- Hey, there we go. All right, I'm going to call the April 9, 2026 meeting of the Bloomington Historic
- Preservation Commission to order. Would staff please call the roll? Commissioner Baker? Yes. Commissioner
- Butler? Present. Commissioner Castaneda? Commissioner Duesner? Commissioner Duffy? Commissioner Golden?
- Here. Chair Hackard? Here. Commissioner Hanson? Here.
- Commissioner Schlegel? Here. We have quorum. Excellent. Next up on the agenda, we have approval of the
- minutes. Is there a motion on the minutes? Our motion we approve the minutes. Commissioner Schlegel
- has a motion to approve the minutes. Is there a second? I'll second that. Commissioner Butler has seconded.
- Any discussion? All right. It's been moved and approved to accept the minutes from March 26. We'll do
- a roll call vote.
- Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Commissioner Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? Not here. Commissioner Golden?
- Yes. Chair Hackard? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. Minutes are approved 6-0.
- All right. Next up, we have certificates of appropriateness followed by demolition delays. There's no
- staff review this meeting, so we're going to go in directly to the ones for the commissioners. So for
- each item on the agenda, the historic preservation program manager will first present a staff report.
- We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional information about the request, followed by a
- public comment time. Once public comment concludes, commissioners will be able to ask questions to staff,
- the petitioner, and the public.
- We ask that petitioners the public and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed by the chair
- unless a question is directly addressed to them. Following commissioner questions the chair will entertain
- a motion from a commissioner regarding the petition. Once a motion is made we will then open up a discussion
- of the item for members of the commission only. Finally once the commissioners have each had a chance
- to speak the commission will vote on the petition. We encourage all
- commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at all times. I almost
- made it through without stumbling. Right at the end. All right. Mr. Stanweiss, would you take it away?
- All right. I'll try and make it through this without stumbling. First up and only COA of the evening
- is COA application 2621 for 1101 North Lincoln Street in the Garden Hill Historic District. Petitioner
- is Sherry Hillenburg.
- The current building at the site is a non-contributing 1948 minimal ranch. There's a mistake on this
- page, unfortunately. I'm sorry about that. But to fill you in, this application is for new construction
- on the site of this
- 1948 minimal ranch, which as you can see is now rated non-contributing because of substantial exterior
- changes and not demonstrating a lot of particular architectural notability in the first place. The proposal
- is to demolish the existing structure and build a new
- multifamily building with three attached townhomes. This application has been revised a couple of times
- since I first received it. So two of the entrances would be facing east toward Lincoln Street, and one
- of the proposed entrances would be facing south toward, I believe, 14th Street? 15th Street.
- Um, Each town home will have a separate entry, uh, facing a porch. Um, as you can see, there's a South
- porch and an East porch. Um, this design has been revised to meet, uh, UDO guidelines, um, for the zoning
- area, uh, which would require, um,
- Amongst other things, I believe, and David can maybe correct me, not more than two entrances on one
- side of the building and that the porches proportionally match those of neighboring buildings. There
- are several trees on this property. A large old silver maple tree in the front south yard is to remain
- if possible.
- Trees on the north side of the property would be removed and new landscaping may be required. Utility
- services will be underground. As you can see, the building proposed will be one and a half floors above
- grade with the basement level being completely below grade. The preference in the initial designs that
- were submitted last year are for a two and a half story building.
- This design has been revised to a two story building with a second story dormer to sort of achieve a
- one and a half story visual effect. There's currently a parking space at the north side of the lot which
- is to remain in place. Exterior materials proposed include
- Party plank siding, aluminum gutters and downspouts, asphalt jingle roof, vinyl clad windows with a
- couple of possible variations proposed, fiberglass entry doors, and then poured concrete for the porch footer.
- So the recommendation of staff is approval of COA 2621. First consideration that we have to take into
- account is going to be the demolition of the existing building. To permit demolition in a historic district,
- a certain criteria need to be met. In this case, the building proposed for demolition is listed
- as non-contributing and possesses little architectural significance and has had extensive
- external material changes. In 2025, the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission approved in a similar
- case the demolition of an existing non-contributing building and the construction of a new multi-unit
- property in the Garden Hill Historic District after a series of several redesigns. As in the prior case,
- this design has been revised following input from city staff and comments from district residents, though
- I've since received
- further comments which did not make it into this packet. The height of the proposed building at 22 feet
- and the footprint at 2,028 square feet respectively are similar in scale to other buildings found nearby.
- Located on a corner lot this house would face the address street and has a similar directional orientation
- as the current structure as well as some of the nearby ranch houses. While the building's fenestration
- does not take cues from any of the
- any particular historic style found in the neighborhood. The spacing, proportion, and direction of windows
- and doors are similar to those found throughout the neighborhood. Likewise, the inclusion of a front
- porch, or after these revisions, two front porches, incorporates one of the more common building features
- on historic buildings in the district. The side gabled roof with a full length front facing dormer
- serves to incorporate an additional story while bringing down the building's overall height. In order
- to fit UDO requirements, as I mentioned, for three-unit residential properties, an additional side porch
- has been added to the plan facing 15th Street. And the front porch has been amended to near full width.
- Now, as I mentioned, I received further comments from Neighborhood Design Review Committee, expressing
- their wish that more effort be made to
- take reference from other historic buildings in the district. At this point, is there anything that
- the petitioner would like to add? Just that we added the porch wall. Planning asked us to add a porch
- wall. Some of the homes that are nearby and decided some have walls, some don't.
- kind of drew a couple of options there, one on the 15th Street side originally. We were thinking masonry,
- perhaps brick or limestone. But then when they came back and said, we have to put this porch across
- the front, we had a porch. This one was just much larger. So we really would like permission maybe to
- use the hearty plank across the front of that. I mean, we're open to whatever the commission wants,
- obviously.
- So when I initially met with the neighbors, and it's been over a year ago, one of the things they had
- asked for was they asked for the building to look like one house. So they wanted like maybe a front
- door. And so I had a drawing where the front door came in off the 15th. And then the other two units
- were sort of to the side, you couldn't see it from the porch.
- planning said that did not meet UDO requirements. So that's why we had to move an entrance to the 15th
- Street side and then we had to flip the door on the front. So, you know, as part of this process in
- redoing this building, I went around the neighborhood, neighboring properties close by, you know, I
- measured the height of them, trying not to exceed that. We looked at the overall footprint and how much of the
- lot was actually covered with structures. And we provided a paper to you that shows percentages. The
- one adjustment to that is this building, with the addition of the porches, it's closer to the 30% mark.
- And it was a wide range of percentages. But what we did look at, too, as Noah said, was the overall
- square footage of the building, which is really in line with several of the properties there.
- It seems that they started with an original house, and they batted on, and they batted on,
- and they batted on. So we felt like this building, while it didn't give the neighborhood everything
- they asked for, it was what we had to work with to be within the UDO. So the starting half, originally
- our original building was much larger. We were going to have five bedrooms, five bedrooms, five bedrooms.
- We are now, the north and the south units would be five. The middle one would be four. And so I guess
- maybe that's it. Unless you have questions for me. I mean, he covered it pretty well. But we understand.
