- All right, it's 5 o'clock. I'm calling the Thursday, April 23rd meeting of the Bloomington Historic
- Preservation Commission to order. Would staff please call the roll. Jack Baker, Commissioner Baker.
- Excuse me, Vice Chair Baker. Treasurer Butler. Here. Commissioner Castaneda. Here. Commissioner Duesner.
- Commissioner Duffy. Here. Commissioner Golden. Yes, here.
- Chair Hackard? Here. Commissioner Hanson? Here. Commissioner Schlegel? Here. We have quorum. Excellent.
- Next up is approval of the minutes. Would anyone like to make a motion on the minutes? I'll make a motion
- to approve the minutes. All right. Treasurer Butler has moved to approve. Is there a second? I'll second.
- Commissioner Duffy has seconded. Any discussion? All right. Let's call the vote.
- OK. Motion to approve the minutes from April 9 has been moved. We'll take a roll call vote. Treasurer
- Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker?
- Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. The minutes are approved.
- Excellent. Next up, we have certificates of appropriateness for staff review. Mr. Sandweiss, please.
- So tonight we have two staff approved certificates of appropriateness. First one, COA 2622 for 2411
- North Barbara Drive in the Matlock Heights Historic District. Petitioner is Micah Heath. This petition
- is for the replacement of most of the windows and front and back door
- at 2411 North Barbara Drive. This project will also involve the replacement of the asphalt shingle roof
- with asphalt and the replacement of aluminum gutters with new aluminum gutters for which review was
- not required. The windows are to be replaced with new windows of the same shape and
- model. The exterior door in this case is going to be replaced with a fiberglass three window door. The
- application itself would retain the proportions of the existing windows. The front door for which replacement
- is proposed is a windowless wood composite door that does not appear to be original. The replacement
- door selected would mimic
- typical mid-century modern patterns with its creative window configuration. The back door for which
- window replacement is also proposed is minimally visible from the street on North Fritz Drive, 250 feet
- from the rear of the house and positioned behind 2420 North Fritz Drive. The roof and gutter replacements
- do not require review. The three pane windows
- Beside the entry to the garage will not be replaced as the petitioner could not find a suitable replacement.
- That is approved. Next, staff approved COA 2624 for 923 West 6th Street in the Near West Side Historic
- District. Petitioner is Malcolm Wolin.
- This is a double penthouse with a full width front porch and a large rear addition. It's among the older
- houses in the neighborhood. And the original section of the house, which you see here, is supported
- on a handful of limestone piers. This request is for the installation of the split face foundation perimeter,
- sorry, a split face cement block perimeter foundation around the north end of this building.
- The house is currently sitting on stone piers with many improvised supports. Many of these piers are
- failing, causing cracks in the walls, sticking doors, and failing floors. The owner also has a very
- difficult time heating the house properly in the winter because of the lack of an insulated perimeter
- foundation. If action is not taken in the near term, the house is at risk of further serious deterioration.
- In order to execute this project,
- The contractor must hand dig into the new foundation. Jack King is not possible because the rear of
- the house is anchored to a perimeter foundation. This is a later addition. In order to gain access to
- the perimeter, the floor and the existing, the floor of the existing porch needs to be demolished. Many
- parts of this floor are already rotten. There's a tongue and groove pine floor. Staff approved COA 2624.
- The stacks down foundation
- supports for the house are currently hidden beneath vertical vinyl siding, which would be removed.
- Regardless, the visibility of this foundation is very low. Much of it is hidden under the porch, and
- a more substantial foundation would prevent further deterioration to the house. All right. Thank you
- very much. Next up, we have certificates of appropriateness and demolition delays for commission review.
- 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 public
- comment. 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 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. All right, Mr. Sanweiss, please take it away.
- Okay, so our first COA of the, or staff reviewed, sorry, commission reviewed. COA of the evening is
- COA 2621, which was continued from our last meeting. 411.01 North Lincoln Street in the Garden Hill
- Historic District. Petitioner is Sherry Hillenberg, who I see is in the audience today. Currently on
- the site is a non-contributing 1948 minimal ranch. Their proposal, which you've seen previously, involves
- the construction
- of a one and a half story three unit building. Since the last meeting, several alterations were proposed
- to this design, including an extension in the height of the windows on the rear of the house, which
- will be increased on the upper level from 36 inches in height to 60 inches in height.
