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.