- We understand it's always controversial when you want to tear something down and do development. But
- just for informational purposes,
- We would like you to know that we're not an out of town company. We're a small family owned business
- that's in the Neuron County. And we wanna be good neighbors, we wanna be good stewards of the property.
- The house actually had been sitting empty ever since we purchased it. We currently have someone living
- there, not a paying tenant, but there's someone living in the house. But it's been sitting vacant.
- Because it's just, it's a small two bedroom that needs a lot of work inside. We considered leaving the
- foundation, trying to build on whatever, and we just don't think that is doable. It would require more
- work than just really just taking it out. So with that said, I'm happy to answer any questions. We just
- ask for your support. Okay, thank you very much.
- Um, are there any members of the public who would wish to speak on the certificate of appropriateness?
- Uh, yeah. Phil Worthington, Tarek Slough from Garden Hill. Sherry, how many kids? Um, 19? Um, 14. Five
- and a five and a four. 14 in three units. And that's what's only... I think I'm kind of hamstringing.
- You've got re-zoned education. I'm here to talk about roofs and windows and things like that.
- In my opinion, the density is just way, way too much. But I don't think you're here for that.
- We were making great gains back in 2014 when we became a historic district and then the city in 2020
- ups on this under the Hamilton District.
- I'm someone to take on even more. That story is not talked about here. It's a real tragedy. It has been
- my feeling when I've come to these meetings every time. HPC has done a pretty good job, though, I think,
- in improving projects, for sure. I very much appreciate it.
- or to carry if she has any things. I was thinking it would look better with the windows longer. Like
- horizontal? Or vertical? Vertical. Vertical. OK. With trim and the porch close to be covered, it's kind
- of hard to tell from the drawing, but I want to avoid
- uh, porch posts that are bare wood that are, uh, commonly found today in new projects. Okay. Just hold
- on, let her finish. Ma'am, do you have anything else you want to add to that? Uh, just that the window
- should be trimmed out a little bit, narrow trim on it. Okay. All right. We'll see if any commissioners
- have any follow-up comments on that.
- All right, now we'll go to commissioner questions. Commissioner Duffy, do you have any questions? Maybe
- this is a question for Mr. Sanvice. We did review a previous plan, right? I mean, it didn't just come
- to you. We saw it, I think. I'm trying to think. There was one that was sort of the appearance of two
- sort of differently masked townhomes that were attached, two or three.
- I'm trying to remember now and I could check my notes If that is one that maybe you will remember this
- miss Hillenburg if you withdrew that before I read your comments And so we continued it a couple times
- trying to get something together and eventually just So it was never heard, but you probably didn't
- see the first time
- So, so the real commissioners will remember. Yeah, I definitely remember driving by I recognize the
- other neighborhoods. Okay, that's my only question. Mr. Hanson any questions. Yeah, so we've talked
- a lot about the placement of the windows of the doors and things, I guess I didn't catch with the materials
- of this new.
- building would be and if it would match the cohesion of the neighborhood? This is probably a best question
- for Mr. Sanwise. Do you feel like visually it will fit in? By and large, the materials that are proposed
- certainly is a question about the porch walls. I guess for a lot of the buildings in the district that
- have porches, particularly the historic ones, it would be a masonry wall.
- either limestone or brick. So we need some clarification on that. Otherwise, the materials that are
- proposed are materials that are considered acceptable or preferred in the district guidelines. I answered
- my question. Thank you. Commissioner Golden. No questions. Commissioner Butler. I noticed that there
- was a mention of a silver maple that would be kept on some sort of contingency.
- I just feel like there's probably really no mechanism that, I mean, anybody could say, yeah, we're going
- to keep the silver maple and then get rid of it. So I was just, my question is, is that even before
- us, is there any sort of mechanism that would, I mean, we're not into trees, right? So. There are some
- districts that explicitly include trees. I think that's one of the rare items where there really is
- discretion district to district.
- And it's not, I believe, included in Garden Hill. OK. All right, that answered my question. Commissioner
- Schlegel? Or no, I have a question for you as well. Did you say that there were comments that were submitted?
- I was getting used to the new style of this, so I thought maybe I missed those. You did miss them. I
- received them by email after the packet went out. OK. So I mean, just to reiterate.
- The comment that I received from the Neighborhood Design Review Committee was, and you can correct me
- if I'm wrong, sorry, was more or less they wanted the building to make a greater attempt to reference
- other historic buildings in the district. Was that more or less the comment I received? Yeah, I only
- saw the smaller image, the one that you sent me. It wasn't quite as detailed. And I believe this is,
- I'm sorry, I'm sort of playing telephone here.
- The one that I had sent you was the one that Ms. Hellenberg had sent me before the discussion with David
- that led to these revisions that added the built out porches. So that one had sort of an indented porch.
- So that plan is still in the packet, which anybody can
- get to downloading the agenda. So if you want to check it for cross-reference, I don't have it in the
- presentation because we're not considering it right now. But it'll give you a little more background
- at least. OK. I just want to make sure. I heard that comment before. I just thought there was another
- one somewhere in the packet. Yeah. I thought I missed that. Thank you. Vice Chair Baker. I was about
- to ask the same question if the neighborhood had been
- submitted anything that was specific that could guide us in how to make this more consistent with the
- neighborhood. I think there are deficiencies here that make it stand out as an apartment house that
- does not look like it fits in the neighborhood as much as it should. I don't know that I can articulate
- what it's going to take to do that.
- It looks bare bones to me still. We've already mentioned that the posts on the porch are not covered.
- Normally in neighborhood homes that I've seen, they're clad. Is this a question? True. Why aren't they?
- And I'm asking what can be done. I'm asking other commissioners as well what could be done to make this more
- of a neighborhood looking building. Another question I have is on that rear side, what is that going
- to face? It must be another house down the block, I'm guessing. So if this was a neighborhood home,
- there would be windows on that side, but I believe they would be more
- like the windows on the other parts of the house. In other words, the sizing and number. This looks
- like an apartment house from the back and I'm wondering what could possibly be done to make that part
- of the house more neighborhood friendly. So those are my questions on it. Are they addressed to someone?
- I would address the
- Question of neighborhood specifics back to the neighborhood and would like to see those specifics before
- I really made any kind of a vote came up on this. I just don't think far enough along, but I would address
- it back to the neighborhood there and I would address the rear of the house back to the client, the
- petitioner, and ask what could be done there to make that look more like the neighborhood.
- All right, well, let's start off with the neighborhood one first. Do you have any response
- to what Commissioner Baker said in terms of his pressure? I think Jack articulated a lot better than
- I could, but I think my original email to Noah was saying the same thing. It's like you're going for
- the largest density possible, the highest rate of return,
- This is something we've been fighting in the neighborhood before. We were a neighborhood association,
- then conservation district, and then historic district, and it goes on and on and on. Forgot to say,
- why us? Always, always. Yeah, I wish the client
- I don't mean any disrespect, make their money a little bit slower. If you were a pet, fewer bedrooms,
- it's always go for the gusto. But when you're doing this, you're doing it at the expense of others who
- have to live with it. And the people who build these don't. And they are, it needs to be stated, they're
- 24 hour day lodging businesses in someone else's neighborhood.