- and the lower levels will be increased from 36 inches to 48 inches in height. Additionally, the revisions
- to the proposal include a brick porch wall measuring 18 inches in height with a four-inch masonry cap,
- bringing the total wall height, which you see here, proposed on the front of the house
- to a height of 22 inches. The brick double wall will be tied together with metal ties every four to
- six courses. The wall height is identical to the porch wall on the house immediately to the north at
- 1119 North Lincoln. Treated four by four posts are going to be installed into the concrete slab for
- stability. Each post will be surrounded with brick up to a height of 27 inches.
- with a four inch masonry cap making the total height 31 inches. The remaining exposed portion of the
- four by four posts will be wrapped with an aluminum square fluted wrap similar to the AFCO aluminum
- columns. As when this petition was introduced at the last meeting, staff recommends
- approval of COA 2621, revisions to the proposal from the last meeting, addressed some comments from
- the commission, including questions about the rear facade facing west and the makeup of the front porch.
- All right. Thank you, Mr. Sandweist. Petitioner, do you have anything you'd like to add?
- Now just to emphasize what he said about the windows. All of the windows in the building will now be
- 60 inches tall, except for the dormer, they're gonna be 42. And then the three windows on the back were
- increased to 48 because they're above the kitchen sink. So we couldn't go until 60 there, but they're
- increased to 48. I looked at the house directly to the north, 1119. I didn't measure, I literally measured
- everything there. And then I went to the house,
- further north of it, and just looked at it from the street level, which also has a very low brick wall.
- So just tried to mimic what they have there. OK. Anything else? I think so. All right. Next up is public
- comment. If you wish to make a public comment, I ask that you raise your hand, and you'll have three
- minutes to address anything. So yes, go ahead, ma'am. You'll have three minutes. Does this proposal
- include a front port
- The plans that we saw were a recessed porch. So that's been added as a revision because of UDO requirements,
- which I don't remember exactly how it works, but the porches have to be more similar to those found
- on neighboring buildings on the block. So that's why a full length, or not full length, but three quarters
- length front porch has been added to the plan.
- Mm-hmm. Any other public comments? Ma'am, what's your name? Carrie Slough. Thank you. Thank you very
- much. Thank you. Are there any members of the public online who would like to make a comment? Okay.
- Well, we'll turn over to Commissioner questions. Commissioner Golden, do you have any questions about
- this? Commissioner Duffy. No questions. Butler. No questions.
- So I'm definitely not an architect, so I was trying to read these at the office and I thought maybe
- I missed something. So the windows look the same in the revision attachment, but they are 60. Because
- I know we talked about the bigger, and I know the petitioner put it in. They just looked on the pictures.
- They look the same, but they're actually. So this is the same drawing from what we have for the revisions
- was sent to me in writing?
- Would someone like to make a motion? I move to approve COA 2621. Yeah, thank you. All right, Commissioner
- Golden has moved to approve COA 2621. Is there a second? I'll second that. All right, Commissioner Hanson
- has seconded approval. Commissioner Golden, you can start the comments. I think that the petitioner
- has gone the extra mile to revise this.
- so that it's acceptable to both the commission and the neighbors, and I'm gonna support it.
- Okay, Commissioner Hanson? Yeah, I think that they made the adjustments to the windows and the brick
- porch wall and have been working with us on this, so I'm happy to approve it. All right, Commissioner
- Duffy? Just wanna thank the commissioner for their patience with us and for providing these refinements.
- I think it's a much superior product. Commissioner Butler?
- Yeah, I agree. I also want to thank the petitioner for taking the time to do all this. I know that that
- adds to the cost and the hassle of the whole project, but I think you're going to get a much better
- project after this is all done. And I also appreciate that the neighborhood seems to have gotten on
- board with this more than before. Commissioner Schlegel. I appreciate the petitioner as well. I think
- it's a good project, and I'm happy to support it. Commissioner Casamaya.
- comments. For me, I'd like to thank the petitioner. My fellow commissioners, I appreciate you putting
- in the time to make some adjustments to this. I think it turned out a lot better and would fit in better
- with the overall neighborhood. So I appreciate it. All right. We are done with comments, so I think
- we're ready to call vote. Great. So this would be for COA 2621 roll call vote, starting with Treasurer
- Butler. Yes. Commissioner Castaneda. Yes.
