WEBVTT 00:00:00.354 --> 00:00:09.383 - All right, I would like to call this meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission to 00:00:09.383 --> 00:00:18.684 - order. Can we get a roll call? Duncan Campbell? Here. Drew Heron? Jack Baker? Here. John Butler? Here. 00:00:18.684 --> 00:00:27.713 - Ernesto Castaneda? Here. Melody Dugner? Here. Karen Duffy? Here. Jeremy Hackard? Here. Abby Hanson? 00:00:27.713 --> 00:00:29.790 - Here. Daniel Schlegel? 00:00:30.914 --> 00:00:42.698 - We have quorum. And Jeff Goldin. Oh, Jeff, I'm so sorry. Jeff Goldin? Just walked in. OK. There's a 00:00:42.698 --> 00:00:54.718 - better chair over there. All right, let's move on to election of offices. Is there anybody? We can do 00:00:54.718 --> 00:00:57.310 - this one of two ways. 00:00:58.402 --> 00:01:06.897 - wait for a larger body and elect offices for this meeting, or we can go ahead and take nominees for 00:01:06.897 --> 00:01:15.392 - chair and vice chair for the year. Does anybody have a motion for chair, either for the year or for 00:01:15.392 --> 00:01:24.057 - this meeting? I'll do it. OK, so that's a nomination for Jeremy Hackard from Jeremy Hackard. For this 00:01:24.057 --> 00:01:27.710 - meeting or for the whole year? Either one. 00:01:30.210 --> 00:01:37.967 - I'll second that. I'll go for the year. So we have a motion on the floor to nominate Jeremy Hackard 00:01:37.967 --> 00:01:46.112 - as the commission chair for 2026. We have a second. We'll go ahead and take a vote. Voting members only, 00:01:46.112 --> 00:01:53.559 - please. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Melanie Duesner is not here. 00:01:53.559 --> 00:01:59.454 - Jeff Golden? I'll stand for himself. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. 00:02:00.578 --> 00:02:10.118 - Abbey Hanson not here, Daniel Schlegel. Yes. That motion passes. Congratulations to our chair. 00:02:10.118 --> 00:02:20.361 - Thank you. Do you want to take away the next item? Yeah, sure. So next up is the election of the vice 00:02:20.361 --> 00:02:28.094 - chair. Are there any nominations for vice chair? Shall I say someone's name? 00:02:28.418 --> 00:02:36.789 - Is there anybody that, if anybody wants to throw around any nominations of your colleagues? Jack, are 00:02:36.789 --> 00:02:45.160 - you interested? Because you were chair for a year, weren't you? At the committee. Here? No. I haven't 00:02:45.160 --> 00:02:53.531 - been an officer here. Okay. There's some reason I thought you had. Would you vote? I will. So is that 00:02:53.531 --> 00:02:57.470 - a motion to nominate? Yeah, I'll nominate Jack. 00:02:58.178 --> 00:03:09.098 - Second. Okay, we have a motion to nominate Jack Baker as the vice chair for 2026 or for this meeting. 00:03:09.098 --> 00:03:19.911 - Thank you. Okay, so we'll take that vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. 00:03:19.911 --> 00:03:26.014 - Jeff Golden? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. 00:03:26.914 --> 00:03:35.490 - Daniel Schlegel? Yes. That motion passes, and congratulations to our vice chair. So one thing that I 00:03:35.490 --> 00:03:44.490 - wanted to add at this point in the meeting is city council, I believe, recently passed ordinance 2026-04, 00:03:44.490 --> 00:03:53.150 - which makes some amendments to title two that handles boards and commissions. As I understand it, one 00:03:53.150 --> 00:03:55.358 - of the changes that might 00:03:55.618 --> 00:04:03.310 - affect our commission is that they're proposing that each board or commission have a elected secretary 00:04:03.310 --> 00:04:10.779 - and treasurer. Right now, both of these things are handled by housing and neighborhood development. 00:04:10.779 --> 00:04:18.322 - So I'm gonna wait some more clarification on that, but I wanted to give everyone a heads up. Next up 00:04:18.322 --> 00:04:24.222 - on the agenda is approval of the minutes for January 22nd. Do I have a motion? 00:04:25.442 --> 00:04:34.293 - I'll move for approval. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Excellent. OK, there's a motion to approve 00:04:34.293 --> 00:04:43.145 - the minutes of the February of the January 22nd HPC meeting. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto 00:04:43.145 --> 00:04:51.996 - Castaneda? Yes. Melanie Duesner? I'm sorry, she's not here. Jeff Golden? I'm staying. Karen Duffy? Yes. 00:04:51.996 --> 00:04:55.230 - Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? 00:04:55.362 --> 00:05:04.770 - Yes. Minutes are approved. Excellent. Next up is a staff review for COA 2606 Miller. All right, our 00:05:04.770 --> 00:05:14.555 - first item, certificate of appropriateness 2606. The address is 213 East 14th Street in the Garden Hill 00:05:14.555 --> 00:05:22.270 - Historic District. Petitioner is Troy Hanna. This is a non-contributing property. 00:05:23.682 --> 00:05:33.849 - The request is for the replacement of the windows and front door, neither of which are original to the 00:05:33.849 --> 00:05:43.720 - house, as well as in-kind replacements of the siding and roofing materials and the replacement of a 00:05:43.720 --> 00:05:52.702 - clamshell aluminum awning with a lumber awning, gable-shaped capped with roofing shingles. 00:05:59.714 --> 00:06:05.954 - The staff approved COA 2606. Replacement of the roof shingles and siding and kind is not subject to 00:06:05.954 --> 00:06:12.257 - review and this work can be conducted without the commission or staff approval. Existing windows and 00:06:12.257 --> 00:06:19.121 - doors are not original and the proposed replacements would closely match the existing size and configuration. 00:06:19.121 --> 00:06:25.424 - The aluminum awnings are a later mid-century addition but do not necessarily confer greater historic 00:06:25.424 --> 00:06:27.358 - or architectural significance. 00:06:28.098 --> 00:06:35.993 - The new proposed pediment over the front door is sympathetic to the design of the house and its period 00:06:35.993 --> 00:06:44.042 - of construction. All right. Next up is commission reviews for certificates of appropriateness. I'm going 00:06:44.042 --> 00:06:51.784 - to read the statement here. The procedure for COAs and demolition delays for each item, the Historic 00:06:51.784 --> 00:06:57.150 - Preservation Program Manager, NOAA, will first present a staff report 00:06:57.506 --> 00:07:02.318 - We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional information, followed by a round of questions 00:07:02.318 --> 00:07:07.131 - from each commissioner. We ask that petitioners, the public, and commissioners refrain from speaking 00:07:07.131 --> 00:07:12.182 - until addressed by the chair, which is me, unless the question is directly addressed to them. If a member 00:07:12.182 --> 00:07:17.089 - of the public or a petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand until recognized by the chair. 00:07:17.089 --> 00:07:21.854 - Once a motion is made, we will then open up a discussion of the item for members of the commission. 00:07:22.370 --> 00:07:36.928 - We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at 00:07:36.928 --> 00:07:50.910 - all times. All right. Noah, go ahead. Just a second. I think we're working with this new format. 00:07:52.610 --> 00:08:05.877 - no okay so this is 2604 okay property in question is 302 North Roger Street the Bethel AME Church which 00:08:05.877 --> 00:08:18.634 - is an individually listed historic district the petitioner is Alan Edmonds I believe the petitioner 00:08:18.634 --> 00:08:22.206 - is present online okay okay 00:08:23.010 --> 00:08:29.994 - This is an outstanding 1922 Tudor revival limestone church with some classical features. Bethel AME 00:08:29.994 --> 00:08:37.257 - Church is an individually listed historic district built by Bloomington architect John Nichols in 1922. 00:08:37.257 --> 00:08:44.450 - It has served the same congregation since its inception and is relatively unaltered aside from plastic 00:08:44.450 --> 00:08:51.084 - coverings over the stained glass windows to improve insulation. The Bethel congregation itself 00:08:51.084 --> 00:08:52.830 - was incorporated in 1870 00:08:53.314 --> 00:08:59.352 - The congregation is applying to the city of Bloomington seal grant. Sorry for a blue city of Bloomington 00:08:59.352 --> 00:09:05.332 - seal grant to cover the cost of an energy audit and $10,000 contributing to the replacement of windows. 00:09:05.332 --> 00:09:11.428 - Uh, this request, which, uh, was sent to me by Alan Edmonds is as follows. Our current plan is to replace 00:09:11.428 --> 00:09:17.351 - all 39 double hung windows. We aim to match the grid layouts in all cases. The replacements of the two 00:09:17.351 --> 00:09:22.526 - pentagonal windows and two trapezoidal windows will not be double hung and will not open. 00:09:23.586 --> 00:09:29.773 - One other point is that we plan to use obscured glass on all the windows on the lower level, but clear 00:09:29.773 --> 00:09:35.779 - glass on the upper levels and on the east end of the building, including the east ends of the north 00:09:35.779 --> 00:09:42.206 - and south sides. We are not replacing the triangular area over the side door on the south side. It appears 00:09:42.206 --> 00:09:48.212 - to be in decent shape, and it might be tricky to match the grid there. As for the metal trim, which 00:09:48.212 --> 00:09:53.438 - is proposed for the window sills, it will be caulked in place and should be watertight 00:09:53.602 --> 00:09:59.143 - The existing exterior wood trim has not been properly maintained for many years, I'm afraid. My hope 00:09:59.143 --> 00:10:04.738 - and expectation is that the caulk-sealed metal trim covering all wood trim will be a vast improvement 00:10:04.738 --> 00:10:10.443 - and last a long time. Hope these comments help. I wanted to also mention that our supplier has notified 00:10:10.443 --> 00:10:15.984 - me that we expect a price increase for orders submitted on or after Monday, February 23rd. With that 00:10:15.984 --> 00:10:21.470 - in mind, our goal is to be able to move ahead quickly after the commission hearing on February 12th 00:10:22.050 --> 00:10:32.650 - with the goal of getting paperwork, partial payment, et cetera, completed no later than February 19th. 00:10:32.650 --> 00:10:43.148 - Please pass along any further questions that you have for the commission. I will... run through. Some 00:10:43.148 --> 00:10:50.558 - images that we have of the existing windows. So this proposal calls for 00:10:52.802 --> 00:11:04.240 - Vinyl replacement windows double hung to match the size and display of mountains, but they would use 00:11:04.240 --> 00:11:11.262 - an interior grid rather than true or simulated divided glass. 00:11:22.146 --> 00:11:28.272 - Staff recommends the conditional approval of COA 2604 for the replacement of windows and the repair 00:11:28.272 --> 00:11:34.826 - or in-kind replacement of wood sills, rather than covering them with another material. The Code of Federal 00:11:34.826 --> 00:11:41.503 - Regulations, CFR 36, Part 68, acknowledges that there are some circumstances in which economic and technical 00:11:41.503 --> 00:11:47.996 - feasibility of a project will have to be taken into account when interpreting the Secretary of Interior's 00:11:47.996 --> 00:11:48.670 - standards. 00:11:49.506 --> 00:11:55.638 - The criteria for this judgment include the necessity of a project and the demonstration of a substantial 00:11:55.638 --> 00:12:01.536 - cost burden. Churches and religious buildings are one type of property to which these considerations 00:12:01.536 --> 00:12:07.667 - are most often applied because they are often large, non-income producing properties that pose practical 00:12:07.667 --> 00:12:13.741 - and financial challenges during restoration. In this case, not all of the windows for which replacement 00:12:13.741 --> 00:12:16.894 - has been proposed are in the same state of disrepair. 00:12:17.410 --> 00:12:26.494 - but windows along the south elevation in particular show extensive rot, broken panes, damaged mountains 00:12:26.494 --> 00:12:35.491 - and damage from the elements. There are 39 windows for which replacement is proposed and the estimates 00:12:35.491 --> 00:12:44.488 - provided by the energy audit give a range of $750 to $2,000 per window with simulated, sorry, interior 00:12:44.488 --> 00:12:45.886 - divided lights. 00:12:46.658 --> 00:12:52.126 - The city of Bloomington Seal grant can cover some of this cost, but cannot cover full window repair 00:12:52.126 --> 00:12:57.868 - or replacement. While Indiana Landmarks provides for other applicable grants, which may be able to cover 00:12:57.868 --> 00:13:03.336 - the cost of more faithful replacements, staff cannot speculate on their availability. Storm windows 00:13:03.336 --> 00:13:08.914 - are generally a cheaper option for thermal insulation, provided that they can be built to a size that 00:13:08.914 --> 00:13:15.038 - fits. But the audit provided demonstrates that the deterioration of the windows beneath still remains an issue. 00:13:16.034 --> 00:13:21.688 - While some of these windows on the second story are less visible, all of the first floor windows are 00:13:21.688 --> 00:13:27.341 - double hung and close to the sidewalk. Obscured glass is already used on these ground floor windows. 00:13:27.341 --> 00:13:32.939 - The divided lights, size, and shapes of these windows are also important to finding features of the 00:13:32.939 --> 00:13:38.593 - building, and so replacement materials should seek to imitate the appearance as closely as possible. 00:13:38.593 --> 00:13:44.247 - Considering the extent of deterioration, replacement may be appropriate at this point. The Secretary 00:13:44.247 --> 00:13:45.758 - of the Interior Guidelines 00:13:46.370 --> 00:13:52.626 - do not recommend obscuring wood details underneath metal or other materials, not historically part of 00:13:52.626 --> 00:13:58.943 - the building. While some sills may need mitigation, repair or replacement would be a preferable option 00:13:58.943 --> 00:14:05.137 - that would not alter the appearance of the wood sills and trim and would avoid further complications 00:14:05.137 --> 00:14:11.332 - resulting from the capture of moisture underneath aluminum sheathing. At this point, I'd like to ask 00:14:11.332 --> 00:14:15.134 - if the petitioners have anything that they would like to add. 00:14:50.530 --> 00:15:02.712 - that looks very similar, is much more energy efficient, and has minimal maintenance issues along the 00:15:02.712 --> 00:15:14.772 - way. That's where we are with the final windows and the proposed metals trial. Thank you. Thank you 00:15:14.772 --> 00:15:19.838 - very much. Are there any public comments? 00:15:19.970 --> 00:15:28.154 - Does anybody wish to speak on this COA, both in the room or online? Hearing none, let's go ahead and 00:15:28.154 --> 00:15:37.067 - do Commissioner comments. Ernesto, you want to start off? I don't have comments on this. There are questions. 00:15:37.067 --> 00:15:46.142 - Questions. Do you have questions? No, not at this point. Duncan, do you have questions? So is this proposing to 00:15:47.298 --> 00:15:57.681 - Not just to do the sash, but the whole window unit. Is that right? That's right. And does that replacement 00:15:57.681 --> 00:16:07.676 - unit include the sill? As I understand it, this is a standard replacement where they pull the existing 00:16:07.676 --> 00:16:16.798 - window out, but leave the frame of the existing window in place and insert the new window in. 00:16:17.186 --> 00:16:27.615 - and then caulk it inside and out to make use of the existing wood frame. So the replacement unit does 00:16:27.615 --> 00:16:38.352 - not include the frame. Right. And I think that you're proposing to clad that frame and seal in aluminum. 00:16:38.352 --> 00:16:41.726 - Is that correct? That's correct. 00:16:48.066 --> 00:16:59.022 - Has there been a, other than the sealed report, has there been an evaluation of the windows one by one 00:16:59.022 --> 00:17:09.871 - to grade their condition? Well, we've had two proposed installers come and inspect and make proposals 00:17:09.871 --> 00:17:11.998 - for replacing them. 00:17:15.394 --> 00:17:22.192 - I think we have looked at it from the point of view of believing some. When we started, we said maybe 00:17:22.192 --> 00:17:28.923 - we could only afford to do the very worst ones, which are on the south side of the building. Somehow 00:17:28.923 --> 00:17:35.721 - the weather is much more effective there. But all of the windows, from the energy efficiency point of 00:17:35.721 --> 00:17:42.585 - view, all the windows are, of course, 100-year-old windows. They're not nearly as energy tight as we'd 00:17:42.585 --> 00:17:43.518 - like to have. 00:17:44.002 --> 00:17:54.530 - As we got into the project and thinking about it, we aimed to replace the wall if we're possibly going. 00:17:54.530 --> 00:18:04.653 - The installers that we talked to, of course, they are industry standard nowadays. It's this sort of 00:18:04.653 --> 00:18:13.662 - vinyl windows with the multiple panes and so forth. So that's what they're aiming to be. 00:18:15.330 --> 00:18:22.567 - They are tied then, and energy and efficiency will answer those questions. So that's the priority from 00:18:22.567 --> 00:18:30.015 - that point of view. I apologize to you. That's all the questions I have. Jeff, do you have any questions? 00:18:30.015 --> 00:18:37.112 - No questions. Daniel? John? No questions. Karen? No questions. I have a couple of questions. For the 00:18:37.112 --> 00:18:43.998 - petitioner, did you reach out to Indiana Landmarks about any of their grant-making opportunities? 00:18:44.098 --> 00:18:51.244 - particularly the Black Heritage Preservation Program, or the Sacred Places Indiana programs. 