All right, I would like to call this meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission to
order. Can we get a roll call? Duncan Campbell? Here. Drew Heron? Jack Baker? Here. John Butler? Here.
Ernesto Castaneda? Here. Melody Dugner? Here. Karen Duffy? Here. Jeremy Hackard? Here. Abby Hanson?
Here. Daniel Schlegel?
We have quorum. And Jeff Goldin. Oh, Jeff, I'm so sorry. Jeff Goldin? Just walked in. OK. There's a
better chair over there. All right, let's move on to election of offices. Is there anybody? We can do
this one of two ways.
wait for a larger body and elect offices for this meeting, or we can go ahead and take nominees for
chair and vice chair for the year. Does anybody have a motion for chair, either for the year or for
this meeting? I'll do it. OK, so that's a nomination for Jeremy Hackard from Jeremy Hackard. For this
meeting or for the whole year? Either one.
I'll second that. I'll go for the year. So we have a motion on the floor to nominate Jeremy Hackard
as the commission chair for 2026. We have a second. We'll go ahead and take a vote. Voting members only,
please. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Melanie Duesner is not here.
Jeff Golden? I'll stand for himself. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes.
Abbey Hanson not here, Daniel Schlegel. Yes. That motion passes. Congratulations to our chair.
Thank you. Do you want to take away the next item? Yeah, sure. So next up is the election of the vice
chair. Are there any nominations for vice chair? Shall I say someone's name?
Is there anybody that, if anybody wants to throw around any nominations of your colleagues? Jack, are
you interested? Because you were chair for a year, weren't you? At the committee. Here? No. I haven't
been an officer here. Okay. There's some reason I thought you had. Would you vote? I will. So is that
a motion to nominate? Yeah, I'll nominate Jack.
Second. Okay, we have a motion to nominate Jack Baker as the vice chair for 2026 or for this meeting.
Thank you. Okay, so we'll take that vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes.
Jeff Golden? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes.
Daniel Schlegel? Yes. That motion passes, and congratulations to our vice chair. So one thing that I
wanted to add at this point in the meeting is city council, I believe, recently passed ordinance 2026-04,
which makes some amendments to title two that handles boards and commissions. As I understand it, one
of the changes that might
affect our commission is that they're proposing that each board or commission have a elected secretary
and treasurer. Right now, both of these things are handled by housing and neighborhood development.
So I'm gonna wait some more clarification on that, but I wanted to give everyone a heads up. Next up
on the agenda is approval of the minutes for January 22nd. Do I have a motion?
I'll move for approval. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Excellent. OK, there's a motion to approve
the minutes of the February of the January 22nd HPC meeting. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto
Castaneda? Yes. Melanie Duesner? I'm sorry, she's not here. Jeff Golden? I'm staying. Karen Duffy? Yes.
Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Daniel Schlegel?
Yes. Minutes are approved. Excellent. Next up is a staff review for COA 2606 Miller. All right, our
first item, certificate of appropriateness 2606. The address is 213 East 14th Street in the Garden Hill
Historic District. Petitioner is Troy Hanna. This is a non-contributing property.
The request is for the replacement of the windows and front door, neither of which are original to the
house, as well as in-kind replacements of the siding and roofing materials and the replacement of a
clamshell aluminum awning with a lumber awning, gable-shaped capped with roofing shingles.
The staff approved COA 2606. Replacement of the roof shingles and siding and kind is not subject to
review and this work can be conducted without the commission or staff approval. Existing windows and
doors are not original and the proposed replacements would closely match the existing size and configuration.
The aluminum awnings are a later mid-century addition but do not necessarily confer greater historic
or architectural significance.
The new proposed pediment over the front door is sympathetic to the design of the house and its period
of construction. All right. Next up is commission reviews for certificates of appropriateness. I'm going
to read the statement here. The procedure for COAs and demolition delays for each item, the Historic
Preservation Program Manager, NOAA, will first present a staff report
We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional information, followed by a round of questions
from each commissioner. We ask that petitioners, the public, and commissioners refrain from speaking
until addressed by the chair, which is me, unless the question is directly addressed to them. If a member
of the public or a petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand until recognized by the chair.
Once a motion is made, we will then open up a discussion of the item for members of the commission.
We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at
all times. All right. Noah, go ahead. Just a second. I think we're working with this new format.
no okay so this is 2604 okay property in question is 302 North Roger Street the Bethel AME Church which
is an individually listed historic district the petitioner is Alan Edmonds I believe the petitioner
is present online okay okay
This is an outstanding 1922 Tudor revival limestone church with some classical features. Bethel AME
Church is an individually listed historic district built by Bloomington architect John Nichols in 1922.
It has served the same congregation since its inception and is relatively unaltered aside from plastic
coverings over the stained glass windows to improve insulation. The Bethel congregation itself
was incorporated in 1870
The congregation is applying to the city of Bloomington seal grant. Sorry for a blue city of Bloomington
seal grant to cover the cost of an energy audit and $10,000 contributing to the replacement of windows.
Uh, this request, which, uh, was sent to me by Alan Edmonds is as follows. Our current plan is to replace
all 39 double hung windows. We aim to match the grid layouts in all cases. The replacements of the two
pentagonal windows and two trapezoidal windows will not be double hung and will not open.
One other point is that we plan to use obscured glass on all the windows on the lower level, but clear
glass on the upper levels and on the east end of the building, including the east ends of the north
and south sides. We are not replacing the triangular area over the side door on the south side. It appears
to be in decent shape, and it might be tricky to match the grid there. As for the metal trim, which
is proposed for the window sills, it will be caulked in place and should be watertight
The existing exterior wood trim has not been properly maintained for many years, I'm afraid. My hope
and expectation is that the caulk-sealed metal trim covering all wood trim will be a vast improvement
and last a long time. Hope these comments help. I wanted to also mention that our supplier has notified
me that we expect a price increase for orders submitted on or after Monday, February 23rd. With that
in mind, our goal is to be able to move ahead quickly after the commission hearing on February 12th
with the goal of getting paperwork, partial payment, et cetera, completed no later than February 19th.
Please pass along any further questions that you have for the commission. I will... run through. Some
images that we have of the existing windows. So this proposal calls for
Vinyl replacement windows double hung to match the size and display of mountains, but they would use
an interior grid rather than true or simulated divided glass.
Staff recommends the conditional approval of COA 2604 for the replacement of windows and the repair
or in-kind replacement of wood sills, rather than covering them with another material. The Code of Federal
Regulations, CFR 36, Part 68, acknowledges that there are some circumstances in which economic and technical
feasibility of a project will have to be taken into account when interpreting the Secretary of Interior's
standards.
The criteria for this judgment include the necessity of a project and the demonstration of a substantial
cost burden. Churches and religious buildings are one type of property to which these considerations
are most often applied because they are often large, non-income producing properties that pose practical
and financial challenges during restoration. In this case, not all of the windows for which replacement
has been proposed are in the same state of disrepair.
but windows along the south elevation in particular show extensive rot, broken panes, damaged mountains
and damage from the elements. There are 39 windows for which replacement is proposed and the estimates
provided by the energy audit give a range of $750 to $2,000 per window with simulated, sorry, interior
divided lights.
The city of Bloomington Seal grant can cover some of this cost, but cannot cover full window repair
or replacement. While Indiana Landmarks provides for other applicable grants, which may be able to cover
the cost of more faithful replacements, staff cannot speculate on their availability. Storm windows
are generally a cheaper option for thermal insulation, provided that they can be built to a size that
fits. But the audit provided demonstrates that the deterioration of the windows beneath still remains an issue.
While some of these windows on the second story are less visible, all of the first floor windows are
double hung and close to the sidewalk. Obscured glass is already used on these ground floor windows.
The divided lights, size, and shapes of these windows are also important to finding features of the
building, and so replacement materials should seek to imitate the appearance as closely as possible.
Considering the extent of deterioration, replacement may be appropriate at this point. The Secretary
of the Interior Guidelines
do not recommend obscuring wood details underneath metal or other materials, not historically part of
the building. While some sills may need mitigation, repair or replacement would be a preferable option
that would not alter the appearance of the wood sills and trim and would avoid further complications
resulting from the capture of moisture underneath aluminum sheathing. At this point, I'd like to ask
if the petitioners have anything that they would like to add.
that looks very similar, is much more energy efficient, and has minimal maintenance issues along the
way. That's where we are with the final windows and the proposed metals trial. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Are there any public comments?
Does anybody wish to speak on this COA, both in the room or online? Hearing none, let's go ahead and
do Commissioner comments. Ernesto, you want to start off? I don't have comments on this. There are questions.
Questions. Do you have questions? No, not at this point. Duncan, do you have questions? So is this proposing to
Not just to do the sash, but the whole window unit. Is that right? That's right. And does that replacement
unit include the sill? As I understand it, this is a standard replacement where they pull the existing
window out, but leave the frame of the existing window in place and insert the new window in.
and then caulk it inside and out to make use of the existing wood frame. So the replacement unit does
not include the frame. Right. And I think that you're proposing to clad that frame and seal in aluminum.
Is that correct? That's correct.
Has there been a, other than the sealed report, has there been an evaluation of the windows one by one
to grade their condition? Well, we've had two proposed installers come and inspect and make proposals
for replacing them.
I think we have looked at it from the point of view of believing some. When we started, we said maybe
we could only afford to do the very worst ones, which are on the south side of the building. Somehow
the weather is much more effective there. But all of the windows, from the energy efficiency point of
view, all the windows are, of course, 100-year-old windows. They're not nearly as energy tight as we'd
like to have.
As we got into the project and thinking about it, we aimed to replace the wall if we're possibly going.
The installers that we talked to, of course, they are industry standard nowadays. It's this sort of
vinyl windows with the multiple panes and so forth. So that's what they're aiming to be.
They are tied then, and energy and efficiency will answer those questions. So that's the priority from
that point of view. I apologize to you. That's all the questions I have. Jeff, do you have any questions?
No questions. Daniel? John? No questions. Karen? No questions. I have a couple of questions. For the
petitioner, did you reach out to Indiana Landmarks about any of their grant-making opportunities?
particularly the Black Heritage Preservation Program, or the Sacred Places Indiana programs.