- higher you go with density levels, more and more problems. We've known this for decades. And we publicly
- recognize these problems, decades. And we've limited density level in neighborhoods now. We're upping
- the density levels under the glorious auspices of compact urban form, residential infill,
- I like that one, it's not even a word. And then Hamilton comes along, the up-zoning for economic, social,
- and racial equality. Come on. You get me started on this. It looks a lot like that. But what Jack said.
- Yeah, so, okay.
- turn to the petitioner now if you would be able to address Commissioner Baker. Going back over to the
- petitioner now. If you'd like to address any of the questions that Commissioner Baker just asked in
- terms of the windows. Let me start by saying that the porch that you're seeing there, it was drawn at
- the midnight hour because
- after speaking with planning. So I mean literally at the midnight hour. So we didn't have a chance really
- to put the things in the packet about what we would do. We would never leave bare wood post on the porch.
- So those poles will be covered with whatever material to make them look more compatible to what's in
- the neighborhood. But they will be covered.
- The materials for the wall of the porch, as I said, we show masonry on the 15th Street side. We showed
- the hardy plank. We're not opposed to doing brick or limestone. We're not opposed to that. But we showed
- both because we didn't know if the hardy plank. In the neighborhood, some of the porches are limestone.
- The ones that are closer to this building, the one immediately to the west of it, has no wall.
- And the one west of that has what looks like plywood that's been cut and painted. So we didn't know
- if we could use the hardy plank. We're not opposed to masonry if that's what's required. We can do that.
- As for the windows being longer, I don't see any reason why we can't make the windows longer. That's
- just what the original drawing was showing. I believe the plan that we had submitted
- over a year ago with Drew, the petition, we had sort of a division on the backside of the three units.
- The problem we encounter is that we can't use any vertical siding, at least that's not allowed in the
- standards, because there's no vertical siding around it. If we could use vertical, we could make it
- look better than just one building in the back. We can certainly make the windows bigger,
- But I don't know exactly how we would change that back structure, the back of that building. I mean,
- I'm open to suggestions, but sort of being able to use something in a vertical manner to divide it,
- it's more difficult to do. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. For me, my question, when you were looking at
- This is for the petitioner, sorry. When you were looking at designing this, you said you were looking
- through the neighborhood at different houses and things like that. So what certain things were you trying
- to, I guess, match when you were designing? Well, we were trying to match roof height. We were trying
- to make sure that we were cognizant of roof lines, dormers. There's lots of dormers in the neighborhood.
- So trying to be cognizant of that.
- I was looking at the density of the property. And part of the thing that's in that neighborhood, if
- you look at it, even if you look at the GIS overview, is that the original house has been there. It's
- been added onto multiple times, and you may have a narrow structure, and then one sets up to the side,
- and then one's a little wider. So they're not really
- one continuous building, like if you were constructing it, you would make it more uniform. But you can
- tell that they've sort of been piece milled over the years, a lot of them. Follow up to that, when you
- were looking at the buildings, were you looking at the ones that were listed as historic? Or were you
- also looking at just the non-contributing? I went down the block front, because that's what we were
- instructed to do. So I went down 15th Street, the block front. I went Lincoln Street.
- of Lincoln and then across Lincoln River. So I did not go through and see what's contributing,
- what is not. I just simply looked what's beside us because the animals across the street from us. Now,
- obviously, Terra Trace is across the street. And then there's some other apartment building right across
- the street. So you can't really look at that necessarily.
- And I walked down through there looking at the houses. If I stood at the corner, I looked at what I
- could see from the alleyway, because the north end of that house is on an alley. So I looked to see
- what I could see on the alleyway. And I could see two story houses there. I could see three bedroom
- townhomes over on 16th Street. So I was just trying to compare that and come up with something that
- would fit. OK, thank you.
- All right that brings us to the end of the commissioner questions that brings us to Entertaining emotion
- does anyone have emotion on this coa? The demolition of the existing building would be included in this yes
- Let's get started. I move to approve. OK. Commissioner Golden has moved to approve COA 2621. Is there
- a second? We'll second so we can have a conversation. OK. Commissioner Schlegel has seconded. We'll
- turn to Commissioner Golden, since he made the motion. Do you have any comments you would like to add?
- I spent a lot of time in this area, and there are some historic houses, and there are a lot of houses
- that look like this.
- city has, as was said earlier, density is allowed, it's legal, and that's what I would expect someone
- to do with this kind of property with that kind of zoning. All right. Commissioner Schlegel, do you
- have anything you'd like to add to that? Yeah, I'm trying to formulate my... I fully agree with what
- Commissioner Poulton said, and I've been
- playing around on the map just to get a better feel for the neighborhood as you were describing it,
- ma'am. I think the petitioners definitely listened to other comments, gotten feedback, and I think that's
- a great sign for someone to reach out and do that. My only hesitation personally is just some of the
- details are
- willing to be improved. I'll phrase it that way, so I'm not against things. It's just since we don't
- have the final details, I don't know what our timeline is. If we can just give the petitioner more time
- to be able to update those details for us, or if we need to continue. Well, it can be moved to continued
- if the petitioner approves. OK. So that's also an option. OK. Just like the posts or the windows, I
- just want to see what it would look like with the new
- details added is the one thing I would want to see. But I think it's a good idea, like Commissioner
- Gordon said, just to see the rest of the details work is all I would like. OK. Vice Chair Baker, do
- you have any comments? Only to say that I think it needs more work. OK. I agree that it mostly fits.
- But in terms of fitting to the neighborhood,
- more work could bring that closer to a better neighborhood fit. Commissioner Butler. I appreciate what
- Commissioner Golden and Schlegel and Baker have said, and I agree with much of what they've said. And
- I don't have a problem with the removal of this building. I don't think that that is necessarily
- My reservations will lie along the lines of how it matches the neighborhood and the fabric
- of the neighborhood. And I think that just making those windows a little bit longer on the back would
- go a really long way towards making it look less sort of boxy and apartment-y. I know that's not the
- emotion that we have before us right now.
- And I really appreciate how much you've been willing to listen to the neighborhood and how much you've
- already altered your plans. I think that's a very positive thing. And so I feel like this could be even
- better with some minor alterations. But in general, I support the flavor of the building. I just think
- it could be better. Okay. Commissioner Hanson.
- Yeah, I echo a lot of those sentiments. My concern, I understand the neighborhood's concerned about
- density, but per the zoning and the nearby buildings, it doesn't seem like it would stick out necessarily
- in that way. But if we could get it to fit the character of the neighborhood more with changes to that
- porch wall being masonry or brick and extending the length of those windows, I do feel like that could
- go a long way. And like Commissioner Butler said, I do appreciate what the petitioner has done so far
- to work with the neighborhood.
- It seems like the petitioner is open to making those tweaks. So yeah, if we were to entertain another
- motion of approval with making those changes, I would be interested in that. Commissioner Duffy. I'm
- in agreement with this idea, too. I definitely remember how much taller this building at first was.
- And I can assure those of you who didn't see it.
