for about 20, 25 minutes plus question and
answer for half an hour and then an hour and a half-ish walk with our new educator, Luke Anderson. So
it's free. It's open to the public. We just ask that we just get RSVP, so just reach out or call the
History Center and let us know. It's in conjunction with our exhibit about historic neighborhoods on
our second floor through the end of the year.
My understanding, too, is that this is the first of a series that you're going to do in other neighborhoods.
Is that correct? Potentially. We're going to see how it goes. Yes. So let's make this a success. Bring
them in this. That's what I said. It's this coming Saturday. Oh, it's a Saturday? Oh, damn it.
Saturday at 1. Yeah. OK. If it's getting dark so early, we can't do that. Yeah. Good luck with that.
20 minutes for John talking.
You're familiar with this person? Oh, I know John, yeah. OK. He's a really, really smart guy who knows
his stuff, but he'll talk about it. A short update on Cottage Grove. They had a meeting on Monday at
the library. I think they are just about through the public meeting process. It wasn't very well attended,
but there were some interesting history. It turned out Hoagy Carmichael's house used to be there before
it was torn down.
among other things but it's good meeting and I think do we have a lot of meetings this is number four
of the required three yeah so I think they're at least covered on that one and theoretically though
gonna be coming before council do they have a date yet do they have a date for their house
to take it to council, I think first reading is on December 3rd, right? I thought December 3rd, but
I just didn't get it. This is for the House, yeah? This is for the House. This is not for the district.
Not for the district. December 3rd is first reading then, right? Yes. But then, do you know when they
might be bringing stuff to the commission for the larger district? I haven't heard from them about that.
Yeah, they need to get a book together. Yeah, I was just wondering if they had a time limit or not.
I mean, by the way, second reading's generally the important reading for an ordinance, so.
Do you know when that would be? Would it be two weeks out?
Try and be there. Oh, I have to be there for that. Yeah. No, I'm trying. It's my job. In partnership
with the owner, not over the owners. Right. Yeah. This is not a contentious elevation. All right. So
I think that's all the news that I got. Does anybody else have anything? All right. Public comments?
All right, I think that's it. We are adjourned. Thank you all for coming in.