00:18:51.244 --> 00:18:59.235 - We have not yet. No, it holds a little bit. Now, where I'm at, my impression was they have fairly tight 00:18:59.235 --> 00:19:07.073 - headlines that we were thinking to approach them about subsequent projects. We did not, at this time, 00:19:07.073 --> 00:19:13.374 - didn't get deep enough into what their possibilities are. Were wood windows ever? 00:19:13.506 --> 00:19:25.407 - considered for replacements? Pardon me? Would the material? No? OK. Thank you. Jack, do you have any 00:19:25.407 --> 00:19:37.190 - questions? I wanted to question the commissioners. I'm not very familiar with vinyl windows, but in 00:19:37.190 --> 00:19:42.846 - terms of life expectancy versus a metal clad or 00:19:42.978 --> 00:19:53.949 - vinyl clad window, what is your take on them? Do they have good life? Do they provide the insulation 00:19:53.949 --> 00:20:05.354 - levels that are purported? I'd like to hear. The most efficient window combination is wood body, painted 00:20:05.354 --> 00:20:12.958 - wood body with a double pane or single pane with a single pane glazed 00:20:13.346 --> 00:20:21.629 - storm window. That's the most efficient. If you go to a double pane window, a wood window that is clad 00:20:21.629 --> 00:20:29.670 - with aluminum is the next best in terms of efficiency. Vital is low on the list for efficiency, but 00:20:29.670 --> 00:20:37.873 - as the petitioners mentioned, well-fitted windows are really more of an issue than anything. It's air 00:20:37.873 --> 00:20:40.446 - infiltration that is the issue. 00:20:40.994 --> 00:20:48.662 - And windows and doors are not where most heat is lost. It's through the roof. So when I looked at the 00:20:48.662 --> 00:20:56.556 - seal report, for instance, the first thing I would do is super insulate the roof because that's probably 00:20:56.556 --> 00:21:04.073 - where they're losing most of their heat. But windows are graded and have been, you know, by quality 00:21:04.073 --> 00:21:10.238 - and material. Wood windows are still the best insulator, single or double glazed. 00:21:11.938 --> 00:21:20.526 - Thank you. Do you have any other questions? I don't get to ask the question, and I'll ask it again. 00:21:20.526 --> 00:21:29.286 - Apparently, there was not a one-on-one, one-by-one window determination. It was a gross determination 00:21:29.286 --> 00:21:38.046 - of all windows. So no one went through and looked at each window and said, this one can be done, this 00:21:38.046 --> 00:21:41.310 - one cannot be done. Is that the case? 00:21:44.834 --> 00:21:53.068 - That's true. That's true. We did go around the building one by one, looking at all the buildings in 00:21:53.068 --> 00:22:00.890 - succession, but we did not make an attempt to... And we did also say which ones are the worst. 00:22:00.890 --> 00:22:09.536 - And as I said, at one point, we thought we'll just put the most south side windows, which are definitely 00:22:09.536 --> 00:22:13.406 - by far the worst. But as we looked one by one, 00:22:17.346 --> 00:22:26.061 - was that it was better to do everything at once, if you could. Thank you. No more questions. All right. 00:22:26.061 --> 00:22:34.691 - At this point, I'll entertain a motion from the commissioners on this COA. So although we cannot move, 00:22:34.691 --> 00:22:43.154 - we approve it so that we can go to the next step. Is that right? I'm trying to remember with the new 00:22:43.154 --> 00:22:46.590 - system. So yes, you would make a motion. 00:22:46.690 --> 00:22:57.087 - And then we would make comments based on that motion. I'd move we approve COA 26-04. Is there a second? 00:22:57.087 --> 00:23:07.484 - I'll second it. All right. All right. Let's discuss it. Ernesto? Yeah. I agree with the recommendations 00:23:07.484 --> 00:23:15.582 - from staff. But I do think that they should probably look into Indiana landmarks 00:23:16.642 --> 00:23:25.852 - because it's a good resource for getting more grants and being able to do this properly. So I don't 00:23:25.852 --> 00:23:35.616 - know how to deal with that. Duncan, do you have comments? Yeah, I think that's the issue. By preservation 00:23:35.616 --> 00:23:44.734 - standards, what you would normally do would be to grade every window. Usually we make a sheet that 00:23:45.378 --> 00:23:52.865 - replicates what the window looks like, grade the quality of the glass, the quality of the frame, the 00:23:52.865 --> 00:24:00.352 - quality of the sash, and then evaluate the work based on that need. I'm not arguing that they're not 00:24:00.352 --> 00:24:07.913 - all, they don't all need something. They may, they may. I haven't looked at it myself, but that would 00:24:07.913 --> 00:24:15.326 - be a normal procedure. And then to try to get the highest quality window possible would be the next 00:24:16.642 --> 00:24:24.559 - best option, in which case I think that would be a clad wood window with either single glazed or double 00:24:24.559 --> 00:24:32.476 - glazed with a storm window. But I acknowledge that that's the more expensive route to take. If you took 00:24:32.476 --> 00:24:40.241 - that route, let's just say there were how many other 39 windows and 15 of them were absolutely needed 00:24:40.241 --> 00:24:45.950 - to be replaced right now. There's no economic merit in replacing them with 00:24:46.402 --> 00:24:52.801 - the cheapest window available or the window that won't last the longest or that is the least energy 00:24:52.801 --> 00:24:59.328 - efficient in the long run. But as Noah mentioned in his recommendation, and I think that's why you're 00:24:59.328 --> 00:25:06.111 - agreeing with it, there's economic hardship here probably. I mean, if they couldn't, if the church hasn't 00:25:06.111 --> 00:25:12.574 - been able to maintain them, then they're not probably gonna have a pot of money to replace them with 00:25:12.574 --> 00:25:14.750 - the highest quality window going. 00:25:16.738 --> 00:25:24.566 - my strategy, my strategy would be to do the worst ones first, at the same time that they're taking care 00:25:24.566 --> 00:25:32.319 - of the other energy needs, which I think take priority, frankly, judging from the SEAL report. So it's 00:25:32.319 --> 00:25:40.071 - not a matter of disagreeing with NOAA or disagreeing with what the issues and the economic issues here 00:25:40.071 --> 00:25:45.566 - about what's the best strategy for getting the best product. And I think 00:25:46.274 --> 00:25:54.353 - replacing them as needed with maybe a higher quality product than a vinyl window would be a more sound, 00:25:54.353 --> 00:26:02.431 - long-term, more economic route to take. And just to comment on vinyl windows in general, there are lots 00:26:02.431 --> 00:26:10.510 - of different grades of them. They don't last anywhere near as long as wood windows that are maintained. 00:26:10.510 --> 00:26:15.326 - But in this case, maintenance is as big an issue as purchase. 00:26:15.906 --> 00:26:23.307 - So I would get the most maintenance-free window I could get with the most efficiency, and that would 00:26:23.307 --> 00:26:30.415 - be a wood window that's clad with aluminum. It doesn't have to be painted on the outside. That's 00:26:30.415 --> 00:26:38.109 - a complicated answer, but it's a complicated problem, and I totally sympathize with the church and their 00:26:38.109 --> 00:26:41.406 - congregation, because it's a pressing issue, 00:26:43.810 --> 00:26:52.190 - money on the one hand and quality on the other and the long-term benefit as a third consideration. 00:26:52.190 --> 00:27:00.824 - All right, Jeff, do you have any comments? So my comments would echo what Duncan said. Looking at the 00:27:00.824 --> 00:27:09.458 - windows on what's needed right now and thinking about long-term, even though maybe the cost right now 00:27:09.458 --> 00:27:13.182 - might be prohibited to do them all, I think 00:27:13.314 --> 00:27:23.918 - long-term for a struggling church like this is that you deal with what you have to deal with. And I 00:27:23.918 --> 00:27:34.522 - also agree with this. Windows are great, but they're not the most important thing. That's it. No, I 00:27:34.522 --> 00:27:39.294 - think mine's already been said. No comments. 00:27:48.674 --> 00:27:56.316 - Could you elaborate a little or repeat what you said about your conditional is about the sills? Right. 00:27:56.316 --> 00:28:03.884 - Yeah. Actually, at this point, that is something I'd like to, with your permission, chair, ask Duncan 00:28:03.884 --> 00:28:11.526 - about. Sure. Sure. So understanding that those sills and surrounds would be left in, obviously, what's 00:28:11.526 --> 00:28:17.758 - recommended in the guidelines for the rehabilitation of historic properties is that 00:28:18.690 --> 00:28:28.960 - you know, that would not be covered up or obscured. Do you think for the sake of the longevity of these 00:28:28.960 --> 00:28:38.934 - windows that there would be a reason to unconditionally approve this application as is if there was, 00:28:38.934 --> 00:28:48.414 - say, an agreement on my recommendation about replacing the windows themselves? Unconditionally. 00:28:52.546 --> 00:29:00.119 - I don't want to force your hand with the question, I guess. Well, ask it another way. I'm not sure I 00:29:00.119 --> 00:29:07.767 - understand. Do you think that installing cladding on the windows arounds? The existing windows? Yeah, 00:29:07.767 --> 00:29:15.341 - do you think that would be problematic to approve? Yeah, probably. In the long run, it probably will 00:29:15.341 --> 00:29:22.014 - be because they tend to sweat, and then the wood rots from underneath. I would, I think, 00:29:22.498 --> 00:29:30.401 - What I've done in the past is when the frames are meant to stay and are intended to stay, which they 00:29:30.401 --> 00:29:38.226 - are in this case, is to scrape and repaint the frames with a really high quality paint and put in a 00:29:38.226 --> 00:29:46.208 - pressure treated sill and paint it after a year. You have to let it dry first. Pressure treated sills 00:29:46.208 --> 00:29:50.590 - last a long, long, long time. And good paint will also. 00:29:50.818 --> 00:29:58.914 - And it's probably just as cheap to paint the frames, not the sash, as it is to clad them. That would 00:29:58.914 --> 00:30:07.171 - be my guess. And it would look better. But it's a maintenance issue, because you have to keep painting 00:30:07.171 --> 00:30:15.348 - them. I mean, every 10 years, probably, you would have to paint them. But I think, again, in the long 00:30:15.348 --> 00:30:20.478 - term, it saves the original material. And if you clad them, you 00:30:20.578 --> 00:30:28.213 - probably won't save it for more than 10 years. It's a really complicated issue. That's why windows are 00:30:28.213 --> 00:30:35.922 - always such a pain, because there are just a lot of choices, and money is not getting any cheaper. It's 00:30:35.922 --> 00:30:43.705 - almost to the point where taking them out and completely repairing them, whatever they need, and putting 00:30:43.705 --> 00:30:48.894 - them back is just about as cheap as buying a new good quality window. 00:30:51.138 --> 00:31:02.059 - A new wood clad window roughly this size, a solid wood window with divided lights between the panes 00:31:02.059 --> 00:31:13.308 - and aluminum cladding, they start at about 1,300 and they go up. So take it times 39 and you see where 00:31:13.308 --> 00:31:20.734 - you're at. Whereas repair can be anything from 250 to 500 a window. 00:31:21.122 --> 00:31:28.449 - It's really a conundrum when you got 39 windows. On the showers building, we had to do a window survey 00:31:28.449 --> 00:31:35.562 - for over 300 windows. We had to survey every one of them and make recommendations for each one. And 00:31:35.562 --> 00:31:43.032 - the National Park Service allowed them to replace them all because the overall deterioration was greater 00:31:43.032 --> 00:31:50.145 - than 60%. So the standard is sliding. Those recommendations pretty much meet secretary's standards, 00:31:50.145 --> 00:31:51.070 - I would say. 00:31:52.738 --> 00:32:02.165 - I don't have any other comments. Do you have comments? Yes, that's why I asked the question about haunted 00:32:02.165 --> 00:32:11.680 - windows, to find out quality and time, how long they'll last and what they'll do for. And it seems they're 00:32:11.680 --> 00:32:21.374 - the lowest quality, I agree. My opinion is overall better for the church to replace progressively, not once. 00:32:21.730 --> 00:32:31.577 - I think that's a good idea. It allows them to build a budget in between replacements, also to look at 00:32:31.577 --> 00:32:41.617 - each window individually and decide what to do with it. I'm a little worried about replacing everything 00:32:41.617 --> 00:32:49.726 - at one time. It's a cost saving, and I understand why you would want to grab at it. 00:32:50.146 --> 00:32:58.447 - because I'm sure they're worried about them. But I think overall, the better way to do it is to do it 00:32:58.447 --> 00:33:06.666 - progressively window by window or group by group rather than doing everything one and doing a higher 00:33:06.666 --> 00:33:15.130 - quality clad window. That's my opinion. I will add that approaching Indiana Landmarks on the two levels 00:33:15.130 --> 00:33:20.094 - that you mentioned, they have a very active African-American 00:33:20.322 --> 00:33:27.705 - fund that they're really trying to build. And so I think they would really be welcoming to a request. 00:33:27.705 --> 00:33:34.942 - I do want to have one other comment here. The Black Heritage Preservation Program, the grants range 00:33:34.942 --> 00:33:42.542 - from $500,000 to $30,000. And then the sacred spaces programs, their grants go from $25,000 to $500,000. 00:33:42.542 --> 00:33:50.142 - So there's money out there that is available for the church to use to preserve this building, giving its 00:33:50.242 --> 00:33:57.983 - rating no matter the outcome I think of what we do here they need to contact Indiana Landmarks and see 00:33:57.983 --> 00:34:05.950 - if they can get into one of these programs to help make sure that we keep Bethel there. They also provide 00:34:05.950 --> 00:34:13.691 - can provide technical assistance and they will not fund inappropriate windows. I'll tell you that. And 00:34:13.691 --> 00:34:17.374 - I might add that the windows are such a defining 00:34:17.794 --> 00:34:26.258 - character defining feature of this gorgeous building that you'd have a good case, I would think. I would 00:34:26.258 --> 00:34:34.480 - think so too. Okay, I think that brings us to the end of our discussion, so it comes time to vote. Do 00:34:34.480 --> 00:34:42.783 - we have public comment? Yeah. We already did. I asked for comment earlier, but. Oh, go ahead. Oh, they 00:34:42.783 --> 00:34:46.814 - didn't hear it? Okay. So we go back though? Yeah. 00:34:47.202 --> 00:34:55.156 - I'm Valerie Grimm, so I'm a member of the Trustee and Student Board. So there are a couple of things 00:34:55.156 --> 00:35:03.188 - that I'd like to provide, at least what I think is a point of clarification. And that is the question 00:35:03.188 --> 00:35:11.221 - about looking at the windows one by one. We did. That's how we got to the conclusion that we reached. 00:35:11.221 --> 00:35:14.686 - We went to each window, inside and outside. 00:35:14.946 --> 00:35:22.584 - What's happening on the inside is not evident from the outside. From the inside underneath, which is 00:35:22.584 --> 00:35:30.374 - why we are talking about replacing the whole window and getting a new window that fits into the frame, 00:35:30.374 --> 00:35:37.936 - is that over the years, the water has come in and has caused the wood to rot. And so in some areas, 00:35:37.936 --> 00:35:44.894 - the entire bottom area just has to be replaced, rebuilt, whatever language you want to use. 00:35:45.154 --> 00:35:52.989 - So we did go window by window with two to three different people and among ourselves to look at the 00:35:52.989 --> 00:36:00.981 - condition of the window. There were a couple we thought we could say, but then we went inside and saw 00:36:00.981 --> 00:36:09.050 - the wreckage that termites or something had done, which requires us to totally replace that particular 00:36:09.050 --> 00:36:13.438 - window. So I just wanted to be clear, this was not just 00:36:13.890 --> 00:36:23.474 - look at it and think it was a detailed estimation and exploration of what's happening inside and outside 00:36:23.474 --> 00:36:33.057 - the church as far as those windows are concerned. So another thing is I know that the conversation about 00:36:33.057 --> 00:36:34.974 - grants is happening. 00:36:35.298 --> 00:36:42.700 - Our church is small, so that's the reason why I crossed between a student and a trustee board. And I'm 00:36:42.700 --> 00:36:50.461 - talking about a lot of people, and the few people we have, everybody got full-time jobs. So we did initiate 00:36:50.461 --> 00:36:57.862 - a campaign based on the number of years we've been here, 155. And so we have funds to move forward and 00:36:57.862 --> 00:37:02.174 - to do the kind of work that we have, we think is good work. 00:37:02.466 --> 00:37:09.167 - that will last some time. I might not be here for the next installment, but at least what we have come 00:37:09.167 --> 00:37:15.932 - up with I think will last a long time. And so we have money to move forward. And it's not that we won't 00:37:15.932 --> 00:37:22.698 - try to get the landmark money, but we need that for some other stuff. That the church is 155 years old, 00:37:22.698 --> 00:37:27.902 - it got some basement issue that we'll probably be coming back to you again for. 00:37:28.194 --> 00:37:35.827 - So I'd just like to say that we've been working on this two years and have a good sense of what we think 00:37:35.827 --> 00:37:43.169 - work. We've talked to three different companies that have given us different ways to think about it. 00:37:43.169 --> 00:37:50.511 - And that's where we are. Excellent. Thank you very much for your comments. Appreciate that. Yes, and 00:37:50.511 --> 00:37:57.054 - I'm Nancy Cross Harris. Also, just like she said, I'm trusting in the church a long time. 00:37:57.954 --> 00:38:05.352 - Everything she said is correct. We had three different estimates come out, and not only just one time, 00:38:05.352 --> 00:38:12.894 - but twice. So each one of them has been viewed and viewed and viewed over at least six times. And that's 00:38:12.894 --> 00:38:20.148 - why we did come to that conclusion. They all need replacing. Except for the stained glass. We're not 00:38:20.148 --> 00:38:26.110 - missing the stained glass. No, the stained glass. You can see the stain from here. 00:38:26.274 --> 00:38:33.256 - Yeah, that's great. That's inside the sanctuary. But over the years, we have taken care of the basement 00:38:33.256 --> 00:38:40.304 - and the sub-basement floors, trying to maintain them. But water just keeps gushing in, as she mentioned, 00:38:40.304 --> 00:38:47.353 - rotting out wood and so forth. And it just ruins the floor. So that's all we're trying to do is maintain 00:38:47.353 --> 00:38:54.200 - that and have everything be efficient. