WEBVTT 00:00:00.930 --> 00:00:09.217 - Hey, there we go. All right, I'm going to call the April 9, 2026 meeting of the Bloomington Historic 00:00:09.217 --> 00:00:17.914 - Preservation Commission to order. Would staff please call the roll? Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner 00:00:17.914 --> 00:00:26.447 - Butler? Present. Commissioner Castaneda? Commissioner Duesner? Commissioner Duffy? Commissioner Golden? 00:00:26.447 --> 00:00:30.878 - Here. Chair Hackard? Here. Commissioner Hanson? Here. 00:00:31.682 --> 00:00:38.709 - Commissioner Schlegel? Here. We have quorum. Excellent. Next up on the agenda, we have approval of the 00:00:38.709 --> 00:00:45.531 - minutes. Is there a motion on the minutes? Our motion we approve the minutes. Commissioner Schlegel 00:00:45.531 --> 00:00:52.899 - has a motion to approve the minutes. Is there a second? I'll second that. Commissioner Butler has seconded. 00:00:52.899 --> 00:00:59.858 - Any discussion? All right. It's been moved and approved to accept the minutes from March 26. We'll do 00:00:59.858 --> 00:01:01.086 - a roll call vote. 00:01:02.434 --> 00:01:12.082 - Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Commissioner Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? Not here. Commissioner Golden? 00:01:12.082 --> 00:01:21.822 - Yes. Chair Hackard? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. Minutes are approved 6-0. 00:01:22.370 --> 00:01:27.709 - All right. Next up, we have certificates of appropriateness followed by demolition delays. There's no 00:01:27.709 --> 00:01:33.048 - staff review this meeting, so we're going to go in directly to the ones for the commissioners. So for 00:01:33.048 --> 00:01:38.388 - each item on the agenda, the historic preservation program manager will first present a staff report. 00:01:38.388 --> 00:01:43.622 - We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional information about the request, followed by a 00:01:43.622 --> 00:01:49.171 - public comment time. Once public comment concludes, commissioners will be able to ask questions to staff, 00:01:49.171 --> 00:01:50.846 - the petitioner, and the public. 00:01:51.170 --> 00:01:56.698 - We ask that petitioners the public and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed by the chair 00:01:56.698 --> 00:02:02.385 - unless a question is directly addressed to them. Following commissioner questions the chair will entertain 00:02:02.385 --> 00:02:08.178 - a motion from a commissioner regarding the petition. Once a motion is made we will then open up a discussion 00:02:08.178 --> 00:02:13.600 - of the item for members of the commission only. Finally once the commissioners have each had a chance 00:02:13.600 --> 00:02:17.214 - to speak the commission will vote on the petition. We encourage all 00:02:17.442 --> 00:02:24.289 - commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at all times. I almost 00:02:24.289 --> 00:02:31.071 - made it through without stumbling. Right at the end. All right. Mr. Stanweiss, would you take it away? 00:02:31.071 --> 00:02:37.720 - All right. I'll try and make it through this without stumbling. First up and only COA of the evening 00:02:37.720 --> 00:02:44.502 - is COA application 2621 for 1101 North Lincoln Street in the Garden Hill Historic District. Petitioner 00:02:44.502 --> 00:02:45.950 - is Sherry Hillenburg. 00:02:46.626 --> 00:02:59.236 - The current building at the site is a non-contributing 1948 minimal ranch. There's a mistake on this 00:02:59.236 --> 00:03:12.221 - page, unfortunately. I'm sorry about that. But to fill you in, this application is for new construction 00:03:12.221 --> 00:03:14.718 - on the site of this 00:03:15.490 --> 00:03:26.906 - 1948 minimal ranch, which as you can see is now rated non-contributing because of substantial exterior 00:03:26.906 --> 00:03:38.877 - changes and not demonstrating a lot of particular architectural notability in the first place. The proposal 00:03:38.877 --> 00:03:44.862 - is to demolish the existing structure and build a new 00:03:45.602 --> 00:03:55.773 - multifamily building with three attached townhomes. This application has been revised a couple of times 00:03:55.773 --> 00:04:05.847 - since I first received it. So two of the entrances would be facing east toward Lincoln Street, and one 00:04:05.847 --> 00:04:14.942 - of the proposed entrances would be facing south toward, I believe, 14th Street? 15th Street. 00:04:15.554 --> 00:04:27.142 - Um, Each town home will have a separate entry, uh, facing a porch. Um, as you can see, there's a South 00:04:27.142 --> 00:04:39.068 - porch and an East porch. Um, this design has been revised to meet, uh, UDO guidelines, um, for the zoning 00:04:39.068 --> 00:04:43.006 - area, uh, which would require, um, 00:04:43.746 --> 00:04:53.062 - Amongst other things, I believe, and David can maybe correct me, not more than two entrances on one 00:04:53.062 --> 00:05:02.471 - side of the building and that the porches proportionally match those of neighboring buildings. There 00:05:02.471 --> 00:05:12.067 - are several trees on this property. A large old silver maple tree in the front south yard is to remain 00:05:12.067 --> 00:05:13.278 - if possible. 00:05:13.890 --> 00:05:21.383 - Trees on the north side of the property would be removed and new landscaping may be required. Utility 00:05:21.383 --> 00:05:29.023 - services will be underground. As you can see, the building proposed will be one and a half floors above 00:05:29.023 --> 00:05:36.590 - grade with the basement level being completely below grade. The preference in the initial designs that 00:05:36.590 --> 00:05:41.438 - were submitted last year are for a two and a half story building. 00:05:42.082 --> 00:05:52.264 - This design has been revised to a two story building with a second story dormer to sort of achieve a 00:05:52.264 --> 00:06:02.850 - one and a half story visual effect. There's currently a parking space at the north side of the lot which 00:06:02.850 --> 00:06:08.798 - is to remain in place. Exterior materials proposed include 00:06:10.114 --> 00:06:20.137 - Party plank siding, aluminum gutters and downspouts, asphalt jingle roof, vinyl clad windows with a 00:06:20.137 --> 00:06:31.262 - couple of possible variations proposed, fiberglass entry doors, and then poured concrete for the porch footer. 00:06:42.690 --> 00:06:50.064 - So the recommendation of staff is approval of COA 2621. First consideration that we have to take into 00:06:50.064 --> 00:06:57.944 - account is going to be the demolition of the existing building. To permit demolition in a historic district, 00:06:57.944 --> 00:07:04.884 - a certain criteria need to be met. In this case, the building proposed for demolition is listed 00:07:04.884 --> 00:07:11.390 - as non-contributing and possesses little architectural significance and has had extensive 00:07:12.386 --> 00:07:19.560 - external material changes. In 2025, the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission approved in a similar 00:07:19.560 --> 00:07:26.399 - case the demolition of an existing non-contributing building and the construction of a new multi-unit 00:07:26.399 --> 00:07:33.438 - property in the Garden Hill Historic District after a series of several redesigns. As in the prior case, 00:07:33.438 --> 00:07:40.545 - this design has been revised following input from city staff and comments from district residents, though 00:07:40.545 --> 00:07:41.886 - I've since received 00:07:42.594 --> 00:07:49.110 - further comments which did not make it into this packet. The height of the proposed building at 22 feet 00:07:49.110 --> 00:07:55.752 - and the footprint at 2,028 square feet respectively are similar in scale to other buildings found nearby. 00:07:55.752 --> 00:08:02.456 - Located on a corner lot this house would face the address street and has a similar directional orientation 00:08:02.456 --> 00:08:08.909 - as the current structure as well as some of the nearby ranch houses. While the building's fenestration 00:08:08.909 --> 00:08:11.102 - does not take cues from any of the 00:08:11.810 --> 00:08:19.420 - any particular historic style found in the neighborhood. The spacing, proportion, and direction of windows 00:08:19.420 --> 00:08:26.603 - and doors are similar to those found throughout the neighborhood. Likewise, the inclusion of a front 00:08:26.603 --> 00:08:34.141 - porch, or after these revisions, two front porches, incorporates one of the more common building features 00:08:34.141 --> 00:08:41.182 - on historic buildings in the district. The side gabled roof with a full length front facing dormer 00:08:41.570 --> 00:08:48.140 - serves to incorporate an additional story while bringing down the building's overall height. In order 00:08:48.140 --> 00:08:54.904 - to fit UDO requirements, as I mentioned, for three-unit residential properties, an additional side porch 00:08:54.904 --> 00:09:01.603 - has been added to the plan facing 15th Street. And the front porch has been amended to near full width. 00:09:01.603 --> 00:09:08.238 - Now, as I mentioned, I received further comments from Neighborhood Design Review Committee, expressing 00:09:08.238 --> 00:09:10.750 - their wish that more effort be made to 00:09:12.066 --> 00:09:21.393 - take reference from other historic buildings in the district. At this point, is there anything that 00:09:21.393 --> 00:09:30.907 - the petitioner would like to add? Just that we added the porch wall. Planning asked us to add a porch 00:09:30.907 --> 00:09:38.462 - wall. Some of the homes that are nearby and decided some have walls, some don't. 00:09:38.786 --> 00:09:45.699 - kind of drew a couple of options there, one on the 15th Street side originally. We were thinking masonry, 00:09:45.699 --> 00:09:52.220 - perhaps brick or limestone. But then when they came back and said, we have to put this porch across 00:09:52.220 --> 00:09:58.871 - the front, we had a porch. This one was just much larger. So we really would like permission maybe to 00:09:58.871 --> 00:10:05.393 - use the hearty plank across the front of that. I mean, we're open to whatever the commission wants, 00:10:05.393 --> 00:10:06.110 - obviously. 00:10:06.434 --> 00:10:13.480 - So when I initially met with the neighbors, and it's been over a year ago, one of the things they had 00:10:13.480 --> 00:10:20.387 - asked for was they asked for the building to look like one house. So they wanted like maybe a front 00:10:20.387 --> 00:10:27.363 - door. And so I had a drawing where the front door came in off the 15th. And then the other two units 00:10:27.363 --> 00:10:31.646 - were sort of to the side, you couldn't see it from the porch. 00:10:31.842 --> 00:10:38.943 - planning said that did not meet UDO requirements. So that's why we had to move an entrance to the 15th 00:10:38.943 --> 00:10:45.836 - Street side and then we had to flip the door on the front. So, you know, as part of this process in 00:10:45.836 --> 00:10:52.730 - redoing this building, I went around the neighborhood, neighboring properties close by, you know, I 00:10:52.730 --> 00:11:00.382 - measured the height of them, trying not to exceed that. We looked at the overall footprint and how much of the 00:11:00.482 --> 00:11:08.039 - lot was actually covered with structures. And we provided a paper to you that shows percentages. The 00:11:08.039 --> 00:11:15.819 - one adjustment to that is this building, with the addition of the porches, it's closer to the 30% mark. 00:11:15.819 --> 00:11:23.301 - And it was a wide range of percentages. But what we did look at, too, as Noah said, was the overall 00:11:23.301 --> 00:11:30.334 - square footage of the building, which is really in line with several of the properties there. 00:11:30.690 --> 00:11:37.445 - It seems that they started with an original house, and they batted on, and they batted on, 00:11:37.445 --> 00:11:44.868 - and they batted on. So we felt like this building, while it didn't give the neighborhood everything 00:11:44.868 --> 00:11:52.514 - they asked for, it was what we had to work with to be within the UDO. So the starting half, originally 00:11:52.514 --> 00:12:00.382 - our original building was much larger. We were going to have five bedrooms, five bedrooms, five bedrooms. 