- This is a big improvement. It's a big difference. And I was really happy to see it scaled down when
- I read the packet. But I must say, I think the fact it would be more graceful, it would be more attractive
- to the residents to make more just all around neighbors
- of course, and the residents too, if they could be longer, which, and I agree with the comments about
- the porch too, so just small, smallish changes I would suggest. As for me, I support the demolition.
- This house, as it currently stands, has no architectural or historical significance, so I see
- no reason to oppose that. For the redesign, I don't think I'm on board with it yet. I think the scale
- of the building, lengthwise, where you see the front elevation, where it looks more like a, kind of
- a Craspen-y house is way too wide. And then the, I feel like the left elevation you see is you're almost
- trying to look on like a California bungalow, but it's like too tall. So it's a weird merging of a couple of
- that is not quite clicking in my brain at the moment. But, you know, I don't want to, I would be happy
- to see improvements on this going forward and see what we might be able to do. So that's my view. Okay,
- does anybody want to make a second round of comments?
- Yes. Vice Chair Baker. As in all cases that come to us, this one is devoid of detail. It's a sketch.
- It's a home sketch. Sometimes those are fine, but in a case like this where we're talking about trim,
- window details and such, we really need something more like a rendering. I don't mean an architectural drawing,
- rendering of some sort that has much more detail that's been presented because all we can judge on is
- what we see. And if we can't see that detail we have to infer it or ask the questions but it certainly
- helps us when we have a lot of detail. We've said this before but I just get it out there on the record
- that in all cases we really need to see.
- Well, and having it in writing. I'll take that as my second comment. Making it have it down where we
- can say, yes, this is the thing you said it's going to be. This is what we agree to. It just helps us
- make sure that we have the right information in front of us. So that would be my second comment. Anybody
- else have any other second comments? All right. Hearing none, I think we're ready for the vote. Staff
- would call the roll, please.
- COA 2621? Commissioner Baker or Vice Chair Baker? No. Treasurer Butler? No. Commissioner Duffy? No.
- Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker? No. Commissioner Hanson? No. Commissioner Schlegel? No. That
- motion does not pass.
- with a vote of one to six. All right, it fails one to six. Is there another motion? I would move that
- we take this to our next meeting. Attention upon the details that we've talked about this evening. Columns,
- windows, detailing of the drawings.
- And I hope that it comes back to us with much more detail, and we can actually, I think, get a better
- handle on whether to approve. OK, well, that was it. I have a point of order. I did not ask Commissioner
- Duesner for their vote. Oh, I'm abstaining. I didn't want to make that assumption. Excuse me.
- You go ahead. OK, so Commissioner Baker has moved to continue this to the next meeting. Is there a second?
- Okay, so Commissioner Schlegel has seconded before I go into anything else. Does the petitioner, would
- you be willing to continue this to another meeting to further discuss the design? Yes. You will? Okay,
- thank you very much. All right, Commissioner, no, we have to vote, sorry. Yep, so there's a motion on
- the floor to continue COA 2621 to the next meeting of the Instruction Preservation Commission. We'll
- take a roll call vote on that.
- Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy?
- Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes.
- That motion to continue is approved 8-0. Okay, thank you very much everyone for your comments and questions.
- Thank you to the petitioner. Thank you very much. We will work with you on this and see if we can make
- it more agreeable to the commissioners and the neighborhood. And I do really appreciate you working
- with us through this to see if we can come to a good resolution. Thank you. All right.
- Next up on the agenda, we have demolition delays. First up is a demolition delay, 2603. Mr. Sandwight
- has a report. All right, our first demo delay for the evening is... I'm sorry, this is not COA,
- this is DD. 2603. Is the petitioner present? It looks like he's online. Yes. Okay. Yes, I'm here. Okay.
- This is 1331 Atwater Avenue, petitioners Alan Sin. 1331 East Atwater is a 1938 two-story brick colonial
- revival house with a pedimented portico supported by four Doric columns. Other features include a line
- of dentals beneath the cornice and arched gable windows. This house was first owned by Gladys and Joseph
- Black, Sr.
- co-founders of Black Lumber Company. Common misconception is Black Lumber Company, not Black's Lumber
- Company. Born to a Kentucky farmer, Joseph moved with his family to Sullivan, Indiana in 1907, where
- he and several of his siblings found employment in a lumber yard. After moving to Bloomington in 1928,
- Joseph went into business with Roy Metzger, founding what was at the time called the Metzger Black Lumber Company.
- The blacks moved out in 1955, selling the house to grocer Woody Stogsdale, co-owner of a family grocery
- in what is today Blooming Foods East Building. I'm sorry, Blooming Foods West. Blooming Foods West.
- From 1960 to 1963, the house was the residence of Carter Fairchild, a teacher training educator at Indiana
- University School of Education. Since Fairchild left, the house has been rented on a yearly basis.
- Recommendation from staff is release of demo delay 2603. Does the petitioner have any comments that
- they want to add? No, not at this time. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Public comment, we
- have up to three minutes to make a comment on this. Does anybody wish to comment on this? Yes. Please
- state your name if you wish and go ahead. OK. I'm Jenny Southern, live in the Elm Heights neighborhood.
- And I just want to say in general,
- comments on our list have been horrified because it's a really gorgeous house in very, very good condition.
- I've seen pictures of the inside. It's gorgeous. It's not ramshackle in any way. The occupancy rate
- is very, very high. It's over 10, I believe. And it's actually one of the most affordable places I know
- of to live close to campus. It's $500 per bedroom.
- And they have always rented it per bedroom that I know of. They were doing that when I was in college.
- So I'll give you an idea how long that's been going on. But it's been maintained beautifully. I know
- less about the house around the corner, which backs onto this one. They go like this, they tee. We're
- uncertain what the plan is for this. Usually when they say, oh, we're going to tear something down,
- They have at least a sketch of a plan. I contacted planning. Planning has not been approached. And then
- a general question from Mr. Sin about what's allowed there. So there's no drawings, nothing. So I don't
- see a rush on getting this torn down because there's not really a plan. There's also several appropriate
- places owned by IU and also by private owners along Atwater that it could actually be moved instead of just
- carrying it down, it just seems like a horrible, horrible waste. And they are close by, within three
- blocks of this place. They're farther to the, the ones not owned by IU, the lots are farther to the
- east, if you go, continue where it becomes, that little two-way park before you dance it into the Catholic
- church. There are several, there are quite a few empty lots, actually, along that stretch.
- So if you guys cannot save this, we would like to see it moved. Even if it was donated to VRI or somebody
- to move it, I'm sure they could make money on it. Like I said, it is a gorgeous house in good shape.
- So that was a comment. And it also faces our historic district. It's directly across the street from
- our historic district. We don't mind that it's a rooming house. We think it's a good transition to a
- higher density, which is the campus.
- only a block from campus so that's all the time and other than we just kind of break in our heart to
- see it go. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other public comments in the room? Yes. Yes I don't want
- to repeat everything Jenny said I'll just say though that I know nothing about the feasibility of moving
- a house I think that the environmental
- cost of destroying a house like this and putting up something else is something that we should factor
- in. I think that the affordability is a huge issue and I've been very puzzled to see the frequent, well
- it seems like, destruction
- of an affordable house and then putting up something that turns out to be less affordable.