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments on this from 00:38:54.200 --> 00:38:55.006 - the public? 00:38:59.490 --> 00:39:05.896 - All right, we'll go ahead and call the roll. All right, we have a motion on the floor for COA 2604. 00:39:05.896 --> 00:39:12.430 - Motion to approve. We'll go ahead and take a roll call vote. And is this for the conditional approval 00:39:12.430 --> 00:39:18.837 - or for approval approval? Daniel, you moved for what? No asset, didn't you? I don't remember what I 00:39:18.837 --> 00:39:24.986 - said. Yeah, it was a motion to step approval. Could you restate the condition? Sure. This would 00:39:24.986 --> 00:39:28.766 - be conditional approval for the replacement of the windows 00:39:29.570 --> 00:39:39.030 - but not for covering the surrounds. Is that what I had said previously? That's what I thought. I think 00:39:39.030 --> 00:39:48.307 - your motion was for the conditional approval, yes. Yes. That's what I wanted to be, so that's what I 00:39:48.307 --> 00:39:57.033 - said. That's what it was for. OK. So we'll go ahead and take a roll call vote. Jack Baker? No. 00:39:57.033 --> 00:39:58.686 - John Butler? Yes. 00:39:59.490 --> 00:40:08.433 - Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Jeff Golden? No. Melanie Dusner? Abstain. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? 00:40:08.433 --> 00:40:17.377 - Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. All right. So that would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 2 noes, and an abstention. So 00:40:17.377 --> 00:40:26.857 - that motion passes. All right. Thank you very much for coming in, and thank you for your public comments. 00:40:26.857 --> 00:40:29.182 - Appreciate it. All right. 00:40:29.346 --> 00:40:37.812 - Can I have a quick clarification about what we just passed? Sure. This was OK to take the proposal we 00:40:37.812 --> 00:40:46.777 - have and replace the windows, but to leave the wood frames uncovered and deal with that later or something. 00:40:46.777 --> 00:40:55.492 - Right. And then the wood frames, they could be repainted or replaced in kind without necessarily needing 00:40:55.492 --> 00:40:57.982 - approval from the commission. 00:40:59.106 --> 00:41:07.715 - The approval is not given for covering them in aluminum. And so I would say let's follow up with Noah 00:41:07.715 --> 00:41:16.407 - after this. Yeah. And we can go through any sort of clarifications at that time. We can work that out. 00:41:16.407 --> 00:41:25.438 - So next up on the agenda, we have COA 2607. Is the petitioner here for that? This is Petitioner Han Chong. 00:41:28.322 --> 00:41:36.430 - Is the petitioner present online? All right, so we'll move that to the end of the agenda, and we'll 00:41:36.430 --> 00:41:44.943 - cover that if they end up coming up at some point. So we'll move to COA 2608. Is the petitioner present? 00:41:44.943 --> 00:41:53.132 - Ben Swanson? We have a Ben online. I'm going to ask him. Ben, are you the petitioner? I'm here. Yes, 00:41:53.132 --> 00:41:58.078 - I'm here. Excellent. OK, Noah, can you do your report? Sure. 00:41:59.874 --> 00:42:09.059 - This is the Application for Certificate of Appropriateness 2608 for 213 South Rogers Street. Will someone 00:42:09.059 --> 00:42:17.812 - be able to close the door? Oh, open door, we can't. I'm sorry, we can't close the door. Please leave 00:42:17.812 --> 00:42:26.910 - the door open. Mm-hmm. OK. Sorry. We have to leave the door open. OK. Because open door means open door. 00:42:26.910 --> 00:42:28.990 - Yeah, we're very sorry. 00:42:29.634 --> 00:42:41.973 - Okay, I'll just shout. Okay. 213 South Roger Street, the Frosted Food Building petitioner is Ben Swanson. 00:42:41.973 --> 00:42:54.196 - The request here is for the reduction in height of industrial chimney to the lower tier and then capping 00:42:54.196 --> 00:42:56.990 - it with a cement crown. 00:43:00.226 --> 00:43:06.491 - 213 South Rogers is an individually listed historic property, a former factory building. It has served 00:43:06.491 --> 00:43:12.633 - as an auto repair shop, sheet metal workshop, and refrigeration company slash slaughterhouse. It was 00:43:12.633 --> 00:43:18.716 - designated in 1995 as part of a grant application. The building has a limestone facade with picture 00:43:18.716 --> 00:43:24.798 - windows and a stepped parapet facing Rogers. Most of the building is brick with large metal gridded 00:43:24.798 --> 00:43:26.014 - industrial windows. 00:43:27.298 --> 00:43:34.887 - On the roof near the south facade stands a tall square brick chimney. The request from the applicant 00:43:34.887 --> 00:43:42.551 - proposes a partial removal of the existing masonry chimney located on the roof of the building at 213 00:43:42.551 --> 00:43:50.440 - South Rogers Street. The chimney is no longer actively in use and currently extends above the roof line. 00:43:50.440 --> 00:43:57.278 - Visual inspection from the adjacent parking lot shows a clear transition in brick material 00:43:58.082 --> 00:44:05.203 - approximately one-third of the way up the chimney indicating an earlier construction phase and a later 00:44:05.203 --> 00:44:12.463 - addition above it. The proposal is to remove only the upper portion of the chimney down to this original 00:44:12.463 --> 00:44:19.722 - brick transition, thereby retaining the historic base and preserving the original massing and appearance 00:44:19.722 --> 00:44:26.014 - of the structure as viewed from the street. The purpose of the partial removal is twofold. 00:44:26.466 --> 00:44:32.588 - safety and maintenance. The upper portion of the chimney is exposed to weather and presents long-term 00:44:32.588 --> 00:44:38.709 - maintenance issues and safety concerns. Reducing the height of the chimney will lessen the structural 00:44:38.709 --> 00:44:44.891 - risk while allowing the remaining historic masonry to be properly capped and stabilized. Secondly, for 00:44:44.891 --> 00:44:51.193 - sustainability improvements, the reduced chimney height will significantly limit the shadow on the roof, 00:44:51.193 --> 00:44:55.454 - which will be necessary to support a future solar energy installation. 00:44:56.898 --> 00:45:03.846 - The proposed work aligns with the sustainability goals while minimizing the alteration of historic materials. 00:45:03.846 --> 00:45:10.541 - No changes are proposed to the building's footprint or primary elevations or character defining features. 00:45:10.541 --> 00:45:17.174 - Visible from the public right of way, the work represents a reversible minimal intervention that retains 00:45:17.174 --> 00:45:23.806 - historic materials where feasible and ensures continued preservation and functional use of the building. 00:45:24.898 --> 00:45:35.505 - All work will be performed by qualified masonry contractor using appropriate preservation techniques. 00:45:35.505 --> 00:45:46.527 - The materials to be used include the retention of existing brick masonry, mortar repair, using a compound 00:45:46.527 --> 00:45:54.846 - to match the existing mortar in composition, color, texture, and joint profile. 00:45:57.346 --> 00:46:03.545 - a chimney cap, what's being proposed would be a concrete mortar crown with a two inch overhang. Um, 00:46:03.545 --> 00:46:09.930 - while the two inch overhang was not generally a consistent practice in the early 19 hundreds, when the 00:46:09.930 --> 00:46:16.377 - building was originally constructed, we are recommending the minor alteration as the overhang does help 00:46:16.377 --> 00:46:22.886 - with the watershed and will help to preserve for a longer time. The original bricks, uh, that are almost 00:46:22.886 --> 00:46:25.118 - impossible to come by at this time. 00:46:26.050 --> 00:46:34.362 - This paired with tuck pointing will greatly aid preservation. Flashing, new flashing will be installed 00:46:34.362 --> 00:46:42.432 - as needed at the roof interface to ensure proper waterproofing. Flashing materials will be durable, 00:46:42.432 --> 00:46:50.744 - weather resistant, and minimally visible. Staff recommends the approval of COA 2608. The brake chimney 00:46:50.744 --> 00:46:55.102 - is a small feature, but nonetheless, significance for 00:46:57.250 --> 00:47:05.439 - I don't know how this typo entered here, but for... I'm gonna read it the way that makes sense, conveying 00:47:05.439 --> 00:47:13.629 - the property's industrial history. The top two-thirds of the chimney are narrower, built with a different 00:47:13.629 --> 00:47:21.509 - brick from the rest of the original structure. The higher tier was built before the 1990s renovation, 00:47:21.509 --> 00:47:23.518 - but likely after the beer 00:47:23.874 --> 00:47:33.341 - building's main period of significance, which is the early 1920s and 30s, possibly after the building 00:47:33.341 --> 00:47:42.716 - became a meat processing plant in the early 1940s. I had some trouble finding older pictures of this 00:47:42.716 --> 00:47:52.926 - building. There are aerials and maps that show the building materials and overall dimensions of the building. 00:47:53.154 --> 00:48:01.684 - I haven't found anything that indicates the original chimney height. Does the petitioner have anything 00:48:01.684 --> 00:48:10.130 - that he would like to add? No. I think that covers it, but I have to answer any questions. Thank you. 00:48:10.130 --> 00:48:18.991 - Are there any public comments regarding the COA? Hearing none, Ernesto, do you have any questions? Duncan, 00:48:18.991 --> 00:48:19.902 - questions? 00:48:21.442 --> 00:48:30.280 - No, I will say that I led the renovation on this building. And it's on the National Register of Historic 00:48:30.280 --> 00:48:38.865 - Places also. It was a federal tax credit project. And I consulted with the owner because he called me 00:48:38.865 --> 00:48:47.618 - and asked me if I had any old pictures. But what I had were the pictures prior to the renovation, which 00:48:47.618 --> 00:48:49.470 - was in the early 90s. 00:48:49.634 --> 00:49:00.362 - And we determined that that extension chimney was added at a time when that chimney was needed to have 00:49:00.362 --> 00:49:11.611 - its peak above the top of the domed roof by code, because they were using it to vent a furnace, we believe. 00:49:11.611 --> 00:49:19.006 - And we put that canister on top of it. It's a filter for what was once 00:49:21.506 --> 00:49:29.013 - hair salon that went in there as one of our tenants. So it's a way of filtering out the fumes from the 00:49:29.013 --> 00:49:36.519 - hair salon. And it's not being used anymore either. So the original chimney is the short stub. So they 00:49:36.519 --> 00:49:43.953 - would be returning it to the original configuration, which I think is fine. It's totally appropriate. 00:49:43.953 --> 00:49:50.366 - No questions. Any questions? No, I think Noah covered everything great with his report. 00:49:50.466 --> 00:49:57.887 - Any questions? No questions. John? No questions. Karen? No questions. I don't have any. Jack? No. No? 00:49:57.887 --> 00:50:05.381 - All right. I did public comment earlier. So do I have a motion on this? I move for approval. I second. 00:50:05.381 --> 00:50:12.656 - All right. Jack had the motion. Second, Nesto. All right. Let's talk about it. Ernesto, do you have 00:50:12.656 --> 00:50:18.622 - any comments? No. I think Duncan summarized it. Thank you. Anything else, Duncan? 00:50:20.226 --> 00:50:27.361 - Jeff? I want to support this. OK, Daniel? Melanie? Appreciate it, Duncan's context. John? Seems like 00:50:27.361 --> 00:50:34.709 - a no-brainer on this one. Yes, it's good to have the full information here, background. Yeah, I support 00:50:34.709 --> 00:50:41.844 - this. Jack? I think at one time, it might have made sense to have a very tall chimney there for meat 00:50:41.844 --> 00:50:49.121 - processing, and depending on what kind of furnace they had, probably coal at one point, and if you get 00:50:49.121 --> 00:50:50.110 - the smoke up, 00:50:50.210 --> 00:50:57.453 - away out of people's faces could be pretty nasty. And there's just no need for it anymore. And taking 00:50:57.453 --> 00:51:04.768 - the chimney down, I think, doesn't do anything to demean the character of the building. OK. All right. 00:51:04.768 --> 00:51:12.011 - Thank you very much. I think we're ready to call the roll. The motion that's been seconded to approve 00:51:12.011 --> 00:51:19.326 - COA 2608, roll call vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. 00:51:19.490 --> 00:51:26.988 - Melanie Dusner? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. Motion passes. Excellent. 00:51:26.988 --> 00:51:34.205 - Thank you very much. All right. Next up, we have COA 2609. This is with the Chickering Rentals. Is the 00:51:34.205 --> 00:51:41.423 - petitioner in the room or online? And what's your name? My name's Lindsay. Lindsay. OK. Thank you very 00:51:41.423 --> 00:51:46.398 - much. I'm sorry about the white one, too. I'm so sorry for being late. 00:51:47.202 --> 00:51:53.998 - It's okay. It's all right. All right. Noah, would you go ahead with your report? Certificate 00:51:53.998 --> 00:52:01.305 - of Appropriateness 2609. This application is for 806 South Woodlawn Avenue. Oh, another typo. Well, 00:52:01.305 --> 00:52:08.759 - it's just Elm Heights, not Maple Heights. The Elm Heights Historic District. Petitioner is Chickering 00:52:08.759 --> 00:52:15.262 - Rentals. The request here is for retroactive approval of the replacement of wood windows 00:52:16.098 --> 00:52:22.204 - with vinyl windows with an interior grid. I received a letter with a request, Dear Historic Preservation 00:52:22.204 --> 00:52:28.310 - Department, I'm writing to formally request approval for the removal and replacement of existing windows 00:52:28.310 --> 00:52:34.125 - at 806 South Woodlawn Avenue, a contributing property located in the Elm Heights Historic District. 00:52:34.125 --> 00:52:40.521 - We fully recognize the architectural and historic significance of the Elm Heights neighborhood and appreciate 00:52:40.521 --> 00:52:44.766 - the Historic Preservation Department's role in protecting its character. 00:52:45.730 --> 00:52:53.483 - This proposal has been carefully developed to balance historic preservation with responsible stewardship, 00:52:53.483 --> 00:53:01.163 - long-term building preservation, and modern performance needs. Existing conditions. The existing windows 00:53:01.163 --> 00:53:08.697 - of the property are original or early generation units that have deteriorated significantly over time. 00:53:08.697 --> 00:53:10.526 - Current conditions allow 00:53:14.818 --> 00:53:21.424 - include air and water infiltration, failing glazing, compromised weather seals, and difficulty opening 00:53:21.424 --> 00:53:28.094 - and closing. In several locations, these deficiencies contribute to moisture intrusion, interior finish 00:53:28.094 --> 00:53:34.508 - deterioration, and reduced energy efficiency. While the existing windows have been maintained where 00:53:34.508 --> 00:53:41.499 - possible, their condition has reached a point where continued repair is no longer a sustainable or effective 00:53:41.499 --> 00:53:42.782 - long-term solution. 00:53:43.842 --> 00:53:50.744 - scope of work. We are, we propose replacing the existing windows with new historically compatible windows 00:53:50.744 --> 00:53:57.320 - designed to closely match the original window profiles, proportions and configuration as viewed from 00:53:57.320 --> 00:54:04.026 - the public right of way. The proposed replacements will maintain the appropriate sash division, muntin 00:54:04.026 --> 00:54:09.886 - patterns and overall scale consistent with architectural character of Elm Heights houses. 00:54:10.466 --> 00:54:16.576 - The intent is to preserve the exterior appearance of the structure while significantly improving its 00:54:16.576 --> 00:54:22.747 - performance and longevity. Benefits of the proposed window replacement, long-term preservation of the 00:54:22.747 --> 00:54:29.039 - structure. Modern windows provide superior protection against moisture intrusion, a primary contributor 00:54:29.039 --> 00:54:35.331 - to rot and structural deterioration in historic homes. Improving ceiling will protect original framing, 00:54:35.331 --> 00:54:37.630 - trim, plaster, and interior finishes. 00:54:38.626 --> 00:54:44.842 - supporting the long-term preservation of the building. Energy efficiency and environmental responsibility. 00:54:44.842 --> 00:54:50.651 - New windows will substantially improve the thermal performance by reducing heat loss in the winter, 00:54:50.651 --> 00:54:56.809 - heat gain in the summer. This reduces the overall energy consumption, lowers utility demand, and supports 00:54:56.809 --> 00:55:02.618 - sustainability goals without altering the historic appearance of the home. Improved safety and code 00:55:02.618 --> 00:55:07.614 - compliance. Many existing windows are difficult to operate due to age, paint buildup, 00:55:08.226 --> 00:55:14.674 - or warped components. New windows will improve the ease of operation, ensure reliable emergency egress, 00:55:14.674 --> 00:55:21.493 - and enhance occupant safety while maintaining appropriate historic proportions. Reducing ongoing maintenance, 00:55:21.493 --> 00:55:27.693 - replacement windows significantly reduce the need for frequent re-glazing, repainting, and repairs. 00:55:27.693 --> 00:55:34.140 - This allows maintenance resources to be directed toward other preservation efforts, including continued 00:55:34.140 --> 00:55:37.054 - investment in the historic fabric of the home. 00:55:38.498 --> 00:55:44.211 - preservation of Elm Heights visual character. The proposed windows are selected specifically to replicate 00:55:44.211 --> 00:55:49.816 - the historic appearance of the originals. From the street, the visual change will be minimal preserving 00:55:49.816 --> 00:55:55.421 - the established character and rhythm of the Elm Heights Historic District. Commitment to collaboration, 00:55:55.421 --> 00:56:00.918 - we're committed to working closely with the Historic Preservation Department throughout this process. 00:56:00.918 --> 00:56:06.846 - We are happy to provide window specifications, drawings, photographs, product samples, or any other materials 00:56:07.426 --> 00:56:14.709 - required to support this request and ensure compliance with the Elm Heights Historic District standards. 