00:12:00.706 --> 00:12:09.348 - We are now, the north and the south units would be five. The middle one would be four. And so I guess 00:12:09.348 --> 00:12:18.245 - maybe that's it. Unless you have questions for me. I mean, he covered it pretty well. But we understand. 00:12:18.245 --> 00:12:26.802 - We understand it's always controversial when you want to tear something down and do development. But 00:12:26.802 --> 00:12:29.598 - just for informational purposes, 00:12:29.922 --> 00:12:36.957 - We would like you to know that we're not an out of town company. We're a small family owned business 00:12:36.957 --> 00:12:44.200 - that's in the Neuron County. And we wanna be good neighbors, we wanna be good stewards of the property. 00:12:44.200 --> 00:12:51.375 - The house actually had been sitting empty ever since we purchased it. We currently have someone living 00:12:51.375 --> 00:12:58.270 - there, not a paying tenant, but there's someone living in the house. But it's been sitting vacant. 00:12:58.754 --> 00:13:07.199 - Because it's just, it's a small two bedroom that needs a lot of work inside. We considered leaving the 00:13:07.199 --> 00:13:15.645 - foundation, trying to build on whatever, and we just don't think that is doable. It would require more 00:13:15.645 --> 00:13:24.172 - work than just really just taking it out. So with that said, I'm happy to answer any questions. We just 00:13:24.172 --> 00:13:28.190 - ask for your support. Okay, thank you very much. 00:13:28.418 --> 00:13:38.166 - Um, are there any members of the public who would wish to speak on the certificate of appropriateness? 00:13:38.166 --> 00:13:47.913 - Uh, yeah. Phil Worthington, Tarek Slough from Garden Hill. Sherry, how many kids? Um, 19? Um, 14. Five 00:13:47.913 --> 00:13:57.566 - and a five and a four. 14 in three units. And that's what's only... I think I'm kind of hamstringing. 00:13:57.794 --> 00:14:12.112 - You've got re-zoned education. I'm here to talk about roofs and windows and things like that. 00:14:12.112 --> 00:14:26.430 - In my opinion, the density is just way, way too much. But I don't think you're here for that. 00:14:26.914 --> 00:14:46.554 - We were making great gains back in 2014 when we became a historic district and then the city in 2020 00:14:46.554 --> 00:14:54.526 - ups on this under the Hamilton District. 00:14:56.770 --> 00:15:07.272 - I'm someone to take on even more. That story is not talked about here. It's a real tragedy. It has been 00:15:07.272 --> 00:15:17.875 - my feeling when I've come to these meetings every time. HPC has done a pretty good job, though, I think, 00:15:17.875 --> 00:15:23.934 - in improving projects, for sure. I very much appreciate it. 00:15:27.842 --> 00:15:39.421 - or to carry if she has any things. I was thinking it would look better with the windows longer. Like 00:15:39.421 --> 00:15:51.343 - horizontal? Or vertical? Vertical. Vertical. OK. With trim and the porch close to be covered, it's kind 00:15:51.343 --> 00:15:57.534 - of hard to tell from the drawing, but I want to avoid 00:15:58.082 --> 00:16:06.549 - uh, porch posts that are bare wood that are, uh, commonly found today in new projects. Okay. Just hold 00:16:06.549 --> 00:16:15.017 - on, let her finish. Ma'am, do you have anything else you want to add to that? Uh, just that the window 00:16:15.017 --> 00:16:23.484 - should be trimmed out a little bit, narrow trim on it. Okay. All right. We'll see if any commissioners 00:16:23.484 --> 00:16:26.526 - have any follow-up comments on that. 00:16:27.042 --> 00:16:35.119 - All right, now we'll go to commissioner questions. Commissioner Duffy, do you have any questions? Maybe 00:16:35.119 --> 00:16:43.042 - this is a question for Mr. Sanvice. We did review a previous plan, right? I mean, it didn't just come 00:16:43.042 --> 00:16:50.964 - to you. We saw it, I think. I'm trying to think. There was one that was sort of the appearance of two 00:16:50.964 --> 00:16:56.478 - sort of differently masked townhomes that were attached, two or three. 00:16:57.154 --> 00:17:05.601 - I'm trying to remember now and I could check my notes If that is one that maybe you will remember this 00:17:05.601 --> 00:17:14.047 - miss Hillenburg if you withdrew that before I read your comments And so we continued it a couple times 00:17:14.047 --> 00:17:22.248 - trying to get something together and eventually just So it was never heard, but you probably didn't 00:17:22.248 --> 00:17:23.806 - see the first time 00:17:24.194 --> 00:17:32.028 - So, so the real commissioners will remember. Yeah, I definitely remember driving by I recognize the 00:17:32.028 --> 00:17:39.863 - other neighborhoods. Okay, that's my only question. Mr. Hanson any questions. Yeah, so we've talked 00:17:39.863 --> 00:17:48.324 - a lot about the placement of the windows of the doors and things, I guess I didn't catch with the materials 00:17:48.324 --> 00:17:49.342 - of this new. 00:17:49.442 --> 00:17:56.808 - building would be and if it would match the cohesion of the neighborhood? This is probably a best question 00:17:56.808 --> 00:18:04.037 - for Mr. Sanwise. Do you feel like visually it will fit in? By and large, the materials that are proposed 00:18:04.037 --> 00:18:11.128 - certainly is a question about the porch walls. I guess for a lot of the buildings in the district that 00:18:11.128 --> 00:18:16.222 - have porches, particularly the historic ones, it would be a masonry wall. 00:18:16.610 --> 00:18:24.134 - either limestone or brick. So we need some clarification on that. Otherwise, the materials that are 00:18:24.134 --> 00:18:32.108 - proposed are materials that are considered acceptable or preferred in the district guidelines. I answered 00:18:32.108 --> 00:18:39.707 - my question. Thank you. Commissioner Golden. No questions. Commissioner Butler. I noticed that there 00:18:39.707 --> 00:18:45.726 - was a mention of a silver maple that would be kept on some sort of contingency. 00:18:47.074 --> 00:18:54.144 - I just feel like there's probably really no mechanism that, I mean, anybody could say, yeah, we're going 00:18:54.144 --> 00:19:00.876 - to keep the silver maple and then get rid of it. So I was just, my question is, is that even before 00:19:00.876 --> 00:19:07.811 - us, is there any sort of mechanism that would, I mean, we're not into trees, right? So. There are some 00:19:07.811 --> 00:19:14.544 - districts that explicitly include trees. I think that's one of the rare items where there really is 00:19:14.544 --> 00:19:16.766 - discretion district to district. 00:19:17.346 --> 00:19:24.964 - And it's not, I believe, included in Garden Hill. OK. All right, that answered my question. Commissioner 00:19:24.964 --> 00:19:32.944 - Schlegel? Or no, I have a question for you as well. Did you say that there were comments that were submitted? 00:19:32.944 --> 00:19:40.272 - I was getting used to the new style of this, so I thought maybe I missed those. You did miss them. I 00:19:40.272 --> 00:19:46.366 - received them by email after the packet went out. OK. So I mean, just to reiterate. 00:19:47.074 --> 00:19:53.565 - The comment that I received from the Neighborhood Design Review Committee was, and you can correct me 00:19:53.565 --> 00:20:00.056 - if I'm wrong, sorry, was more or less they wanted the building to make a greater attempt to reference 00:20:00.056 --> 00:20:06.484 - other historic buildings in the district. Was that more or less the comment I received? Yeah, I only 00:20:06.484 --> 00:20:12.911 - saw the smaller image, the one that you sent me. It wasn't quite as detailed. And I believe this is, 00:20:12.911 --> 00:20:15.902 - I'm sorry, I'm sort of playing telephone here. 00:20:16.290 --> 00:20:28.004 - The one that I had sent you was the one that Ms. Hellenberg had sent me before the discussion with David 00:20:28.004 --> 00:20:39.718 - that led to these revisions that added the built out porches. So that one had sort of an indented porch. 00:20:39.718 --> 00:20:45.854 - So that plan is still in the packet, which anybody can 00:20:46.306 --> 00:20:52.429 - get to downloading the agenda. So if you want to check it for cross-reference, I don't have it in the 00:20:52.429 --> 00:20:58.491 - presentation because we're not considering it right now. But it'll give you a little more background 00:20:58.491 --> 00:21:04.614 - at least. OK. I just want to make sure. I heard that comment before. I just thought there was another 00:21:04.614 --> 00:21:10.677 - one somewhere in the packet. Yeah. I thought I missed that. Thank you. Vice Chair Baker. I was about 00:21:10.677 --> 00:21:13.918 - to ask the same question if the neighborhood had been 00:21:14.562 --> 00:21:23.236 - submitted anything that was specific that could guide us in how to make this more consistent with the 00:21:23.236 --> 00:21:31.740 - neighborhood. I think there are deficiencies here that make it stand out as an apartment house that 00:21:31.740 --> 00:21:40.585 - does not look like it fits in the neighborhood as much as it should. I don't know that I can articulate 00:21:40.585 --> 00:21:43.646 - what it's going to take to do that. 00:21:43.810 --> 00:21:53.445 - It looks bare bones to me still. We've already mentioned that the posts on the porch are not covered. 00:21:53.445 --> 00:22:03.269 - Normally in neighborhood homes that I've seen, they're clad. Is this a question? True. Why aren't they? 00:22:03.269 --> 00:22:13.566 - And I'm asking what can be done. I'm asking other commissioners as well what could be done to make this more 00:22:13.666 --> 00:22:23.766 - of a neighborhood looking building. Another question I have is on that rear side, what is that going 00:22:23.766 --> 00:22:33.766 - to face? It must be another house down the block, I'm guessing. So if this was a neighborhood home, 00:22:33.766 --> 00:22:40.766 - there would be windows on that side, but I believe they would be more 00:22:41.282 --> 00:22:49.589 - like the windows on the other parts of the house. In other words, the sizing and number. This looks 00:22:49.589 --> 00:22:58.062 - like an apartment house from the back and I'm wondering what could possibly be done to make that part 00:22:58.062 --> 00:23:06.785 - of the house more neighborhood friendly. So those are my questions on it. Are they addressed to someone? 00:23:06.785 --> 00:23:08.446 - I would address the 00:23:09.986 --> 00:23:17.730 - Question of neighborhood specifics back to the neighborhood and would like to see those specifics before 00:23:17.730 --> 00:23:25.622 - I really made any kind of a vote came up on this. I just don't think far enough along, but I would address 00:23:25.622 --> 00:23:32.998 - it back to the neighborhood there and I would address the rear of the house back to the client, the 00:23:32.998 --> 00:23:39.710 - petitioner, and ask what could be done there to make that look more like the neighborhood. 00:23:40.226 --> 00:23:47.858 - All right, well, let's start off with the neighborhood one first. Do you have any response 00:23:47.858 --> 00:23:56.328 - to what Commissioner Baker said in terms of his pressure? I think Jack articulated a lot better than 00:23:56.328 --> 00:24:04.798 - I could, but I think my original email to Noah was saying the same thing. It's like you're going for 00:24:04.798 --> 00:24:09.662 - the largest density possible, the highest rate of return, 00:24:10.946 --> 00:24:22.362 - This is something we've been fighting in the neighborhood before. We were a neighborhood association, 00:24:22.362 --> 00:24:33.666 - then conservation district, and then historic district, and it goes on and on and on. Forgot to say, 00:24:33.666 --> 00:24:39.038 - why us? Always, always. Yeah, I wish the client 00:24:46.306 --> 00:24:53.638 - I don't mean any disrespect, make their money a little bit slower. If you were a pet, fewer bedrooms, 00:24:53.638 --> 00:25:01.042 - it's always go for the gusto. But when you're doing this, you're doing it at the expense of others who 00:25:01.042 --> 00:25:08.589 - have to live with it. And the people who build these don't. And they are, it needs to be stated, they're 00:25:08.589 --> 00:25:13.118 - 24 hour day lodging businesses in someone else's neighborhood. 