- This is contributing very significantly to the aesthetics of the area. It's a house you drive by or
- walk by often. It is a very, very nice house. I think you would need to have a significant community
- need to trump the loss if you were to argue that this needs to be
- torn down, I need to hear this is the only place for a school or something like that. It should not
- be torn down simply to put up, say, something that might make somebody more money, or I don't know what
- it would be, but I'd be a huge loss to tear it down. Thank you. And your name, please. Oh, Marsha Baron,
- and I live in the Elm Heights area as well. Thank you. Any other comments in the room? Seeing none,
- are there any comments online?
- brings us into public comment. We go to commissioner questions now. I just want to remind everybody
- we can consider the architectural and historical significance of this property when we're deciding whether
- to waive the demolition delay or not. Vice Chair Baker, do you have any questions? I don't know how
- to ask it. I can come back to you. I'll try.
- 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
- going to happen in its place, but why would one take such a building down? It is, we've talked before,
- this is not a notable building. It probably should have been, perhaps. Could it be, come a notable building?
- And if so, could it be saved under that circumstance?
- Otherwise, what alternatives do we have? I'm putting it out to other commissioners. I don't know, but
- I think it's a travesty to see something in this good of condition out for demolition.
- All right. Commissioner Schlegel, any questions? I'll just echo what Commissioner Jack said. Commissioner
- Jack, I like that one. Commissioner Butler.
- If we were to try to see about moving this house, if that were something that would be feasible, how
- are we involved with that process? I know BRI is right, technically the people who would probably be
- approached about moving it, but then what would be our motion or direction in that process? Noah, can
- you help me with that?
- Commission can always make suggestions to the property owners to look into this and possibly report
- back But you know this being a demolition delay The Commission doesn't really have any Say over what
- the action of the property owner is besides whether you know to release demolition delay or to move
- to nominate or designate a
- or ask for further research. Right, ask for further research or continuance. Commissioner Golden.
- Commissioner Hanson. Yeah, I just echo Commissioner Baker's question. I would love to know, maybe hear
- a little bit from the applicant of why they would be interested in demolishing this building. Does it
- have any faults? Is it in poor condition that we're unaware of? I would love more clarity on that. Does
- the petitioner have an answer?
- kind of a fact-finding mission just to see what we can and cannot do with this property and the adjacent
- properties at this point in time. I don't have a current plan for it. All right. Thank you. Commissioner
- Duffy. I have a question again for Mr. Sanchez. Is it the case that this is a non- I mean, a contributing
- house? It's rated as contributing.
- Spoke with the state survey coordinator about it. Comparing this in particular to, if you remember,
- at our last meeting, there was another colonial revital house, same era, brick, in greater Prospect
- Hill, or was it McDowell? One of those two stacked on top of each other.
- Her opinion is that this was probably surveyed as contributing and the other as notable because of its
- location and because Elmheight is so full, Elmheight, sorry, is so full of buildings with real outstanding
- architectural character that are rated as notable or outstanding. In some cases, that argument can be
- made if a building is really sort of out of place, like if you see, say, really stunning, contextually stunning,
- I don't know, let's say Pueblo Revival House in Indiana or something where you really don't expect it
- to be. Well, there's a story there. Whether this being located a mile away from a similar house in a
- different neighborhood warrants a lower survey rating for this one, I don't really think so. I think
- it may have been surveyed by somebody different who was just overwhelmed with
- the quality of the houses in Elm Heights and maybe give this different survey rating. That's my hunch,
- though. The survey coordinator did say that she would like to see more research into this to make that
- distinction. And I would definitely want to confer with her before changing my assessment of the rating.
- So it is possible to get it re-rated
- This is what I think is possible. Architectural and also historical because of the fact that it was
- built by a black company owner. And my understanding has always been, I know of one other house that
- one of the owners built in a different part of town and was told that those people built those houses
- in part as advertisements.
- for their business and, you know, you too can have a beautiful house if you'll only come to Black Lumber.
- So I would like to see that possibility explored too, along with as part of, I guess that's a comment
- I'll say for that. Commissioner Duesner. Commissioner Duffy has already
- raised the questions I had. I was wondering especially about significance of the family and the history
- there as a possible angle for preservation. But I'm also heartened to hear maybe there's some possibility
- of reclassification. I don't know what that is like. But two things for sure I would like to hear more
- research into before anything happens here. Thank you. Let's see. Questions from me.
- I think we kind of answered some of the questions that I already had. So good question. Do we have a
- motion on this demolition delay? I'd like to make a motion to delay the demolition delay. To refer to
- staff for further research? Yes.
- So Commissioner Butler motions to continue the demolition delay. Okay, continue that delay. So staff
- can conduct further research on this regarding its... Rating and the feasibility or moving it, perhaps.
- Mostly the rating. And history. Yes, and also as well, the family cultural history. So we have a motion
- for staff to...
- conduct further research on the history and the rating and the feasibility of moving in if that's an
- option. Yes. Does that sound right? Is there a second? I'll second. All right. Commissioner Duffy has
- a second. Commissioner Butler, you made the motion so you can start off comments. Well, I think,
- you know, anytime we're talking about demolition, of course, that's sort of the final thing, right?
- You're not going to get it back. So you don't want to get it wrong. The house is very well built. I
- think that that
- has to come into consideration. It's almost 100 years old. And also, I'm going to consider that. It's
- not historic district. It's not in a conservation district. So I understand that it might be one that
- 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
- all the options possible. And so that's why I made that motion.
- Commissioner Duffy, do you have any other comments? That's very well said, Commissioner Butler. I agree
- with what he had to say. Okay. Vice Chair Baker? I'm in agreement with what's been said. Commissioner
- Schlegel? You know, when I saw this one come up, it kind of gave me heartburn, you know, just looking
- at the basics and then reading through. So I'm glad to hear I wasn't the only one that wanted to see
- what else was possible. Great. Commissioner Golden?
- It would be a crime to lose this house. And demolition delay is a high bar. It's a long process. And
- I'm not sure that the results would be any different. But I support further research. OK. Commissioner
- Hanson? Yeah, and I echo what's been said. I'd love to see more research. Commissioner Duesdorf? Same.
- Okay, yes, I fully agree. I think we need some more research on this. I'm just gonna say this out loud
- for Vice Chair Baker. I think you would need to read the formal review for historic designation if it
- passes. Any other comments? All right, I think we're ready for a vote. There's a motion on the floor
- to continue demolition delay 2603 to allow staff to conduct further research.
- We'll go ahead and take a roll call vote. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner
- Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Excuse me. Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes. Commissioner
- Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. The motion to continue is approved 7-0. 8-0. My apologies.
- reading the formal review for historic designation. Today regarding the property located at 1331 East
- Atwater Avenue in Wilmington, Indiana, the Historic Preservation Commission, HPC, declares that it got
- Donaceff proposed.
- a demolition, partial demolition, and request the staff to prepare a formal report on the property and
- put the property on the HPC agenda to be officially considered for local historic designation under
- BMC 8.08.01, parenthesis D. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Next up, we have demolition delay 2604.