We have not yet. No, it holds a little bit. Now, where I'm at, my impression was they have fairly tight
headlines that we were thinking to approach them about subsequent projects. We did not, at this time,
didn't get deep enough into what their possibilities are. Were wood windows ever?
considered for replacements? Pardon me? Would the material? No? OK. Thank you. Jack, do you have any
questions? I wanted to question the commissioners. I'm not very familiar with vinyl windows, but in
terms of life expectancy versus a metal clad or
vinyl clad window, what is your take on them? Do they have good life? Do they provide the insulation
levels that are purported? I'd like to hear. The most efficient window combination is wood body, painted
wood body with a double pane or single pane with a single pane glazed
storm window. That's the most efficient. If you go to a double pane window, a wood window that is clad
with aluminum is the next best in terms of efficiency. Vital is low on the list for efficiency, but
as the petitioners mentioned, well-fitted windows are really more of an issue than anything. It's air
infiltration that is the issue.
And windows and doors are not where most heat is lost. It's through the roof. So when I looked at the
seal report, for instance, the first thing I would do is super insulate the roof because that's probably
where they're losing most of their heat. But windows are graded and have been, you know, by quality
and material. Wood windows are still the best insulator, single or double glazed.
Thank you. Do you have any other questions? I don't get to ask the question, and I'll ask it again.
Apparently, there was not a one-on-one, one-by-one window determination. It was a gross determination
of all windows. So no one went through and looked at each window and said, this one can be done, this
one cannot be done. Is that the case?
That's true. That's true. We did go around the building one by one, looking at all the buildings in
succession, but we did not make an attempt to... And we did also say which ones are the worst.
And as I said, at one point, we thought we'll just put the most south side windows, which are definitely
by far the worst. But as we looked one by one,
was that it was better to do everything at once, if you could. Thank you. No more questions. All right.
At this point, I'll entertain a motion from the commissioners on this COA. So although we cannot move,
we approve it so that we can go to the next step. Is that right? I'm trying to remember with the new
system. So yes, you would make a motion.
And then we would make comments based on that motion. I'd move we approve COA 26-04. Is there a second?
I'll second it. All right. All right. Let's discuss it. Ernesto? Yeah. I agree with the recommendations
from staff. But I do think that they should probably look into Indiana landmarks
because it's a good resource for getting more grants and being able to do this properly. So I don't
know how to deal with that. Duncan, do you have comments? Yeah, I think that's the issue. By preservation
standards, what you would normally do would be to grade every window. Usually we make a sheet that
replicates what the window looks like, grade the quality of the glass, the quality of the frame, the
quality of the sash, and then evaluate the work based on that need. I'm not arguing that they're not
all, they don't all need something. They may, they may. I haven't looked at it myself, but that would
be a normal procedure. And then to try to get the highest quality window possible would be the next
best option, in which case I think that would be a clad wood window with either single glazed or double
glazed with a storm window. But I acknowledge that that's the more expensive route to take. If you took
that route, let's just say there were how many other 39 windows and 15 of them were absolutely needed
to be replaced right now. There's no economic merit in replacing them with
the cheapest window available or the window that won't last the longest or that is the least energy
efficient in the long run. But as Noah mentioned in his recommendation, and I think that's why you're
agreeing with it, there's economic hardship here probably. I mean, if they couldn't, if the church hasn't
been able to maintain them, then they're not probably gonna have a pot of money to replace them with
the highest quality window going.
my strategy, my strategy would be to do the worst ones first, at the same time that they're taking care
of the other energy needs, which I think take priority, frankly, judging from the SEAL report. So it's
not a matter of disagreeing with NOAA or disagreeing with what the issues and the economic issues here
about what's the best strategy for getting the best product. And I think
replacing them as needed with maybe a higher quality product than a vinyl window would be a more sound,
long-term, more economic route to take. And just to comment on vinyl windows in general, there are lots
of different grades of them. They don't last anywhere near as long as wood windows that are maintained.
But in this case, maintenance is as big an issue as purchase.
So I would get the most maintenance-free window I could get with the most efficiency, and that would
be a wood window that's clad with aluminum. It doesn't have to be painted on the outside. That's
a complicated answer, but it's a complicated problem, and I totally sympathize with the church and their
congregation, because it's a pressing issue,
money on the one hand and quality on the other and the long-term benefit as a third consideration.
All right, Jeff, do you have any comments? So my comments would echo what Duncan said. Looking at the
windows on what's needed right now and thinking about long-term, even though maybe the cost right now
might be prohibited to do them all, I think
long-term for a struggling church like this is that you deal with what you have to deal with. And I
also agree with this. Windows are great, but they're not the most important thing. That's it. No, I
think mine's already been said. No comments.
Could you elaborate a little or repeat what you said about your conditional is about the sills? Right.
Yeah. Actually, at this point, that is something I'd like to, with your permission, chair, ask Duncan
about. Sure. Sure. So understanding that those sills and surrounds would be left in, obviously, what's
recommended in the guidelines for the rehabilitation of historic properties is that
you know, that would not be covered up or obscured. Do you think for the sake of the longevity of these
windows that there would be a reason to unconditionally approve this application as is if there was,
say, an agreement on my recommendation about replacing the windows themselves? Unconditionally.
I don't want to force your hand with the question, I guess. Well, ask it another way. I'm not sure I
understand. Do you think that installing cladding on the windows arounds? The existing windows? Yeah,
do you think that would be problematic to approve? Yeah, probably. In the long run, it probably will
be because they tend to sweat, and then the wood rots from underneath. I would, I think,
What I've done in the past is when the frames are meant to stay and are intended to stay, which they
are in this case, is to scrape and repaint the frames with a really high quality paint and put in a
pressure treated sill and paint it after a year. You have to let it dry first. Pressure treated sills
last a long, long, long time. And good paint will also.
And it's probably just as cheap to paint the frames, not the sash, as it is to clad them. That would
be my guess. And it would look better. But it's a maintenance issue, because you have to keep painting
them. I mean, every 10 years, probably, you would have to paint them. But I think, again, in the long
term, it saves the original material. And if you clad them, you
probably won't save it for more than 10 years. It's a really complicated issue. That's why windows are
always such a pain, because there are just a lot of choices, and money is not getting any cheaper. It's
almost to the point where taking them out and completely repairing them, whatever they need, and putting
them back is just about as cheap as buying a new good quality window.
A new wood clad window roughly this size, a solid wood window with divided lights between the panes
and aluminum cladding, they start at about 1,300 and they go up. So take it times 39 and you see where
you're at. Whereas repair can be anything from 250 to 500 a window.
It's really a conundrum when you got 39 windows. On the showers building, we had to do a window survey
for over 300 windows. We had to survey every one of them and make recommendations for each one. And
the National Park Service allowed them to replace them all because the overall deterioration was greater
than 60%. So the standard is sliding. Those recommendations pretty much meet secretary's standards,
I would say.
I don't have any other comments. Do you have comments? Yes, that's why I asked the question about haunted
windows, to find out quality and time, how long they'll last and what they'll do for. And it seems they're
the lowest quality, I agree. My opinion is overall better for the church to replace progressively, not once.
I think that's a good idea. It allows them to build a budget in between replacements, also to look at
each window individually and decide what to do with it. I'm a little worried about replacing everything
at one time. It's a cost saving, and I understand why you would want to grab at it.
because I'm sure they're worried about them. But I think overall, the better way to do it is to do it
progressively window by window or group by group rather than doing everything one and doing a higher
quality clad window. That's my opinion. I will add that approaching Indiana Landmarks on the two levels
that you mentioned, they have a very active African-American
fund that they're really trying to build. And so I think they would really be welcoming to a request.
I do want to have one other comment here. The Black Heritage Preservation Program, the grants range
from $500,000 to $30,000. And then the sacred spaces programs, their grants go from $25,000 to $500,000.
So there's money out there that is available for the church to use to preserve this building, giving its
rating no matter the outcome I think of what we do here they need to contact Indiana Landmarks and see
if they can get into one of these programs to help make sure that we keep Bethel there. They also provide
can provide technical assistance and they will not fund inappropriate windows. I'll tell you that. And
I might add that the windows are such a defining
character defining feature of this gorgeous building that you'd have a good case, I would think. I would
think so too. Okay, I think that brings us to the end of our discussion, so it comes time to vote. Do
we have public comment? Yeah. We already did. I asked for comment earlier, but. Oh, go ahead. Oh, they
didn't hear it? Okay. So we go back though? Yeah.
I'm Valerie Grimm, so I'm a member of the Trustee and Student Board. So there are a couple of things
that I'd like to provide, at least what I think is a point of clarification. And that is the question
about looking at the windows one by one. We did. That's how we got to the conclusion that we reached.
We went to each window, inside and outside.
What's happening on the inside is not evident from the outside. From the inside underneath, which is
why we are talking about replacing the whole window and getting a new window that fits into the frame,
is that over the years, the water has come in and has caused the wood to rot. And so in some areas,
the entire bottom area just has to be replaced, rebuilt, whatever language you want to use.
So we did go window by window with two to three different people and among ourselves to look at the
condition of the window. There were a couple we thought we could say, but then we went inside and saw
the wreckage that termites or something had done, which requires us to totally replace that particular
window. So I just wanted to be clear, this was not just
look at it and think it was a detailed estimation and exploration of what's happening inside and outside
the church as far as those windows are concerned. So another thing is I know that the conversation about
grants is happening.
Our church is small, so that's the reason why I crossed between a student and a trustee board. And I'm
talking about a lot of people, and the few people we have, everybody got full-time jobs. So we did initiate
a campaign based on the number of years we've been here, 155. And so we have funds to move forward and
to do the kind of work that we have, we think is good work.
that will last some time. I might not be here for the next installment, but at least what we have come
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
try to get the landmark money, but we need that for some other stuff. That the church is 155 years old,
it got some basement issue that we'll probably be coming back to you again for.
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
work. We've talked to three different companies that have given us different ways to think about it.
And that's where we are. Excellent. Thank you very much for your comments. Appreciate that. Yes, and
I'm Nancy Cross Harris. Also, just like she said, I'm trusting in the church a long time.
Everything she said is correct. We had three different estimates come out, and not only just one time,
but twice. So each one of them has been viewed and viewed and viewed over at least six times. And that's
why we did come to that conclusion. They all need replacing. Except for the stained glass. We're not
missing the stained glass. No, the stained glass. You can see the stain from here.
Yeah, that's great. That's inside the sanctuary. But over the years, we have taken care of the basement
and the sub-basement floors, trying to maintain them. But water just keeps gushing in, as she mentioned,
rotting out wood and so forth. And it just ruins the floor. So that's all we're trying to do is maintain
that and have everything be efficient. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments on this from
the public?