- Commissioner Duffy. Yes. Commissioner Golden. Yes. Commissioner Hafford. Yes. Commissioner Hanson. Yes.
- Commissioner Schlegel. Yes. And the COA is approved. Seven zero. All right. Thank you very much for
- the petition. Appreciate it. Thank you for the public comments as well. All right. Next up we have a
- COA 2623. Mr. Samuels.
- So this is Petition COA 2623 for 120 South Walnut Avenue in the Courthouse Square Historic District.
- Petitioner is Layla Taylor. Is the petitioner or somebody representing the petitioner present? Are they
- online? No. All right. OK. So we will move this to the end of the agenda to see if they might join us.
- We will revisit this one. So let's move on to the next one. COA 2625. We're at COA 2625. Address 712
- West 3rd Street in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District. Petitioner is Dennis Birch. Is the petitioner
- present or representative? Great. OK. 712 West 3rd Street is a turn of the century pyramidal roofed
- cottage with two front openings onto a corner limestone porch from two sides.
- The existing exterior windows are replacements. This request involves the extensive interior renovation
- of the first floor and basement of the existing single-story residential structure, as well as a number
- of exterior alterations, including the installation of a side staircase,
- show you here. The construction of a wood deck at the back of the house. Oh geez, I'm having some trouble
- seeing. As well as some alterations to the fenestration. You can see here on the east side of the house
- some proposed changes to accommodate the new interior layout.
- as well as alterations to this rear cantilever, I guess it's on pillars, this rear protruding addition.
- Sorry to give you an idea, this is, no, this is basement, let's see, current floor plan, current basement
- floor plan, as well as a demolition plan.
- for both levels and proposed redesign. You can see alterations proposed to the front, the east side
- of the building, and the southern addition. Additionally,
- The recommendation from staff is conditional approval with the retention of both of the front doors,
- which do not necessarily have to be both of them functioning. The proposed alterations to the building's
- window proportions would take place on secondary elevations visible to the public way, will leave the
- front portion of the house more or less as is. The sunroom for which the most substantial changes are
- proposed is a later addition and less visible.
- The proposed deck would not damage or obscure any historic materials. Replacement of materials would
- be replaced in kind or with very similar materials. Aside from the front door and limestone, most of
- the exterior materials have already been replaced. I had a discussion with the architect on the phone
- about retaining the secondary front door, which was initially proposed to be removed and leaving it
- as we've seen on some other
- houses with this layout as non-functional. Is there anything that the petitioners would like to add?
- That pretty much covers it. Footprint for the actual layout of the building itself stays the same. The
- room on the back right now is, they use it kind of as a dining room, but it's non-functional. It has
- about a six foot eight inch, six foot seven inch ceiling that's being taken off and made into
- A functional dining room, sunroom on the back. The footprint stays the same, so it doesn't change at
- all. Front entry stays the same. The stair is added to the east, northeast corner. And the only other
- thing really that changes, there's additional administration on the west side for new bathroom locations.
- So there are two windows in there that are new windows, transom lines, and the other windows remain.
- The window to the, will be the north on this plan, facing the sun room, is being replaced with a window
- to match the other bedroom windows. It's a kind of, it was added on at a later point in time, proportionally
- it doesn't really match up with the other windows.
- supposed to be changed out to match with that. Other than that, everything stays the same. It's primarily
- located to interior renovation, basically. So that's the extent of the project. OK. Thank you for the
- clarifications. Is there anybody in the room who wishes to make a public comment on the COA? I see none.
- Is there anyone online?
- All right, there's none online either. So we will go ahead and go to Commissioner Questions. Commissioner
- Golden, you have any questions? No questions. Commissioner Duffy? No questions. Treasurer Butler? I
- have a question about the staircase that I believe is going to be on the east side, if you could go
- to that slide there. Is that staircase up against the building, or is it separated from the building?
- It is actually facing the building, yes. OK, so it will obscure that window then, or?