- This is located at 326 South Eagleson Avenue, same petitioner. 326 South Eagleson is a two-story 1940s
- colonial revival house with a flat-roofed portico on square columns. The first floor is brick, and the
- second story is clad and clabbered with a slight garrison overhang. From the 1940s through 1964, the
- house was owned by Harold and Philip Pennington. Harold, a former showers furniture company carpenter,
- started his own business, Pennington Wood Products, after World War II. Harold retired in 1950 and moved
- to Indianapolis. From 1964 until 1975, 326 South Atwater was the second Bloomington home of Mary and
- David Randall, director of the Indiana University Lilly Library. Born to a Pennsylvania coal mining
- family, moved to New York with his wife Mary to pursue the rare book trade. After 20 years adding Scribner's
- rare book division,
- Randall was appointed to the directorship of the Lilly Library in 1955, a position that he held until
- his death in 1975. The staff recommendation is for the release of Demo Delay 2604. Thank you very much.
- Does the petitioner have any comments that they wish to add? No. No? All right. Public comment will
- go in the room first. Does anybody in the room wish to comment on this?
- State your name. Jenny Sutherland. This house engenders less passion from the neighborhood. Still a
- really nice house. As the other one, it also has an occupancy rate of 10 or possibly a little bit more.
- It's still a waste, but it's not quite at the level that the other house is. However, the house, just
- to the right of it,
- is actually a very spectacular house. It's directly on the parking lot of Mother Bears. I'm sure you've
- noticed it if you've ever parked at Mother Bears. It was beautiful. So we would like to request, if
- you're going to do a deep dive into possibly reclassifying the one on Atwater to actually also look
- at this whole little block face and have somebody look at that, you know, this block face and the one
- across the street,
- to see if they have been underestimated simply because they're close to the heights and are the really,
- really spectacular ones on First Street. We're not requesting anything other than that, other than just
- have somebody look at it, the other houses. We'd like to see this one. You're gonna move one house,
- 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
- company to do it, to do them both.
- But we're really the most interested in the solid brick one facing first street that's a little bit
- older and much, much more high quality. OK. Thank you. Are there any other comments in the room? I'll
- speak again, too. OK. Can you state your name? Marcia Barron. So I agree that this house is not nearly
- as spectacular, but it's not ugly.
- It is a lot nicer than most of the new buildings that go up. It has more character. And if you look
- at the, not even just that block, but that street, Eagleston is a neighborhood. And it's in danger of
- quitting being a neighborhood if it gets chopped up with a bunch of things on there. And I think that,
- again, if it were falling down, maybe we'll hear that there really are big problems with it so that it isn't
- sustainable as an ongoing rental. But if it is sustainable as an ongoing rental, it seems to me, though
- I realize this is not exactly your job to rule on this, but there's something funny about the whole
- process if the only way to keep a house is to declare it to have this historic
- or aesthetic architectural significance. So it seems to me we should be able to weigh the value of whatever
- is going to be put in its place against the value of keeping it here, not only regarding that one building,
- but also the stretch of homes. If you live up that street and you walk up it, you will see a real house
- here. And it's a house that houses a bunch of people who can afford it. So I think these are very important
- factors, and it's also
- You know, not nothing in terms of its beauty. It's not bad. It just isn't anything as spectacular,
- as we said, as the one around the corner. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments in the room?
- All right. Are there any public comments online? There are none. There are none. OK. Just a reminder,
- again, we are looking at historical and architectural significance for this in particular.
- We'll start off with Vice Chair Baker. Do you have any questions? The same questions as the other house.
- Why would one want to take the house down? It appears to be, and I would ask the question, what condition
- it is in according to, and I'll ask this of the owner. What is the condition of the house in your opinion?
- Well, both of these houses have not had
- major updates or upgrades inside. My parents bought these houses in the seventies. Um, we've been renting
- them as a family business since then. At this point, they're becoming hard to rent with our model where
- we rent furnished rooms just because of all the other new stuff in town, to be quite honest with you.
- That's why I'm just exploring options here. If we took these two lots and the other lot on Jordan,
- I'm sorry, not on Jordan, but on Atwater next to ours there, I don't remember the exact address of it.
- If one person owned all three lots, I'm just trying to determine what could possibly be done there.
- OK. Thank you.
- Mr. Schlegel, questions? I have the same questions. Mr. Baker? OK. Mr. Butler? No questions. Mr. Golden?
- No questions. Commissioner Hanson? No questions. Mr. Duffy? I have two questions. First, to the petitioner,
- I'd just like a little clarification on your answer to Mr. Baker. You said three lots. So you're talking
- about the Atwater House.
- and this house, and then the house to the north? Yes, if a given person owned all three of those properties,
- what could go in here? I believe the third property is a non-contributing house located to the west
- of 1331 Atwater.
- Oh, that's yeah. He's talking about on that one. That's right. Two houses on that water and one on.
- Yeah, that's something that we had discussed because it was not contributing. I obviously there was
- no demo delay involved. OK, I can't remember that house. I didn't pay attention to it at the time. OK,
- so that's my first question. My second question is, what's the siding on the upper story? I believe
- it's aluminum.
- Do you know what's underneath? I do not. It's, we haven't, we have not done anything to it. Exteriorly.
- Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Duesner. Any questions? I think they've already been asked. Okay. I don't
- have any questions. Um, all right. I will entertain a motion on demolition delay. 2604.
- These are my words that we put this to our next meeting with additional research as we discussed on
- the previous ED. Delay here and ask staff to look into this further to see what options we might have.
- Okay, so Commissioner Baker has moved to recommend staff do additional research on this house and continuing
- it into the next meeting. Second. Is there a second? All right, Commissioner Golden has seconded.
- All right, Commissioner Baker, you made the motion. Just the comments. Condition, I think it was a very
- good question, asking what's under the aluminum siding.
- The room signing was big, late 40s, into the 50s and 60s for easy covering. There might be something
- under there was beginning to deteriorate. I'd like to know something about that if we can find out.
- And that's it. I'd just like to see if there's anything, any alternative we have other than releasing
- this for demolition. OK. Commissioner Golden. Yeah, I agree with what Commissioner Jackson
- These properties are zoned at MM. That's mixed use medium scale. So that could be office. It could be
- retail. It could be mixed use. It could be anything. So the potential for change in these properties
- is great. All right. Commissioner Schlegel. No, I agree with what's been said. I think giving a little
- more time to do some research would be a good thing. Treasurer Butler.
- I agree with what everybody's already said. I think this house is going to be, I'll just leave it at
- that. I agree with what everybody said. Commissioner Hanson. Yeah, I think that was an astute observation
- that there could be other potential for these houses. And it seems like the petitioner is interested
- in exploring this possibility. So I think having time to do some research and recoup next meeting would
- be a good idea. Commissioner Duffy. I think for me,
- The context of this house right next to the other one, and as one of the members of the public mentioned,
- there's another, the house to the north of it. I can't ignore that. So I don't know quite how it factors
- in to this.
- But I would like to see the research. I'd like to know what's under that siting. And to see if there's
- a possible notable designation for this, too. OK. Commissioner Duesner. I agree. OK. Yeah.