All right, we'll go ahead and call the roll. All right, we have a motion on the floor for COA 2604.
Motion to approve. We'll go ahead and take a roll call vote. And is this for the conditional approval
or for approval approval? Daniel, you moved for what? No asset, didn't you? I don't remember what I
said. Yeah, it was a motion to step approval. Could you restate the condition? Sure. This would
be conditional approval for the replacement of the windows
but not for covering the surrounds. Is that what I had said previously? That's what I thought. I think
your motion was for the conditional approval, yes. Yes. That's what I wanted to be, so that's what I
said. That's what it was for. OK. So we'll go ahead and take a roll call vote. Jack Baker? No.
John Butler? Yes.
Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Jeff Golden? No. Melanie Dusner? Abstain. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard?
Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. All right. So that would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 2 noes, and an abstention. So
that motion passes. All right. Thank you very much for coming in, and thank you for your public comments.
Appreciate it. All right.
Can I have a quick clarification about what we just passed? Sure. This was OK to take the proposal we
have and replace the windows, but to leave the wood frames uncovered and deal with that later or something.
Right. And then the wood frames, they could be repainted or replaced in kind without necessarily needing
approval from the commission.
The approval is not given for covering them in aluminum. And so I would say let's follow up with Noah
after this. Yeah. And we can go through any sort of clarifications at that time. We can work that out.
So next up on the agenda, we have COA 2607. Is the petitioner here for that? This is Petitioner Han Chong.
Is the petitioner present online? All right, so we'll move that to the end of the agenda, and we'll
cover that if they end up coming up at some point. So we'll move to COA 2608. Is the petitioner present?
Ben Swanson? We have a Ben online. I'm going to ask him. Ben, are you the petitioner? I'm here. Yes,
I'm here. Excellent. OK, Noah, can you do your report? Sure.
This is the Application for Certificate of Appropriateness 2608 for 213 South Rogers Street. Will someone
be able to close the door? Oh, open door, we can't. I'm sorry, we can't close the door. Please leave
the door open. Mm-hmm. OK. Sorry. We have to leave the door open. OK. Because open door means open door.
Yeah, we're very sorry.
Okay, I'll just shout. Okay. 213 South Roger Street, the Frosted Food Building petitioner is Ben Swanson.
The request here is for the reduction in height of industrial chimney to the lower tier and then capping
it with a cement crown.
213 South Rogers is an individually listed historic property, a former factory building. It has served
as an auto repair shop, sheet metal workshop, and refrigeration company slash slaughterhouse. It was
designated in 1995 as part of a grant application. The building has a limestone facade with picture
windows and a stepped parapet facing Rogers. Most of the building is brick with large metal gridded
industrial windows.
On the roof near the south facade stands a tall square brick chimney. The request from the applicant
proposes a partial removal of the existing masonry chimney located on the roof of the building at 213
South Rogers Street. The chimney is no longer actively in use and currently extends above the roof line.
Visual inspection from the adjacent parking lot shows a clear transition in brick material
approximately one-third of the way up the chimney indicating an earlier construction phase and a later
addition above it. The proposal is to remove only the upper portion of the chimney down to this original
brick transition, thereby retaining the historic base and preserving the original massing and appearance
of the structure as viewed from the street. The purpose of the partial removal is twofold.
safety and maintenance. The upper portion of the chimney is exposed to weather and presents long-term
maintenance issues and safety concerns. Reducing the height of the chimney will lessen the structural
risk while allowing the remaining historic masonry to be properly capped and stabilized. Secondly, for
sustainability improvements, the reduced chimney height will significantly limit the shadow on the roof,
which will be necessary to support a future solar energy installation.
The proposed work aligns with the sustainability goals while minimizing the alteration of historic materials.
No changes are proposed to the building's footprint or primary elevations or character defining features.
Visible from the public right of way, the work represents a reversible minimal intervention that retains
historic materials where feasible and ensures continued preservation and functional use of the building.
All work will be performed by qualified masonry contractor using appropriate preservation techniques.
The materials to be used include the retention of existing brick masonry, mortar repair, using a compound
to match the existing mortar in composition, color, texture, and joint profile.
a chimney cap, what's being proposed would be a concrete mortar crown with a two inch overhang. Um,
while the two inch overhang was not generally a consistent practice in the early 19 hundreds, when the
building was originally constructed, we are recommending the minor alteration as the overhang does help
with the watershed and will help to preserve for a longer time. The original bricks, uh, that are almost
impossible to come by at this time.
This paired with tuck pointing will greatly aid preservation. Flashing, new flashing will be installed
as needed at the roof interface to ensure proper waterproofing. Flashing materials will be durable,
weather resistant, and minimally visible. Staff recommends the approval of COA 2608. The brake chimney
is a small feature, but nonetheless, significance for
I don't know how this typo entered here, but for... I'm gonna read it the way that makes sense, conveying
the property's industrial history. The top two-thirds of the chimney are narrower, built with a different
brick from the rest of the original structure. The higher tier was built before the 1990s renovation,
but likely after the beer
building's main period of significance, which is the early 1920s and 30s, possibly after the building
became a meat processing plant in the early 1940s. I had some trouble finding older pictures of this
building. There are aerials and maps that show the building materials and overall dimensions of the building.
I haven't found anything that indicates the original chimney height. Does the petitioner have anything
that he would like to add? No. I think that covers it, but I have to answer any questions. Thank you.
Are there any public comments regarding the COA? Hearing none, Ernesto, do you have any questions? Duncan,
questions?
No, I will say that I led the renovation on this building. And it's on the National Register of Historic
Places also. It was a federal tax credit project. And I consulted with the owner because he called me
and asked me if I had any old pictures. But what I had were the pictures prior to the renovation, which
was in the early 90s.
And we determined that that extension chimney was added at a time when that chimney was needed to have
its peak above the top of the domed roof by code, because they were using it to vent a furnace, we believe.
And we put that canister on top of it. It's a filter for what was once
hair salon that went in there as one of our tenants. So it's a way of filtering out the fumes from the
hair salon. And it's not being used anymore either. So the original chimney is the short stub. So they
would be returning it to the original configuration, which I think is fine. It's totally appropriate.
No questions. Any questions? No, I think Noah covered everything great with his report.
Any questions? No questions. John? No questions. Karen? No questions. I don't have any. Jack? No. No?
All right. I did public comment earlier. So do I have a motion on this? I move for approval. I second.
All right. Jack had the motion. Second, Nesto. All right. Let's talk about it. Ernesto, do you have
any comments? No. I think Duncan summarized it. Thank you. Anything else, Duncan?
Jeff? I want to support this. OK, Daniel? Melanie? Appreciate it, Duncan's context. John? Seems like
a no-brainer on this one. Yes, it's good to have the full information here, background. Yeah, I support
this. Jack? I think at one time, it might have made sense to have a very tall chimney there for meat
processing, and depending on what kind of furnace they had, probably coal at one point, and if you get
the smoke up,
away out of people's faces could be pretty nasty. And there's just no need for it anymore. And taking
the chimney down, I think, doesn't do anything to demean the character of the building. OK. All right.
Thank you very much. I think we're ready to call the roll. The motion that's been seconded to approve
COA 2608, roll call vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes.
Melanie Dusner? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. Motion passes. Excellent.
Thank you very much. All right. Next up, we have COA 2609. This is with the Chickering Rentals. Is the
petitioner in the room or online? And what's your name? My name's Lindsay. Lindsay. OK. Thank you very
much. I'm sorry about the white one, too. I'm so sorry for being late.
It's okay. It's all right. All right. Noah, would you go ahead with your report? Certificate
of Appropriateness 2609. This application is for 806 South Woodlawn Avenue. Oh, another typo. Well,
it's just Elm Heights, not Maple Heights. The Elm Heights Historic District. Petitioner is Chickering
Rentals. The request here is for retroactive approval of the replacement of wood windows
with vinyl windows with an interior grid. I received a letter with a request, Dear Historic Preservation
Department, I'm writing to formally request approval for the removal and replacement of existing windows
at 806 South Woodlawn Avenue, a contributing property located in the Elm Heights Historic District.
We fully recognize the architectural and historic significance of the Elm Heights neighborhood and appreciate
the Historic Preservation Department's role in protecting its character.
This proposal has been carefully developed to balance historic preservation with responsible stewardship,
long-term building preservation, and modern performance needs. Existing conditions. The existing windows
of the property are original or early generation units that have deteriorated significantly over time.
Current conditions allow
include air and water infiltration, failing glazing, compromised weather seals, and difficulty opening
and closing. In several locations, these deficiencies contribute to moisture intrusion, interior finish
deterioration, and reduced energy efficiency. While the existing windows have been maintained where
possible, their condition has reached a point where continued repair is no longer a sustainable or effective
long-term solution.
scope of work. We are, we propose replacing the existing windows with new historically compatible windows
designed to closely match the original window profiles, proportions and configuration as viewed from
the public right of way. The proposed replacements will maintain the appropriate sash division, muntin
patterns and overall scale consistent with architectural character of Elm Heights houses.
The intent is to preserve the exterior appearance of the structure while significantly improving its
performance and longevity. Benefits of the proposed window replacement, long-term preservation of the
structure. Modern windows provide superior protection against moisture intrusion, a primary contributor
to rot and structural deterioration in historic homes. Improving ceiling will protect original framing,
trim, plaster, and interior finishes.
supporting the long-term preservation of the building. Energy efficiency and environmental responsibility.
New windows will substantially improve the thermal performance by reducing heat loss in the winter,
heat gain in the summer. This reduces the overall energy consumption, lowers utility demand, and supports
sustainability goals without altering the historic appearance of the home. Improved safety and code
compliance. Many existing windows are difficult to operate due to age, paint buildup,
or warped components. New windows will improve the ease of operation, ensure reliable emergency egress,
and enhance occupant safety while maintaining appropriate historic proportions. Reducing ongoing maintenance,
replacement windows significantly reduce the need for frequent re-glazing, repainting, and repairs.
This allows maintenance resources to be directed toward other preservation efforts, including continued
investment in the historic fabric of the home.
preservation of Elm Heights visual character. The proposed windows are selected specifically to replicate
the historic appearance of the originals. From the street, the visual change will be minimal preserving
the established character and rhythm of the Elm Heights Historic District. Commitment to collaboration,
we're committed to working closely with the Historic Preservation Department throughout this process.