- No, the windows still function. What it is right now, they develop both of these properties, and they
- have a very extensive garden that sits to the north of this. That's why they have so many and everything
- else. And you want an access down from that. So it's just basically a small deck that they can access
- down from. They're planning on, I think,
- Right now, they live in a smaller house than I think they would move up to this house. And then when
- it would be more functional, they would be able to move up and down and get down to the garden and everything
- else. But it is tough right up against the house. It's not floating in space. I couldn't know if it
- separated wasn't clear enough. That's it. Commissioner Schlegel. No questions. Commissioner Hanson.
- No questions. Commissioner Castaneda. No questions. Thank you. Commissioner Duesner.
- I don't have any questions. All right, I will entertain a motion on this COA. I'll make a motion to
- approve COA 2625. Okay, so Commissioner Schlegel has moved to approve COA 2625. Commissioner Castaneda
- has seconded. Commissioner Schlegel, comments?
- I think it's a reasonable project to make the house more livable. I don't think anything. I liked Noah's
- suggestion with the condition with the front, was it two front doors or front and back door? Oh, the
- two front doors. Two front doors, okay. So can I clarify, so you're moving to approve COA 2625 with
- the condition suggested by staff? Yes. Okay, just want to clarify. Yes, with the condition. Okay, right.
- Sorry. Just clarify.
- Thank you for that. No, I think it's reasonable. Okay. Commissioner Castaneda. Yeah, I think that project
- looks really good. I think it was done tastefully. I really like how the new song room in the back looks
- like, better than it was. It was really nice. So yeah, I think it's a nice project. Okay. Commissioner
- Hanson. Yeah, I mean, I like that our motion is for going to staff suggestion, and so I would support
- it as well.
- I appreciate that the building maintains its basic size and shape. I think that's well done and also
- worthless. Yes, and I appreciate the fact that the front will stay the same, so I will prove it myself.
- Alright, I'm good with this, so.
- That is my comment. I think we are ready to call the vote. It's been moved and seconded for conditional
- approval of COA 2625. We'll take a roll call vote. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? Yes.
- Commissioner Duesner? Abstain. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Commissioner Haggar?
- Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That motion passes 6-0-1 abstention.
- All right. Thank you guys very much. Thank you. Clarification, please. So recusal. Oh, I didn't use
- the right word. Is it a recusal because of a conflict? No. You're abstaining. I'm just abstaining. OK.
- Thank you. All right. So next up, we come to COA 2626. All right. This petition is for 601 West 4th
- Street in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District.
- Petitioner is Doug Bruce is the petitioner or somebody else? Okay. Or any of you? Yes, all three of
- us. Okay, great. Thanks. The house at 601 West 4th Street is a free classical style house built in 1905.
- Three houses to the west were built at roughly the same time and all four houses have the same plan,
- although one of them has been mirrored. The front facade features a front gable wing with a closed cornice
- and the central one over one wood sash window. To the east of the wing is a porch with wood columns
- which wrap around the northeast corner. The porch shelters two doors when leaning to one wing of the
- house, sorry, to each wing of the house in another wood sash window. The east elevation has a gabled
- bay with a closed cornice and chamfered windows. The west elevation also has a gabled bay with a closed cornice
- On north of this bay is a second porch, also on wood columns. This porch shelters a secondary entrance
- to the house and a window bay. The rear elevation features a porch, historically enclosed and converted
- into a widescreen porch. Sorry, not widescreen, into a screen porch. The sidewalk that runs to the east
- of the house was added in the 1930s as a WPA project. A small shed stands to the south of the house.
- It has a replaced steel roof
- wood siding and hinged wooden doors. This proposal is for, I'll just read the request. Owners and the
- applicant desire to extend a small room at the southern end of the house onto an existing concrete pad.
- This room would be utilized as a family room and will continue to serve the main southern entrance of
- the property.
- The house will be utilized as the owners and applicants' primary residence. Please see drawings included.
- The owners and applicants also intend to demolish the current shed at the southern end of the lot and
- construct a two-car garage accessible via the alley. The garage will contain an accessory dwelling unit
- on the second floor. It will be used as a third-story bedroom and may be used if home health care attendants
- are acquired in the future.