00:25:14.498 --> 00:25:24.746 - higher you go with density levels, more and more problems. We've known this for decades. And we publicly 00:25:24.746 --> 00:25:34.702 - recognize these problems, decades. And we've limited density level in neighborhoods now. We're upping 00:25:34.702 --> 00:25:43.486 - the density levels under the glorious auspices of compact urban form, residential infill, 00:25:44.578 --> 00:25:56.823 - I like that one, it's not even a word. And then Hamilton comes along, the up-zoning for economic, social, 00:25:56.823 --> 00:26:08.838 - and racial equality. Come on. You get me started on this. It looks a lot like that. But what Jack said. 00:26:08.838 --> 00:26:10.686 - Yeah, so, okay. 00:26:12.034 --> 00:26:20.321 - turn to the petitioner now if you would be able to address Commissioner Baker. Going back over to the 00:26:20.321 --> 00:26:28.446 - petitioner now. If you'd like to address any of the questions that Commissioner Baker just asked in 00:26:28.446 --> 00:26:36.734 - terms of the windows. Let me start by saying that the porch that you're seeing there, it was drawn at 00:26:36.734 --> 00:26:38.846 - the midnight hour because 00:26:40.354 --> 00:26:47.393 - after speaking with planning. So I mean literally at the midnight hour. So we didn't have a chance really 00:26:47.393 --> 00:26:54.433 - to put the things in the packet about what we would do. We would never leave bare wood post on the porch. 00:26:54.433 --> 00:27:01.140 - So those poles will be covered with whatever material to make them look more compatible to what's in 00:27:01.140 --> 00:27:04.062 - the neighborhood. But they will be covered. 00:27:04.386 --> 00:27:11.795 - The materials for the wall of the porch, as I said, we show masonry on the 15th Street side. We showed 00:27:11.795 --> 00:27:19.348 - the hardy plank. We're not opposed to doing brick or limestone. We're not opposed to that. But we showed 00:27:19.348 --> 00:27:26.829 - both because we didn't know if the hardy plank. In the neighborhood, some of the porches are limestone. 00:27:26.829 --> 00:27:33.662 - The ones that are closer to this building, the one immediately to the west of it, has no wall. 00:27:34.370 --> 00:27:41.907 - And the one west of that has what looks like plywood that's been cut and painted. So we didn't know 00:27:41.907 --> 00:27:49.820 - if we could use the hardy plank. We're not opposed to masonry if that's what's required. We can do that. 00:27:49.820 --> 00:27:57.432 - As for the windows being longer, I don't see any reason why we can't make the windows longer. That's 00:27:57.432 --> 00:28:03.838 - just what the original drawing was showing. I believe the plan that we had submitted 00:28:05.058 --> 00:28:12.367 - over a year ago with Drew, the petition, we had sort of a division on the backside of the three units. 00:28:12.367 --> 00:28:19.604 - The problem we encounter is that we can't use any vertical siding, at least that's not allowed in the 00:28:19.604 --> 00:28:26.700 - standards, because there's no vertical siding around it. If we could use vertical, we could make it 00:28:26.700 --> 00:28:33.086 - look better than just one building in the back. We can certainly make the windows bigger, 00:28:33.410 --> 00:28:42.702 - But I don't know exactly how we would change that back structure, the back of that building. I mean, 00:28:42.702 --> 00:28:51.902 - I'm open to suggestions, but sort of being able to use something in a vertical manner to divide it, 00:28:51.902 --> 00:29:00.734 - it's more difficult to do. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. For me, my question, when you were looking at 00:29:01.026 --> 00:29:07.241 - This is for the petitioner, sorry. When you were looking at designing this, you said you were looking 00:29:07.241 --> 00:29:13.700 - through the neighborhood at different houses and things like that. So what certain things were you trying 00:29:13.700 --> 00:29:19.915 - to, I guess, match when you were designing? Well, we were trying to match roof height. We were trying 00:29:19.915 --> 00:29:26.313 - to make sure that we were cognizant of roof lines, dormers. There's lots of dormers in the neighborhood. 00:29:26.313 --> 00:29:28.446 - So trying to be cognizant of that. 00:29:28.834 --> 00:29:35.251 - I was looking at the density of the property. And part of the thing that's in that neighborhood, if 00:29:35.251 --> 00:29:41.796 - you look at it, even if you look at the GIS overview, is that the original house has been there. It's 00:29:41.796 --> 00:29:48.405 - been added onto multiple times, and you may have a narrow structure, and then one sets up to the side, 00:29:48.405 --> 00:29:51.806 - and then one's a little wider. So they're not really 00:29:53.122 --> 00:29:59.360 - one continuous building, like if you were constructing it, you would make it more uniform. But you can 00:29:59.360 --> 00:30:05.597 - tell that they've sort of been piece milled over the years, a lot of them. Follow up to that, when you 00:30:05.597 --> 00:30:11.774 - were looking at the buildings, were you looking at the ones that were listed as historic? Or were you 00:30:11.774 --> 00:30:17.830 - also looking at just the non-contributing? I went down the block front, because that's what we were 00:30:17.830 --> 00:30:23.038 - instructed to do. So I went down 15th Street, the block front. I went Lincoln Street. 00:30:23.458 --> 00:30:30.084 - of Lincoln and then across Lincoln River. So I did not go through and see what's contributing, 00:30:30.084 --> 00:30:37.269 - what is not. I just simply looked what's beside us because the animals across the street from us. Now, 00:30:37.269 --> 00:30:44.592 - obviously, Terra Trace is across the street. And then there's some other apartment building right across 00:30:44.592 --> 00:30:48.638 - the street. So you can't really look at that necessarily. 00:30:48.930 --> 00:30:55.337 - And I walked down through there looking at the houses. If I stood at the corner, I looked at what I 00:30:55.337 --> 00:31:01.743 - could see from the alleyway, because the north end of that house is on an alley. So I looked to see 00:31:01.743 --> 00:31:08.150 - what I could see on the alleyway. And I could see two story houses there. I could see three bedroom 00:31:08.150 --> 00:31:14.556 - townhomes over on 16th Street. So I was just trying to compare that and come up with something that 00:31:14.556 --> 00:31:16.222 - would fit. OK, thank you. 00:31:16.770 --> 00:31:29.766 - All right that brings us to the end of the commissioner questions that brings us to Entertaining emotion 00:31:29.766 --> 00:31:43.134 - does anyone have emotion on this coa? The demolition of the existing building would be included in this yes 00:31:48.706 --> 00:31:55.416 - Let's get started. I move to approve. OK. Commissioner Golden has moved to approve COA 2621. Is there 00:31:55.416 --> 00:32:01.995 - a second? We'll second so we can have a conversation. OK. Commissioner Schlegel has seconded. We'll 00:32:01.995 --> 00:32:08.770 - turn to Commissioner Golden, since he made the motion. Do you have any comments you would like to add? 00:32:08.770 --> 00:32:15.481 - I spent a lot of time in this area, and there are some historic houses, and there are a lot of houses 00:32:15.481 --> 00:32:16.862 - that look like this. 00:32:19.330 --> 00:32:27.612 - city has, as was said earlier, density is allowed, it's legal, and that's what I would expect someone 00:32:27.612 --> 00:32:35.732 - to do with this kind of property with that kind of zoning. All right. Commissioner Schlegel, do you 00:32:35.732 --> 00:32:43.933 - have anything you'd like to add to that? Yeah, I'm trying to formulate my... I fully agree with what 00:32:43.933 --> 00:32:47.262 - Commissioner Poulton said, and I've been 00:32:47.490 --> 00:32:55.755 - playing around on the map just to get a better feel for the neighborhood as you were describing it, 00:32:55.755 --> 00:33:04.515 - ma'am. I think the petitioners definitely listened to other comments, gotten feedback, and I think that's 00:33:04.515 --> 00:33:12.862 - a great sign for someone to reach out and do that. My only hesitation personally is just some of the 00:33:12.862 --> 00:33:13.854 - details are 00:33:14.018 --> 00:33:20.203 - willing to be improved. I'll phrase it that way, so I'm not against things. It's just since we don't 00:33:20.203 --> 00:33:26.571 - have the final details, I don't know what our timeline is. If we can just give the petitioner more time 00:33:26.571 --> 00:33:33.000 - to be able to update those details for us, or if we need to continue. Well, it can be moved to continued 00:33:33.000 --> 00:33:39.123 - if the petitioner approves. OK. So that's also an option. OK. Just like the posts or the windows, I 00:33:39.123 --> 00:33:42.430 - just want to see what it would look like with the new 00:33:43.490 --> 00:33:52.016 - details added is the one thing I would want to see. But I think it's a good idea, like Commissioner 00:33:52.016 --> 00:34:00.542 - Gordon said, just to see the rest of the details work is all I would like. OK. Vice Chair Baker, do 00:34:00.542 --> 00:34:09.153 - you have any comments? Only to say that I think it needs more work. OK. I agree that it mostly fits. 00:34:09.153 --> 00:34:12.990 - But in terms of fitting to the neighborhood, 00:34:13.250 --> 00:34:22.820 - more work could bring that closer to a better neighborhood fit. Commissioner Butler. I appreciate what 00:34:22.820 --> 00:34:32.297 - Commissioner Golden and Schlegel and Baker have said, and I agree with much of what they've said. And 00:34:32.297 --> 00:34:41.310 - I don't have a problem with the removal of this building. I don't think that that is necessarily 00:34:41.762 --> 00:34:49.076 - My reservations will lie along the lines of how it matches the neighborhood and the fabric 00:34:49.076 --> 00:34:57.273 - of the neighborhood. And I think that just making those windows a little bit longer on the back would 00:34:57.273 --> 00:35:05.390 - go a really long way towards making it look less sort of boxy and apartment-y. I know that's not the 00:35:05.390 --> 00:35:08.766 - emotion that we have before us right now. 00:35:09.986 --> 00:35:18.063 - And I really appreciate how much you've been willing to listen to the neighborhood and how much you've 00:35:18.063 --> 00:35:26.219 - already altered your plans. I think that's a very positive thing. And so I feel like this could be even 00:35:26.219 --> 00:35:34.296 - better with some minor alterations. But in general, I support the flavor of the building. I just think 00:35:34.296 --> 00:35:37.982 - it could be better. Okay. Commissioner Hanson. 00:35:38.626 --> 00:35:43.751 - Yeah, I echo a lot of those sentiments. My concern, I understand the neighborhood's concerned about 00:35:43.751 --> 00:35:49.184 - density, but per the zoning and the nearby buildings, it doesn't seem like it would stick out necessarily 00:35:49.184 --> 00:35:54.463 - in that way. But if we could get it to fit the character of the neighborhood more with changes to that 00:35:54.463 --> 00:35:59.742 - porch wall being masonry or brick and extending the length of those windows, I do feel like that could 00:35:59.742 --> 00:36:04.969 - go a long way. And like Commissioner Butler said, I do appreciate what the petitioner has done so far 00:36:04.969 --> 00:36:06.558 - to work with the neighborhood. 00:36:06.658 --> 00:36:14.186 - It seems like the petitioner is open to making those tweaks. So yeah, if we were to entertain another 00:36:14.186 --> 00:36:21.641 - motion of approval with making those changes, I would be interested in that. Commissioner Duffy. I'm 00:36:21.641 --> 00:36:29.021 - in agreement with this idea, too. I definitely remember how much taller this building at first was. 00:36:29.021 --> 00:36:32.638 - And I can assure those of you who didn't see it. 00:36:32.898 --> 00:36:43.239 - This is a big improvement. It's a big difference. And I was really happy to see it scaled down when 00:36:43.239 --> 00:36:54.303 - I read the packet. But I must say, I think the fact it would be more graceful, it would be more attractive 00:36:54.303 --> 00:37:00.094 - to the residents to make more just all around neighbors 00:37:00.482 --> 00:37:10.152 - of course, and the residents too, if they could be longer, which, and I agree with the comments about 00:37:10.152 --> 00:37:19.727 - the porch too, so just small, smallish changes I would suggest. As for me, I support the demolition. 