We are happy to provide window specifications, drawings, photographs, product samples, or any other materials
required to support this request and ensure compliance with the Elm Heights Historic District standards.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We appreciate this department's guidance and look forward
to working collaboratively to preserve this property in a manner that respects both its historic significance
and future viability. Sincerely, Lindsey Thompson, Shickering Rentals. I'll show you these, as you can see here,
are images of the existing windows, I believe from 2023, showing go find more online linked to the meeting
packet, but some examples of interior and exterior condition. You can see here the replacement windows,
interior and exterior.
Staff does not recommend the approval of COA 2609. The Elm Heights Historic District guidelines allow
the replacement of windows in the condition that they cannot be repaired. In 2025, the Bloomington Historic
Preservation Commission did approve, in a divided vote, the replacement of badly warped one over one
windows in a property in the Elm Heights Historic District with clad aluminum replacements, following
the argument that the difference would not be visible.
The replacement windows installed at 806 South Woodlawn replicate the original pattern of muntins, although
the visual difference between simulated dividing lights and interior grids adds another design factor
to consider. As a retroactive COA proposed in response to a notice of violation, the proposal asks for
approval of work conducted without an application. Last year, the serving Historic Preservation Commission
chair and city staff were invited
to visit another property owned by the applicant in the Elm Heights Historic District to consider potential
window replacement. After an inspection, it was determined that the existing windows could be repaired
and alternative means of insulating the existing windows, including weather stripping or the installation
of storm windows or cellular shades, were not outside the bounds of consideration. It is unknown whether
this visit took place before or after the replacement of windows at 806 South Woodlawn.
While the windows at 806 South of Woodlawn were likely close to 90 years old, it is not clear that they
were inoperable or unrepairable. It is also not clear that other thermal efficiency measures could not
have been considered prior. Images uploaded to Zillow and Realtor.com between the time that the property
was purchased in January 2024 and the updated Zillow information following interior and exterior work
on the property uploaded in January 2026
did not seem to show that the windows are in poor condition, although it can be difficult to tell the
extent to which the frames may be warped or glazing and seals in need of repair. Considering
these circumstances, staff recommends that the windows be replaced with either the originals or wood
windows matching the sizing configuration. Does the petitioner have anything that she would like to
add at this point?
I know that it's very easy to look at landlords or rental companies and see them as faceless people,
but yeah, I have a very deep love of Elm Heights and very much loved living there. I grew up in Brown
County and my father and my father-in-law are both contractors, so I in no way shape or form do not
honor what you're doing here and honor preservation. However, I live in a house that currently has historic
windows and during this, that also has spray foam insulated attic space. And during this last cold snap,
we were running our fireplace during most of the
the time when we were in our living room because it was so cold due to the single pane windows. I do
want to address the fact that we bought a lot of properties. The homeowner, I am just the kind of property
manager, bought a lot of properties at the same time and we remodeled them very quickly during that
time. We were not as aware as we are now of the historic guidelines. So I do apologize.
We were in here about a year and a half ago for a door, and it was replaced about the same time as the
window. So it's all, once again, especially now that I'm living in the neighborhood and I'm becoming
more aware of the rules. So I just want to let everybody know that these were not rules that we knew
about that we just stamped on or trampled on. We are learning and have learned more as we bought in
the neighborhood.
All I'm asking is that I do know that currently the Elm Heights neighborhood is rewriting their bylaws
for the neighborhood and I'd like to see if there's any way to have a variance of some sort to see where
these new bylaws come and then we could abide by those because I know that windows and doors have been
a big conversation in the neighborhood.
Are there any public comments regarding this certificate? Please state your name. Go ahead. Jenny Southern.
I serve on the committee in the Elm Heights Historic District. Haven't met some of the new commissioners.
Yeah, I was actually in the front yard of this house, knew the previous owner 12 years ago. He had lived
in Colonial Williamsburg before that and meticulously
cared for and restored this house. So I can say at the time that I was in it 12 years ago, they were
working great. They were doing well. I didn't see any sign from the outside that the glazing was coming
out at all. It looked fine. I can't swear up and down because I haven't been there this year. It would
have been nice to get into a application that was before all this.
It also had well-fitting, expensive storm windows on it. And I'll say that. That's the other picture.
That's the original picture. That's with storm windows on it. You can tell how well they were fitted,
and they were very nice. So that's all I've got to say, other than if anybody has any questions about
the guidelines or something. There's nothing in our guidelines that says at this time,
that you can replace them if they're in good shape. It's written several times in there that
sustainability-wise, we believe these are more sustainable. We believe the originals are more affordable,
as long as you have storms on them, because they have an R value of 2. New windows have an R value of
2.5. You get the brand new ones, the brand new storms, they also have an R value of 2.5, because they
have a U coating on them that helps transmit less cold
So, you're going by the guidelines we have now. They're totally not okay. We don't have anything against
their grid pattern. That's what the grid pattern was. That's the proportions they were. That's the old
ones, you can tell. That's the red door. Yeah, that's new ones. I'm not sure.
There's other little changes there. I'm not going to mention that we're also done. But the new guidelines
we're writing will at least, if they do allow new windows, they will at least have exterior mutton patterns
on them. We are unconcerned about your interior mutton pattern because you can't see them except for
inside. And we don't feel like we should be reviewing the inside of people's houses.
And it looks weird from the inside as far as I'm concerned, but that's up to the homeowner. However,
the exterior, the muntin pattern does matter. I'm sorry, I hope everybody knows what a muntin pattern
is. Muntins, okay. So we want not the little skinny, strappy, white, vinyl ones or anything like that,
real wood. Okay? So any questions? No? Thank you. All right. Are there any other public comments?
All right, we'll go to Commissioner Questions or Nesta. Yes, I have a question for Steph. Yes. I just
want to understand this. The windows that are there now, they were installed without permission from
the commission? Yes. That's all I have. Thank you. Duncan, do you have any questions? No. No? Jeff,
questions? Daniel? Melody? No. John? How close is
the rewriting of the rules. How's that coming along? Is this something that's going to happen soon,
or is it going to happen in a year? Are we days away from this, and we could postpone it once, or is
this long term? That's my question. Honestly, I've been attending the meetings, and I have no idea.
I don't think it's going to be, say, within a month or two.
Karen? No questions. My questions have to do with the windows that were replaced. What sort of inspection
or evaluation was done on those windows before they were taken out? That was very much just a personal
decision. Ah, OK. All right, that answered my question. Jack, do you have questions? I'll address this
to Noah. Chickering has had dealings with
HPC before, have they not? Yes. Do we go back a couple of years, or do you have any off the top here?
When's the last time we may have talked with them? So there's a couple of instances that came up in
this meeting. One was there was a application in 2025 to replace windows on another house in the Elmites
Historic District.
submitted sort of speculatively. Sam DeSaller, who was chair at the time, and myself both checked out
the property, and it didn't look like the windows there met the threshold in the district guidelines
for replacement. So that application was withdrawn. Prior to that, there was another retroactive COA
applied for.
In a case, I think somewhat similar to this one, as Lindsay had pointed out, where a door had been replaced
without an application. That was in 2024. The COA is good for two years. And a proposed custom door
was voted on by the commission as part of a resolution
to that NOV. Thank you, Noah. To our petitioner, where are the old windows now? Are they available?
Actually, we're hoping. We've got our maintenance man, who does a lot of our work for us, is currently
sick with emphysema. And so unfortunately, he's in the hospital, so we're not. But he's a notorious
porter, so we are hoping that potentially we
cannot speak to that 100% yet. But if I know him and his boarding tendencies, it's a possibility that
we have them in a board somewhere. Thank you. That's all I have. All right. We already did public comments,
so I'll take a motion on this. I will move to deny.
I'm just making sure you had the- Yes. Thank you. All right. Let's have a discussion then. Ernesto,
do you have any comments? I really don't know what else to say other than I support the staff recommendation.
That's all I have.
It's always worse when somebody's done something and then asks you to approve it after it's over. I'll
just say frankly, I don't think this particular company has a very good track record in obeying historic
preservation or observing historic preservation districts. And it seems to me that they would have learned
their lesson by now.
I think this is a case of ask forgiveness later, frankly. That's just a judgment that's a personal one.
The windows themselves are inappropriate. The other ones were original fabric, which is an important
consideration in preservation. And they had storm windows on them, so they've actually made the house
less efficient by doing this. There's no excuse for it, in my opinion. Jeremy, can I get a vote?
We are basing our decision. You are basing your decision on whether it meets the standard and the guidelines
for the neighborhood. So I think let's stick to whether you agree if it meets them or not. Well, we're
making decisions based on the secretary's standards as well as the guidelines. I beg to differ. So it's
a little more complicated than that. And I'm sorry if I spoke inappropriately in your opinion, but this
lesson needs to be said. And I'm a commissioner, and I have the authority to say it.
The difficulty I have with this is that Elm Heights is in the middle of sort of rethinking how they're
going to do their rules. And right now they're debating whether they're going to be an all wood neighborhood,
or a metal neighborhood, or a vinyl neighborhood.
And so I think that makes this a more difficult vote. I think the rules as they stand, it's pretty clear.
At the same time, this is a real problem. And I think that maybe the company has let down their neighbors
by skipping the whole approval step. And I think that that's something we should consider.
But I wouldn't want to single out any particular company as not being pro preservation, because I think
Chickering has a fairly big stable of houses that they've taken a decent care of. So that's my comment.
Thank you, John. Karen? Well, this happened
a while ago and has just come to our attention this way. The guidelines were in place. They're currently
in place. They'll be in place for a while, and then we have to approve them. Who knows? We can't move
the clock around. And from the photographs,
we have from the Google photographs, we don't see evidence of a need or deterioration. So I think the
only thing to do here is to deny it. I think based off of what we have in the application, there was
not any sort of evaluation of what the old windows were. So we can't evaluate if they were
rotting or not, and warranted replacement based on either the neighborhood guidelines or the Secretary
of Interior's guidelines. So as a result, I think we would need to deny it. Well, I have to say we have
a company that has not paid attention to guidelines and has gone ahead and done this sort of replacement
without permission before.
I think that needs to be said. They should learn the lesson. But reading from the guidelines, Elm Heights,
if original windows, doors, or hardware can be restored and reused, they should not be replaced. And
then there are other elements here talking about character defining features. We'll be talking about
mountains and such, whether they're real or not. It appears that the windows might not meet standards.