- The ADU may also be leased from time to time. The ADU will be a small studio apartment with one bathroom,
- kitchenette, and closet. We see the enclosed drawings. So as you can see here, this is the current shed
- at the south end of the property. This is a mock-up of what's being proposed. And then just to go back
- to the rear addition, let's see if we got a good picture of it.
- It will be slightly extended over an existing concrete pad. There you go. OK, great.
- a written description of materials to be used. The extension of the house will utilize exterior finishes
- consistent with the existing house. The construction of the two car garage slash ADU will utilize exterior
- finishes consistent with the existing house. The owners and applicants presented the improvement plans
- to the Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association meeting on April 7th, 2026. The plans were unanimously approved.
- The recommendation of staff is for conditional approval of the rear addition for COA 2626. The small
- room of the south end of the house is perhaps the only exterior part of the building to have
- been considerably altered several times over the course of a building's history. The alterations proposed
- are not out of keeping with the design guidelines or the style and massing of the house. It would not
- result in the removal of any historic materials.
- The vernacular salt box shed appears to have been built in the 1950s, judging from aerial photographs
- and historic maps. Because it is a contributing structure, the criteria for demolition must be considered.
- The proposed new construction resembles the existing accessory structure and shape and would make use
- of some existing materials. Differences chiefly include an increase in height to accommodate a second
- level, a small increase in footprint, and the addition of a shed dormer as well as some other new fenestration.
- as well as the addition of a garage door and a change in the orientation of the siding from clapper
- to board and batten. Overall, the design of the ADU is complimentary to the house and neighborhood and
- references the existing structure while being clearly differentiated. Nevertheless, the criteria for
- demolition will need to be considered. While the existing structure likely cannot be made to accommodate
- a second story, it does not appear to meet the criteria necessary for permitting demolition.
- Is there anything that the petitioners would like to add? Yeah. Thank you, Noah, for your report. Doug
- Brooks with Table Bruce Architects. I have my clients Elizabeth and Stephen here that will speak a little
- bit to their desires. A couple of things that Noah touched on. The addition at the back, it's an elevated
- concrete slab. The concrete slab's existing, but it's fairly new. We're going to remove, if you see
- one of the elevations,
- very non-contributing, non-original, non-historic, high, small windows. We're removing those, those
- are more modern in design, and putting in larger windows that match the rest of the house. And just
- filling out, we're not increasing the footprint other than over the existing concrete slab. And trying
- to keep in style with some of the other houses. There's, like Noah said, there's four of these that have
- some of the same gables front and rear, so we try to mimic that as well, and use the same materials.
- And then the garage, and I'll let my client speak a little bit, it's being held together. If you went
- inside the garage, and I have pictures I could share, it has two by fours bracing running everywhere.
- It has blocks on the foundation to hold it in place.
- that we are going to reuse the sliding doors that are on it and place them over a door on the outside
- to kind of cover the man door, the swinging door. And it's my understanding that there was something
- similar to what we're asking for tonight that was approved a couple of years ago by the previous owners
- that my clients bought the house from. And they started some of the renovations on the home.
- but they didn't do anything to the garage. And it's really in its shape now. There's no way to really
- use it for them. They're going to live in the house, have a place to park their cars, to make this livable
- for them, and a house that they can age in place. So with that, I'll let my client speak a little bit
- on their wishes on this and their background. Did a great job at covering it. So I don't know if I have
- very much to add,
- I'm originally from the area, grew up in Spencer, IU grad, so very excited to be retiring and coming
- back here. So our plan is to find a place where we can walk downtown and really enjoy our retirement.
- We needed the two car garage, so when we originally were talking with the owner, I accidentally met
- her the very first time I went there, and she said, oh yeah, it's already been approved. We just focused
- our money on the house.
- renovation first, but it was definitely something we wanted to do. And she actually gave us the plans,
- which we then later. Actually, I think my husband talked to Noah then just to make sure, yes, this had
- been approved previously. So then we hired Doug, met with Noah again, and started meeting with our neighbors.
- And our neighbors overwhelmingly would like to see the little shed go away. This would be seen as an
- improvement. It's something nicer for the neighborhood.
- And as far as how we're going to use it, our daughter lives in New York. We have a lot of my old classmates
- from Oman Valley that come. It's a two-bedroom, two-bath house. So this would be the third bedroom.