00:56:14.709 --> 00:56:21.714 - Thank you for your time and consideration. We appreciate this department's guidance and look forward 00:56:21.714 --> 00:56:29.344 - to working collaboratively to preserve this property in a manner that respects both its historic significance 00:56:29.344 --> 00:56:37.182 - and future viability. Sincerely, Lindsey Thompson, Shickering Rentals. I'll show you these, as you can see here, 00:56:38.146 --> 00:56:48.972 - are images of the existing windows, I believe from 2023, showing go find more online linked to the meeting 00:56:48.972 --> 00:56:59.495 - packet, but some examples of interior and exterior condition. You can see here the replacement windows, 00:56:59.495 --> 00:57:01.822 - interior and exterior. 00:57:05.698 --> 00:57:11.430 - Staff does not recommend the approval of COA 2609. The Elm Heights Historic District guidelines allow 00:57:11.430 --> 00:57:17.499 - the replacement of windows in the condition that they cannot be repaired. In 2025, the Bloomington Historic 00:57:17.499 --> 00:57:23.175 - Preservation Commission did approve, in a divided vote, the replacement of badly warped one over one 00:57:23.175 --> 00:57:28.907 - windows in a property in the Elm Heights Historic District with clad aluminum replacements, following 00:57:28.907 --> 00:57:31.998 - the argument that the difference would not be visible. 00:57:32.866 --> 00:57:39.450 - The replacement windows installed at 806 South Woodlawn replicate the original pattern of muntins, although 00:57:39.450 --> 00:57:45.668 - the visual difference between simulated dividing lights and interior grids adds another design factor 00:57:45.668 --> 00:57:51.947 - to consider. As a retroactive COA proposed in response to a notice of violation, the proposal asks for 00:57:51.947 --> 00:57:58.469 - approval of work conducted without an application. Last year, the serving Historic Preservation Commission 00:57:58.469 --> 00:58:00.542 - chair and city staff were invited 00:58:01.090 --> 00:58:06.917 - to visit another property owned by the applicant in the Elm Heights Historic District to consider potential 00:58:06.917 --> 00:58:12.474 - window replacement. After an inspection, it was determined that the existing windows could be repaired 00:58:12.474 --> 00:58:18.193 - and alternative means of insulating the existing windows, including weather stripping or the installation 00:58:18.193 --> 00:58:23.858 - of storm windows or cellular shades, were not outside the bounds of consideration. It is unknown whether 00:58:23.858 --> 00:58:28.606 - this visit took place before or after the replacement of windows at 806 South Woodlawn. 00:58:30.178 --> 00:58:36.526 - While the windows at 806 South of Woodlawn were likely close to 90 years old, it is not clear that they 00:58:36.526 --> 00:58:42.813 - were inoperable or unrepairable. It is also not clear that other thermal efficiency measures could not 00:58:42.813 --> 00:58:49.222 - have been considered prior. Images uploaded to Zillow and Realtor.com between the time that the property 00:58:49.222 --> 00:58:55.447 - was purchased in January 2024 and the updated Zillow information following interior and exterior work 00:58:55.447 --> 00:58:57.950 - on the property uploaded in January 2026 00:58:58.498 --> 00:59:04.317 - did not seem to show that the windows are in poor condition, although it can be difficult to tell the 00:59:04.317 --> 00:59:09.623 - extent to which the frames may be warped or glazing and seals in need of repair. Considering 00:59:09.623 --> 00:59:15.385 - these circumstances, staff recommends that the windows be replaced with either the originals or wood 00:59:15.385 --> 00:59:21.090 - windows matching the sizing configuration. Does the petitioner have anything that she would like to 00:59:21.090 --> 00:59:22.174 - add at this point? 00:59:32.770 --> 00:59:42.731 - I know that it's very easy to look at landlords or rental companies and see them as faceless people, 00:59:42.731 --> 00:59:52.791 - but yeah, I have a very deep love of Elm Heights and very much loved living there. I grew up in Brown 00:59:52.791 --> 01:00:02.654 - County and my father and my father-in-law are both contractors, so I in no way shape or form do not 01:00:03.362 --> 01:00:14.454 - honor what you're doing here and honor preservation. However, I live in a house that currently has historic 01:00:14.454 --> 01:00:25.238 - windows and during this, that also has spray foam insulated attic space. And during this last cold snap, 01:00:25.238 --> 01:00:30.270 - we were running our fireplace during most of the 01:00:31.234 --> 01:00:38.554 - the time when we were in our living room because it was so cold due to the single pane windows. I do 01:00:38.554 --> 01:00:46.309 - want to address the fact that we bought a lot of properties. The homeowner, I am just the kind of property 01:00:46.309 --> 01:00:53.556 - manager, bought a lot of properties at the same time and we remodeled them very quickly during that 01:00:53.556 --> 01:00:59.934 - time. We were not as aware as we are now of the historic guidelines. So I do apologize. 01:01:00.322 --> 01:01:07.357 - We were in here about a year and a half ago for a door, and it was replaced about the same time as the 01:01:07.357 --> 01:01:14.256 - window. So it's all, once again, especially now that I'm living in the neighborhood and I'm becoming 01:01:14.256 --> 01:01:21.154 - more aware of the rules. So I just want to let everybody know that these were not rules that we knew 01:01:21.154 --> 01:01:27.985 - about that we just stamped on or trampled on. We are learning and have learned more as we bought in 01:01:27.985 --> 01:01:29.214 - the neighborhood. 01:01:29.442 --> 01:01:37.573 - All I'm asking is that I do know that currently the Elm Heights neighborhood is rewriting their bylaws 01:01:37.573 --> 01:01:45.862 - for the neighborhood and I'd like to see if there's any way to have a variance of some sort to see where 01:01:45.862 --> 01:01:53.992 - these new bylaws come and then we could abide by those because I know that windows and doors have been 01:01:53.992 --> 01:01:57.150 - a big conversation in the neighborhood. 01:02:03.074 --> 01:02:11.310 - Are there any public comments regarding this certificate? Please state your name. Go ahead. Jenny Southern. 01:02:11.310 --> 01:02:19.393 - I serve on the committee in the Elm Heights Historic District. Haven't met some of the new commissioners. 01:02:19.393 --> 01:02:27.400 - Yeah, I was actually in the front yard of this house, knew the previous owner 12 years ago. He had lived 01:02:27.400 --> 01:02:31.518 - in Colonial Williamsburg before that and meticulously 01:02:32.450 --> 01:02:40.197 - cared for and restored this house. So I can say at the time that I was in it 12 years ago, they were 01:02:40.197 --> 01:02:48.174 - working great. They were doing well. I didn't see any sign from the outside that the glazing was coming 01:02:48.174 --> 01:02:56.075 - out at all. It looked fine. I can't swear up and down because I haven't been there this year. It would 01:02:56.075 --> 01:03:01.214 - have been nice to get into a application that was before all this. 01:03:03.746 --> 01:03:11.295 - It also had well-fitting, expensive storm windows on it. And I'll say that. That's the other picture. 01:03:11.295 --> 01:03:18.843 - That's the original picture. That's with storm windows on it. You can tell how well they were fitted, 01:03:18.843 --> 01:03:26.392 - and they were very nice. So that's all I've got to say, other than if anybody has any questions about 01:03:26.392 --> 01:03:32.830 - the guidelines or something. There's nothing in our guidelines that says at this time, 01:03:33.090 --> 01:03:39.041 - that you can replace them if they're in good shape. It's written several times in there that 01:03:39.041 --> 01:03:45.824 - sustainability-wise, we believe these are more sustainable. We believe the originals are more affordable, 01:03:45.824 --> 01:03:52.351 - as long as you have storms on them, because they have an R value of 2. New windows have an R value of 01:03:52.351 --> 01:03:58.878 - 2.5. You get the brand new ones, the brand new storms, they also have an R value of 2.5, because they 01:03:58.878 --> 01:04:02.398 - have a U coating on them that helps transmit less cold 01:04:03.042 --> 01:04:12.933 - So, you're going by the guidelines we have now. They're totally not okay. We don't have anything against 01:04:12.933 --> 01:04:22.635 - their grid pattern. That's what the grid pattern was. That's the proportions they were. That's the old 01:04:22.635 --> 01:04:29.982 - ones, you can tell. That's the red door. Yeah, that's new ones. I'm not sure. 01:04:30.146 --> 01:04:37.828 - There's other little changes there. I'm not going to mention that we're also done. But the new guidelines 01:04:37.828 --> 01:04:45.655 - we're writing will at least, if they do allow new windows, they will at least have exterior mutton patterns 01:04:45.655 --> 01:04:52.974 - on them. We are unconcerned about your interior mutton pattern because you can't see them except for 01:04:52.974 --> 01:04:59.134 - inside. And we don't feel like we should be reviewing the inside of people's houses. 01:04:59.458 --> 01:05:06.065 - And it looks weird from the inside as far as I'm concerned, but that's up to the homeowner. However, 01:05:06.065 --> 01:05:12.737 - the exterior, the muntin pattern does matter. I'm sorry, I hope everybody knows what a muntin pattern 01:05:12.737 --> 01:05:19.475 - is. Muntins, okay. So we want not the little skinny, strappy, white, vinyl ones or anything like that, 01:05:19.475 --> 01:05:25.886 - real wood. Okay? So any questions? No? Thank you. All right. Are there any other public comments? 01:05:27.906 --> 01:05:36.569 - All right, we'll go to Commissioner Questions or Nesta. Yes, I have a question for Steph. Yes. I just 01:05:36.569 --> 01:05:45.147 - want to understand this. The windows that are there now, they were installed without permission from 01:05:45.147 --> 01:05:53.640 - the commission? Yes. That's all I have. Thank you. Duncan, do you have any questions? No. No? Jeff, 01:05:53.640 --> 01:05:57.886 - questions? Daniel? Melody? No. John? How close is 01:05:58.018 --> 01:06:06.296 - the rewriting of the rules. How's that coming along? Is this something that's going to happen soon, 01:06:06.296 --> 01:06:14.657 - or is it going to happen in a year? Are we days away from this, and we could postpone it once, or is 01:06:14.657 --> 01:06:22.935 - this long term? That's my question. Honestly, I've been attending the meetings, and I have no idea. 01:06:22.935 --> 01:06:27.902 - I don't think it's going to be, say, within a month or two. 01:06:30.146 --> 01:06:38.874 - Karen? No questions. My questions have to do with the windows that were replaced. What sort of inspection 01:06:38.874 --> 01:06:47.355 - or evaluation was done on those windows before they were taken out? That was very much just a personal 01:06:47.355 --> 01:06:55.836 - decision. Ah, OK. All right, that answered my question. Jack, do you have questions? I'll address this 01:06:55.836 --> 01:06:59.294 - to Noah. Chickering has had dealings with 01:06:59.682 --> 01:07:08.532 - HPC before, have they not? Yes. Do we go back a couple of years, or do you have any off the top here? 01:07:08.532 --> 01:07:17.208 - When's the last time we may have talked with them? So there's a couple of instances that came up in 01:07:17.208 --> 01:07:26.318 - this meeting. One was there was a application in 2025 to replace windows on another house in the Elmites 01:07:26.318 --> 01:07:27.966 - Historic District. 01:07:29.154 --> 01:07:37.946 - submitted sort of speculatively. Sam DeSaller, who was chair at the time, and myself both checked out 01:07:37.946 --> 01:07:46.652 - the property, and it didn't look like the windows there met the threshold in the district guidelines 01:07:46.652 --> 01:07:55.357 - for replacement. So that application was withdrawn. Prior to that, there was another retroactive COA 01:07:55.357 --> 01:07:56.478 - applied for. 01:07:59.842 --> 01:08:11.522 - In a case, I think somewhat similar to this one, as Lindsay had pointed out, where a door had been replaced 01:08:11.522 --> 01:08:22.338 - without an application. That was in 2024. The COA is good for two years. And a proposed custom door 01:08:22.338 --> 01:08:28.286 - was voted on by the commission as part of a resolution 01:08:29.282 --> 01:08:37.456 - to that NOV. Thank you, Noah. To our petitioner, where are the old windows now? Are they available? 01:08:37.456 --> 01:08:45.874 - Actually, we're hoping. We've got our maintenance man, who does a lot of our work for us, is currently 01:08:45.874 --> 01:08:54.048 - sick with emphysema. And so unfortunately, he's in the hospital, so we're not. But he's a notorious 01:08:54.048 --> 01:08:57.726 - porter, so we are hoping that potentially we 01:08:59.042 --> 01:09:09.306 - cannot speak to that 100% yet. But if I know him and his boarding tendencies, it's a possibility that 01:09:09.306 --> 01:09:20.173 - we have them in a board somewhere. Thank you. That's all I have. All right. We already did public comments, 01:09:20.173 --> 01:09:25.406 - so I'll take a motion on this. I will move to deny. 01:09:39.554 --> 01:09:48.412 - I'm just making sure you had the- Yes. Thank you. All right. Let's have a discussion then. Ernesto, 01:09:48.412 --> 01:09:58.155 - do you have any comments? I really don't know what else to say other than I support the staff recommendation. 01:09:58.155 --> 01:09:59.838 - That's all I have. 01:10:09.890 --> 01:10:18.511 - It's always worse when somebody's done something and then asks you to approve it after it's over. I'll 01:10:18.511 --> 01:10:27.300 - just say frankly, I don't think this particular company has a very good track record in obeying historic 01:10:27.300 --> 01:10:36.256 - preservation or observing historic preservation districts. And it seems to me that they would have learned 01:10:36.256 --> 01:10:38.014 - their lesson by now. 01:10:38.402 --> 01:10:46.062 - I think this is a case of ask forgiveness later, frankly. That's just a judgment that's a personal one. 01:10:46.062 --> 01:10:53.501 - The windows themselves are inappropriate. The other ones were original fabric, which is an important 01:10:53.501 --> 01:11:01.014 - consideration in preservation. And they had storm windows on them, so they've actually made the house 01:11:01.014 --> 01:11:08.158 - less efficient by doing this. There's no excuse for it, in my opinion. Jeremy, can I get a vote? 01:11:08.514 --> 01:11:14.854 - We are basing our decision. You are basing your decision on whether it meets the standard and the guidelines 01:11:14.854 --> 01:11:20.844 - for the neighborhood. So I think let's stick to whether you agree if it meets them or not. Well, we're 01:11:20.844 --> 01:11:26.893 - making decisions based on the secretary's standards as well as the guidelines. I beg to differ. So it's 01:11:26.893 --> 01:11:32.942 - a little more complicated than that. And I'm sorry if I spoke inappropriately in your opinion, but this 01:11:32.942 --> 01:11:37.886 - lesson needs to be said. And I'm a commissioner, and I have the authority to say it. 01:11:39.330 --> 01:11:50.946 - The difficulty I have with this is that Elm Heights is in the middle of sort of rethinking how they're 01:11:50.946 --> 01:12:03.351 - going to do their rules. And right now they're debating whether they're going to be an all wood neighborhood, 01:12:03.351 --> 01:12:08.990 - or a metal neighborhood, or a vinyl neighborhood. 01:12:09.666 --> 01:12:19.885 - And so I think that makes this a more difficult vote. I think the rules as they stand, it's pretty clear. 01:12:19.885 --> 01:12:30.105 - At the same time, this is a real problem. And I think that maybe the company has let down their neighbors 01:12:30.105 --> 01:12:38.878 - by skipping the whole approval step. And I think that that's something we should consider. 01:12:40.994 --> 01:12:53.195 - But I wouldn't want to single out any particular company as not being pro preservation, because I think 01:12:53.195 --> 01:13:05.396 - Chickering has a fairly big stable of houses that they've taken a decent care of. So that's my comment. 01:13:05.396 --> 01:13:10.558 - Thank you, John. Karen? Well, this happened 01:13:11.650 --> 01:13:24.191 - a while ago and has just come to our attention this way. The guidelines were in place. They're currently 01:13:24.191 --> 01:13:36.375 - in place. They'll be in place for a while, and then we have to approve them. Who knows? We can't move 01:13:36.375 --> 01:13:41.630 - the clock around. And from the photographs, 01:13:41.826 --> 01:13:52.105 - we have from the Google photographs, we don't see evidence of a need or deterioration. So I think the 01:13:52.105 --> 01:14:02.283 - only thing to do here is to deny it. I think based off of what we have in the application, there was 01:14:02.283 --> 01:14:11.454 - not any sort of evaluation of what the old windows were. So we can't evaluate if they were 01:14:11.586 --> 01:14:20.355 - rotting or not, and warranted replacement based on either the neighborhood guidelines or the Secretary 01:14:20.355 --> 01:14:29.208 - of Interior's guidelines. So as a result, I think we would need to deny it. Well, I have to say we have 01:14:29.208 --> 01:14:38.147 - a company that has not paid attention to guidelines and has gone ahead and done this sort of replacement 01:14:38.147 --> 01:14:40.446 - without permission before. 01:14:41.122 --> 01:14:47.917 - I think that needs to be said. They should learn the lesson. But reading from the guidelines, Elm Heights, 01:14:47.917 --> 01:14:54.332 - if original windows, doors, or hardware can be restored and reused, they should not be replaced. And 01:14:54.332 --> 01:15:00.746 - then there are other elements here talking about character defining features. We'll be talking about 01:15:00.746 --> 01:15:07.287 - mountains and such, whether they're real or not. It appears that the windows might not meet standards. 