And we've already talked about vinyl windows being
the least cost, but the least trustworthy and reliable alternative. So I think I have no more comments
other than that. Thank you very much. All right, we already did a public comment on this, so I think
we're ready to go ahead for the vote. OK, there's a motion to deny. COA 2609, that's been moved and
seconded. We'll take a roll call vote.
A yes vote would be to deny. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Melanie Duthner?
Yes. Jeff Golden? I'm staying. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. Motion to
deny passes. Thank you all very much. Thank you. No, I think we'll need to be
reach back out to them at some point. There's no follow up. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. Next up, we have COA 2610. Is the petitioner present for this? Yeah. Excellent.
No? Go ahead. All right. COA 2610. The address here is 211 East 15th Street in the Garden Hill Historic District.
Petitioner is Rishav Sharma. This is a non-contributing gable front, minimal traditional house. Built
in the 1920s or 30s, 211 East 15th Street is a non-contributing property in the Garden Hill Historic
District. The one-story house has a minimal design and has a number of additions to the west rear and
a connection to a mid-century limestone garage. This request proposes a rear addition to the northwest
corner of the building
bringing the rear of the house in line with the north end of the garage, as you can see in the floor
plan here. Ganesh Properties LLC proposes a rear addition, adding one bedroom and two bathrooms. The
two bathrooms, each approximately 11 by 6 feet, are located adjacent to each other. One will be attached
to an existing bedroom, the other to the new bedroom. After consultation with our contractor, David Thomas,
The design extends from the existing garage gable roof to cover the new construction. No new roof form
pitch or ridge height is required. Our intent is to preserve the continuity of roof form and massing
consistent with the existing structure. Proposed exterior openings include a one two by two foot window
in each bathroom.
two three by two foot windows on the west wall of the new bedroom, one three by two foot window on the
north wall of the new bedroom, one standard 36 inch door and a three foot wide hallway. The construction
may occur in two phases depending on tenant coordination with phase one consisting of the bathroom addition
attached to the existing bedroom and phase two potentially consisting of the new bedroom and second bathroom.
Proposed materials include exterior siding to match the existing white siding, concrete block foundation
consistent with existing construction, asphalt shingles to match the existing roofing, and standard
residential windows and exterior door with a storm door. Staff recommends the approval of COA 2610.
The proposed addition to 211 East 15th Street
is largely hidden from the street behind a side addition and garage. The applicant proposes to use materials
found elsewhere on the house and the design presented includes a visible cement block foundation and
fenestration pattern similar to those found on this building and on others in this surrounding neighborhood.
Note that the east elevation pictured in the files faces west and also this appears to be mirrored
Um, which if you go back to the site plan here, you'll notice that this addition will be located in
the, uh, Northwest corner of the existing structure. Does the petitioner have anything that he would
like to add? That's what I would say is that, um, which is not relevant to anything in this construction.
1991, I bought this house, so I'm emotionally attached to this house.
Each time I go around my other rentals, I definitely make sure that I go around this house. Now that's
the emotional part of it. It has nothing to do with what we proposed. I have appeared in the committee
like this about 25 years ago. There were only five people then. And it was not pertaining to this house.
It was my other rental house. We were changing the window. So now going back to this house,
is whatever the integrity of the house is, I will maintain it. Whatever I can do to make sure that the
tenants, future tenants, and current tenants are comfortable with the construction, I will do that.
All these 35 years I've been living in Bloomington for 40 years, 35 years I've been a rental business
and landlord.
I went to school here. I graduated from Indiana University. I studied chemistry, but it has nothing
to do with chemistry. So I changed my profession. The bottom line is this, that I'll make sure, I'm
going to say it again, that I will maintain the integrity of the house. And I will do anything in my
power to, again, make sure that I maintain good relations with the department
with the city, which I have done it over 35 years. No one has ever filed a complaint against my rental
properties. And I have never taken anybody to the court. So I have a very good standing in the community.
I would request you to approve it. And if it is, then I will be very grateful to you. Thank you very
much. Thank you.
Are there any public comments on the COA, both in the room or online? Oh, I did receive neighborhood
comment. Yeah. They did not state any objection to the proposed addition. Ernesto, do you have any questions?
I do not, thank you. Duncan, questions? No questions. Jeff? No questions. Daniel? No. Melody? No. No.
John? No. No. Questions?
I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Seconded. John, seconded. No, Jeff. Thank you, Jeff.
All right, comments. Ernesto, any comments? Duncan? I mean, the building, as noted, has been significantly
changed over the years. Actually, the alteration that he's proposing is pretty much in keeping with
the previous ones.
And they've been well done, I think. And it's a non-contributing house in a district, so I wouldn't
be concerned about it. Yeah, no comment. Daniel? Melody? No. John? I really like how this is all tucked
around the back of the building. I think it's a very nice scale for your neighbors. You're not taking
away their light, and you're not intruding on their space. So I think this is a very good project.
Thank you. Karen? Yes, I agree.
It's really not would be hardly visible from the street at all. Yeah, I agree with Karen and Duncan's
comments. I agree with Commissioner Comments. Excellent. All right. I think we're ready to vote. OK.
And this will be on COA 26-10, motion to approve. Roll call vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes.
Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes.
Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. Motion passes. Great. Thank you. All right.
Next up, we have a demolition delay, 2602. We have one demolition delay proposed this evening for 503
North Roger Street. Petitioner is Ernest G.
What was that? Just hold on a second. Also, I realize there's one COA from earlier tonight where the
petitioner wasn't present. Do we want to check and see if he might be online now? We can do that after
the DD. We already started. OK. Well, replies, can we close out that little window? Because it's blocking
the number of the requests every time during the hour. The thing up there that says OK. It says OK?
Yeah. Thank you for saying something.
My apologies. Thank you for saying something. All right, no, go ahead. I'm sorry, this is now 503 North
Roger Street. This is 614 North Grant. Petitioners are ESG. Petition is for full demolition. 614 North
Grant has a severely altered one-story gable front house with a pedimented porch on the south half of
the front elevation facing
east to Grant Street, or is it west? Facing west, that's what I thought. Okay, it says east,
that's not right. Most of the original exterior materials have been replaced, including in 2026, the
three door columns and short wood railing on the front porch. Aside from the house's overall form and
stone foundation, little remains of its original appearance.
The building is fronted by a herringbone brick sidewalk. Built between 1910 and 1914, 614 North Grant
was first bought by Washington and Julia Voss. The couple lived in the house until 1930, shortly after
Washington's death. Born in Kentucky in 1848, Washington Voss served as a young teenager in the First
Kentucky Union Cavalry during the Civil War. During his time in Bloomington, he frequently switched jobs
between clothing salesman, barber, assessor, and gardener. Julia rented the house to several couples
prior to selling it in 1936 to Blanche and Francis Letellier. Blanche worked as a clerk in various shops,
and Francis was a stone carver employed by a local mill. In 1957, he found new employment as a machine
inspector at the RCA radio TV plant. After Francis' death in 1960,
Blanche ran the home, an at-home nursery for the next two years. Since Blanche sold the house in 1962,
it has served as a rental mostly for Indiana University students. From 1968 through 72, this was the
residence of Paul Cota, a PhD student in library science who would go on to serve as the rare book librarian
at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Staff recommends the release of demo delay 2602. Does the petitioner have anything that he would like
to add? I do not. Thank you. All right. So public comments, anybody? Go ahead and state your name. My
name is James Ford. I live a few blocks from this house. The house is obviously is not historically
important in terms of the people who are living there and architecture.
And I realize that the committee has only two options to either designate it historic or let it go.
I have just a question. If the committee has any oversight over the sidewalk. I know it's a silly thing
to look at. But that's the sidewalk. It's right across the street from another sidewalk that matches
it. There's not many brick sidewalks left. And the house right across the street from this was recently,
the last 10 years, redone.
amazing, and it would be nice for this brick sidewalk to be retained on both sides of the street at
this particular location. There are no more brick sidewalks on the west side of Grant or anywhere from
West Grant all the way to campus, but there are a few just east of this, or sorry, just west of this.
That's my only comment I would like you to consider. If you can,
saving the sidewalk, if not saving it exactly the way it is, then asking the petitioner to carefully
remove it, pile up the brick somewhere safe, do whatever they're going to do, and then put the sidewalk
back, maybe replacing ones that can't be replaced, can't be reused, but have a herringbone brick sidewalk
in that location. Having it there would be nice for the neighborhood as a whole. That's all I have to
say. Thank you very much. Are there any other public comments?
Yes, go. Amy Butler, I live in the area and walk by it often with my dog. And I agree that the sidewalk,
it would be great if we could say that it would help the continuous look of the neighborhood. And there
are miles and miles and miles of cement sidewalk. I understand that.
Part of the planning process in the city is if you put in a new thing that they want you to set back
the sidewalk, this is not on a main road. It's on a side street. And I don't think that any of that
has ever been considered. But it would be really nice if we could say that that's OK. I own the property
across the street, so I would recommend it. Oh, could you say what your name is, please? Oh, Brian Allen.
Thank you. Yeah. And I would recommend to approve the demolition of this house.
And yeah, and a comment about the sidewalks. Those sidewalks and the sidewalks around the house I own
are in horrible condition. So I think they need to be fixed, first of all, or just paved with regular
cement. OK, thank you. Are there any other comments in the room or online? Something online?
There is an online question. Excellent. All right. Person who wants to make a comment, go ahead. Yeah,
hi. I know the previous person who spoke said they own a house across the street. I own the two houses
directly across the street. One of them is at 401 East Cottage Grove. The other house is at 705 North
Grant Street.
And one question I had was, I think the petitioner's current plan, because he's removing a lot of trees,
is to place a lot of trees in the sidewalk. And I was curious if they preserved the sidewalk where the
trees are going to go. Because it looked like the original plan was placing a lot of trees in the sidewalk.
I don't know if that falls in your purview at all. That was my question.
If this demolition delay is released for clarification, that would also release for a year the right
to remove the sidewalk or replace it. My understanding hearing from the planning department is if something
new were to be built at this location, in order to bring the site into compliance with current code,
they would have to replace the sidewalk. And so part of that would involve
you know, installing, I believe, a median between the sidewalk and the street in which those trees would
be replaced, and then replacing the brick sidewalk with a concrete one. We have a believer here, too.
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
spot. Is that sort of a gist? Oh, yeah. Hold on. The person online, please hold on. The person online,
please hold on. We have somebody in the room.