00:37:19.727 --> 00:37:28.638 - This house, as it currently stands, has no architectural or historical significance, so I see 00:37:28.770 --> 00:37:35.658 - no reason to oppose that. For the redesign, I don't think I'm on board with it yet. I think the scale 00:37:35.658 --> 00:37:42.411 - of the building, lengthwise, where you see the front elevation, where it looks more like a, kind of 00:37:42.411 --> 00:37:49.501 - a Craspen-y house is way too wide. And then the, I feel like the left elevation you see is you're almost 00:37:49.501 --> 00:37:56.862 - trying to look on like a California bungalow, but it's like too tall. So it's a weird merging of a couple of 00:37:58.466 --> 00:38:09.817 - that is not quite clicking in my brain at the moment. But, you know, I don't want to, I would be happy 00:38:09.817 --> 00:38:21.279 - to see improvements on this going forward and see what we might be able to do. So that's my view. Okay, 00:38:21.279 --> 00:38:27.230 - does anybody want to make a second round of comments? 00:38:29.090 --> 00:38:38.272 - Yes. Vice Chair Baker. As in all cases that come to us, this one is devoid of detail. It's a sketch. 00:38:38.272 --> 00:38:47.544 - It's a home sketch. Sometimes those are fine, but in a case like this where we're talking about trim, 00:38:47.544 --> 00:38:57.726 - window details and such, we really need something more like a rendering. I don't mean an architectural drawing, 00:38:57.954 --> 00:39:04.472 - rendering of some sort that has much more detail that's been presented because all we can judge on is 00:39:04.472 --> 00:39:11.053 - what we see. And if we can't see that detail we have to infer it or ask the questions but it certainly 00:39:11.053 --> 00:39:17.698 - helps us when we have a lot of detail. We've said this before but I just get it out there on the record 00:39:17.698 --> 00:39:20.318 - that in all cases we really need to see. 00:39:21.186 --> 00:39:27.148 - Well, and having it in writing. I'll take that as my second comment. Making it have it down where we 00:39:27.148 --> 00:39:33.170 - can say, yes, this is the thing you said it's going to be. This is what we agree to. It just helps us 00:39:33.170 --> 00:39:39.369 - make sure that we have the right information in front of us. So that would be my second comment. Anybody 00:39:39.369 --> 00:39:45.390 - else have any other second comments? All right. Hearing none, I think we're ready for the vote. Staff 00:39:45.390 --> 00:39:47.102 - would call the roll, please. 00:39:50.978 --> 00:40:03.116 - COA 2621? Commissioner Baker or Vice Chair Baker? No. Treasurer Butler? No. Commissioner Duffy? No. 00:40:03.116 --> 00:40:15.376 - Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker? No. Commissioner Hanson? No. Commissioner Schlegel? No. That 00:40:15.376 --> 00:40:18.046 - motion does not pass. 00:40:18.882 --> 00:40:30.769 - with a vote of one to six. All right, it fails one to six. Is there another motion? I would move that 00:40:30.769 --> 00:40:43.355 - we take this to our next meeting. Attention upon the details that we've talked about this evening. Columns, 00:40:43.355 --> 00:40:47.550 - windows, detailing of the drawings. 00:40:48.098 --> 00:40:55.209 - And I hope that it comes back to us with much more detail, and we can actually, I think, get a better 00:40:55.209 --> 00:41:02.529 - handle on whether to approve. OK, well, that was it. I have a point of order. I did not ask Commissioner 00:41:02.529 --> 00:41:09.082 - Duesner for their vote. Oh, I'm abstaining. I didn't want to make that assumption. Excuse me. 00:41:09.082 --> 00:41:16.542 - You go ahead. OK, so Commissioner Baker has moved to continue this to the next meeting. Is there a second? 00:41:18.658 --> 00:41:25.669 - Okay, so Commissioner Schlegel has seconded before I go into anything else. Does the petitioner, would 00:41:25.669 --> 00:41:32.679 - you be willing to continue this to another meeting to further discuss the design? Yes. You will? Okay, 00:41:32.679 --> 00:41:39.622 - thank you very much. All right, Commissioner, no, we have to vote, sorry. Yep, so there's a motion on 00:41:39.622 --> 00:41:46.496 - the floor to continue COA 2621 to the next meeting of the Instruction Preservation Commission. We'll 00:41:46.496 --> 00:41:48.606 - take a roll call vote on that. 00:41:48.898 --> 00:41:56.512 - Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? 00:41:56.512 --> 00:42:05.026 - Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. 00:42:05.026 --> 00:42:13.950 - That motion to continue is approved 8-0. Okay, thank you very much everyone for your comments and questions. 00:42:14.114 --> 00:42:21.250 - Thank you to the petitioner. Thank you very much. We will work with you on this and see if we can make 00:42:21.250 --> 00:42:28.178 - it more agreeable to the commissioners and the neighborhood. And I do really appreciate you working 00:42:28.178 --> 00:42:34.206 - with us through this to see if we can come to a good resolution. Thank you. All right. 00:42:34.370 --> 00:42:43.491 - Next up on the agenda, we have demolition delays. First up is a demolition delay, 2603. Mr. Sandwight 00:42:43.491 --> 00:42:52.075 - has a report. All right, our first demo delay for the evening is... I'm sorry, this is not COA, 00:42:52.075 --> 00:43:01.374 - this is DD. 2603. Is the petitioner present? It looks like he's online. Yes. Okay. Yes, I'm here. Okay. 00:43:01.890 --> 00:43:10.884 - This is 1331 Atwater Avenue, petitioners Alan Sin. 1331 East Atwater is a 1938 two-story brick colonial 00:43:10.884 --> 00:43:19.791 - revival house with a pedimented portico supported by four Doric columns. Other features include a line 00:43:19.791 --> 00:43:28.871 - of dentals beneath the cornice and arched gable windows. This house was first owned by Gladys and Joseph 00:43:28.871 --> 00:43:29.822 - Black, Sr. 00:43:30.210 --> 00:43:37.001 - co-founders of Black Lumber Company. Common misconception is Black Lumber Company, not Black's Lumber 00:43:37.001 --> 00:43:43.725 - Company. Born to a Kentucky farmer, Joseph moved with his family to Sullivan, Indiana in 1907, where 00:43:43.725 --> 00:43:50.582 - he and several of his siblings found employment in a lumber yard. After moving to Bloomington in 1928, 00:43:50.582 --> 00:43:58.238 - Joseph went into business with Roy Metzger, founding what was at the time called the Metzger Black Lumber Company. 00:43:59.650 --> 00:44:06.824 - The blacks moved out in 1955, selling the house to grocer Woody Stogsdale, co-owner of a family grocery 00:44:06.824 --> 00:44:13.723 - in what is today Blooming Foods East Building. I'm sorry, Blooming Foods West. Blooming Foods West. 00:44:13.723 --> 00:44:21.104 - From 1960 to 1963, the house was the residence of Carter Fairchild, a teacher training educator at Indiana 00:44:21.104 --> 00:44:27.934 - University School of Education. Since Fairchild left, the house has been rented on a yearly basis. 00:44:29.602 --> 00:44:36.297 - Recommendation from staff is release of demo delay 2603. Does the petitioner have any comments that 00:44:36.297 --> 00:44:43.126 - they want to add? No, not at this time. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Public comment, we 00:44:43.126 --> 00:44:49.956 - have up to three minutes to make a comment on this. Does anybody wish to comment on this? Yes. Please 00:44:49.956 --> 00:44:56.919 - state your name if you wish and go ahead. OK. I'm Jenny Southern, live in the Elm Heights neighborhood. 00:44:56.919 --> 00:44:59.262 - And I just want to say in general, 00:44:59.522 --> 00:45:07.909 - comments on our list have been horrified because it's a really gorgeous house in very, very good condition. 00:45:07.909 --> 00:45:15.674 - I've seen pictures of the inside. It's gorgeous. It's not ramshackle in any way. The occupancy rate 00:45:15.674 --> 00:45:23.750 - is very, very high. It's over 10, I believe. And it's actually one of the most affordable places I know 00:45:23.750 --> 00:45:27.710 - of to live close to campus. It's $500 per bedroom. 00:45:28.194 --> 00:45:34.558 - And they have always rented it per bedroom that I know of. They were doing that when I was in college. 00:45:34.558 --> 00:45:40.798 - So I'll give you an idea how long that's been going on. But it's been maintained beautifully. I know 00:45:40.798 --> 00:45:47.100 - less about the house around the corner, which backs onto this one. They go like this, they tee. We're 00:45:47.100 --> 00:45:53.278 - uncertain what the plan is for this. Usually when they say, oh, we're going to tear something down, 00:45:53.762 --> 00:46:00.994 - They have at least a sketch of a plan. I contacted planning. Planning has not been approached. And then 00:46:00.994 --> 00:46:08.226 - a general question from Mr. Sin about what's allowed there. So there's no drawings, nothing. So I don't 00:46:08.226 --> 00:46:15.528 - see a rush on getting this torn down because there's not really a plan. There's also several appropriate 00:46:15.528 --> 00:46:23.038 - places owned by IU and also by private owners along Atwater that it could actually be moved instead of just 00:46:23.202 --> 00:46:30.637 - carrying it down, it just seems like a horrible, horrible waste. And they are close by, within three 00:46:30.637 --> 00:46:37.998 - blocks of this place. They're farther to the, the ones not owned by IU, the lots are farther to the 00:46:37.998 --> 00:46:45.875 - east, if you go, continue where it becomes, that little two-way park before you dance it into the Catholic 00:46:45.875 --> 00:46:52.574 - church. There are several, there are quite a few empty lots, actually, along that stretch. 00:46:53.218 --> 00:47:00.237 - So if you guys cannot save this, we would like to see it moved. Even if it was donated to VRI or somebody 00:47:00.237 --> 00:47:06.925 - to move it, I'm sure they could make money on it. Like I said, it is a gorgeous house in good shape. 00:47:06.925 --> 00:47:13.612 - So that was a comment. And it also faces our historic district. It's directly across the street from 00:47:13.612 --> 00:47:20.300 - our historic district. We don't mind that it's a rooming house. We think it's a good transition to a 00:47:20.300 --> 00:47:22.750 - higher density, which is the campus. 00:47:22.850 --> 00:47:29.137 - only a block from campus so that's all the time and other than we just kind of break in our heart to 00:47:29.137 --> 00:47:35.611 - see it go. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other public comments in the room? Yes. Yes I don't want 00:47:35.611 --> 00:47:42.146 - to repeat everything Jenny said I'll just say though that I know nothing about the feasibility of moving 00:47:42.146 --> 00:47:44.574 - a house I think that the environmental 00:47:44.898 --> 00:47:51.410 - cost of destroying a house like this and putting up something else is something that we should factor 00:47:51.410 --> 00:47:58.050 - in. I think that the affordability is a huge issue and I've been very puzzled to see the frequent, well 00:47:58.050 --> 00:47:59.774 - it seems like, destruction 00:47:59.874 --> 00:48:06.413 - of an affordable house and then putting up something that turns out to be less affordable. 00:48:06.413 --> 00:48:13.598 - This is contributing very significantly to the aesthetics of the area. It's a house you drive by or 00:48:13.598 --> 00:48:20.856 - walk by often. It is a very, very nice house. I think you would need to have a significant community 00:48:20.856 --> 00:48:25.598 - need to trump the loss if you were to argue that this needs to be 00:48:25.698 --> 00:48:31.668 - torn down, I need to hear this is the only place for a school or something like that. It should not 00:48:31.668 --> 00:48:37.877 - be torn down simply to put up, say, something that might make somebody more money, or I don't know what 00:48:37.877 --> 00:48:44.145 - it would be, but I'd be a huge loss to tear it down. Thank you. And your name, please. Oh, Marsha Baron, 00:48:44.145 --> 00:48:50.115 - and I live in the Elm Heights area as well. Thank you. Any other comments in the room? Seeing none, 00:48:50.115 --> 00:48:51.966 - are there any comments online? 