01:15:07.287 --> 01:15:10.526 - And we've already talked about vinyl windows being 01:15:10.690 --> 01:15:19.337 - the least cost, but the least trustworthy and reliable alternative. So I think I have no more comments 01:15:19.337 --> 01:15:27.816 - other than that. Thank you very much. All right, we already did a public comment on this, so I think 01:15:27.816 --> 01:15:36.212 - we're ready to go ahead for the vote. OK, there's a motion to deny. COA 2609, that's been moved and 01:15:36.212 --> 01:15:39.486 - seconded. We'll take a roll call vote. 01:15:39.714 --> 01:15:50.618 - A yes vote would be to deny. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Melanie Duthner? 01:15:50.618 --> 01:16:01.210 - Yes. Jeff Golden? I'm staying. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. Motion to 01:16:01.210 --> 01:16:09.310 - deny passes. Thank you all very much. Thank you. No, I think we'll need to be 01:16:09.762 --> 01:16:18.612 - reach back out to them at some point. There's no follow up. Thank you for your time. Thank you. 01:16:18.612 --> 01:16:28.016 - Thank you. All right. Next up, we have COA 2610. Is the petitioner present for this? Yeah. Excellent. 01:16:28.016 --> 01:16:38.526 - No? Go ahead. All right. COA 2610. The address here is 211 East 15th Street in the Garden Hill Historic District. 01:16:39.202 --> 01:16:46.093 - Petitioner is Rishav Sharma. This is a non-contributing gable front, minimal traditional house. Built 01:16:46.093 --> 01:16:52.916 - in the 1920s or 30s, 211 East 15th Street is a non-contributing property in the Garden Hill Historic 01:16:52.916 --> 01:16:59.806 - District. The one-story house has a minimal design and has a number of additions to the west rear and 01:16:59.806 --> 01:17:06.764 - a connection to a mid-century limestone garage. This request proposes a rear addition to the northwest 01:17:06.764 --> 01:17:08.318 - corner of the building 01:17:09.026 --> 01:17:16.042 - bringing the rear of the house in line with the north end of the garage, as you can see in the floor 01:17:16.042 --> 01:17:23.058 - plan here. Ganesh Properties LLC proposes a rear addition, adding one bedroom and two bathrooms. The 01:17:23.058 --> 01:17:30.352 - two bathrooms, each approximately 11 by 6 feet, are located adjacent to each other. One will be attached 01:17:30.352 --> 01:17:37.854 - to an existing bedroom, the other to the new bedroom. After consultation with our contractor, David Thomas, 01:17:38.466 --> 01:17:46.856 - The design extends from the existing garage gable roof to cover the new construction. No new roof form 01:17:46.856 --> 01:17:55.084 - pitch or ridge height is required. Our intent is to preserve the continuity of roof form and massing 01:17:55.084 --> 01:18:03.556 - consistent with the existing structure. Proposed exterior openings include a one two by two foot window 01:18:03.556 --> 01:18:05.022 - in each bathroom. 01:18:05.730 --> 01:18:12.948 - two three by two foot windows on the west wall of the new bedroom, one three by two foot window on the 01:18:12.948 --> 01:18:20.306 - north wall of the new bedroom, one standard 36 inch door and a three foot wide hallway. The construction 01:18:20.306 --> 01:18:27.874 - may occur in two phases depending on tenant coordination with phase one consisting of the bathroom addition 01:18:27.874 --> 01:18:35.582 - attached to the existing bedroom and phase two potentially consisting of the new bedroom and second bathroom. 01:18:36.610 --> 01:18:45.502 - Proposed materials include exterior siding to match the existing white siding, concrete block foundation 01:18:45.502 --> 01:18:53.970 - consistent with existing construction, asphalt shingles to match the existing roofing, and standard 01:18:53.970 --> 01:19:02.439 - residential windows and exterior door with a storm door. Staff recommends the approval of COA 2610. 01:19:02.439 --> 01:19:06.334 - The proposed addition to 211 East 15th Street 01:19:06.946 --> 01:19:14.714 - is largely hidden from the street behind a side addition and garage. The applicant proposes to use materials 01:19:14.714 --> 01:19:21.911 - found elsewhere on the house and the design presented includes a visible cement block foundation and 01:19:21.911 --> 01:19:29.679 - fenestration pattern similar to those found on this building and on others in this surrounding neighborhood. 01:19:29.679 --> 01:19:36.734 - Note that the east elevation pictured in the files faces west and also this appears to be mirrored 01:19:36.930 --> 01:19:44.772 - Um, which if you go back to the site plan here, you'll notice that this addition will be located in 01:19:44.772 --> 01:19:52.692 - the, uh, Northwest corner of the existing structure. Does the petitioner have anything that he would 01:19:52.692 --> 01:20:01.005 - like to add? That's what I would say is that, um, which is not relevant to anything in this construction. 01:20:01.005 --> 01:20:06.494 - 1991, I bought this house, so I'm emotionally attached to this house. 01:20:07.714 --> 01:20:15.139 - Each time I go around my other rentals, I definitely make sure that I go around this house. Now that's 01:20:15.139 --> 01:20:22.564 - the emotional part of it. It has nothing to do with what we proposed. I have appeared in the committee 01:20:22.564 --> 01:20:30.134 - like this about 25 years ago. There were only five people then. And it was not pertaining to this house. 01:20:30.134 --> 01:20:36.766 - It was my other rental house. We were changing the window. So now going back to this house, 01:20:37.730 --> 01:20:46.790 - is whatever the integrity of the house is, I will maintain it. Whatever I can do to make sure that the 01:20:46.790 --> 01:20:55.586 - tenants, future tenants, and current tenants are comfortable with the construction, I will do that. 01:20:55.586 --> 01:21:04.559 - All these 35 years I've been living in Bloomington for 40 years, 35 years I've been a rental business 01:21:04.559 --> 01:21:05.790 - and landlord. 01:21:06.594 --> 01:21:14.437 - I went to school here. I graduated from Indiana University. I studied chemistry, but it has nothing 01:21:14.437 --> 01:21:22.279 - to do with chemistry. So I changed my profession. The bottom line is this, that I'll make sure, I'm 01:21:22.279 --> 01:21:30.201 - going to say it again, that I will maintain the integrity of the house. And I will do anything in my 01:21:30.201 --> 01:21:36.318 - power to, again, make sure that I maintain good relations with the department 01:21:36.578 --> 01:21:45.729 - with the city, which I have done it over 35 years. No one has ever filed a complaint against my rental 01:21:45.729 --> 01:21:55.146 - properties. And I have never taken anybody to the court. So I have a very good standing in the community. 01:21:55.146 --> 01:22:04.120 - I would request you to approve it. And if it is, then I will be very grateful to you. Thank you very 01:22:04.120 --> 01:22:05.630 - much. Thank you. 01:22:06.594 --> 01:22:15.113 - Are there any public comments on the COA, both in the room or online? Oh, I did receive neighborhood 01:22:15.113 --> 01:22:24.390 - comment. Yeah. They did not state any objection to the proposed addition. Ernesto, do you have any questions? 01:22:24.390 --> 01:22:32.993 - I do not, thank you. Duncan, questions? No questions. Jeff? No questions. Daniel? No. Melody? No. No. 01:22:32.993 --> 01:22:35.102 - John? No. No. Questions? 01:22:40.802 --> 01:22:49.296 - I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Seconded. John, seconded. No, Jeff. Thank you, Jeff. 01:22:49.296 --> 01:22:58.666 - All right, comments. Ernesto, any comments? Duncan? I mean, the building, as noted, has been significantly 01:22:58.666 --> 01:23:07.422 - changed over the years. Actually, the alteration that he's proposing is pretty much in keeping with 01:23:07.422 --> 01:23:09.086 - the previous ones. 01:23:09.218 --> 01:23:15.866 - And they've been well done, I think. And it's a non-contributing house in a district, so I wouldn't 01:23:15.866 --> 01:23:22.780 - be concerned about it. Yeah, no comment. Daniel? Melody? No. John? I really like how this is all tucked 01:23:22.780 --> 01:23:29.561 - around the back of the building. I think it's a very nice scale for your neighbors. You're not taking 01:23:29.561 --> 01:23:36.143 - away their light, and you're not intruding on their space. So I think this is a very good project. 01:23:36.143 --> 01:23:38.270 - Thank you. Karen? Yes, I agree. 01:23:38.370 --> 01:23:46.338 - It's really not would be hardly visible from the street at all. Yeah, I agree with Karen and Duncan's 01:23:46.338 --> 01:23:54.227 - comments. I agree with Commissioner Comments. Excellent. All right. I think we're ready to vote. OK. 01:23:54.227 --> 01:24:02.117 - And this will be on COA 26-10, motion to approve. Roll call vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. 01:24:02.117 --> 01:24:07.038 - Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. 01:24:07.426 --> 01:24:19.525 - Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. Motion passes. Great. Thank you. All right. 01:24:19.525 --> 01:24:31.391 - Next up, we have a demolition delay, 2602. We have one demolition delay proposed this evening for 503 01:24:31.391 --> 01:24:36.510 - North Roger Street. Petitioner is Ernest G. 01:24:37.058 --> 01:24:43.579 - What was that? Just hold on a second. Also, I realize there's one COA from earlier tonight where the 01:24:43.579 --> 01:24:50.229 - petitioner wasn't present. Do we want to check and see if he might be online now? We can do that after 01:24:50.229 --> 01:24:57.072 - the DD. We already started. OK. Well, replies, can we close out that little window? Because it's blocking 01:24:57.072 --> 01:25:03.529 - the number of the requests every time during the hour. The thing up there that says OK. It says OK? 01:25:03.529 --> 01:25:05.982 - Yeah. Thank you for saying something. 01:25:06.338 --> 01:25:15.449 - My apologies. Thank you for saying something. All right, no, go ahead. I'm sorry, this is now 503 North 01:25:15.449 --> 01:25:24.473 - Roger Street. This is 614 North Grant. Petitioners are ESG. Petition is for full demolition. 614 North 01:25:24.473 --> 01:25:33.409 - Grant has a severely altered one-story gable front house with a pedimented porch on the south half of 01:25:33.409 --> 01:25:35.774 - the front elevation facing 01:25:37.154 --> 01:25:44.155 - east to Grant Street, or is it west? Facing west, that's what I thought. Okay, it says east, 01:25:44.155 --> 01:25:51.759 - that's not right. Most of the original exterior materials have been replaced, including in 2026, the 01:25:51.759 --> 01:25:59.438 - three door columns and short wood railing on the front porch. Aside from the house's overall form and 01:25:59.438 --> 01:26:04.030 - stone foundation, little remains of its original appearance. 01:26:05.122 --> 01:26:12.267 - The building is fronted by a herringbone brick sidewalk. Built between 1910 and 1914, 614 North Grant 01:26:12.267 --> 01:26:19.482 - was first bought by Washington and Julia Voss. The couple lived in the house until 1930, shortly after 01:26:19.482 --> 01:26:26.627 - Washington's death. Born in Kentucky in 1848, Washington Voss served as a young teenager in the First 01:26:26.627 --> 01:26:33.982 - Kentucky Union Cavalry during the Civil War. During his time in Bloomington, he frequently switched jobs 01:26:34.306 --> 01:26:42.303 - between clothing salesman, barber, assessor, and gardener. Julia rented the house to several couples 01:26:42.303 --> 01:26:50.697 - prior to selling it in 1936 to Blanche and Francis Letellier. Blanche worked as a clerk in various shops, 01:26:50.697 --> 01:26:58.853 - and Francis was a stone carver employed by a local mill. In 1957, he found new employment as a machine 01:26:58.853 --> 01:27:04.158 - inspector at the RCA radio TV plant. After Francis' death in 1960, 01:27:04.738 --> 01:27:12.146 - Blanche ran the home, an at-home nursery for the next two years. Since Blanche sold the house in 1962, 01:27:12.146 --> 01:27:19.410 - it has served as a rental mostly for Indiana University students. From 1968 through 72, this was the 01:27:19.410 --> 01:27:27.250 - residence of Paul Cota, a PhD student in library science who would go on to serve as the rare book librarian 01:27:27.250 --> 01:27:30.846 - at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 01:27:31.810 --> 01:27:39.700 - Staff recommends the release of demo delay 2602. Does the petitioner have anything that he would like 01:27:39.700 --> 01:27:47.590 - to add? I do not. Thank you. All right. So public comments, anybody? Go ahead and state your name. My 01:27:47.590 --> 01:27:55.325 - name is James Ford. I live a few blocks from this house. The house is obviously is not historically 01:27:55.325 --> 01:28:00.894 - important in terms of the people who are living there and architecture. 01:28:01.538 --> 01:28:08.230 - And I realize that the committee has only two options to either designate it historic or let it go. 01:28:08.230 --> 01:28:15.190 - I have just a question. If the committee has any oversight over the sidewalk. I know it's a silly thing 01:28:15.190 --> 01:28:21.949 - to look at. But that's the sidewalk. It's right across the street from another sidewalk that matches 01:28:21.949 --> 01:28:28.975 - it. There's not many brick sidewalks left. And the house right across the street from this was recently, 01:28:28.975 --> 01:28:30.782 - the last 10 years, redone. 01:28:31.106 --> 01:28:38.378 - amazing, and it would be nice for this brick sidewalk to be retained on both sides of the street at 01:28:38.378 --> 01:28:45.869 - this particular location. There are no more brick sidewalks on the west side of Grant or anywhere from 01:28:45.869 --> 01:28:53.287 - West Grant all the way to campus, but there are a few just east of this, or sorry, just west of this. 01:28:53.287 --> 01:28:58.014 - That's my only comment I would like you to consider. If you can, 01:28:58.274 --> 01:29:04.506 - saving the sidewalk, if not saving it exactly the way it is, then asking the petitioner to carefully 01:29:04.506 --> 01:29:10.924 - remove it, pile up the brick somewhere safe, do whatever they're going to do, and then put the sidewalk 01:29:10.924 --> 01:29:17.465 - back, maybe replacing ones that can't be replaced, can't be reused, but have a herringbone brick sidewalk 01:29:17.465 --> 01:29:23.759 - in that location. Having it there would be nice for the neighborhood as a whole. That's all I have to 01:29:23.759 --> 01:29:27.646 - say. Thank you very much. Are there any other public comments? 01:29:28.418 --> 01:29:37.493 - Yes, go. Amy Butler, I live in the area and walk by it often with my dog. And I agree that the sidewalk, 01:29:37.493 --> 01:29:46.482 - it would be great if we could say that it would help the continuous look of the neighborhood. And there 01:29:46.482 --> 01:29:52.446 - are miles and miles and miles of cement sidewalk. I understand that. 01:29:52.706 --> 01:29:58.722 - Part of the planning process in the city is if you put in a new thing that they want you to set back 01:29:58.722 --> 01:30:04.679 - the sidewalk, this is not on a main road. It's on a side street. And I don't think that any of that 01:30:04.679 --> 01:30:10.934 - has ever been considered. But it would be really nice if we could say that that's OK. I own the property 01:30:10.934 --> 01:30:17.248 - across the street, so I would recommend it. Oh, could you say what your name is, please? Oh, Brian Allen. 01:30:17.248 --> 01:30:22.014 - Thank you. Yeah. And I would recommend to approve the demolition of this house. 01:30:22.306 --> 01:30:32.031 - And yeah, and a comment about the sidewalks. Those sidewalks and the sidewalks around the house I own 01:30:32.031 --> 01:30:41.755 - are in horrible condition. So I think they need to be fixed, first of all, or just paved with regular 01:30:41.755 --> 01:30:50.622 - cement. OK, thank you. Are there any other comments in the room or online? Something online? 01:30:50.914 --> 01:31:00.289 - There is an online question. Excellent. All right. Person who wants to make a comment, go ahead. Yeah, 01:31:00.289 --> 01:31:09.664 - hi. I know the previous person who spoke said they own a house across the street. I own the two houses 01:31:09.664 --> 01:31:18.948 - directly across the street. One of them is at 401 East Cottage Grove. The other house is at 705 North 01:31:18.948 --> 01:31:20.222 - Grant Street. 01:31:20.866 --> 01:31:28.639 - And one question I had was, I think the petitioner's current plan, because he's removing a lot of trees, 01:31:28.639 --> 01:31:36.263 - is to place a lot of trees in the sidewalk. And I was curious if they preserved the sidewalk where the 01:31:36.263 --> 01:31:44.258 - trees are going to go. Because it looked like the original plan was placing a lot of trees in the sidewalk. 01:31:44.258 --> 01:31:49.662 - I don't know if that falls in your purview at all. That was my question. 01:31:50.242 --> 01:31:57.452 - If this demolition delay is released for clarification, that would also release for a year the right 01:31:57.452 --> 01:32:05.162 - to remove the sidewalk or replace it. My understanding hearing from the planning department is if something 01:32:05.162 --> 01:32:12.372 - new were to be built at this location, in order to bring the site into compliance with current code, 01:32:12.372 --> 01:32:17.726 - they would have to replace the sidewalk. And so part of that would involve 01:32:19.106 --> 01:32:25.884 - you know, installing, I believe, a median between the sidewalk and the street in which those trees would 01:32:25.884 --> 01:32:32.468 - be replaced, and then replacing the brick sidewalk with a concrete one. We have a believer here, too. 01:32:32.468 --> 01:32:39.116 - Thank you for that. Well, we have a, I'm sorry, it was whispered to me. I don't want to put you on the 01:32:39.116 --> 01:32:45.765 - spot. Is that sort of a gist? Oh, yeah. Hold on. The person online, please hold on. The person online, 01:32:45.765 --> 01:32:48.734 - please hold on. We have somebody in the room. 01:32:48.898 --> 01:32:58.881 - Speaking. Larry. Go ahead. I'm not sure what you spoke with in planning, but typically, yes, that would 01:32:58.881 --> 01:33:08.959 - be the case. Most road classifications do have a required tree plot. So when properties are redeveloped, 01:33:08.959 --> 01:33:18.174 - a lot of the monolithic sidewalks or sidewalks adjacent to the street are going to be replaced. 01:33:18.818 --> 01:33:26.173 - so that you can have adequate space to put the trees that protect the pedestrians from the car space. 01:33:26.173 --> 01:33:33.528 - OK. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. I think we'll move on to Jeff Thomas. I would 01:33:33.528 --> 01:33:40.739 - just ask the person speaking if they could provide their name, because I don't have any other name. 01:33:40.739 --> 01:33:47.806 - Sure. It's Michael Rams. Thank you. Thank you. Ernesto, do you have any questions about this? No? 01:33:47.906 --> 01:33:57.767 - Duncan, do you have questions? No questions. Jeff? No questions. Daniel? No questions. Okay. Melody? 01:33:57.767 --> 01:34:07.727 - No questions. I guess my question would be for Noah is could we release the house, but if we tried to 01:34:07.727 --> 01:34:14.366 - keep the sidewalk, we'd have to designate the sidewalk as historic. 01:34:16.610 --> 01:34:24.698 - We have designated a sidewalk as historic in the past. I honestly don't know how it would work here, 01:34:24.698 --> 01:34:33.106 - considering that this would apply to potentially, in this case, whatever stretch of sidewalk is fronting 01:34:33.106 --> 01:34:41.434 - the property. I wish I had a clearer answer for you. Obviously, part of the difficulty is the fact that 01:34:41.434 --> 01:34:45.598 - the sidewalk is owned by the city but is maintained 01:34:45.762 --> 01:34:54.537 - by the adjacent property owner, in which case I'm skeptical as to whether we could designate the sidewalk 01:34:54.537 --> 01:35:03.146 - from this demolition delay. OK. Thank you. Jack, do you have any questions? No questions. Did you have? 01:35:03.146 --> 01:35:11.589 - Yeah, I want to follow up on your question. I think it merits to investigate it a little bit further. 01:35:11.589 --> 01:35:14.238 - If the city owns this sidewalk, 01:35:14.978 --> 01:35:23.274 - Why would the petitioner would demolish it? Why would the petitioner demolish it if the city owns it? 01:35:23.274 --> 01:35:32.140 - Yeah. With what permission? Is that a question that you'd be able to answer, David? Why are they responsible 01:35:32.140 --> 01:35:40.030 - for? If the city owns it, why would the petitioner be allowed to demolish a city-owned property? 01:35:41.122 --> 01:35:48.609 - because they'd be upgrading the facility as part of full compliance with new construction. So they would 01:35:48.609 --> 01:35:56.097 - need a right of way permit as well from the engineering department, but in order to satisfy our planning 01:35:56.097 --> 01:36:03.299 - requirements, that would be included. Same with like a change in use for commercial property. That's 01:36:03.299 --> 01:36:10.430 - included with limited compliance as well. So that's fairly typical. OK, thank you. Still not clear. 01:36:11.074 --> 01:36:20.892 - Sounds like it might be complicated. That's kind of what I'm getting. Are you looking for a strategy 01:36:20.892 --> 01:36:30.321 - to save the sidewalk? I was just curious if there was something there. Curious about a strategy. 01:36:30.321 --> 01:36:39.070 - In the past, those designations haven't been linked to the adjacent property necessarily. 01:36:39.234 --> 01:36:45.351 - And that sidewalk, I don't know how much of that's brick, but it probably goes beyond that site, 01:36:45.351 --> 01:36:51.658 - doesn't it? Yeah, it extends down the block. So most likely, if you were going to designate it, you 01:36:51.658 --> 01:36:58.153 - would select the whole thing, which would be more than is just in front of this property. I don't know 01:36:58.153 --> 01:37:04.523 - what the city would do if they're requiring the developer to take the sidewalk up. Do they only take 01:37:04.523 --> 01:37:07.550 - it up in front of their property? I suppose so. 01:37:08.642 --> 01:37:16.748 - So I would look for some kind of variance to protect the sidewalk. If I were the petitioner, I'd want 01:37:16.748 --> 01:37:24.933 - to keep it. I'm not saying that the petitioner does, but it seems like that would be available. I have 01:37:24.933 --> 01:37:32.959 - these around the house that I own in town, and we've protected them because we take care of them. As 01:37:32.959 --> 01:37:37.886 - long as we take care of them. All right. Any other questions? 01:37:40.610 --> 01:37:50.213 - did public comment, so I'll entertain a motion on this. I'm going to approve this demolition bill. To 01:37:50.213 --> 01:38:00.097 - release the demolition bill? Release it, excuse me. Is there a second? I'll second. OK. All right, let's 01:38:00.097 --> 01:38:08.382 - talk about it. Ernesto. Yeah. I think it wouldn't be in the interests of the petitioner 01:38:10.114 --> 01:38:17.746 - request a variance? Should we or can we legally have a condition of approval for it? I think, Noah, 01:38:17.746 --> 01:38:25.530 - and I need to look at that with the planning department and really see what the feasibility is. We've 01:38:25.530 --> 01:38:33.772 - had this come up before. And it's been difficult to separate the house from the obligations for maintaining 01:38:33.772 --> 01:38:37.054 - the sidewalk. So I think if you wanted to. 01:38:37.474 --> 01:38:44.939 - Explore that. The best thing to do would be to continue this case, to vote down the motion that's on 01:38:44.939 --> 01:38:52.404 - the table, and take up a motion to continue the case and give staff a minute to do some research and 01:38:52.404 --> 01:38:59.869 - bring it back, whether it's feasible to keep the sidewalk without the house. That sounds appropriate 01:38:59.869 --> 01:39:07.038 - to me. Dump into your comments. No, that's the first person I heard come up with the strategies. 01:39:07.874 --> 01:39:17.088 - Jeff? I think it's a tall order to get the city, if he's going to build, or I'm guessing he's going 01:39:17.088 --> 01:39:26.578 - to build, to not put a real sidewalk. Not really, but a concrete sidewalk. OK. Daniel? I'm sorry. This 01:39:26.578 --> 01:39:36.068 - is Daniel. I mean, sorry, David. So if this has come up before, how does that, because that's directly 01:39:36.068 --> 01:39:37.726 - in front of that, 01:39:38.210 --> 01:39:45.996 - next to the road there. So if that's supposed to be set back, but on either side of it, those are brick 01:39:45.996 --> 01:39:53.633 - sidewalks next to the road, how does that? I'm just trying to wrap my head around how that's done. So 01:39:53.633 --> 01:40:01.195 - you're asking about the fact that the sidewalks would be different distances from the road. Correct. 01:40:01.195 --> 01:40:04.414 - Yeah, so the way I interface with this is, 01:40:04.962 --> 01:40:12.183 - like planners will get the demolition permit or the new construction permit, or the poke poke. But when 01:40:12.183 --> 01:40:19.127 - the new construction comes along, we have a list of public improvements that they need to make that 01:40:19.127 --> 01:40:26.487 - comply with the unified development ordinance. And then the unified development ordinance also references 01:40:26.487 --> 01:40:33.708 - the transportation plan. So in the UDO, we have street trees, for example, one large canopy street tree 01:40:33.708 --> 01:40:34.750 - every 30 feet. 01:40:34.914 --> 01:40:43.701 - In addition to that, it references the transportation plan where you use the typology of each street 01:40:43.701 --> 01:40:52.488 - that the property fronts on. And then that determines your tree plot width and your minimum sidewalk 01:40:52.488 --> 01:41:01.275 - width as well. So we can get into the weeds a little bit on that. But essentially, the sidewalk does 01:41:01.275 --> 01:41:03.102 - need to jog back to, 01:41:03.810 --> 01:41:12.073 - the adjacent properties, which have the sidewalk adjacent to the street. We work with the engineering 01:41:12.073 --> 01:41:20.417 - department to establish the most reasonable path that people would walk. So sometimes that does result 01:41:20.417 --> 01:41:28.519 - in a bit of a stub at the new property. And then when the next one gets developed, we can take that 01:41:28.519 --> 01:41:31.678 - little extra triangle that we have now 01:41:31.906 --> 01:41:39.032 - once that property gets redeveloped. And we have both of them at the appropriate location. So it does 01:41:39.032 --> 01:41:46.228 - vary from case to case. Sometimes there's not a step. Sometimes there is. But we deal with that a lot. 01:41:46.228 --> 01:41:53.214 - But we're just trying to get as these come up, as the redevelopments come up, we want everything to 01:41:53.214 --> 01:41:57.406 - be in the desired location according to the transportation. 01:42:02.114 --> 01:42:11.672 - Any other comment? Melody, comment? John. I think it's a shame that this keeps happening, these demolitions 01:42:11.672 --> 01:42:20.522 - keep happening to this neighborhood and I think that this is exactly why the Cottage Grove Historic 01:42:20.522 --> 01:42:30.080 - District is being proposed. Karen? I have no comment. Yeah, I'm just curious about breaking up the sidewalk 01:42:30.080 --> 01:42:31.230 - in that way. 01:42:31.714 --> 01:42:40.383 - And I might be interested to see, in more detail and in writing, a little bit more clarification as 01:42:40.383 --> 01:42:49.139 - to what happens instead of just some verbal stuff that's kind of under process at the moment. That's 01:42:49.139 --> 01:42:57.808 - my opinion. Jack, comment? Yes. Years ago, our neighborhood restored a historic sidewalk using city 01:42:57.808 --> 01:43:00.062 - grants. So it's possible. 01:43:00.354 --> 01:43:06.758 - I can't say how likely, but it is entirely possible that you go to the city. And it used to be small 01:43:06.758 --> 01:43:13.099 - and simple, and there might have been another grant for more money, but something you might want to 01:43:13.099 --> 01:43:19.440 - look into. That's all I have. OK. All right. Thank you very much. We did public comment on this, so 01:43:19.440 --> 01:43:26.225 - I think we're ready to do the vote. So a vote for yes is to release the demolition delay. That is correct. 01:43:26.225 --> 01:43:28.254 - So there's a motion to release. 01:43:29.186 --> 01:43:42.097 - 2602, a yes vote would be to release. Jack Baker? Always a reluctant vote, but yes. John Butler? No. 01:43:42.097 --> 01:43:54.881 - Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? No. 01:43:54.881 --> 01:43:57.054 - Daniel Schlegel? 01:43:58.882 --> 01:44:07.215 - That is a four, five, three vote. So it does pass. All right. Thank you very much. This is a resolution 01:44:07.215 --> 01:44:15.548 - to stop demolition delay waiting period before the 90 or 120 day period has expired and allow a partial 01:44:15.548 --> 01:44:23.801 - demolition project to begin for property whose historic designation the pursuit will take place later. 01:44:23.801 --> 01:44:27.006 - Today regarding the property located at 01:44:28.258 --> 01:44:34.875 - 614 North Grant. 614 North Grant, the Historic Preservation Commission, declares that it got notice 01:44:34.875 --> 01:44:41.690 - of the proposed demolition or partial demolition, and after today's discussion, sees no need to review 01:44:41.690 --> 01:44:48.439 - the plans any further and waives the rest of the demolition delayed waiting period. The HPC may later 01:44:48.439 --> 01:44:55.254 - recommend the property for historic designation to the Common Council. Thank you, Jack. The petitioner 01:44:55.254 --> 01:44:57.438 - would like to say something. OK. 01:44:58.050 --> 01:45:05.878 - Go ahead. We're trying to get him to a mute. Hey, Noah. I noticed on the slide near the top, it said 01:45:05.878 --> 01:45:13.939 - North Rogers address. Yeah, I know. I noticed that. It's 61. I didn't look for the record if you needed 01:45:13.939 --> 01:45:21.534 - to correct that or anything. Well, I should correct this when I upload the PowerPoint, certainly. 01:45:22.178 --> 01:45:29.447 - But we said we got the right address on this. I was going to make sure. So I saw 6-1-4 further down. 01:45:29.447 --> 01:45:36.860 - And I'm here, so we're good. You're two out of three. I've asked him to unmute. We're still. OK. Well, 01:45:36.860 --> 01:45:44.345 - I think we'll go ahead and move on then. They can follow up with Noah if they have any other questions. 01:45:44.345 --> 01:45:50.462 - We have the packed agenda. I want to check right now to see if Han Chong is present. 01:45:52.258 --> 01:45:59.817 - either online or in person? CMA 2607. Yeah. I've also put that in the chat about 20 minutes ago as well. 01:45:59.817 --> 01:46:07.016 - OK, so no news from him? I haven't had any indication. I think we can continue that. OK. All right. 01:46:07.016 --> 01:46:14.359 - Next up is the historic district nomination. This will go slightly different than the COAs that we've 01:46:14.359 --> 01:46:20.190 - had. It will start off with a staff report. We'll have questions from the staff. 01:46:20.578 --> 01:46:27.028 - about Noah's report after that. Then there's going to be the owner's discussion. That's basically the 01:46:27.028 --> 01:46:33.542 - people who are proposing the petition. They can say a few words and recommending it to the commission. 01:46:33.542 --> 01:46:40.182 - The commission then has questions for the people who are petitioning. Then after that is public comment. 01:46:40.182 --> 01:46:46.758 - People who are interested in speaking out about this proposed conservation district can say their piece 01:46:46.758 --> 01:46:50.110 - at that time. Depending on how many people are here, 01:46:50.338 --> 01:46:59.629 - To say that, we might limit the comments to three minutes, just so we're not here until like one o'clock 01:46:59.629 --> 01:47:08.831 - in the morning. After the public comment, I'll entertain a motion from the commission, and then we will 01:47:08.831 --> 01:47:17.679 - go into discussion and vote after that. So Noah, would you please start off? Okay. This application 01:47:17.679 --> 01:47:19.006 - is nomination. 01:47:19.106 --> 01:47:28.046 - HD 2601 for the Cottage Grove neighborhood or the Cottage Grove Conservation District. Petitioners include 01:47:28.046 --> 01:47:36.651 - John Butler and the Cottage Grove Designation Committee. The push to designate a conservation district 01:47:36.651 --> 01:47:45.508 - in the Cottage Grove neighborhood was initiated by neighborhood residents in response to a growing number 01:47:45.508 --> 01:47:48.766 - of demolitions in the surrounding area 01:47:49.378 --> 01:47:55.836 - including the proposed demolition of 115 East 12th Street, located within the proposed district. Because 01:47:55.836 --> 01:48:02.109 - of the historic significance of the house's association with prominent local sculptor Ivan Adams, the 01:48:02.109 --> 01:48:08.444 - Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission nominated the property for designation to the Bloomington 01:48:08.444 --> 01:48:15.025 - Common Council, and it was individually designated on December 17th, 2025. Meanwhile, a group of residents 01:48:15.025 --> 01:48:17.854 - began seeking designation for the wider area, 01:48:18.466 --> 01:48:24.532 - sending letters to property owners and hosting a series of public meetings at the Monroe County Public 01:48:24.532 --> 01:48:30.775 - Library to discuss the prospect of nominating a conservation district. On December 17th, 2025, petitioner 01:48:30.775 --> 01:48:36.723 - Dr. John Butler submitted an application to the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission. Due to 01:48:36.723 --> 01:48:42.966 - difficulties in achieving quorum and delays over the holiday season, the public meeting and vote, hearing 01:48:42.966 --> 01:48:46.558 - and vote of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission 01:48:47.266 --> 01:48:56.238 - On this matter, we're postponed until today, February 12, 2026. Survey and ratings. The Cottage Grove 01:48:56.238 --> 01:49:05.386 - Historic District was identified in the early Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology 01:49:05.386 --> 01:49:13.214 - surveys as an area eligible for designation on the National Register of Historic Places. 01:49:13.410 --> 01:49:19.328 - Despite being labeled in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory as a historic district, 01:49:19.328 --> 01:49:25.422 - the neighborhood has never been designated the local, state, or national level. The area received local 01:49:25.422 --> 01:49:31.457 - recognition for its architectural significance in 1974, when the 1852 Creek Revival Mansion of General 01:49:31.457 --> 01:49:37.551 - Morton C. Hunter was demolished amongst much public outcry. Although only a couple of buildings of this 01:49:37.551 --> 01:49:42.238 - era remain in the district, the neighborhood was recognized by state historians 01:49:42.882 --> 01:49:49.589 - for the density and integrity of early 20th century houses. Aside from some mid-century infill, most 01:49:49.589 --> 01:49:56.561 - of the buildings in the proposed district date to this period. As of the current city survey of historic 01:49:56.561 --> 01:50:03.201 - structures, 15 of the 122 houses in the proposed district are rated notable for their architectural 01:50:03.201 --> 01:50:09.310 - significance. One is rated outstanding. 90 is contributing. I checked again today, it's 89. 01:50:09.698 --> 01:50:16.285 - This would place the Cottage Grove Historic District among Bloomington's neighborhoods with the most 01:50:16.285 --> 01:50:23.133 - consistent architectural significance. The boundaries in the state survey would differ slightly, I don't 01:50:23.133 --> 01:50:29.850 - know if that's included, would differ slightly from the proposed local district boundary. They include 01:50:29.850 --> 01:50:36.698 - the northeast corner of Walnut and 10th Street, which has not yet been redeveloped, as well as the south 01:50:36.698 --> 01:50:38.654 - side of Cottage Grove between 01:50:39.298 --> 01:50:45.858 - Grant and Dunn, which have been mostly redeveloped. The boundaries admit most of Grant north of Cottage 01:50:45.858 --> 01:50:52.607 - Grove, because while most of the houses on this block date from the early development of the neighborhood, 01:50:52.607 --> 01:50:59.166 - many have lost their integrity. Also admitted is the 300 block of East 12th Street for unclear reasons, 01:50:59.166 --> 01:51:05.726 - and the west side of 700 block of Washington Street, which was platted later and built mostly post-war. 01:51:07.426 --> 01:51:15.558 - The boundaries proposed in this petition includes most of the Lades, Rohrer, Clarks, and Reeds addition, 01:51:15.558 --> 01:51:23.458 - as well as half of the Cottage Grove addition. This represents a contiguous area, mostly developed in 01:51:23.458 --> 01:51:31.435 - a short span of time, emitting areas for which integrity has been largely lost. This district is being 01:51:31.435 --> 01:51:35.230 - nominated under three criterion presented by the 01:51:36.130 --> 01:51:43.247 - a Bloomington Historic Preservation Ordinance, including criterion 1C, 2E, and 2G. Criterion 1C is for 01:51:43.247 --> 01:51:50.296 - historic significance, exemplifying the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage 01:51:50.296 --> 01:51:57.344 - of the community. The Cottage Grove neighborhood was largely built to provide housing to employees of 01:51:57.344 --> 01:52:04.254 - the nearby Showers Furniture Company and Limestone Industry, which dominated the economy of turn of 01:52:04.254 --> 01:52:05.982 - the century Bloomington. 