- north of this I believe is it's notable or outstanding and then the one obviously to the south for me
- this house does not measure up to those other two but I'd be interested to see what more information
- we might have on this I do want to clarify something by
- asking our staff to do this. It is, the motion that is made is technically a formal review for historic
- designation. And that means that Mr. Sanweiss is doing some additional research, but it would in effect
- start the possibility of us designating it. So I just want to make sure everybody's on the same page
- with that and make sure that they're okay with it. It doesn't mean that we will. It just means we're
- starting down that road. And to be clear, we're not
- We're correct We are looking Yes, we and we are asking no, I wanted a little clarification whether it
- was Continuing or starting the research process. It's started. Yeah, because we can't just continue
- these we have Release formal review for start designation or forward to council directly. So this is
- pretty things. So we're doing that middle one. I
- I just want to make sure we're all clear on that. Thank you for that explanation. Appreciate it. OK.
- Any other comments since I just kind of dumped all that information on you? From the public as well?
- No. We already had the public comment. I think it's deserving. And I think the community would expect
- us to really have our ducks in a row before we make a decision on this. OK.
- Any other secondary comments? Vice Chair Baker. When Commissioner Duffy said context, that rang a bell
- with me. I think that's very important in that area to maintain the context, at least on the south east
- corner of that block. I've walked past these houses for many, many, many years and admired them each
- time I went by.
- They're well maintained, and the lawns are well maintained, as opposed to across the alley. The commercial
- is a whole break, but the context here is a wonderful context. I'd hate to see it disappear. Any other
- second comments? I think for me, especially, well, not on this one, the one before, I guess,
- the east facing, the fenestration on that's fantastic.
- It'd be interesting to see what is underneath that siding too, just if we can get some information on
- that. All right. That brings us to the vote. Would staff call the roll, please? Certainly. There's a
- motion that's been seconded to continue this DD2604 for formal review for historic designation. We'll
- take a roll call vote. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? Yes.
- Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Haggard? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner
- Schlegel? Yes. That motion to continue passes 8-0. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you to the
- petitioner and the public for coming in to speak on this. Appreciate that. Next up, we have
- Oh, so sorry. Vice Chair Baker needs to read language I should know that because I used to do that.
- Please go ahead. I'm reading the formal review for historic designation today regarding the property
- located at 326 South Eagleson Avenue.
- The Historic Preservation Commission, HPC, declares that it got notice of proposed demolition slash
- partial demolition and requests that staff prepare a formal report on the property and put the property
- on the HPC calendar, I'm sorry, HPC agenda to be officially considered for local historic designation
- under BMC 8.08.01D. All right. Thank you, Vice Chair Baker and for interrupting me.
- All right, so next up, we have old business. This is resolution to amend rules and procedures, Mr. Sandweiss.
- Okay, I trust you all read both documents. You all know what is being voted on and what changes have
- been proposed to our rules and procedures. Okay. Is that your report? Okay. That's, well. No,
- that's okay. I have a resolution. Okay.
- And of course if people have any questions they want to ask we can delve into that I have a question
- for our attorney does mr. Sandweiss need to read out the resolution To is I'm also working on some changes
- so we can either take yours up and do them now or we could do the whole thing after we've gone through that
- the continuation, whether we're going to deny with prejudice or without prejudice and kind of look at
- that whole thing about the 30-day clock. Could you maybe expand on that a little bit? Yes, we talked
- about this at the last meeting that we wanted to have a mechanism by which we could toll the 30-day
- clock if a petitioner doesn't show up rather than letting time just elapse and it automatically gets
- approved and so I've been looking into that. I found it in way more places in the code and our rules
- than I thought it exists. So that's a little confusing and not very consistent use of the language.
- So it's gonna take me a minute to go back and try and get it all corrected and also figure out how to
- be really clear with our definitions because we've been using the term continuation and we've been doing
- it without the
- the agreement of the petitioner because the petitioner is absent. But it says specifically that it has
- to be with the agreement of the petitioner. It says that in our own rules, not just
- Somewhere else, that's a good practice. So we haven't really been maintaining our own rules in terms
- of how we've been handling that. So I just wanted to kind of give it a second. I asked her tonight.
- Yes, you did. No, that was great. And it's on the record now that she agreed. But I think that's exactly
- what we have to do. Because if anybody says, oh, you should award it to me, we could say, no, we asked
- and we've got it on the record that you agreed to this continuation, which tolls the clock.
- So, and I also want to look at what other cities do, because everybody's under the same state law. And
- I'm sure that other historic preservation commissions have times when petitioners don't show up. They
- may not have it in their rules, though, that the petitioner has to be present. That is something that's
- unique that we do that puts us in this position where it's like we say they have to be there, we say
- we'll bump it to the end of the agenda.
- And then we say if they don't show up, we continue it. But yet then later it says a continuation must
- be with the permission or the agreement of the petitioner. So we kind of need to figure out how to resolve
- those things. I'm going to call on myself for a question. Could we not edit the rules and procedures
- to eliminate the petitioner having to be here? We can. And I need to look and make sure that's not in the code.
- But if that is only just a administrative practice that you all have put into rules and procedure, you
- definitely could decide to remove that. I think you really, I think we need to think about that and
- consider what that means because I think that it's really important for a petitioner to have the opportunity
- to speak and to not just get denied to, you know,
- just because we didn't even ask them to come. So I think we need to kind of think about what that looks
- like if we're going to remove that. Do you have a question? I was just going to say and then I was going
- to ask. There really is no difference right now in our rules and procedures or in the law about denial
- with or without prejudice or somebody coming back with a petition after it's been turned down. I guess
- my question to follow up on that is,
- sort of a corollary to the petitioner generally having to be present, as it says in our rules and procedures,
- is that a staff report would be withheld if the petitioner tells staff that they would like the application
- to be reviewed, but that they are not going to be present. I was wondering whether there could possibly
- be any sort of legal underpinning to that, because I haven't seen anything about that in the law.
- 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
- being a conflict of interest, but I don't know. I don't know the answer to that, but we can look into
- that. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of different ways that we can do this. But I think we definitely
- want people to be heard. We want to give them probably, you know,
- opportunity to come back with the same application I think that's where the definitions come in because
- we haven't distinguished between any kind of different denials so a denial with prejudice would be hey
- we looked at your application we absolutely don't approve this on the merits denied with prejudice don't
- bring this thing back right a denial without prejudice would be you didn't show up we we have to end
- the clock and
- But you can bring that same exact application back. You just resubmit it to NOAA and get back on the
- agenda. And then a continuation like we did tonight is we're going to automatically put you back on
- the agenda. You don't need to refile or anything like that because you agreed to 12 o'clock and put
- it on the next agenda. So I think we need to be really clear about that. We probably need to message
- it a lot on our page and in our documents. But as we move to sort of accessibility and we're redoing
- everything anyway,
- It kind of has we kind of have that opportunity to sort of retool how we handle some of this because
- it's going to have a different visual. It's going to be different in terms of how people interact with
- the website. So I think I'm hoping that will make people kind of pay attention and read it read it through
- again since it will be sort of a different model. So I guess question for the commissioners is do we
- want to vote on the current
- additions now and then do another vote on something later, or do we want to hold off and do everything
- at once? I don't think I have an opinion one way or the other. I'm just curious to see what people might
- want to do. There's a question out for everybody. What would be easiest for the process to move forward?