Speaking. Larry. Go ahead. I'm not sure what you spoke with in planning, but typically, yes, that would
be the case. Most road classifications do have a required tree plot. So when properties are redeveloped,
a lot of the monolithic sidewalks or sidewalks adjacent to the street are going to be replaced.
so that you can have adequate space to put the trees that protect the pedestrians from the car space.
OK. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. I think we'll move on to Jeff Thomas. I would
just ask the person speaking if they could provide their name, because I don't have any other name.
Sure. It's Michael Rams. Thank you. Thank you. Ernesto, do you have any questions about this? No?
Duncan, do you have questions? No questions. Jeff? No questions. Daniel? No questions. Okay. Melody?
No questions. I guess my question would be for Noah is could we release the house, but if we tried to
keep the sidewalk, we'd have to designate the sidewalk as historic.
We have designated a sidewalk as historic in the past. I honestly don't know how it would work here,
considering that this would apply to potentially, in this case, whatever stretch of sidewalk is fronting
the property. I wish I had a clearer answer for you. Obviously, part of the difficulty is the fact that
the sidewalk is owned by the city but is maintained
by the adjacent property owner, in which case I'm skeptical as to whether we could designate the sidewalk
from this demolition delay. OK. Thank you. Jack, do you have any questions? No questions. Did you have?
Yeah, I want to follow up on your question. I think it merits to investigate it a little bit further.
If the city owns this sidewalk,
Why would the petitioner would demolish it? Why would the petitioner demolish it if the city owns it?
Yeah. With what permission? Is that a question that you'd be able to answer, David? Why are they responsible
for? If the city owns it, why would the petitioner be allowed to demolish a city-owned property?
because they'd be upgrading the facility as part of full compliance with new construction. So they would
need a right of way permit as well from the engineering department, but in order to satisfy our planning
requirements, that would be included. Same with like a change in use for commercial property. That's
included with limited compliance as well. So that's fairly typical. OK, thank you. Still not clear.
Sounds like it might be complicated. That's kind of what I'm getting. Are you looking for a strategy
to save the sidewalk? I was just curious if there was something there. Curious about a strategy.
In the past, those designations haven't been linked to the adjacent property necessarily.
And that sidewalk, I don't know how much of that's brick, but it probably goes beyond that site,
doesn't it? Yeah, it extends down the block. So most likely, if you were going to designate it, you
would select the whole thing, which would be more than is just in front of this property. I don't know
what the city would do if they're requiring the developer to take the sidewalk up. Do they only take
it up in front of their property? I suppose so.
So I would look for some kind of variance to protect the sidewalk. If I were the petitioner, I'd want
to keep it. I'm not saying that the petitioner does, but it seems like that would be available. I have
these around the house that I own in town, and we've protected them because we take care of them. As
long as we take care of them. All right. Any other questions?
did public comment, so I'll entertain a motion on this. I'm going to approve this demolition bill. To
release the demolition bill? Release it, excuse me. Is there a second? I'll second. OK. All right, let's
talk about it. Ernesto. Yeah. I think it wouldn't be in the interests of the petitioner
request a variance? Should we or can we legally have a condition of approval for it? I think, Noah,
and I need to look at that with the planning department and really see what the feasibility is. We've
had this come up before. And it's been difficult to separate the house from the obligations for maintaining
the sidewalk. So I think if you wanted to.
Explore that. The best thing to do would be to continue this case, to vote down the motion that's on
the table, and take up a motion to continue the case and give staff a minute to do some research and
bring it back, whether it's feasible to keep the sidewalk without the house. That sounds appropriate
to me. Dump into your comments. No, that's the first person I heard come up with the strategies.
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
to build, to not put a real sidewalk. Not really, but a concrete sidewalk. OK. Daniel? I'm sorry. This
is Daniel. I mean, sorry, David. So if this has come up before, how does that, because that's directly
in front of that,
next to the road there. So if that's supposed to be set back, but on either side of it, those are brick
sidewalks next to the road, how does that? I'm just trying to wrap my head around how that's done. So
you're asking about the fact that the sidewalks would be different distances from the road. Correct.
Yeah, so the way I interface with this is,
like planners will get the demolition permit or the new construction permit, or the poke poke. But when
the new construction comes along, we have a list of public improvements that they need to make that
comply with the unified development ordinance. And then the unified development ordinance also references
the transportation plan. So in the UDO, we have street trees, for example, one large canopy street tree
every 30 feet.
In addition to that, it references the transportation plan where you use the typology of each street
that the property fronts on. And then that determines your tree plot width and your minimum sidewalk
width as well. So we can get into the weeds a little bit on that. But essentially, the sidewalk does
need to jog back to,
the adjacent properties, which have the sidewalk adjacent to the street. We work with the engineering
department to establish the most reasonable path that people would walk. So sometimes that does result
in a bit of a stub at the new property. And then when the next one gets developed, we can take that
little extra triangle that we have now
once that property gets redeveloped. And we have both of them at the appropriate location. So it does
vary from case to case. Sometimes there's not a step. Sometimes there is. But we deal with that a lot.
But we're just trying to get as these come up, as the redevelopments come up, we want everything to
be in the desired location according to the transportation.
Any other comment? Melody, comment? John. I think it's a shame that this keeps happening, these demolitions
keep happening to this neighborhood and I think that this is exactly why the Cottage Grove Historic
District is being proposed. Karen? I have no comment. Yeah, I'm just curious about breaking up the sidewalk
in that way.
And I might be interested to see, in more detail and in writing, a little bit more clarification as
to what happens instead of just some verbal stuff that's kind of under process at the moment. That's
my opinion. Jack, comment? Yes. Years ago, our neighborhood restored a historic sidewalk using city
grants. So it's possible.
I can't say how likely, but it is entirely possible that you go to the city. And it used to be small
and simple, and there might have been another grant for more money, but something you might want to
look into. That's all I have. OK. All right. Thank you very much. We did public comment on this, so
I think we're ready to do the vote. So a vote for yes is to release the demolition delay. That is correct.
So there's a motion to release.
2602, a yes vote would be to release. Jack Baker? Always a reluctant vote, but yes. John Butler? No.
Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Melanie Dusner? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? No.
Daniel Schlegel?
That is a four, five, three vote. So it does pass. All right. Thank you very much. This is a resolution
to stop demolition delay waiting period before the 90 or 120 day period has expired and allow a partial
demolition project to begin for property whose historic designation the pursuit will take place later.
Today regarding the property located at
614 North Grant. 614 North Grant, the Historic Preservation Commission, declares that it got notice
of the proposed demolition or partial demolition, and after today's discussion, sees no need to review
the plans any further and waives the rest of the demolition delayed waiting period. The HPC may later
recommend the property for historic designation to the Common Council. Thank you, Jack. The petitioner
would like to say something. OK.
Go ahead. We're trying to get him to a mute. Hey, Noah. I noticed on the slide near the top, it said
North Rogers address. Yeah, I know. I noticed that. It's 61. I didn't look for the record if you needed
to correct that or anything. Well, I should correct this when I upload the PowerPoint, certainly.
But we said we got the right address on this. I was going to make sure. So I saw 6-1-4 further down.
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,
I think we'll go ahead and move on then. They can follow up with Noah if they have any other questions.
We have the packed agenda. I want to check right now to see if Han Chong is present.
either online or in person? CMA 2607. Yeah. I've also put that in the chat about 20 minutes ago as well.
OK, so no news from him? I haven't had any indication. I think we can continue that. OK. All right.
Next up is the historic district nomination. This will go slightly different than the COAs that we've
had. It will start off with a staff report. We'll have questions from the staff.
about Noah's report after that. Then there's going to be the owner's discussion. That's basically the
people who are proposing the petition. They can say a few words and recommending it to the commission.
The commission then has questions for the people who are petitioning. Then after that is public comment.
People who are interested in speaking out about this proposed conservation district can say their piece
at that time. Depending on how many people are here,
To say that, we might limit the comments to three minutes, just so we're not here until like one o'clock
in the morning. After the public comment, I'll entertain a motion from the commission, and then we will
go into discussion and vote after that. So Noah, would you please start off? Okay. This application
is nomination.
HD 2601 for the Cottage Grove neighborhood or the Cottage Grove Conservation District. Petitioners include
John Butler and the Cottage Grove Designation Committee. The push to designate a conservation district
in the Cottage Grove neighborhood was initiated by neighborhood residents in response to a growing number
of demolitions in the surrounding area
including the proposed demolition of 115 East 12th Street, located within the proposed district. Because
of the historic significance of the house's association with prominent local sculptor Ivan Adams, the
Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission nominated the property for designation to the Bloomington
Common Council, and it was individually designated on December 17th, 2025. Meanwhile, a group of residents
began seeking designation for the wider area,
sending letters to property owners and hosting a series of public meetings at the Monroe County Public
Library to discuss the prospect of nominating a conservation district. On December 17th, 2025, petitioner
Dr. John Butler submitted an application to the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission. Due to
difficulties in achieving quorum and delays over the holiday season, the public meeting and vote, hearing
and vote of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission
On this matter, we're postponed until today, February 12, 2026. Survey and ratings. The Cottage Grove
Historic District was identified in the early Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology
surveys as an area eligible for designation on the National Register of Historic Places.
Despite being labeled in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory as a historic district,
the neighborhood has never been designated the local, state, or national level. The area received local
recognition for its architectural significance in 1974, when the 1852 Creek Revival Mansion of General
Morton C. Hunter was demolished amongst much public outcry. Although only a couple of buildings of this
era remain in the district, the neighborhood was recognized by state historians
for the density and integrity of early 20th century houses. Aside from some mid-century infill, most
of the buildings in the proposed district date to this period. As of the current city survey of historic
structures, 15 of the 122 houses in the proposed district are rated notable for their architectural
significance. One is rated outstanding. 90 is contributing. I checked again today, it's 89.
This would place the Cottage Grove Historic District among Bloomington's neighborhoods with the most
consistent architectural significance. The boundaries in the state survey would differ slightly, I don't
know if that's included, would differ slightly from the proposed local district boundary. They include
the northeast corner of Walnut and 10th Street, which has not yet been redeveloped, as well as the south
side of Cottage Grove between
Grant and Dunn, which have been mostly redeveloped. The boundaries admit most of Grant north of Cottage
Grove, because while most of the houses on this block date from the early development of the neighborhood,
many have lost their integrity. Also admitted is the 300 block of East 12th Street for unclear reasons,
and the west side of 700 block of Washington Street, which was platted later and built mostly post-war.