01:52:07.522 --> 01:52:14.261 - Like many Bloomington neighborhoods of this area, the Cottage Grove was economically mixed. Most of 01:52:14.261 --> 01:52:21.135 - the houses were associated with workers in these industries. And as will be explained below, material 01:52:21.135 --> 01:52:28.077 - and architectural features in the built environment attest to the important role that these industries 01:52:28.077 --> 01:52:34.142 - played in the development of the area. Under criteria for architectural significance, 2E, 01:52:35.266 --> 01:52:45.022 - contains any architectural style, detail, or element in danger of being lost. The applicants list several 01:52:45.022 --> 01:52:54.502 - unusual buildings and features, including Bloomington's only example of a brick Queen Anne style house 01:52:54.502 --> 01:53:02.878 - and a bungalow with a Belvedere, an original feature that would stand out on any bungalow. 01:53:03.874 --> 01:53:11.506 - Another particularly rare building type can be found at 217 East 10th Street in the form of a Civil 01:53:11.506 --> 01:53:19.139 - War era hall and parlor house that faithfully displays Greek revival features popular in the 1800s. 01:53:19.139 --> 01:53:27.076 - Several similar examples can be found in Bloomington, but this farmhouse would rank among Bloomington's 01:53:27.076 --> 01:53:32.190 - oldest extant buildings. Another criterion being considered is 2G, 01:53:32.706 --> 01:53:39.696 - for exemplifying the built environment in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural 01:53:39.696 --> 01:53:46.686 - style. The solid majority of the buildings in the proposed district date from the years before and after 01:53:46.686 --> 01:53:53.410 - World War II. Pre-war houses, mostly working class, predominate in the eastern part of the district. 01:53:53.410 --> 01:53:59.934 - World War I. Did I say World War II? OK, well, it says World War I in the packet, so I was wrong. 01:54:00.354 --> 01:54:07.026 - Pre-war houses, mostly working class, predominate in the eastern part of the district, like 01:54:07.026 --> 01:54:14.495 - in contemporaneous neighborhoods west of downtown. Most of these are built in folk Victorian and Queen 01:54:14.495 --> 01:54:22.037 - Anne style. Many in gabledell form, commonly associated with this period in Bloomington's history, with 01:54:22.037 --> 01:54:28.926 - a number of limestone, sorry. Houses from the late 1910s and 1920s are mostly craftsman style. 01:54:29.250 --> 01:54:35.916 - with a conspicuous number of limestone two-door revival houses. Many of the pre-war homes were built 01:54:35.916 --> 01:54:42.648 - by employees of the Showers Brothers Furniture Company and bear the hallmarks of carpenter-built folk 01:54:42.648 --> 01:54:49.380 - housing, while many of the larger post-war houses are associated with the booming limestone industry. 01:54:49.380 --> 01:54:55.518 - In parts of the neighborhood, brick sidewalks and limestone retaining walls distinguish this 01:54:55.518 --> 01:54:57.630 - early Bloomington neighborhood. 01:54:58.658 --> 01:55:05.313 - The staff recommendation is for forwarding this nomination of the Cottage Grove should be Conservation 01:55:05.313 --> 01:55:11.969 - District to the Bloomington Common Council. The Cottage Grove has long been identified as an area with 01:55:11.969 --> 01:55:18.624 - architectural significance and integrity potentially eligible for historic designation. The applicants 01:55:18.624 --> 01:55:25.086 - who prepared this nomination for the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission have demonstrated 01:55:26.082 --> 01:55:31.663 - care in the nomination process and strong local support for a conservation district. In addition to 01:55:31.663 --> 01:55:37.411 - the area's historical and architectural significance, the neighborhood consists of a densely populated 01:55:37.411 --> 01:55:43.047 - mix of students, owner occupants, and other renters, a mix of upscale and affordable properties, and 01:55:43.047 --> 01:55:48.739 - an attractive walkable environment close to downtown and the IU campus. While much of the surrounding 01:55:48.739 --> 01:55:54.878 - area has been redeveloped, the western core of the Cottage Grove neighborhood demonstrates a strong cohesion. 01:55:56.130 --> 01:56:04.397 - At this point, I'm done with my report. OK, then we'll do Commissioner questions about your report first. 01:56:04.397 --> 01:56:12.431 - Ernesto, do you have any questions for Noah? I do now. Duncan, do you have any questions for Noah? No. 01:56:12.431 --> 01:56:20.386 - Jeff? Not at this time. All right, Daniel, any questions? Well done, Noah. Melody, any questions? No. 01:56:20.386 --> 01:56:24.286 - I'm not going to take part in the discussion. OK. 01:56:25.282 --> 01:56:32.150 - Abstain, I guess, or is it recuse? Recuse. I recuse yourself in discussion. All right. Thank you, John. 01:56:32.150 --> 01:56:39.018 - No questions. I don't have any questions. Jack, do you have any questions? I think this was a wonderful 01:56:39.018 --> 01:56:45.622 - presentation. No questions. All right. Thank you very much. Do you have a question, Paul? Go ahead. 01:56:45.622 --> 01:56:52.358 - Did you look at zoning? Is there significant pressure on all these properties in this area because of 01:56:52.358 --> 01:56:53.150 - the zoning? 01:56:53.570 --> 01:57:01.870 - I get why they want to protect it because those houses are in peril. And I guess I asked that question 01:57:01.870 --> 01:57:09.927 - because would that affect how the council looks at this? It might, but for us, we're looking at the 01:57:09.927 --> 01:57:18.066 - historical significance and architectural significance. So that's not really for us to consider. Any 01:57:18.066 --> 01:57:22.014 - other questions for NOAA from the commissioners? 01:57:23.362 --> 01:57:30.869 - All right, seeing none, we'll move over to the petitioners who would like to speak out on behalf of 01:57:30.869 --> 01:57:38.602 - this. We ask that you try to limit your comments to three minutes, to be fair to everybody who's going 01:57:38.602 --> 01:57:46.259 - to be speaking after this. Who would like to speak? I have a little thing I wrote. Yeah, that's fine. 01:57:46.259 --> 01:57:52.190 - Yep. My name is Amy Butler. I've been a major part of trying to get this done. 01:57:52.898 --> 01:57:58.098 - The fear of them being all torn down is why we've done this. And so I just had a short thing on one 01:57:58.098 --> 01:58:03.298 - break. Cottage Grove is a neighborhood worth protecting. This neighborhood is a small collection of 01:58:03.298 --> 01:58:08.602 - 100-year-old or older homes that represent diverse architectural styles that are core to Bloomington. 01:58:08.602 --> 01:58:13.854 - They are built of materials and used techniques from their era. They cannot be duplicated. Once they 01:58:13.854 --> 01:58:19.678 - are lost, we are not getting them back. All the bits and pieces are present that make for a nice place to live. 01:58:20.002 --> 01:58:25.431 - We have green spaces around our houses, including big mature trees and the subsequent shade they provide, 01:58:25.431 --> 01:58:30.706 - even cooling the houses next door and the houses down the street. Our streets all have sidewalks, some 01:58:30.706 --> 01:58:36.135 - of which are made of 100 to 120 year old bricks. And then there's the WPA era limestone sidewalks created 01:58:36.135 --> 01:58:41.359 - by people needing work in a difficult time for our country. These sidewalks, our hand built limestone 01:58:41.359 --> 01:58:46.532 - walls, and the big old trees make for an especially pleasant place to walk in the summer when we are 01:58:46.532 --> 01:58:47.454 - heading downtown. 01:58:47.938 --> 01:58:52.953 - Most of our houses also have big porches providing exterior spaces our residents can enjoy much of the 01:58:52.953 --> 01:58:57.919 - year. Some of the porches wrap around the house and the house will have a second entrance offering an 01:58:57.919 --> 01:59:02.982 - additional place for the residents to enter their home. This is a great example of how houses were able 01:59:02.982 --> 01:59:08.094 - to work well for the resident owner and their renters at the same time. Our neighborhood has a wonderful 01:59:08.094 --> 01:59:12.963 - versatility to it. These old houses have multiple uses over the years. Some have been residents for 01:59:12.963 --> 01:59:16.030 - many years and others have been rentals since they were built. 01:59:16.226 --> 01:59:21.787 - Some rental houses have even turned back to owner-occupied residents. Our houses are adaptable and useful, 01:59:21.787 --> 01:59:27.400 - and that is why they have lasted for all these years. These are houses built by our working class, business 01:59:27.400 --> 01:59:32.701 - managers, and mill owners. Indiana's own Hoagy Carmichael was born in a house that would have been in 01:59:32.701 --> 01:59:38.106 - our district. We have students, retirees, professionals, and even families. Our neighborhood is a great 01:59:38.106 --> 01:59:43.667 - example of Bloomington's cultural heritage. It is facing significant development pressure, and I encourage 01:59:43.667 --> 01:59:45.694 - you to vote in favor of protecting it. 01:59:45.890 --> 01:59:53.290 - Thank you for your time and considering Cottage Road. Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate 01:59:53.290 --> 02:00:00.480 - that. All right. Commissioner, questions for the petitioners? Ernesto, do you have any? Duncan, do you 02:00:00.480 --> 02:00:07.601 - have any questions? No. Jack? No. Daniel? Melody? No. Karen? No. I don't have any questions. Jack, do 02:00:07.601 --> 02:00:14.861 - you have questions? All right. Well, now we're coming up to the public comments section where everybody 02:00:14.861 --> 02:00:15.838 - can speak up. 02:00:16.418 --> 02:00:22.076 - on behalf. Each person, once I call upon them, you will have three minutes to speak. I'll make sure, 02:00:22.076 --> 02:00:27.847 - I'll go around the room. We'll go in person first, and then we'll go online to get the people that are 02:00:27.847 --> 02:00:33.281 - online who would wish to speak. If you want to say something about this, please raise your hand. 02:00:33.281 --> 02:00:39.107 - All right, go ahead. The gentleman in the green shirt, can you state your name? And then you have three 02:00:39.107 --> 02:00:44.710 - minutes. My name is Jordan Evans. I'm here today as the president of the Old Northeast Neighborhood 02:00:44.710 --> 02:00:45.438 - Association. 02:00:45.570 --> 02:00:51.402 - I did prepare a letter for this. I participated in the meetings as well when I was available. So on 02:00:51.402 --> 02:00:56.709 - behalf of the Old Northeast Neighborhood Association, we're writing to express our support 02:00:56.709 --> 02:01:02.717 - for the development or redevelopment of properties within the boundaries of the Old Northeast Downtown 02:01:02.717 --> 02:01:08.957 - Neighborhood Association. It's our understanding that residents in the High Point Neighborhood Association 02:01:08.957 --> 02:01:14.206 - are seeking to apply for the level of historical designation for the entire neighborhood. 02:01:15.202 --> 02:01:21.473 - As discussed and agreed upon in our last meeting, we do not support that as the old Northeast Neighborhood 02:01:21.473 --> 02:01:27.452 - Association. We recognize thoughtful development, plays an important role in maintaining the vibrant, 02:01:27.452 --> 02:01:33.371 - sustainable, and inclusive community that we have. We support projects that respect the character of 02:01:33.371 --> 02:01:39.291 - the neighborhood while contributing to Bloomington's broader goals relating to housing availability, 02:01:39.291 --> 02:01:41.694 - economic vitality, and responsible land. 02:01:42.914 --> 02:01:49.031 - The Old Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Association believes that well-planned development in compliance 02:01:49.031 --> 02:01:54.857 - with city standards with appropriate community engagement strengthens our neighborhood by improving 02:01:54.857 --> 02:02:00.741 - underutilized or aging properties, increasing housing options, and increasing the overall quality of 02:02:00.741 --> 02:02:06.916 - life for our residents, whether those are renters or homeowners. We appreciate the city's ongoing efforts 02:02:06.916 --> 02:02:10.878 - to balance the growth in the neighborhood, as well as the interests 02:02:11.042 --> 02:02:18.671 - of the people living in it. We look forward to continue to engage constructively on projects like this. 02:02:18.671 --> 02:02:26.153 - We do want to be clear. We oppose the mapping as proposed. The lines do encroach upon the established 02:02:26.153 --> 02:02:33.855 - old Northeast neighborhood district. And we were not consulted with or brought on any of the development 02:02:33.855 --> 02:02:39.870 - with this. So appreciate everybody's time and consideration. Thank you very much. 02:02:39.970 --> 02:02:49.073 - Other public comments? Yes, sir. Please state your name. Brian Allen. I own property in the neighborhood. 02:02:49.073 --> 02:02:58.003 - Again, across the street from the house you guys just approved for the release of the demo, I own right 02:02:58.003 --> 02:03:06.677 - across the street, 322 East Cotter Grove, 320, 316, and 315. And unfortunately, my houses fall right 02:03:06.677 --> 02:03:09.854 - across the street into this map here 02:03:10.242 --> 02:03:18.550 - So I oppose the nomination. I reiterate what Jordan has said, and thank you for your time. Thank you 02:03:18.550 --> 02:03:26.283 - very much. Other public comments in the room? Anyone want to raise their hand? Yes, sir. Yes, 02:03:26.283 --> 02:03:34.509 - I'm Bill Freel, and I've lived at 209 East 10th Street for 40-some years. The intentions that these 02:03:34.509 --> 02:03:38.622 - gentlemen have expressed are excellent and ideal, 02:03:39.426 --> 02:03:47.659 - As properties exchange hands and times change, sometimes those ideals are not met. And we get the wholesale 02:03:47.659 --> 02:03:55.435 - swath of destruction that we have seen in similar neighborhoods, such as specifically the 11 and 1200 02:03:55.435 --> 02:04:03.592 - block in North Woodburn, which is streets similar to our neighborhoods, but have been leveled and replaced 02:04:03.592 --> 02:04:06.718 - with shoebox-like buildings that are now 02:04:07.458 --> 02:04:16.500 - of IU students, which most of whom are fine neighbors, but some of whom are not. So we just want to, 02:04:16.500 --> 02:04:25.453 - I remember hearing this gentleman here talk about respecting the integrity of the neighborhood. And 02:04:25.453 --> 02:04:34.495 - that's really what we're after, is just to do that and to have a little bit of restraint towards the 02:04:34.495 --> 02:04:36.286 - idea of development 02:04:37.698 --> 02:04:45.394 - maybe some ideals that are or are not met. I support this, and I support the butlers. They've made a 02:04:45.394 --> 02:04:53.243 - great effort. I hope you agree with it. Thank you very much for your comments. Any other comments from 02:04:53.243 --> 02:05:01.168 - in the room? Raise your hand. Yes, please, go ahead. My name is James Ford. I live in the neighborhood. 02:05:01.168 --> 02:05:05.054 - Unlike some people who just own property and rent, 02:05:09.250 --> 02:05:15.737 - We have already submitted our comments in letters to the packet so they can be read. What we're all 02:05:15.737 --> 02:05:22.290 - thinking, you'll see that there has only been one single letter of opposition. The gentleman who was 02:05:22.290 --> 02:05:28.777 - here, he's gone. I don't know where he went. Most everyone that has submitted letters formally were 02:05:28.777 --> 02:05:35.329 - in favor of this, as I am in favor of it. It is likely the last neighborhood in Bloomington that can 02:05:35.329 --> 02:05:37.470 - be protected by this commission. 02:05:40.098 --> 02:05:48.320 - The growth has been so fast lately, developers, that what's left of any unprotected neighborhoods is 02:05:48.320 --> 02:05:56.706 - going to be eaten up fairly quickly. I hope that you choose to protect this area the way it is a small 02:05:56.706 --> 02:06:05.091 - area. It has not a large percentage of people who are owning that live in there, but perhaps once it's 02:06:05.091 --> 02:06:08.510 - protected, it will become more desirable. 02:06:08.898 --> 02:06:15.609 - More people will want to live in there. And that's all I have to say. All right. Thank you very much 02:06:15.609 --> 02:06:22.585 - for your comments. Tonda, do we have anybody online who would like to speak? We have some online people. 02:06:22.585 --> 02:06:29.428 - I did put a note in there that they would be able to speak after those public comments here in person. 02:06:29.428 --> 02:06:36.205 - We have a Michael Brands that would like to speak. All right. Michael Brands, go ahead and speak. You 02:06:36.205 --> 02:06:37.534 - have three minutes. 02:06:37.794 --> 02:06:47.012 - Could we wait for you? Oh, sorry. Now it's unmuted. OK. Go ahead, Michael. Yeah, hi. I am an out of 02:06:47.012 --> 02:06:56.230 - town owner. I own a house, as I said, that would fall within this area that's being designated. And 02:06:56.230 --> 02:07:06.462 - one at 401, it's slightly outside in the old northeast neighborhood. I am in favor of the neighborhood because 02:07:07.458 --> 02:07:14.156 - I know that for me, a lot of my tenants, when they want to rent, they want to live in something that 02:07:14.156 --> 02:07:20.854 - resembles a house, something that's in a neighborhood. If they didn't want to live in a neighborhood 02:07:20.854 --> 02:07:27.552 - or something that resembles a house, they would move somewhere else. I know there doesn't seem to be 02:07:27.552 --> 02:07:34.317 - a lot of engagement with the neighborhood, with development right now. I know as a developer, I don't 02:07:34.317 --> 02:07:36.638 - like holding charades to be frank. 