00:48:59.042 --> 00:49:05.986 - brings us into public comment. We go to commissioner questions now. I just want to remind everybody 00:49:05.986 --> 00:49:13.417 - we can consider the architectural and historical significance of this property when we're deciding whether 00:49:13.417 --> 00:49:20.361 - to waive the demolition delay or not. Vice Chair Baker, do you have any questions? I don't know how 00:49:20.361 --> 00:49:23.486 - to ask it. I can come back to you. I'll try. 00:49:23.938 --> 00:49:31.653 - What I want to say is, what I want to ask is, why? Why is this building beaten up? I'm not asking what's 00:49:31.653 --> 00:49:39.221 - going to happen in its place, but why would one take such a building down? It is, we've talked before, 00:49:39.221 --> 00:49:47.230 - this is not a notable building. It probably should have been, perhaps. Could it be, come a notable building? 00:49:47.230 --> 00:49:51.198 - And if so, could it be saved under that circumstance? 00:49:51.842 --> 00:49:59.120 - Otherwise, what alternatives do we have? I'm putting it out to other commissioners. I don't know, but 00:49:59.120 --> 00:50:05.327 - I think it's a travesty to see something in this good of condition out for demolition. 00:50:05.327 --> 00:50:12.891 - All right. Commissioner Schlegel, any questions? I'll just echo what Commissioner Jack said. Commissioner 00:50:12.891 --> 00:50:16.030 - Jack, I like that one. Commissioner Butler. 00:50:16.322 --> 00:50:25.256 - If we were to try to see about moving this house, if that were something that would be feasible, how 00:50:25.256 --> 00:50:34.189 - are we involved with that process? I know BRI is right, technically the people who would probably be 00:50:34.189 --> 00:50:43.212 - approached about moving it, but then what would be our motion or direction in that process? Noah, can 00:50:43.212 --> 00:50:45.246 - you help me with that? 00:50:46.018 --> 00:50:54.183 - Commission can always make suggestions to the property owners to look into this and possibly report 00:50:54.183 --> 00:51:02.429 - back But you know this being a demolition delay The Commission doesn't really have any Say over what 00:51:02.429 --> 00:51:10.594 - the action of the property owner is besides whether you know to release demolition delay or to move 00:51:10.594 --> 00:51:12.798 - to nominate or designate a 00:51:13.570 --> 00:51:20.092 - or ask for further research. Right, ask for further research or continuance. Commissioner Golden. 00:51:20.092 --> 00:51:26.946 - Commissioner Hanson. Yeah, I just echo Commissioner Baker's question. I would love to know, maybe hear 00:51:26.946 --> 00:51:33.734 - a little bit from the applicant of why they would be interested in demolishing this building. Does it 00:51:33.734 --> 00:51:40.655 - have any faults? Is it in poor condition that we're unaware of? I would love more clarity on that. Does 00:51:40.655 --> 00:51:42.718 - the petitioner have an answer? 00:51:46.562 --> 00:51:55.463 - kind of a fact-finding mission just to see what we can and cannot do with this property and the adjacent 00:51:55.463 --> 00:52:04.365 - properties at this point in time. I don't have a current plan for it. All right. Thank you. Commissioner 00:52:04.365 --> 00:52:13.351 - Duffy. I have a question again for Mr. Sanchez. Is it the case that this is a non- I mean, a contributing 00:52:13.351 --> 00:52:16.318 - house? It's rated as contributing. 00:52:17.538 --> 00:52:27.019 - Spoke with the state survey coordinator about it. Comparing this in particular to, if you remember, 00:52:27.019 --> 00:52:36.501 - at our last meeting, there was another colonial revital house, same era, brick, in greater Prospect 00:52:36.501 --> 00:52:43.422 - Hill, or was it McDowell? One of those two stacked on top of each other. 00:52:45.314 --> 00:52:52.091 - Her opinion is that this was probably surveyed as contributing and the other as notable because of its 00:52:52.091 --> 00:52:59.132 - location and because Elmheight is so full, Elmheight, sorry, is so full of buildings with real outstanding 00:52:59.132 --> 00:53:05.843 - architectural character that are rated as notable or outstanding. In some cases, that argument can be 00:53:05.843 --> 00:53:13.278 - made if a building is really sort of out of place, like if you see, say, really stunning, contextually stunning, 00:53:13.922 --> 00:53:21.773 - I don't know, let's say Pueblo Revival House in Indiana or something where you really don't expect it 00:53:21.773 --> 00:53:29.548 - to be. Well, there's a story there. Whether this being located a mile away from a similar house in a 00:53:29.548 --> 00:53:37.322 - different neighborhood warrants a lower survey rating for this one, I don't really think so. I think 00:53:37.322 --> 00:53:43.326 - it may have been surveyed by somebody different who was just overwhelmed with 00:53:43.682 --> 00:53:52.101 - the quality of the houses in Elm Heights and maybe give this different survey rating. That's my hunch, 00:53:52.101 --> 00:54:00.520 - though. The survey coordinator did say that she would like to see more research into this to make that 00:54:00.520 --> 00:54:09.102 - distinction. And I would definitely want to confer with her before changing my assessment of the rating. 00:54:09.102 --> 00:54:12.126 - So it is possible to get it re-rated 00:54:12.386 --> 00:54:21.005 - This is what I think is possible. Architectural and also historical because of the fact that it was 00:54:21.005 --> 00:54:29.711 - built by a black company owner. And my understanding has always been, I know of one other house that 00:54:29.711 --> 00:54:38.503 - one of the owners built in a different part of town and was told that those people built those houses 00:54:38.503 --> 00:54:40.830 - in part as advertisements. 00:54:41.218 --> 00:54:51.308 - for their business and, you know, you too can have a beautiful house if you'll only come to Black Lumber. 00:54:51.308 --> 00:55:01.017 - So I would like to see that possibility explored too, along with as part of, I guess that's a comment 00:55:01.017 --> 00:55:07.870 - I'll say for that. Commissioner Duesner. Commissioner Duffy has already 00:55:07.970 --> 00:55:15.603 - raised the questions I had. I was wondering especially about significance of the family and the history 00:55:15.603 --> 00:55:23.383 - there as a possible angle for preservation. But I'm also heartened to hear maybe there's some possibility 00:55:23.383 --> 00:55:30.943 - of reclassification. I don't know what that is like. But two things for sure I would like to hear more 00:55:30.943 --> 00:55:37.182 - research into before anything happens here. Thank you. Let's see. Questions from me. 00:55:37.634 --> 00:55:48.931 - I think we kind of answered some of the questions that I already had. So good question. Do we have a 00:55:48.931 --> 00:56:00.339 - motion on this demolition delay? I'd like to make a motion to delay the demolition delay. To refer to 00:56:00.339 --> 00:56:04.030 - staff for further research? Yes. 00:56:04.930 --> 00:56:13.839 - So Commissioner Butler motions to continue the demolition delay. Okay, continue that delay. So staff 00:56:13.839 --> 00:56:23.013 - can conduct further research on this regarding its... Rating and the feasibility or moving it, perhaps. 00:56:23.013 --> 00:56:32.187 - Mostly the rating. And history. Yes, and also as well, the family cultural history. So we have a motion 00:56:32.187 --> 00:56:33.598 - for staff to... 00:56:34.242 --> 00:56:40.004 - conduct further research on the history and the rating and the feasibility of moving in if that's an 00:56:40.004 --> 00:56:45.822 - option. Yes. Does that sound right? Is there a second? I'll second. All right. Commissioner Duffy has 00:56:45.822 --> 00:56:51.356 - a second. Commissioner Butler, you made the motion so you can start off comments. Well, I think, 00:56:51.356 --> 00:56:57.061 - you know, anytime we're talking about demolition, of course, that's sort of the final thing, right? 00:56:57.061 --> 00:57:02.765 - You're not going to get it back. So you don't want to get it wrong. The house is very well built. I 00:57:02.765 --> 00:57:03.678 - think that that 00:57:03.970 --> 00:57:11.235 - has to come into consideration. It's almost 100 years old. And also, I'm going to consider that. It's 00:57:11.235 --> 00:57:18.500 - not historic district. It's not in a conservation district. So I understand that it might be one that 00:57:18.500 --> 00:57:26.192 - we're going to lose. But I would hate to rush to do it. And so I think it would just be wise to investigate 00:57:26.192 --> 00:57:30.750 - all the options possible. And so that's why I made that motion. 00:57:31.906 --> 00:57:38.583 - Commissioner Duffy, do you have any other comments? That's very well said, Commissioner Butler. I agree 00:57:38.583 --> 00:57:45.131 - with what he had to say. Okay. Vice Chair Baker? I'm in agreement with what's been said. Commissioner 00:57:45.131 --> 00:57:51.679 - Schlegel? You know, when I saw this one come up, it kind of gave me heartburn, you know, just looking 00:57:51.679 --> 00:57:58.164 - at the basics and then reading through. So I'm glad to hear I wasn't the only one that wanted to see 00:57:58.164 --> 00:58:01.502 - what else was possible. Great. Commissioner Golden? 00:58:01.986 --> 00:58:10.649 - It would be a crime to lose this house. And demolition delay is a high bar. It's a long process. And 00:58:10.649 --> 00:58:19.483 - I'm not sure that the results would be any different. But I support further research. OK. Commissioner 00:58:19.483 --> 00:58:28.318 - Hanson? Yeah, and I echo what's been said. I'd love to see more research. Commissioner Duesdorf? Same. 00:58:28.930 --> 00:58:36.396 - Okay, yes, I fully agree. I think we need some more research on this. I'm just gonna say this out loud 00:58:36.396 --> 00:58:43.790 - for Vice Chair Baker. I think you would need to read the formal review for historic designation if it 00:58:43.790 --> 00:58:51.112 - passes. Any other comments? All right, I think we're ready for a vote. There's a motion on the floor 00:58:51.112 --> 00:58:56.766 - to continue demolition delay 2603 to allow staff to conduct further research. 00:58:58.114 --> 00:59:06.470 - We'll go ahead and take a roll call vote. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner 00:59:06.470 --> 00:59:15.405 - Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Excuse me. Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes. Commissioner 00:59:15.405 --> 00:59:23.678 - Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. The motion to continue is approved 7-0. 8-0. My apologies. 00:59:27.906 --> 00:59:35.423 - reading the formal review for historic designation. Today regarding the property located at 1331 East 00:59:35.423 --> 00:59:43.014 - Atwater Avenue in Wilmington, Indiana, the Historic Preservation Commission, HPC, declares that it got 00:59:43.014 --> 00:59:44.414 - Donaceff proposed. 00:59:44.770 --> 00:59:54.552 - a demolition, partial demolition, and request the staff to prepare a formal report on the property and 00:59:54.552 --> 01:00:04.049 - put the property on the HPC agenda to be officially considered for local historic designation under 01:00:04.049 --> 01:00:14.590 - BMC 8.08.01, parenthesis D. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Next up, we have demolition delay 2604. 01:00:18.530 --> 01:00:25.981 - This is located at 326 South Eagleson Avenue, same petitioner. 