- 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
- want it to.
- I'm hoping that it won't take probably but like another meeting. Are we on a timeline? No. These are
- our own rules and procedures. No, this does include stuff. These new rules and procedures do include
- things that were already voted in by the commission when you voted to approve amendments made by common
- council to basically all board and commission processes. So what you see here is not yet online anywhere,
- even though it includes language that has subsequently been approved and added to our
- rules and procedures. I'm not a voting member. Obviously, my opinion is it would be nice to be able
- to have something more current up so that we can show that the commission is abiding by these new Title
- II changes. I think that's fine. I guess maybe I don't understand what I'm looking at then.
- So why don't you and I work on that? You guys already have voted, right? The Title II changes that were
- just- That's what I thought. Yes. Yeah, we did that. Yeah, we did that. So then let's update that. And
- then are these the only other pending changes that are related to the denial in the 30-day? This was
- the secondary stuff where it's clarifying putting active voice in.
- and staff is doing this and that sort of stuff. And we're only accepting complete applications. I think
- that can all be bundled. If you've already taken action on the ones that the council did, I think that's,
- let's go ahead and get that updated and we'll figure out how to. Okay, I don't want to drag this out
- longer than it needs to. My thinking is all things being equal, if people have no problem with what's
- being proposed here,
- to vote on that so that we can include some of these, which I think are either, a lot of these changes
- are either common sense or things that we are already doing. I think we should vote on that so that
- we don't have to make two or three more subsequent amendments to the rules and procedures that are hosted
- on our website this year. And then we can come back once Anna and I have worked out a procedure for.
- The language. Yeah, the language for.
- Petitioners not showing and then add that as an amendment. So well, I mean Does anybody have any questions?
- They're really small. It's Probably something we already voted on. I don't even remember But the first
- one is under article 4 under meanings oh Which had to do with appointing?
- Vacancies? And I wonder, given what just happened, where an appointment was sort of made but not accepted,
- I mean, do we need to add something about that the previous person can continue to come until
- is confirmed, or the appointment is finished, or what? There's a holdover provision in state law, and
- it's limited to 90 days. So if a person is in a position and no one has been appointed, then they can
- stay for 90 days. But I see your point, which was someone else was appointed for that position, which
- means it's technically not vacant, so the holdover ends.
- right with the appointment of the next person. And I'm not sure if their subsequent rejection of the
- appointment means that the other person can come back. Do you see what I mean? Is that what you were
- asking? I wasn't intending to come back, but just that the language seems to...
- I just wondered if it needed to be a little more specific. I think we took it out. I think that was
- one of the changes that we made, wasn't it, that we removed L, because that actually is already in our
- code. It's not something that is a power of the commission. It's a power of the mayors offering to make
- that appointment. So that's a clarification. And I've also been confused about the 90 days before, because
- I'd heard that, but it wasn't in the language of
- what we, you know, of our draft, so. It is in the boards and commissions general code language and it's
- in state law. Okay. So if it's a position that is held because you're a member of a party. Right. And
- it's a mayoral appointment and the mayor doesn't make an appointment within 90 days, then the chair
- of the county party can make an appointment. If it's a position that's held just as a general citizen,
- and it's not made within 90 days, the person can hold over for that 90 days, but upon the 90th day,
- then it's deemed to just be vacant. Shouldn't that be specified in our statement too? I don't think,
- I think then we're repeating it a third time. I always worry if it's already in state law and it's clear
- and it's already in our code, then saying it again sometimes when one of those changes, it just creates
- inconsistencies if we already know that there's a source for that.
- The other question I had was in article four of COAs, and this is really a small thing, but point E,
- and I think this is one H, that these are the things that staff can review. And the paint color, almost
- everybody's guidelines, including my neighborhood's say,
- There's no review necessary. So yeah, state law allows each certified local government to decide whether
- or not they want paint color to be something that's reviewed. And then further, our local law leaves
- it up to individual districts. So there still are one or two districts that make reference to paint
- color. In Bloomington? Yeah. Oh, I didn't know that.
- Fairview and courthouse lawyer. Okay, okay, okay. So this does not mean that everybody else. No, this
- isn't a gotcha moment for everybody's been making their choices. Yeah, that's it. I didn't think anybody
- in Bloomington asked for that. Okay, that's it. Any other questions? This is on the agenda, so I'll
- entertain a motion. So let's see what people want to do.
- to approve the resolution. All right. Commissioner Golden has moved to approve the resolution. Is there
- a second? I'll second that. All right. Treasurer Butler has seconded. Commissioner Golden, any further
- comments? No further discussion. All right. Second that. Any other comments by anybody? No? OK. I think
- we're ready for a vote then. Great. And so it's been moved and seconded to accept the resolution in
- front of the commission today. We'll take a roll call vote. Commissioner Baker? Yes.
- Chair Treasurer Butler. I almost got promoted. Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy?
- Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hackert? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel?
- Yes. Excuse me. This amendment resolution is accepted 8-0. Awesome. Thank you very much. Lovely.
- New business, is there any new business? I just had a few pieces of news I wanted to share. One is that
- we have a couple of upcoming events. So end of the month, April 30th, from 630 to 8 PM, I'm going to
- be partnering with Electrify Indiana as well as Bloomington Department of Economic and Sustainable
- Development to host a air sealing and weatherization workshop.
- There's also going to be a zoom component to this, which has been shared at least, um, on the department
- of housing and neighborhood developments, Facebook page, as well as the historic Bloomington Instagram
- page. So that's going to include instructions for weatherization of existing buildings, including,
- you know, weather stripping windows, insulating addicts. And I'm told there's going to be snacks and
- a little bit of a hands-on component, uh, further.
- Later on, I haven't made an announcement about this yet. Um, there's going to be a historic rehabilitation
- tax credit presentation. So that's going to include both, um, income producing properties, which are
- the national tax credit and then the state tax credit, which is owner occupied properties. Uh, we're
- going to be having the tax credit, um, reviewer from the Indiana DNR coming down to give a talk at the
- library on May 20th.
- So your property-owning friends, let them know about that. Further, this came as a little Easter surprise
- to me. I found out this Monday that the Monroe County GIS Division has taken up a recommendation to
- add a local historic district overlay to the county GIS site that then also adds the historic designation
- status of properties to their property report cards. So that's something we've been asking for for a
- while. And I think this is really going to help
- Property owners avoid any sort of errors when it comes to not knowing whether they're in a district.
- Great. Thanks, Donna. All right. Next up, Commissioner Comments. Anybody have any comments?
- I have a comment. We've alluded to it a little bit. Though appointed, Kerry Champion declined the appointment
- to join the HPC. So I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that.
- And then the Common Council voted to remove Drew Herron from the commission. He was one of the advisory
- members. He hadn't been showing up and hadn't been responding to communications, just trying to be like,
- hey, what's going on? So they have officially removed him. So those are two updates in terms of the
- composition of our commission. Public comments in the room. Sure. OK, you're good. Online.
- Any online public comments? All right. Well, that brings us to the end of our agenda. So this meeting
- is adjourned.