The boundaries proposed in this petition includes most of the Lades, Rohrer, Clarks, and Reeds addition,
as well as half of the Cottage Grove addition. This represents a contiguous area, mostly developed in
a short span of time, emitting areas for which integrity has been largely lost. This district is being
nominated under three criterion presented by the
a Bloomington Historic Preservation Ordinance, including criterion 1C, 2E, and 2G. Criterion 1C is for
historic significance, exemplifying the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage
of the community. The Cottage Grove neighborhood was largely built to provide housing to employees of
the nearby Showers Furniture Company and Limestone Industry, which dominated the economy of turn of
the century Bloomington.
Like many Bloomington neighborhoods of this area, the Cottage Grove was economically mixed. Most of
the houses were associated with workers in these industries. And as will be explained below, material
and architectural features in the built environment attest to the important role that these industries
played in the development of the area. Under criteria for architectural significance, 2E,
contains any architectural style, detail, or element in danger of being lost. The applicants list several
unusual buildings and features, including Bloomington's only example of a brick Queen Anne style house
and a bungalow with a Belvedere, an original feature that would stand out on any bungalow.
Another particularly rare building type can be found at 217 East 10th Street in the form of a Civil
War era hall and parlor house that faithfully displays Greek revival features popular in the 1800s.
Several similar examples can be found in Bloomington, but this farmhouse would rank among Bloomington's
oldest extant buildings. Another criterion being considered is 2G,
for exemplifying the built environment in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural
style. The solid majority of the buildings in the proposed district date from the years before and after
World War II. Pre-war houses, mostly working class, predominate in the eastern part of the district.
World War I. Did I say World War II? OK, well, it says World War I in the packet, so I was wrong.
Pre-war houses, mostly working class, predominate in the eastern part of the district, like
in contemporaneous neighborhoods west of downtown. Most of these are built in folk Victorian and Queen
Anne style. Many in gabledell form, commonly associated with this period in Bloomington's history, with
a number of limestone, sorry. Houses from the late 1910s and 1920s are mostly craftsman style.
with a conspicuous number of limestone two-door revival houses. Many of the pre-war homes were built
by employees of the Showers Brothers Furniture Company and bear the hallmarks of carpenter-built folk
housing, while many of the larger post-war houses are associated with the booming limestone industry.
In parts of the neighborhood, brick sidewalks and limestone retaining walls distinguish this
early Bloomington neighborhood.
The staff recommendation is for forwarding this nomination of the Cottage Grove should be Conservation
District to the Bloomington Common Council. The Cottage Grove has long been identified as an area with
architectural significance and integrity potentially eligible for historic designation. The applicants
who prepared this nomination for the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission have demonstrated
care in the nomination process and strong local support for a conservation district. In addition to
the area's historical and architectural significance, the neighborhood consists of a densely populated
mix of students, owner occupants, and other renters, a mix of upscale and affordable properties, and
an attractive walkable environment close to downtown and the IU campus. While much of the surrounding
area has been redeveloped, the western core of the Cottage Grove neighborhood demonstrates a strong cohesion.
At this point, I'm done with my report. OK, then we'll do Commissioner questions about your report first.
Ernesto, do you have any questions for Noah? I do now. Duncan, do you have any questions for Noah? No.
Jeff? Not at this time. All right, Daniel, any questions? Well done, Noah. Melody, any questions? No.
I'm not going to take part in the discussion. OK.
Abstain, I guess, or is it recuse? Recuse. I recuse yourself in discussion. All right. Thank you, John.
No questions. I don't have any questions. Jack, do you have any questions? I think this was a wonderful
presentation. No questions. All right. Thank you very much. Do you have a question, Paul? Go ahead.
Did you look at zoning? Is there significant pressure on all these properties in this area because of
the zoning?
I get why they want to protect it because those houses are in peril. And I guess I asked that question
because would that affect how the council looks at this? It might, but for us, we're looking at the
historical significance and architectural significance. So that's not really for us to consider. Any
other questions for NOAA from the commissioners?
All right, seeing none, we'll move over to the petitioners who would like to speak out on behalf of
this. We ask that you try to limit your comments to three minutes, to be fair to everybody who's going
to be speaking after this. Who would like to speak? I have a little thing I wrote. Yeah, that's fine.
Yep. My name is Amy Butler. I've been a major part of trying to get this done.
The fear of them being all torn down is why we've done this. And so I just had a short thing on one
break. Cottage Grove is a neighborhood worth protecting. This neighborhood is a small collection of
100-year-old or older homes that represent diverse architectural styles that are core to Bloomington.
They are built of materials and used techniques from their era. They cannot be duplicated. Once they
are lost, we are not getting them back. All the bits and pieces are present that make for a nice place to live.
We have green spaces around our houses, including big mature trees and the subsequent shade they provide,
even cooling the houses next door and the houses down the street. Our streets all have sidewalks, some
of which are made of 100 to 120 year old bricks. And then there's the WPA era limestone sidewalks created
by people needing work in a difficult time for our country. These sidewalks, our hand built limestone
walls, and the big old trees make for an especially pleasant place to walk in the summer when we are
heading downtown.
Most of our houses also have big porches providing exterior spaces our residents can enjoy much of the
year. Some of the porches wrap around the house and the house will have a second entrance offering an
additional place for the residents to enter their home. This is a great example of how houses were able
to work well for the resident owner and their renters at the same time. Our neighborhood has a wonderful
versatility to it. These old houses have multiple uses over the years. Some have been residents for
many years and others have been rentals since they were built.
Some rental houses have even turned back to owner-occupied residents. Our houses are adaptable and useful,
and that is why they have lasted for all these years. These are houses built by our working class, business
managers, and mill owners. Indiana's own Hoagy Carmichael was born in a house that would have been in
our district. We have students, retirees, professionals, and even families. Our neighborhood is a great
example of Bloomington's cultural heritage. It is facing significant development pressure, and I encourage
you to vote in favor of protecting it.
Thank you for your time and considering Cottage Road. Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate
that. All right. Commissioner, questions for the petitioners? Ernesto, do you have any? Duncan, do you
have any questions? No. Jack? No. Daniel? Melody? No. Karen? No. I don't have any questions. Jack, do
you have questions? All right. Well, now we're coming up to the public comments section where everybody
can speak up.
on behalf. Each person, once I call upon them, you will have three minutes to speak. I'll make sure,
I'll go around the room. We'll go in person first, and then we'll go online to get the people that are
online who would wish to speak. If you want to say something about this, please raise your hand.
All right, go ahead. The gentleman in the green shirt, can you state your name? And then you have three
minutes. My name is Jordan Evans. I'm here today as the president of the Old Northeast Neighborhood
Association.
I did prepare a letter for this. I participated in the meetings as well when I was available. So on
behalf of the Old Northeast Neighborhood Association, we're writing to express our support
for the development or redevelopment of properties within the boundaries of the Old Northeast Downtown
Neighborhood Association. It's our understanding that residents in the High Point Neighborhood Association
are seeking to apply for the level of historical designation for the entire neighborhood.
As discussed and agreed upon in our last meeting, we do not support that as the old Northeast Neighborhood
Association. We recognize thoughtful development, plays an important role in maintaining the vibrant,
sustainable, and inclusive community that we have. We support projects that respect the character of
the neighborhood while contributing to Bloomington's broader goals relating to housing availability,
economic vitality, and responsible land.
The Old Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Association believes that well-planned development in compliance
with city standards with appropriate community engagement strengthens our neighborhood by improving
underutilized or aging properties, increasing housing options, and increasing the overall quality of
life for our residents, whether those are renters or homeowners. We appreciate the city's ongoing efforts
to balance the growth in the neighborhood, as well as the interests
of the people living in it. We look forward to continue to engage constructively on projects like this.
We do want to be clear. We oppose the mapping as proposed. The lines do encroach upon the established
old Northeast neighborhood district. And we were not consulted with or brought on any of the development
with this. So appreciate everybody's time and consideration. Thank you very much.
Other public comments? Yes, sir. Please state your name. Brian Allen. I own property in the neighborhood.
Again, across the street from the house you guys just approved for the release of the demo, I own right
across the street, 322 East Cotter Grove, 320, 316, and 315. And unfortunately, my houses fall right
across the street into this map here
So I oppose the nomination. I reiterate what Jordan has said, and thank you for your time. Thank you
very much. Other public comments in the room? Anyone want to raise their hand? Yes, sir. Yes,
I'm Bill Freel, and I've lived at 209 East 10th Street for 40-some years. The intentions that these
gentlemen have expressed are excellent and ideal,
As properties exchange hands and times change, sometimes those ideals are not met. And we get the wholesale
swath of destruction that we have seen in similar neighborhoods, such as specifically the 11 and 1200
block in North Woodburn, which is streets similar to our neighborhoods, but have been leveled and replaced
with shoebox-like buildings that are now
of IU students, which most of whom are fine neighbors, but some of whom are not. So we just want to,
I remember hearing this gentleman here talk about respecting the integrity of the neighborhood. And
that's really what we're after, is just to do that and to have a little bit of restraint towards the
idea of development
maybe some ideals that are or are not met. I support this, and I support the butlers. They've made a
great effort. I hope you agree with it. Thank you very much for your comments. Any other comments from
in the room? Raise your hand. Yes, please, go ahead. My name is James Ford. I live in the neighborhood.
Unlike some people who just own property and rent,
We have already submitted our comments in letters to the packet so they can be read. What we're all
thinking, you'll see that there has only been one single letter of opposition. The gentleman who was
here, he's gone. I don't know where he went. Most everyone that has submitted letters formally were
in favor of this, as I am in favor of it. It is likely the last neighborhood in Bloomington that can
be protected by this commission.
The growth has been so fast lately, developers, that what's left of any unprotected neighborhoods is
going to be eaten up fairly quickly. I hope that you choose to protect this area the way it is a small
area. It has not a large percentage of people who are owning that live in there, but perhaps once it's
protected, it will become more desirable.
More people will want to live in there. And that's all I have to say. All right. Thank you very much
for your comments. Tonda, do we have anybody online who would like to speak? We have some online people.
I did put a note in there that they would be able to speak after those public comments here in person.
We have a Michael Brands that would like to speak. All right. Michael Brands, go ahead and speak. You
have three minutes.