326 South Eagleson is a two-story 1940s 01:00:25.981 --> 01:00:33.432 - colonial revival house with a flat-roofed portico on square columns. The first floor is brick, and the 01:00:33.432 --> 01:00:40.739 - second story is clad and clabbered with a slight garrison overhang. From the 1940s through 1964, the 01:00:40.739 --> 01:00:48.190 - house was owned by Harold and Philip Pennington. Harold, a former showers furniture company carpenter, 01:00:48.738 --> 01:00:55.913 - started his own business, Pennington Wood Products, after World War II. Harold retired in 1950 and moved 01:00:55.913 --> 01:01:02.814 - to Indianapolis. From 1964 until 1975, 326 South Atwater was the second Bloomington home of Mary and 01:01:02.814 --> 01:01:09.647 - David Randall, director of the Indiana University Lilly Library. Born to a Pennsylvania coal mining 01:01:09.647 --> 01:01:17.095 - family, moved to New York with his wife Mary to pursue the rare book trade. After 20 years adding Scribner's 01:01:17.095 --> 01:01:18.462 - rare book division, 01:01:18.946 --> 01:01:26.103 - Randall was appointed to the directorship of the Lilly Library in 1955, a position that he held until 01:01:26.103 --> 01:01:33.401 - his death in 1975. The staff recommendation is for the release of Demo Delay 2604. Thank you very much. 01:01:33.401 --> 01:01:40.418 - Does the petitioner have any comments that they wish to add? No. No? All right. Public comment will 01:01:40.418 --> 01:01:45.470 - go in the room first. Does anybody in the room wish to comment on this? 01:01:50.210 --> 01:01:58.611 - State your name. Jenny Sutherland. This house engenders less passion from the neighborhood. Still a 01:01:58.611 --> 01:02:07.349 - really nice house. As the other one, it also has an occupancy rate of 10 or possibly a little bit more. 01:02:07.349 --> 01:02:15.918 - It's still a waste, but it's not quite at the level that the other house is. However, the house, just 01:02:15.918 --> 01:02:17.598 - to the right of it, 01:02:18.082 --> 01:02:24.244 - is actually a very spectacular house. It's directly on the parking lot of Mother Bears. I'm sure you've 01:02:24.244 --> 01:02:30.168 - noticed it if you've ever parked at Mother Bears. It was beautiful. So we would like to request, if 01:02:30.168 --> 01:02:36.093 - you're going to do a deep dive into possibly reclassifying the one on Atwater to actually also look 01:02:36.093 --> 01:02:42.136 - at this whole little block face and have somebody look at that, you know, this block face and the one 01:02:42.136 --> 01:02:43.262 - across the street, 01:02:43.554 --> 01:02:50.314 - to see if they have been underestimated simply because they're close to the heights and are the really, 01:02:50.314 --> 01:02:57.074 - really spectacular ones on First Street. We're not requesting anything other than that, other than just 01:02:57.074 --> 01:03:03.575 - have somebody look at it, the other houses. We'd like to see this one. You're gonna move one house, 01:03:03.575 --> 01:03:10.075 - it'd be nice if you moved them both, because I'm sure you'd get a good price if you're gonna hire a 01:03:10.075 --> 01:03:12.350 - company to do it, to do them both. 01:03:12.802 --> 01:03:19.408 - But we're really the most interested in the solid brick one facing first street that's a little bit 01:03:19.408 --> 01:03:26.146 - older and much, much more high quality. OK. Thank you. Are there any other comments in the room? I'll 01:03:26.146 --> 01:03:32.950 - speak again, too. OK. Can you state your name? Marcia Barron. So I agree that this house is not nearly 01:03:32.950 --> 01:03:35.262 - as spectacular, but it's not ugly. 01:03:35.362 --> 01:03:41.676 - It is a lot nicer than most of the new buildings that go up. It has more character. And if you look 01:03:41.676 --> 01:03:48.116 - at the, not even just that block, but that street, Eagleston is a neighborhood. And it's in danger of 01:03:48.116 --> 01:03:54.620 - quitting being a neighborhood if it gets chopped up with a bunch of things on there. And I think that, 01:03:54.620 --> 01:04:01.502 - again, if it were falling down, maybe we'll hear that there really are big problems with it so that it isn't 01:04:01.666 --> 01:04:09.355 - sustainable as an ongoing rental. But if it is sustainable as an ongoing rental, it seems to me, though 01:04:09.355 --> 01:04:16.749 - I realize this is not exactly your job to rule on this, but there's something funny about the whole 01:04:16.749 --> 01:04:22.590 - process if the only way to keep a house is to declare it to have this historic 01:04:22.978 --> 01:04:29.981 - or aesthetic architectural significance. So it seems to me we should be able to weigh the value of whatever 01:04:29.981 --> 01:04:36.984 - is going to be put in its place against the value of keeping it here, not only regarding that one building, 01:04:36.984 --> 01:04:43.728 - but also the stretch of homes. If you live up that street and you walk up it, you will see a real house 01:04:43.728 --> 01:04:50.731 - here. And it's a house that houses a bunch of people who can afford it. So I think these are very important 01:04:50.731 --> 01:04:52.222 - factors, and it's also 01:04:52.482 --> 01:05:00.083 - You know, not nothing in terms of its beauty. It's not bad. It just isn't anything as spectacular, 01:05:00.083 --> 01:05:07.453 - as we said, as the one around the corner. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments in the room? 01:05:07.453 --> 01:05:15.284 - All right. Are there any public comments online? There are none. There are none. OK. Just a reminder, 01:05:15.284 --> 01:05:22.270 - again, we are looking at historical and architectural significance for this in particular. 01:05:22.594 --> 01:05:30.739 - We'll start off with Vice Chair Baker. Do you have any questions? The same questions as the other house. 01:05:30.739 --> 01:05:38.962 - Why would one want to take the house down? It appears to be, and I would ask the question, what condition 01:05:38.962 --> 01:05:47.263 - it is in according to, and I'll ask this of the owner. What is the condition of the house in your opinion? 01:05:47.263 --> 01:05:50.366 - Well, both of these houses have not had 01:05:51.266 --> 01:06:01.256 - major updates or upgrades inside. My parents bought these houses in the seventies. Um, we've been renting 01:06:01.256 --> 01:06:11.057 - them as a family business since then. At this point, they're becoming hard to rent with our model where 01:06:11.057 --> 01:06:20.670 - we rent furnished rooms just because of all the other new stuff in town, to be quite honest with you. 01:06:21.346 --> 01:06:30.649 - That's why I'm just exploring options here. If we took these two lots and the other lot on Jordan, 01:06:30.649 --> 01:06:40.328 - I'm sorry, not on Jordan, but on Atwater next to ours there, I don't remember the exact address of it. 01:06:40.328 --> 01:06:49.724 - If one person owned all three lots, I'm just trying to determine what could possibly be done there. 01:06:49.724 --> 01:06:51.134 - OK. Thank you. 01:06:52.226 --> 01:07:00.924 - Mr. Schlegel, questions? I have the same questions. Mr. Baker? OK. Mr. Butler? No questions. Mr. Golden? 01:07:00.924 --> 01:07:09.870 - No questions. Commissioner Hanson? No questions. Mr. Duffy? I have two questions. First, to the petitioner, 01:07:09.870 --> 01:07:18.567 - I'd just like a little clarification on your answer to Mr. Baker. You said three lots. So you're talking 01:07:18.567 --> 01:07:20.638 - about the Atwater House. 01:07:21.986 --> 01:07:33.513 - and this house, and then the house to the north? Yes, if a given person owned all three of those properties, 01:07:33.513 --> 01:07:44.088 - what could go in here? I believe the third property is a non-contributing house located to the west 01:07:44.088 --> 01:07:45.886 - of 1331 Atwater. 01:07:47.010 --> 01:07:54.106 - Oh, that's yeah. He's talking about on that one. That's right. Two houses on that water and one on. 01:07:54.106 --> 01:08:01.201 - Yeah, that's something that we had discussed because it was not contributing. I obviously there was 01:08:01.201 --> 01:08:08.510 - no demo delay involved. OK, I can't remember that house. I didn't pay attention to it at the time. OK, 01:08:08.510 --> 01:08:15.606 - so that's my first question. My second question is, what's the siding on the upper story? I believe 01:08:15.606 --> 01:08:16.670 - it's aluminum. 01:08:17.154 --> 01:08:27.204 - Do you know what's underneath? I do not. It's, we haven't, we have not done anything to it. Exteriorly. 01:08:27.204 --> 01:08:37.254 - Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Duesner. Any questions? I think they've already been asked. Okay. I don't 01:08:37.254 --> 01:08:45.758 - have any questions. Um, all right. I will entertain a motion on demolition delay. 2604. 01:08:58.594 --> 01:09:10.604 - These are my words that we put this to our next meeting with additional research as we discussed on 01:09:10.604 --> 01:09:22.974 - the previous ED. Delay here and ask staff to look into this further to see what options we might have. 01:09:23.426 --> 01:09:31.817 - Okay, so Commissioner Baker has moved to recommend staff do additional research on this house and continuing 01:09:31.817 --> 01:09:39.361 - it into the next meeting. Second. Is there a second? All right, Commissioner Golden has seconded. 01:09:39.361 --> 01:09:47.367 - All right, Commissioner Baker, you made the motion. Just the comments. Condition, I think it was a very 01:09:47.367 --> 01:09:51.678 - good question, asking what's under the aluminum siding. 01:09:52.770 --> 01:10:00.340 - The room signing was big, late 40s, into the 50s and 60s for easy covering. There might be something 01:10:00.340 --> 01:10:07.836 - under there was beginning to deteriorate. I'd like to know something about that if we can find out. 01:10:07.836 --> 01:10:15.481 - And that's it. I'd just like to see if there's anything, any alternative we have other than releasing 01:10:15.481 --> 01:10:22.302 - this for demolition. OK. Commissioner Golden. Yeah, I agree with what Commissioner Jackson 01:10:24.866 --> 01:10:32.692 - These properties are zoned at MM. That's mixed use medium scale. So that could be office. It could be 01:10:32.692 --> 01:10:40.440 - retail. It could be mixed use. It could be anything. So the potential for change in these properties 01:10:40.440 --> 01:10:48.343 - is great. All right. Commissioner Schlegel. No, I agree with what's been said. I think giving a little 01:10:48.343 --> 01:10:53.790 - more time to do some research would be a good thing. Treasurer Butler. 01:10:54.722 --> 01:11:01.150 - I agree with what everybody's already said. I think this house is going to be, I'll just leave it at 01:11:01.150 --> 01:11:07.897 - that. I agree with what everybody said. Commissioner Hanson. Yeah, I think that was an astute observation 01:11:07.897 --> 01:11:14.325 - that there could be other potential for these houses. And it seems like the petitioner is interested 01:11:14.325 --> 01:11:20.944 - in exploring this possibility. So I think having time to do some research and recoup next meeting would 01:11:20.944 --> 01:11:24.254 - be a good idea. Commissioner Duffy. I think for me, 01:11:24.450 --> 01:11:36.906 - The context of this house right next to the other one, and as one of the members of the public mentioned, 01:11:36.906 --> 01:11:49.244 - there's another, the house to the north of it. I can't ignore that. So I don't know quite how it factors 01:11:49.244 --> 01:11:50.654 - in to this. 01:11:51.714 --> 01:12:02.942 - But I would like to see the research. I'd like to know what's under that siting. And to see if there's 01:12:02.942 --> 01:12:12.862 - a possible notable designation for this, too. OK. Commissioner Duesner. I agree. OK. Yeah. 01:12:13.378 --> 01:12:21.845 - north of this I believe is it's notable or outstanding and then the one obviously to the south for me 01:12:21.845 --> 01:12:30.229 - this house does not measure up to those other two but I'd be interested to see what more information 01:12:30.229 --> 01:12:34.878 - we might have on this I do want to clarify something by 01:12:35.234 --> 01:12:41.788 - asking our staff to do this. It is, the motion that is made is technically a formal review for historic 01:12:41.788 --> 01:12:48.343 - designation. And that means that Mr. Sanweiss is doing some additional research, but it would in effect 01:12:48.343 --> 01:12:54.708 - start the possibility of us designating it. So I just want to make sure everybody's on the same page 01:12:54.708 --> 01:13:01.073 - with that and make sure that they're okay with it. It doesn't mean that we will. It just means we're 01:13:01.073 --> 