02:07:36.770 --> 02:07:45.145 - to be unpleasant. But when I did 401 East Cottage Grove, I held a couple of them. And some of the concerns 02:07:45.145 --> 02:07:53.208 - of the neighborhood were taken into account as a result of the charade. And I think they were probably 02:07:53.208 --> 02:08:00.566 - compromised in what I built. The house could have been knocked down. I did not knock it down. 02:08:00.566 --> 02:08:02.366 - And I think, you know, 02:08:02.786 --> 02:08:11.181 - Certainly, I'm not against development at all. I like it. I've done it in the neighborhood, for sure. 02:08:11.181 --> 02:08:19.575 - But I think it's important to have engagement with the neighborhood. And with the house that was just 02:08:19.575 --> 02:08:27.970 - approved for demolition, there doesn't seem to be a lot of emphasis or concern, as far as I can tell, 02:08:27.970 --> 02:08:30.110 - on what's being put back. 02:08:31.426 --> 02:08:40.001 - It was a while ago when I redeveloped 401 East Cottage Grove, vinyl siding was not something the neighborhood 02:08:40.001 --> 02:08:48.031 - wanted to see. There was back and forth about what the house should look like when it was rebuilt. And 02:08:48.031 --> 02:08:55.826 - I do think that's important. It surely cost me more money to put on cement board siding than vinyl. 02:08:55.826 --> 02:08:59.646 - But I understand why the neighborhood wanted it. 02:08:59.938 --> 02:09:06.612 - And I think perhaps, you know, this would at least put, you know, some guardrails and require some, 02:09:06.612 --> 02:09:13.420 - you know, back and forth with the neighborhood. I mean, I know for at least, you know, maybe I missed 02:09:13.420 --> 02:09:20.161 - it, but for the house that was knocked down, there was no charade that's going to be knocked down in 02:09:20.161 --> 02:09:26.836 - 614. There was no engagement with the neighborhood. That's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you very 02:09:26.836 --> 02:09:28.638 - much. Are there any other? 02:09:28.898 --> 02:09:41.497 - comments from folks that are online. Okay well we'll move on to the next step then. So the next step 02:09:41.497 --> 02:09:54.470 - is I will sorry I just I was timing it too. The next step is to entertain a motion on this conservation 02:09:54.470 --> 02:09:57.214 - district designation. 02:09:57.698 --> 02:10:07.015 - I move to forward the nomination for College Grove Conservation District to Bloomington Common Council. 02:10:07.015 --> 02:10:16.063 - Is there a second? Ernesto's second. All right. We're going to have comments. Ernesto, any comments? 02:10:16.063 --> 02:10:25.022 - No comments. Other than I support the initiative for this. That's all. All right. Duncan, comments? 02:10:26.178 --> 02:10:34.950 - Yeah, I obviously I support it and I want to commend the neighbors who brought this forward. I've looked 02:10:34.950 --> 02:10:43.304 - at a lot of historic district dominations and this one I think is really thorough. It's really good 02:10:43.304 --> 02:10:51.993 - at pointing out what's very special and also what's kind of normal about it and really emphasizing both 02:10:51.993 --> 02:10:53.246 - and I think it 02:10:53.410 --> 02:11:00.675 - The argument that actually I think it was Noah's maybe research about how many notable houses there 02:11:00.675 --> 02:11:08.304 - are vis-a-vis or relative to the total count, that struck me enough that I kind of took a cruise through 02:11:08.304 --> 02:11:16.077 - the neighborhood again to remind myself that I used to have a lot of friends who lived on North Washington 02:11:16.077 --> 02:11:22.398 - Street many, many years ago, almost all of whom moved out because of student takeover. 02:11:23.202 --> 02:11:30.174 - But a lot of the houses along there are ones that I've spent a lot of time in over the years and they're 02:11:30.174 --> 02:11:36.813 - quite remarkable. So the fact that this district represents the housing in the grid and the working 02:11:36.813 --> 02:11:43.453 - class improvements that came along with showers and limestone industry, which by the way is true of 02:11:43.453 --> 02:11:49.694 - the Bloomington Westside community as well and probably most of the inner city neighborhoods. 02:11:50.082 --> 02:11:57.449 - is still, nevertheless, it's an important thing to remember. And the sort of pre-World War I and post-World 02:11:57.449 --> 02:12:04.339 - War I differentiation I found interesting, and I hadn't really thought about that. So I think it's a 02:12:04.339 --> 02:12:11.501 - good nomination, and you should be commended for the job you did. Thank you, Duncan. Jeff, any comments? 02:12:11.501 --> 02:12:18.322 - Yeah, so I've watched downtown change significantly. And because of what I talked about before, the 02:12:18.322 --> 02:12:19.550 - change in zoning, 02:12:20.706 --> 02:12:29.656 - facilitating large multi-unit properties. And this is a pocket of houses that obviously has some really 02:12:29.656 --> 02:12:38.433 - special houses. I think it's worth protecting. Thank you. Daniel. I have nothing else to add. I think 02:12:38.433 --> 02:12:45.662 - it's well done, so I think it's worth supporting. Melody. I agree. Karen. Well, I'd 02:12:46.562 --> 02:12:55.959 - second what Duncan said about it being a great nomination and these very interesting aspects that are 02:12:55.959 --> 02:13:06.092 - brought forward. But I would add something that Noah mentioned in his report, I think it's in the application 02:13:06.092 --> 02:13:16.318 - too, is that for decades, I think, this neighborhood has been waiting, shall we say. It's been identified as a 02:13:16.546 --> 02:13:24.651 - potential, great potential historic district, and I think it was just waiting for the right people to 02:13:24.651 --> 02:13:32.596 - come along to bring it forward, neighborhood, gather the neighborhood support, and I'm really happy 02:13:32.596 --> 02:13:40.542 - to see it happen. As for me, I fully support the findings that are in the staff report. I find this 02:13:40.834 --> 02:13:49.590 - area to have historic significance and architectural significance as laid out by Noah. As Duncan mentioned, 02:13:49.590 --> 02:13:57.778 - it has a very high number of notable houses, especially compared to some of the other districts that 02:13:57.778 --> 02:14:06.372 - we have within the city. So this has my full support based on the historic significance and architectural 02:14:06.372 --> 02:14:10.750 - significance of the properties there. Jack, comments? 02:14:12.002 --> 02:14:22.537 - I thought it was a great petition as well. I always want to point out, in the case of conservation districts, 02:14:22.537 --> 02:14:32.211 - that things used to happen fast. Before DD and before conservation districts, houses could disappear 02:14:32.211 --> 02:14:41.214 - very quickly, two, three days. And you wouldn't even know them until it was gone. That's why. 02:14:42.690 --> 02:14:53.549 - these two protections were brought about. And words that we use for them are protection, security, stability, 02:14:53.549 --> 02:15:04.112 - integrity, among others. And they slow the destruction. They don't make the neighborhood grow necessarily, 02:15:04.112 --> 02:15:11.614 - but generally the neighborhoods, I think, do grow and become more solid and 02:15:12.034 --> 02:15:22.159 - social because they're conservation districts. You also get to make rules about what can be done, can't 02:15:22.159 --> 02:15:31.894 - be done, rules that protect the neighborhood and keep them sustainable. So I'm a great proponent of 02:15:31.894 --> 02:15:39.390 - conservation districts and will certainly support this one. Thank you, Jack. 02:15:40.162 --> 02:15:47.987 - We've already done public comments on this, so I think we're ready to go ahead with the vote. OK. Just 02:15:47.987 --> 02:15:55.812 - looking at the chair. There we go. There's been a motion to forward to Common Council for designation, 02:15:55.812 --> 02:16:03.560 - which has been seconded. We'll take a roll call vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? I'm so sorry. You 02:16:03.560 --> 02:16:09.182 - recused yourself. My apologies. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. 02:16:09.602 --> 02:16:17.709 - Melanie Duesner? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. That motion passes. 02:16:17.709 --> 02:16:25.895 - All right, Jack, you need to read the forward. Thank you. But you need that. It's a constitution that's 02:16:25.895 --> 02:16:34.160 - not historic. Let's see where that is. OK. This is a resolution to forward a recommendation for property 02:16:34.160 --> 02:16:38.174 - to get historic designation to the common council. 02:16:38.786 --> 02:16:46.981 - Today, the HBC declares that all property located at what's our description? Cottage Grove. At Cottage 02:16:46.981 --> 02:16:55.096 - Grove meets the following criteria for the local designation referred to in the staff report. Then we 02:16:55.096 --> 02:17:03.131 - have one, two, and three. What do we fill in those blanks? Do we need to read out the specific ones? 02:17:03.131 --> 02:17:08.382 - I think we should. OK, hair tag. Sorry, it's the bolded ones. OK. 02:17:08.962 --> 02:17:16.908 - Number one here is it exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historic heritage of 02:17:16.908 --> 02:17:24.932 - the community. Number two, it exemplifies the built environment in an era of history characterized by 02:17:24.932 --> 02:17:32.878 - a distinctive architectural style. Do we have others? Exemplifies the built environment in an era of 02:17:32.878 --> 02:17:37.598 - history characterized by a distinctive architectural style. 02:17:38.242 --> 02:17:46.887 - Consequently, the HPC recommends to historic designation under Title VIII of the Bloomington Municipal 02:17:46.887 --> 02:17:55.280 - Code to the common council with the attached map. I assume that NOAA has that map. And then we need 02:17:55.280 --> 02:18:04.093 - to do another thing. I would recommend that we put this area under interim protection. I would entertain 02:18:04.093 --> 02:18:07.870 - a motion. OK, Daniel. Daniel, make a motion. 02:18:08.098 --> 02:18:18.370 - I'll second. Jack's got the second. OK, thank you. All right. Any discussion? All right. I think we're 02:18:18.370 --> 02:18:28.842 - ready for a vote. I'm so sorry. It's been moved and seconded to place this area. Can we move them? Yeah, 02:18:28.842 --> 02:18:37.918 - here I'm trying to. I'm having trouble seeing which one is not rated. Michael Bryan. Yeah. 02:18:38.690 --> 02:18:51.878 - Michael you are on the meeting right now. My apologies I could not see him on my screen so it's been 02:18:51.878 --> 02:19:05.458 - moved and seconded to place this area under interim protection. We'll go ahead and take a vote on that. 02:19:05.458 --> 02:19:07.678 - Jack Baker? Yes. 02:19:08.258 --> 02:19:15.215 - Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Melanie Duesner? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. 02:19:15.215 --> 02:19:22.443 - Daniel Schlegel? Yes. That motion for interim protection has passed. This is a resolution to place interim 02:19:22.443 --> 02:19:29.603 - protection on a property that has been sent to the Common Council with a recommendation of local historic 02:19:29.603 --> 02:19:36.898 - designation. Today, after a vote, the HBC recommends that the Common Council locally designate the property 02:19:36.898 --> 02:19:38.046 - at Cottage Grove 02:19:38.274 --> 02:19:45.750 - as historic and places the property under interim protection pending action by the Common Council under 02:19:45.750 --> 02:19:53.010 - BMC 8.08.015. All right, thank you, Jack. I just want to point out this isn't over. This goes to the 02:19:53.010 --> 02:20:00.558 - Common Council where they will vote and they will not just be considering the historic and architectural 02:20:00.558 --> 02:20:05.662 - significance. So you cleared the first hurdle. We'll see what happens. 02:20:06.114 --> 02:20:13.777 - with the next one. But congratulations for tonight. Good luck. All right. We still have stuff to do. 02:20:13.777 --> 02:20:21.515 - Old business. Noah, do we have old business to discuss? As some of you may know, Elm Heights Historic 02:20:21.515 --> 02:20:29.254 - District has put together a committee that is reviewing their current guidelines, seeing if they want 02:20:29.254 --> 02:20:31.454 - to make any changes to them. 02:20:32.130 --> 02:20:38.311 - Um, per their neighborhood associations rules and procedures for how they're going about this, they 02:20:38.311 --> 02:20:44.615 - want to have a serving member of the historic preservation commission who can attend at least some of 02:20:44.615 --> 02:20:50.857 - their meetings. Um, previously this had been Sam de Saller, um, since he has not been reappointed to 02:20:50.857 --> 02:20:57.347 - the commission, um, is continuing to serve as an interested party, but the, uh, neighborhood association 02:20:57.347 --> 02:21:01.982 - is looking for interested volunteers who are currently serving on the, uh, 02:21:02.466 --> 02:21:10.033 - Historic Preservation Commission. You don't have to answer right now. But if you could think about it, 02:21:10.033 --> 02:21:17.673 - email Noah. If you have some interest in doing that, that would be of great help to us. So I appreciate 02:21:17.673 --> 02:21:25.093 - you thinking about that. Anything else, Noah? There's something I'd like to add on our new business. 02:21:25.093 --> 02:21:31.998 - All right. If we're looking for a new business, let's do it. I've been putting together a new 02:21:33.122 --> 02:21:40.587 - procedure for handling violations to make sure that it's dealt with consistently and in front of past 02:21:40.587 --> 02:21:47.906 - the ANAs. And part of what actually Anna Holmes here proposed is that once we present the language, 02:21:47.906 --> 02:21:55.299 - which I hope to do with the next HPC meeting, that the commission decide whether or not they want to 02:21:55.299 --> 02:22:02.398 - vote it into the rules and procedures. That way, it's going to be something that we do pro forma 02:22:03.106 --> 02:22:09.933 - and won't be lost when there's turnover and institutional knowledge, as has sometimes happened. Anybody 02:22:09.933 --> 02:22:16.827 - have any questions about that for Noah? I think it'd be great to have that written down, and it's pretty 02:22:16.827 --> 02:22:23.457 - clear. Any other new business from you? I'm trying to think. It's OK if you don't. Anything going on 02:22:23.457 --> 02:22:30.416 - at the history center? Oh, that would be Commissioner Reynolds. Yeah. Commissioner Comments, does anybody 02:22:30.416 --> 02:22:32.254 - wish to share any comments? 02:22:34.946 --> 02:22:41.358 - I do. I want to thank Renard Cross and Sam Desala for their service. They were not reappointed to this 02:22:41.358 --> 02:22:47.584 - commission. I think they brought different points of view, a lot of knowledge. I especially want to 02:22:47.584 --> 02:22:54.308 - thank Sam for last year for serving as chair. I think he did a really good job. So I just want to recognize 02:22:54.308 --> 02:23:00.533 - them for their service on this commission. And then just another thing, thanks everybody for voting 02:23:00.533 --> 02:23:03.646 - me for chair, or at least those of you who voted. 02:23:03.874 --> 02:23:12.328 - I will try not to royally screw it up. So thank you. Any other comments from the commissioners? Yeah, 02:23:12.328 --> 02:23:20.866 - I just have a quick comment. So I have been on this commission many years in the past. And I know that 02:23:20.866 --> 02:23:29.569 - one of my faults is I'm a real estate appraiser. So you heard it tonight. I can't turn off the financial 02:23:29.569 --> 02:23:33.630 - thing. So it's always in my head. So call me up. 02:23:35.650 --> 02:23:41.647 - going to reclaim some time for me. I also want to welcome the new members as well, Jeff and John. And 02:23:41.647 --> 02:23:47.703 - then Karen is a voting member now. I know Abby wasn't able to make it, but we have another new person. 02:23:47.703 --> 02:23:53.642 - So welcome back and welcome in different ways. Yeah, Abby sends her regrets. It sounds like she's on 02:23:53.642 --> 02:23:59.698 - vacation. She didn't know when the new appointment would happen. So she'll be here hopefully in March. 02:23:59.698 --> 02:24:05.342 - Excellent. All right, any other final public comments? There's last chance for public comments. 02:24:06.050 --> 02:24:12.585 - still have a petitioner that was wanting to speak earlier. And I've just asked to see if they wanted 02:24:12.585 --> 02:24:19.119 - to in this last. Well, we have an in-person comment. We can go ahead with that. I actually have just 02:24:19.119 --> 02:24:25.719 - a question, and I think I should address it to council. If a property or an area is put under interim 02:24:25.719 --> 02:24:32.188 - protection, and if someone had previously demolished a house intending to build something, but they 02:24:32.188 --> 02:24:35.294 - have not yet submitted a plan, a building plan, 02:24:35.586 --> 02:24:43.144 - They've already started. Can the interim protections stop it right now, protecting the building because 02:24:43.144 --> 02:24:50.702 - they have not yet submitted a building plan? I know that's a, I'm not asking for an answer. I'm asking, 02:24:50.702 --> 02:24:58.187 - I wanted to ask, put up the question and I hope to maybe find out how to go about finding that answer. 02:24:58.187 --> 02:25:03.710 - So that's all. I'm happy to look into that for you. That's a good response. 02:25:04.962 --> 02:25:13.439 - Specifically, it's 717 North Green. Thank you. All right. Any other comments? I would just like to say 02:25:13.439 --> 02:25:21.834 - that I really was hoping to not be a member of this commission when the vote happened. I'm sorry that 02:25:21.834 --> 02:25:30.393 - the timing went like that. But I don't want to put anybody in a bad position. You recuse yourself. It's 02:25:30.393 --> 02:25:34.014 - been a long time. Anything else? All right. 02:25:34.178 --> 02:25:37.086 - Hearing no other comments, this meeting is adjourned.