Could we wait for you? Oh, sorry. Now it's unmuted. OK. Go ahead, Michael. Yeah, hi. I am an out of
town owner. I own a house, as I said, that would fall within this area that's being designated. And
one at 401, it's slightly outside in the old northeast neighborhood. I am in favor of the neighborhood because
I know that for me, a lot of my tenants, when they want to rent, they want to live in something that
resembles a house, something that's in a neighborhood. If they didn't want to live in a neighborhood
or something that resembles a house, they would move somewhere else. I know there doesn't seem to be
a lot of engagement with the neighborhood, with development right now. I know as a developer, I don't
like holding charades to be frank.
to be unpleasant. But when I did 401 East Cottage Grove, I held a couple of them. And some of the concerns
of the neighborhood were taken into account as a result of the charade. And I think they were probably
compromised in what I built. The house could have been knocked down. I did not knock it down.
And I think, you know,
Certainly, I'm not against development at all. I like it. I've done it in the neighborhood, for sure.
But I think it's important to have engagement with the neighborhood. And with the house that was just
approved for demolition, there doesn't seem to be a lot of emphasis or concern, as far as I can tell,
on what's being put back.
It was a while ago when I redeveloped 401 East Cottage Grove, vinyl siding was not something the neighborhood
wanted to see. There was back and forth about what the house should look like when it was rebuilt. And
I do think that's important. It surely cost me more money to put on cement board siding than vinyl.
But I understand why the neighborhood wanted it.
And I think perhaps, you know, this would at least put, you know, some guardrails and require some,
you know, back and forth with the neighborhood. I mean, I know for at least, you know, maybe I missed
it, but for the house that was knocked down, there was no charade that's going to be knocked down in
614. There was no engagement with the neighborhood. That's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you very
much. Are there any other?
comments from folks that are online. Okay well we'll move on to the next step then. So the next step
is I will sorry I just I was timing it too. The next step is to entertain a motion on this conservation
district designation.
I move to forward the nomination for College Grove Conservation District to Bloomington Common Council.
Is there a second? Ernesto's second. All right. We're going to have comments. Ernesto, any comments?
No comments. Other than I support the initiative for this. That's all. All right. Duncan, comments?
Yeah, I obviously I support it and I want to commend the neighbors who brought this forward. I've looked
at a lot of historic district dominations and this one I think is really thorough. It's really good
at pointing out what's very special and also what's kind of normal about it and really emphasizing both
and I think it
The argument that actually I think it was Noah's maybe research about how many notable houses there
are vis-a-vis or relative to the total count, that struck me enough that I kind of took a cruise through
the neighborhood again to remind myself that I used to have a lot of friends who lived on North Washington
Street many, many years ago, almost all of whom moved out because of student takeover.
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
quite remarkable. So the fact that this district represents the housing in the grid and the working
class improvements that came along with showers and limestone industry, which by the way is true of
the Bloomington Westside community as well and probably most of the inner city neighborhoods.
is still, nevertheless, it's an important thing to remember. And the sort of pre-World War I and post-World
War I differentiation I found interesting, and I hadn't really thought about that. So I think it's a
good nomination, and you should be commended for the job you did. Thank you, Duncan. Jeff, any comments?
Yeah, so I've watched downtown change significantly. And because of what I talked about before, the
change in zoning,
facilitating large multi-unit properties. And this is a pocket of houses that obviously has some really
special houses. I think it's worth protecting. Thank you. Daniel. I have nothing else to add. I think
it's well done, so I think it's worth supporting. Melody. I agree. Karen. Well, I'd
second what Duncan said about it being a great nomination and these very interesting aspects that are
brought forward. But I would add something that Noah mentioned in his report, I think it's in the application
too, is that for decades, I think, this neighborhood has been waiting, shall we say. It's been identified as a
potential, great potential historic district, and I think it was just waiting for the right people to
come along to bring it forward, neighborhood, gather the neighborhood support, and I'm really happy
to see it happen. As for me, I fully support the findings that are in the staff report. I find this
area to have historic significance and architectural significance as laid out by Noah. As Duncan mentioned,
it has a very high number of notable houses, especially compared to some of the other districts that
we have within the city. So this has my full support based on the historic significance and architectural
significance of the properties there. Jack, comments?
I thought it was a great petition as well. I always want to point out, in the case of conservation districts,
that things used to happen fast. Before DD and before conservation districts, houses could disappear
very quickly, two, three days. And you wouldn't even know them until it was gone. That's why.
these two protections were brought about. And words that we use for them are protection, security, stability,
integrity, among others. And they slow the destruction. They don't make the neighborhood grow necessarily,
but generally the neighborhoods, I think, do grow and become more solid and
social because they're conservation districts. You also get to make rules about what can be done, can't
be done, rules that protect the neighborhood and keep them sustainable. So I'm a great proponent of
conservation districts and will certainly support this one. Thank you, Jack.
We've already done public comments on this, so I think we're ready to go ahead with the vote. OK. Just
looking at the chair. There we go. There's been a motion to forward to Common Council for designation,
which has been seconded. We'll take a roll call vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? I'm so sorry. You
recused yourself. My apologies. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes.
Melanie Duesner? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Yes. That motion passes.
All right, Jack, you need to read the forward. Thank you. But you need that. It's a constitution that's
not historic. Let's see where that is. OK. This is a resolution to forward a recommendation for property
to get historic designation to the common council.
Today, the HBC declares that all property located at what's our description? Cottage Grove. At Cottage
Grove meets the following criteria for the local designation referred to in the staff report. Then we
have one, two, and three. What do we fill in those blanks? Do we need to read out the specific ones?
I think we should. OK, hair tag. Sorry, it's the bolded ones. OK.
Number one here is it exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historic heritage of
the community. Number two, it exemplifies the built environment in an era of history characterized by
a distinctive architectural style. Do we have others? Exemplifies the built environment in an era of
history characterized by a distinctive architectural style.
Consequently, the HPC recommends to historic designation under Title VIII of the Bloomington Municipal
Code to the common council with the attached map. I assume that NOAA has that map. And then we need
to do another thing. I would recommend that we put this area under interim protection. I would entertain
a motion. OK, Daniel. Daniel, make a motion.
I'll second. Jack's got the second. OK, thank you. All right. Any discussion? All right. I think we're
ready for a vote. I'm so sorry. It's been moved and seconded to place this area. Can we move them? Yeah,
here I'm trying to. I'm having trouble seeing which one is not rated. Michael Bryan. Yeah.
Michael you are on the meeting right now. My apologies I could not see him on my screen so it's been
moved and seconded to place this area under interim protection. We'll go ahead and take a vote on that.
Jack Baker? Yes.
Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Melanie Duesner? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes.
Daniel Schlegel? Yes. That motion for interim protection has passed. This is a resolution to place interim
protection on a property that has been sent to the Common Council with a recommendation of local historic
designation. Today, after a vote, the HBC recommends that the Common Council locally designate the property
at Cottage Grove
as historic and places the property under interim protection pending action by the Common Council under
BMC 8.08.015. All right, thank you, Jack. I just want to point out this isn't over. This goes to the
Common Council where they will vote and they will not just be considering the historic and architectural
significance. So you cleared the first hurdle. We'll see what happens.
with the next one. But congratulations for tonight. Good luck. All right. We still have stuff to do.
Old business. Noah, do we have old business to discuss? As some of you may know, Elm Heights Historic
District has put together a committee that is reviewing their current guidelines, seeing if they want
to make any changes to them.
Um, per their neighborhood associations rules and procedures for how they're going about this, they
want to have a serving member of the historic preservation commission who can attend at least some of
their meetings. Um, previously this had been Sam de Saller, um, since he has not been reappointed to
the commission, um, is continuing to serve as an interested party, but the, uh, neighborhood association
is looking for interested volunteers who are currently serving on the, uh,
Historic Preservation Commission. You don't have to answer right now. But if you could think about it,
email Noah. If you have some interest in doing that, that would be of great help to us. So I appreciate
you thinking about that. Anything else, Noah? There's something I'd like to add on our new business.
All right. If we're looking for a new business, let's do it. I've been putting together a new
procedure for handling violations to make sure that it's dealt with consistently and in front of past
the ANAs. And part of what actually Anna Holmes here proposed is that once we present the language,
which I hope to do with the next HPC meeting, that the commission decide whether or not they want to
vote it into the rules and procedures. That way, it's going to be something that we do pro forma
and won't be lost when there's turnover and institutional knowledge, as has sometimes happened. Anybody
have any questions about that for Noah? I think it'd be great to have that written down, and it's pretty
clear. Any other new business from you? I'm trying to think. It's OK if you don't. Anything going on
at the history center? Oh, that would be Commissioner Reynolds. Yeah. Commissioner Comments, does anybody
wish to share any comments?
I do. I want to thank Renard Cross and Sam Desala for their service. They were not reappointed to this
commission. I think they brought different points of view, a lot of knowledge. I especially want to
thank Sam for last year for serving as chair. I think he did a really good job. So I just want to recognize
them for their service on this commission. And then just another thing, thanks everybody for voting
me for chair, or at least those of you who voted.
I will try not to royally screw it up. So thank you. Any other comments from the commissioners? Yeah,
I just have a quick comment. So I have been on this commission many years in the past. And I know that
one of my faults is I'm a real estate appraiser. So you heard it tonight. I can't turn off the financial
thing. So it's always in my head. So call me up.
going to reclaim some time for me. I also want to welcome the new members as well, Jeff and John. And
then Karen is a voting member now. I know Abby wasn't able to make it, but we have another new person.
So welcome back and welcome in different ways. Yeah, Abby sends her regrets. It sounds like she's on
vacation. She didn't know when the new appointment would happen. So she'll be here hopefully in March.
Excellent. All right, any other final public comments? There's last chance for public comments.
still have a petitioner that was wanting to speak earlier. And I've just asked to see if they wanted
to in this last. Well, we have an in-person comment. We can go ahead with that. I actually have just
a question, and I think I should address it to council. If a property or an area is put under interim
protection, and if someone had previously demolished a house intending to build something, but they
have not yet submitted a plan, a building plan,
They've already started. Can the interim protections stop it right now, protecting the building because
they have not yet submitted a building plan? I know that's a, I'm not asking for an answer. I'm asking,
I wanted to ask, put up the question and I hope to maybe find out how to go about finding that answer.
So that's all. I'm happy to look into that for you. That's a good response.
Specifically, it's 717 North Green. Thank you. All right. Any other comments? I would just like to say
that I really was hoping to not be a member of this commission when the vote happened. I'm sorry that
the timing went like that. But I don't want to put anybody in a bad position. You recuse yourself. It's
been a long time. Anything else? All right.
Hearing no other comments, this meeting is adjourned.