01:13:04.350 - starting down that road. And to be clear, we're not 01:13:04.450 --> 01:13:11.570 - We're correct We are looking Yes, we and we are asking no, I wanted a little clarification whether it 01:13:11.570 --> 01:13:18.551 - was Continuing or starting the research process. It's started. Yeah, because we can't just continue 01:13:18.551 --> 01:13:25.601 - these we have Release formal review for start designation or forward to council directly. So this is 01:13:25.601 --> 01:13:29.022 - pretty things. So we're doing that middle one. I 01:13:30.274 --> 01:13:37.741 - I just want to make sure we're all clear on that. Thank you for that explanation. Appreciate it. OK. 01:13:37.741 --> 01:13:45.207 - Any other comments since I just kind of dumped all that information on you? From the public as well? 01:13:45.207 --> 01:13:52.748 - No. We already had the public comment. I think it's deserving. And I think the community would expect 01:13:52.748 --> 01:13:58.366 - us to really have our ducks in a row before we make a decision on this. OK. 01:13:58.530 --> 01:14:06.606 - Any other secondary comments? Vice Chair Baker. When Commissioner Duffy said context, that rang a bell 01:14:06.606 --> 01:14:14.760 - with me. I think that's very important in that area to maintain the context, at least on the south east 01:14:14.760 --> 01:14:22.679 - corner of that block. I've walked past these houses for many, many, many years and admired them each 01:14:22.679 --> 01:14:23.934 - time I went by. 01:14:24.322 --> 01:14:32.116 - They're well maintained, and the lawns are well maintained, as opposed to across the alley. The commercial 01:14:32.116 --> 01:14:39.618 - is a whole break, but the context here is a wonderful context. I'd hate to see it disappear. Any other 01:14:39.618 --> 01:14:46.392 - second comments? I think for me, especially, well, not on this one, the one before, I guess, 01:14:46.392 --> 01:14:50.398 - the east facing, the fenestration on that's fantastic. 01:14:50.882 --> 01:14:58.133 - It'd be interesting to see what is underneath that siding too, just if we can get some information on 01:14:58.133 --> 01:15:05.314 - that. All right. That brings us to the vote. Would staff call the roll, please? Certainly. There's a 01:15:05.314 --> 01:15:12.565 - motion that's been seconded to continue this DD2604 for formal review for historic designation. We'll 01:15:12.565 --> 01:15:19.390 - take a roll call vote. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? Yes. 01:15:19.522 --> 01:15:26.759 - Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Haggard? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner 01:15:26.759 --> 01:15:33.337 - Schlegel? Yes. That motion to continue passes 8-0. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you to the 01:15:33.337 --> 01:15:39.390 - petitioner and the public for coming in to speak on this. Appreciate that. Next up, we have 01:15:39.874 --> 01:15:47.116 - Oh, so sorry. Vice Chair Baker needs to read language I should know that because I used to do that. 01:15:47.116 --> 01:15:54.430 - Please go ahead. I'm reading the formal review for historic designation today regarding the property 01:15:54.430 --> 01:15:57.182 - located at 326 South Eagleson Avenue. 01:15:57.282 --> 01:16:04.091 - The Historic Preservation Commission, HPC, declares that it got notice of proposed demolition slash 01:16:04.091 --> 01:16:11.173 - partial demolition and requests that staff prepare a formal report on the property and put the property 01:16:11.173 --> 01:16:18.118 - on the HPC calendar, I'm sorry, HPC agenda to be officially considered for local historic designation 01:16:18.118 --> 01:16:23.838 - under BMC 8.08.01D. All right. Thank you, Vice Chair Baker and for interrupting me. 01:16:24.354 --> 01:16:33.392 - All right, so next up, we have old business. This is resolution to amend rules and procedures, Mr. Sandweiss. 01:16:33.392 --> 01:16:41.691 - Okay, I trust you all read both documents. You all know what is being voted on and what changes have 01:16:41.691 --> 01:16:49.415 - been proposed to our rules and procedures. Okay. Is that your report? Okay. That's, well. No, 01:16:49.415 --> 01:16:52.702 - that's okay. I have a resolution. Okay. 01:16:52.930 --> 01:17:00.405 - And of course if people have any questions they want to ask we can delve into that I have a question 01:17:00.405 --> 01:17:08.325 - for our attorney does mr. Sandweiss need to read out the resolution To is I'm also working on some changes 01:17:08.325 --> 01:17:16.318 - so we can either take yours up and do them now or we could do the whole thing after we've gone through that 01:17:16.994 --> 01:17:23.335 - the continuation, whether we're going to deny with prejudice or without prejudice and kind of look at 01:17:23.335 --> 01:17:29.614 - that whole thing about the 30-day clock. Could you maybe expand on that a little bit? Yes, we talked 01:17:29.614 --> 01:17:35.831 - about this at the last meeting that we wanted to have a mechanism by which we could toll the 30-day 01:17:35.831 --> 01:17:42.110 - clock if a petitioner doesn't show up rather than letting time just elapse and it automatically gets 01:17:42.594 --> 01:17:49.454 - approved and so I've been looking into that. I found it in way more places in the code and our rules 01:17:49.454 --> 01:17:56.247 - than I thought it exists. So that's a little confusing and not very consistent use of the language. 01:17:56.247 --> 01:18:03.175 - So it's gonna take me a minute to go back and try and get it all corrected and also figure out how to 01:18:03.175 --> 01:18:10.307 - be really clear with our definitions because we've been using the term continuation and we've been doing 01:18:10.307 --> 01:18:11.326 - it without the 01:18:11.458 --> 01:18:17.519 - the agreement of the petitioner because the petitioner is absent. But it says specifically that it has 01:18:17.519 --> 01:18:22.462 - to be with the agreement of the petitioner. It says that in our own rules, not just 01:18:22.658 --> 01:18:28.076 - Somewhere else, that's a good practice. So we haven't really been maintaining our own rules in terms 01:18:28.076 --> 01:18:33.441 - of how we've been handling that. So I just wanted to kind of give it a second. I asked her tonight. 01:18:33.441 --> 01:18:39.073 - Yes, you did. No, that was great. And it's on the record now that she agreed. But I think that's exactly 01:18:39.073 --> 01:18:44.599 - what we have to do. Because if anybody says, oh, you should award it to me, we could say, no, we asked 01:18:44.599 --> 01:18:49.534 - and we've got it on the record that you agreed to this continuation, which tolls the clock. 01:18:49.858 --> 01:18:55.753 - So, and I also want to look at what other cities do, because everybody's under the same state law. And 01:18:55.753 --> 01:19:01.591 - I'm sure that other historic preservation commissions have times when petitioners don't show up. They 01:19:01.591 --> 01:19:07.544 - may not have it in their rules, though, that the petitioner has to be present. That is something that's 01:19:07.544 --> 01:19:13.325 - unique that we do that puts us in this position where it's like we say they have to be there, we say 01:19:13.325 --> 01:19:15.614 - we'll bump it to the end of the agenda. 01:19:15.714 --> 01:19:22.868 - And then we say if they don't show up, we continue it. But yet then later it says a continuation must 01:19:22.868 --> 01:19:30.372 - be with the permission or the agreement of the petitioner. So we kind of need to figure out how to resolve 01:19:30.372 --> 01:19:37.455 - those things. I'm going to call on myself for a question. Could we not edit the rules and procedures 01:19:37.455 --> 01:19:45.310 - to eliminate the petitioner having to be here? We can. And I need to look and make sure that's not in the code. 01:19:45.570 --> 01:19:52.962 - But if that is only just a administrative practice that you all have put into rules and procedure, you 01:19:52.962 --> 01:20:00.139 - definitely could decide to remove that. I think you really, I think we need to think about that and 01:20:00.139 --> 01:20:07.962 - consider what that means because I think that it's really important for a petitioner to have the opportunity 01:20:07.962 --> 01:20:11.550 - to speak and to not just get denied to, you know, 01:20:12.354 --> 01:20:18.994 - just because we didn't even ask them to come. So I think we need to kind of think about what that looks 01:20:18.994 --> 01:20:25.699 - like if we're going to remove that. Do you have a question? I was just going to say and then I was going 01:20:25.699 --> 01:20:32.275 - to ask. There really is no difference right now in our rules and procedures or in the law about denial 01:20:32.275 --> 01:20:38.852 - with or without prejudice or somebody coming back with a petition after it's been turned down. I guess 01:20:38.852 --> 01:20:41.214 - my question to follow up on that is, 01:20:41.986 --> 01:20:49.704 - sort of a corollary to the petitioner generally having to be present, as it says in our rules and procedures, 01:20:49.704 --> 01:20:57.281 - is that a staff report would be withheld if the petitioner tells staff that they would like the application 01:20:57.281 --> 01:21:04.578 - to be reviewed, but that they are not going to be present. I was wondering whether there could possibly 01:21:04.578 --> 01:21:11.454 - be any sort of legal underpinning to that, because I haven't seen anything about that in the law. 01:21:12.066 --> 01:21:17.961 - And I'm not sure if there's any sort of past case where that could have been an issue. I don't see it 01:21:17.961 --> 01:21:23.856 - being a conflict of interest, but I don't know. I don't know the answer to that, but we can look into 01:21:23.856 --> 01:21:30.040 - that. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of different ways that we can do this. But I think we definitely 01:21:30.040 --> 01:21:33.854 - want people to be heard. We want to give them probably, you know, 01:21:34.434 --> 01:21:40.045 - opportunity to come back with the same application I think that's where the definitions come in because 01:21:40.045 --> 01:21:45.601 - we haven't distinguished between any kind of different denials so a denial with prejudice would be hey 01:21:45.601 --> 01:21:51.266 - we looked at your application we absolutely don't approve this on the merits denied with prejudice don't 01:21:51.266 --> 01:21:56.715 - bring this thing back right a denial without prejudice would be you didn't show up we we have to end 01:21:56.715 --> 01:21:57.470 - the clock and 01:21:57.570 --> 01:22:03.179 - But you can bring that same exact application back. You just resubmit it to NOAA and get back on the 01:22:03.179 --> 01:22:08.732 - agenda. And then a continuation like we did tonight is we're going to automatically put you back on 01:22:08.732 --> 01:22:14.285 - the agenda. You don't need to refile or anything like that because you agreed to 12 o'clock and put 01:22:14.285 --> 01:22:19.894 - it on the next agenda. So I think we need to be really clear about that. We probably need to message 01:22:19.894 --> 01:22:25.503 - it a lot on our page and in our documents. But as we move to sort of accessibility and we're redoing 01:22:25.503 --> 01:22:26.558 - everything anyway, 01:22:26.786 --> 01:22:32.551 - It kind of has we kind of have that opportunity to sort of retool how we handle some of this because 01:22:32.551 --> 01:22:38.431 - it's going to have a different visual. It's going to be different in terms of how people interact with 01:22:38.431 --> 01:22:44.538 - the website. So I think I'm hoping that will make people kind of pay attention and read it read it through 01:22:44.538 --> 01:22:50.304 - again since it will be sort of a different model. So I guess question for the commissioners is do we 01:22:50.304 --> 01:22:51.902 - want to vote on the current 01:22:52.482 --> 01:22:58.765 - additions now and then do another vote on something later, or do we want to hold off and do everything 01:22:58.765 --> 01:23:05.170 - at once? I don't think I have an opinion one way or the other. I'm just curious to see what people might 01:23:05.170 --> 01:23:11.575 - want to do. There's a question out for everybody. What would be easiest for the process to move forward? 01:23:11.575 --> 01:23:17.858 - I don't know how long this will take. I don't want this to take a long time. Well, I imagine you don't 01:23:17.858 --> 01:23:18.590 - want it to. 01:23:18.690 --> 01:23:24.692 - I'm hoping that it won't take probably but like another meeting. Are we on a timeline? No. These are 01:23:24.692 --> 01:23:30.695 - our own rules and procedures. No, this does include stuff. These new rules and procedures do include 01:23:30.695 --> 01:23:36.875 - things that were already voted in by the commission when you voted to approve amendments made by common 01:23:36.875 --> 01:23:43.175 - council to basically all board and commission processes. So what you see here is not yet online anywhere, 01:23:43.175 --> 01:23:48.286 - even though it includes language that has subsequently been approved and added to our 01:23:48.706 --> 01:23:57.353 - rules and procedures. I'm not a voting member. Obviously, my opinion is it would be nice to be able 01:23:57.353 --> 01:24:06.346 - to have something more current up so that we can show that the commission is abiding by these new Title 01:24:06.346 --> 01:24:14.302 - II changes. I think that's fine. I guess maybe I don't understand what I'm looking at then. 01:24:14.658 --> 01:24:21.331 - So why don't you and I work on that? You guys already have voted, right? The Title II changes that were 01:24:21.331 --> 01:24:27.939 - just- That's what I thought. Yes. Yeah, we did that. Yeah, we did that. So then let's update that. And 01:24:27.939 --> 01:24:34.419 - then are these the only other pending changes that are related to the denial in the 30-day? This was 01:24:34.419 --> 01:24:38.718 - the secondary stuff where it's clarifying putting active voice in. 01:24:39.042 --> 01:24:45.712 - and staff is doing this and that sort of stuff. And we're only accepting complete applications. I think 01:24:45.712 --> 01:24:52.511 - that can all be bundled. If you've already taken action on the ones that the council did, I think that's, 01:24:52.511 --> 01:24:58.989 - let's go ahead and get that updated and we'll figure out how to. Okay, I don't want to drag this out 01:24:58.989 --> 01:25:05.531 - longer than it needs to. My thinking is all things being equal, if people have no problem with what's 01:25:05.531 --> 01:25:06.878 - being proposed here, 01:25:07.298 --> 01:25:13.919 - to vote on that so that we can include some of these, which I think are either, a lot of these changes 01:25:13.919 --> 01:25:20.346 - are either common sense or things that we are already doing. I think we should vote on that so that 01:25:20.346 --> 01:25:27.160 - we don't have to make two or three more subsequent amendments to the rules and procedures that are hosted 01:25:27.160 --> 01:25:33.651 - on our website this year. And then we can come back once Anna and I have worked out a procedure for. 01:25:33.651 --> 01:25:36.094 - The language. Yeah, the language for. 01:25:36.290 --> 01:25:47.445 - Petitioners not showing and then add that as an amendment. So well, I mean Does anybody have any questions? 01:25:47.445 --> 01:25:58.083 - They're really small. It's Probably something we already voted on. I don't even remember But the first 01:25:58.083 --> 01:26:05.726 - one is under article 4 under meanings oh Which had to do with appointing? 01:26:06.370 --> 01:26:19.894 - Vacancies? And I wonder, given what just happened, where an appointment was sort of made but not accepted, 01:26:19.894 --> 01:26:31.774 - I mean, do we need to add something about that the previous person can continue to come until 01:26:32.642 --> 01:26:40.518 - is confirmed, or the appointment is finished, or what? There's a holdover provision in state law, and 01:26:40.518 --> 01:26:48.393 - it's limited to 90 days. So if a person is in a position and no one has been appointed, then they can 01:26:48.393 --> 01:26:56.269 - stay for 90 days. But I see your point, which was someone else was appointed for that position, which 01:26:56.269 --> 01:27:00.670 - means it's technically not vacant, so the holdover ends. 01:27:00.898 --> 01:27:08.541 - right with the appointment of the next person. And I'm not sure if their subsequent rejection of the 01:27:08.541 --> 01:27:16.184 - appointment means that the other person can come back. Do you see what I mean? Is that what you were 01:27:16.184 --> 01:27:22.238 - asking? I wasn't intending to come back, but just that the language seems to... 01:27:23.714 --> 01:27:29.823 - I just wondered if it needed to be a little more specific. I think we took it out. I think that was 01:27:29.823 --> 01:27:36.115 - one of the changes that we made, wasn't it, that we removed L, because that actually is already in our 01:27:36.115 --> 01:27:42.468 - code. It's not something that is a power of the commission. It's a power of the mayors offering to make 01:27:42.468 --> 01:27:49.005 - that appointment. So that's a clarification. And I've also been confused about the 90 days before, because 01:27:49.005 --> 01:27:51.998 - I'd heard that, but it wasn't in the language of 01:27:54.018 --> 01:28:00.966 - what we, you know, of our draft, so. It is in the boards and commissions general code language and it's 01:28:00.966 --> 01:28:07.780 - in state law. Okay. So if it's a position that is held because you're a member of a party. Right. And 01:28:07.780 --> 01:28:14.461 - it's a mayoral appointment and the mayor doesn't make an appointment within 90 days, then the chair 01:28:14.461 --> 01:28:21.342 - of the county party can make an appointment. If it's a position that's held just as a general citizen, 01:28:21.506 --> 01:28:27.322 - and it's not made within 90 days, the person can hold over for that 90 days, but upon the 90th day, 01:28:27.322 --> 01:28:33.195 - then it's deemed to just be vacant. Shouldn't that be specified in our statement too? I don't think, 01:28:33.195 --> 01:28:39.301 - I think then we're repeating it a third time. I always worry if it's already in state law and it's clear 01:28:39.301 --> 01:28:45.350 - and it's already in our code, then saying it again sometimes when one of those changes, it just creates 01:28:45.350 --> 01:28:49.246 - inconsistencies if we already know that there's a source for that. 01:28:50.914 --> 01:29:02.274 - The other question I had was in article four of COAs, and this is really a small thing, but point E, 01:29:02.274 --> 01:29:13.971 - and I think this is one H, that these are the things that staff can review. And the paint color, almost 01:29:13.971 --> 01:29:20.382 - everybody's guidelines, including my neighborhood's say, 01:29:20.674 --> 01:29:28.946 - There's no review necessary. So yeah, state law allows each certified local government to decide whether 01:29:28.946 --> 01:29:36.904 - or not they want paint color to be something that's reviewed. And then further, our local law leaves 01:29:36.904 --> 01:29:44.782 - it up to individual districts. So there still are one or two districts that make reference to paint 01:29:44.782 --> 01:29:48.958 - color. In Bloomington? Yeah. Oh, I didn't know that. 01:29:49.154 --> 01:29:57.053 - Fairview and courthouse lawyer. Okay, okay, okay. So this does not mean that everybody else. No, this 01:29:57.053 --> 01:30:05.184 - isn't a gotcha moment for everybody's been making their choices. Yeah, that's it. I didn't think anybody 01:30:05.184 --> 01:30:12.928 - in Bloomington asked for that. Okay, that's it. Any other questions? This is on the agenda, so I'll 01:30:12.928 --> 01:30:17.342 - entertain a motion. So let's see what people want to do. 01:30:18.370 --> 01:30:24.582 - to approve the resolution. All right. Commissioner Golden has moved to approve the resolution. Is there 01:30:24.582 --> 01:30:30.735 - a second? I'll second that. All right. Treasurer Butler has seconded. Commissioner Golden, any further 01:30:30.735 --> 01:30:36.947 - comments? No further discussion. All right. Second that. Any other comments by anybody? No? OK. I think 01:30:36.947 --> 01:30:42.921 - we're ready for a vote then. Great. And so it's been moved and seconded to accept the resolution in 01:30:42.921 --> 01:30:47.998 - front of the commission today. We'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Baker? Yes. 01:30:49.442 --> 01:30:58.093 - Chair Treasurer Butler. I almost got promoted. Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? 01:30:58.093 --> 01:31:07.295 - Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hackert? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? 01:31:07.295 --> 01:31:16.222 - Yes. Excuse me. This amendment resolution is accepted 8-0. Awesome. Thank you very much. Lovely. 01:31:16.802 --> 01:31:24.563 - New business, is there any new business? I just had a few pieces of news I wanted to share. One is that 01:31:24.563 --> 01:31:32.100 - we have a couple of upcoming events. So end of the month, April 30th, from 630 to 8 PM, I'm going to 01:31:32.100 --> 01:31:39.489 - be partnering with Electrify Indiana as well as Bloomington Department of Economic and Sustainable 01:31:39.489 --> 01:31:44.190 - Development to host a air sealing and weatherization workshop. 01:31:45.122 --> 01:31:51.556 - There's also going to be a zoom component to this, which has been shared at least, um, on the department 01:31:51.556 --> 01:31:57.867 - of housing and neighborhood developments, Facebook page, as well as the historic Bloomington Instagram 01:31:57.867 --> 01:32:03.933 - page. So that's going to include instructions for weatherization of existing buildings, including, 01:32:03.933 --> 01:32:10.121 - you know, weather stripping windows, insulating addicts. And I'm told there's going to be snacks and 01:32:10.121 --> 01:32:13.246 - a little bit of a hands-on component, uh, further. 01:32:14.082 --> 01:32:20.731 - Later on, I haven't made an announcement about this yet. Um, there's going to be a historic rehabilitation 01:32:20.731 --> 01:32:27.008 - tax credit presentation. So that's going to include both, um, income producing properties, which are 01:32:27.008 --> 01:32:33.284 - the national tax credit and then the state tax credit, which is owner occupied properties. Uh, we're 01:32:33.284 --> 01:32:39.685 - going to be having the tax credit, um, reviewer from the Indiana DNR coming down to give a talk at the 01:32:39.685 --> 01:32:40.990 - library on May 20th. 01:32:41.954 --> 01:32:48.811 - So your property-owning friends, let them know about that. Further, this came as a little Easter surprise 01:32:48.811 --> 01:32:55.279 - to me. I found out this Monday that the Monroe County GIS Division has taken up a recommendation to 01:32:55.279 --> 01:33:02.136 - add a local historic district overlay to the county GIS site that then also adds the historic designation 01:33:02.136 --> 01:33:08.669 - status of properties to their property report cards. So that's something we've been asking for for a 01:33:08.669 --> 01:33:11.774 - while. And I think this is really going to help 01:33:12.354 --> 01:33:20.056 - Property owners avoid any sort of errors when it comes to not knowing whether they're in a district. 01:33:20.056 --> 01:33:27.072 - Great. Thanks, Donna. All right. Next up, Commissioner Comments. Anybody have any comments? 01:33:27.072 --> 01:33:35.460 - I have a comment. We've alluded to it a little bit. Though appointed, Kerry Champion declined the appointment 01:33:35.460 --> 01:33:40.798 - to join the HPC. So I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that. 01:33:40.930 --> 01:33:48.525 - And then the Common Council voted to remove Drew Herron from the commission. He was one of the advisory 01:33:48.525 --> 01:33:56.193 - members. He hadn't been showing up and hadn't been responding to communications, just trying to be like, 01:33:56.193 --> 01:34:03.496 - hey, what's going on? So they have officially removed him. So those are two updates in terms of the 01:34:03.496 --> 01:34:10.142 - composition of our commission. Public comments in the room. Sure. OK, you're good. Online. 01:34:10.530 --> 01:34:19.840 - Any online public comments? All right. Well, that brings us to the end of our agenda. So this meeting 01:34:19.840 --> 01:34:21.118 - is adjourned.