- And then if we need home health care at some point, that would be a great place to have somebody have
- a private place so that we could live there. This is where we want to live. OK. Thank you. Did you have
- anything you wanted to add?
- At the neighborhood association, I was actually asked if I had life insurance by one of the other people.
- I said, why? He said, well, if you go in that shed. So, I mean, we do have photos to share. It is not
- something that I would even put my lawnmower in because it is in very, and when we actually, I mean,
- we would have loved to have tried to save it and use a wall or do something with it.
- But we did have a contractor come and take a look at it. And he shook his head no. So there's nothing
- I can say. It takes up in the doors. And we're going to try to save it. All right. Are there any people
- in the room that would like to make a public comment on this? All right. Seeing none. Anyone online?
- None. OK. We'll turn to questions then. Commissioner Golden, any questions? We do not have any questions.
- All right. Commissioner Duesner.
- Mr. Duffy. Treasurer Butler. So a question for Noah. What is your recommendation on this? Is this recommended
- approval? Approval for the barge of applications for extending the rear addition. But not for the replacement
- of the chef. OK. Thank you. Commissioner Schlegel. Commissioner Hanson.
- So it doesn't meet the criteria for demolition. What criteria is it not meeting? So there's four criteria
- that are laid out in the district guidelines. These are generally the criteria that would apply for
- most demolitions. Structure poses an imminent substantial threat to public safety as interpreted from
- the state of deterioration, disrepair and structural stability. The condition of a building resulting
- from neglect.
- not be considered grounds for demolition, that's the first one. Second one, the historic or architectural
- significance of the structure is such that upon further consideration by the commission, it does not
- contribute to the historic character of the district. The third, demolition is necessary to
- allow development, which in the commission's opinion is of greater significance to the preservation
- of the district than is the retention of the structure or portion thereof for which demolition is sought. Or four,
- of the structure of property cannot be put to any reasonable, economically beneficial use without demolition.
- Okay. And then the fifth one. Fifth one? The structure is accidentally damaged by storms. Oh, right,
- yes. If it's accidentally damaged by an act of God. Basically it does. Yeah. Does it have to meet all
- of those criteria? It has to meet at least one of those criteria. Okay. And it doesn't meet the safety
- threat criteria?
- heard any reports about, you know, the safety or stability of the house, or sorry, not the house,
- the shed. So I really can't speak to that unless I see otherwise. Commissioner Castaneda. I guess it's
- a question for the petitioner. Have you guys reached out to a structural engineer? We had a contractor
- that actually just refurbished
- property for her in Spencerville in 1890. And it was really his repair. And we, in turn, had him out
- there. And he saved the place in Spencer that we rethought about. We were going to have to bulldoze.
- And she's restored it to just fantastic. The floors aren't straight. But he came in there. And we've
- got some photos for you if you want to see it. All the raptors are rotting.
- termites, you name it. I mean, it might not be for public safety, possibly, if somebody's walking on
- a sidewalk and not going to get hit. But anybody who walks into it is taking their life at war.
- And that, of course, is me. No, I'm just responding to Noah's point that if it poses a safety issue
- for public or private, typically, you will find, as part of the packet,
- structural report from an engineer that in this case will help you make your case that is not safe.
- They do an inspection, they report on the structure if it's salvageable or not. I think we were under
- the impression because it had been approved before for demolition that that wasn't necessarily going
- to be required. I get it. I'm just responding to Noah's report about that specific point. The approval
- was in 2022.
- I get it. No, I understand. I'm just. We did meet with Noah twice and it felt like we were all aligned
- at that time. These are the photos of the interior that have. Thank you. Foundation and plenty of bracing
- and plenty of rot. I think they said they had a neighbor
- that somebody had come along to one of the previous owners. Somebody had used a pickup truck and a come
- along to kind of straighten it up a bit so it wouldn't fall over. Did you have any other questions?
- No, I did not. I have something. When did you purchase the property? November. This past November? Yes.
- OK. That's helpful.
- Mr. San Luis, for the previous approval, was it for the demolition of that back shed in addition to
- work on the house? Let's see. I can check that. I just want to clarify that. OK. I hope you don't mind
- if I look this up real quick. OK. Is it appropriate to add some personal experience with this property?
- I think when we read the comments. Comments. OK.
- West 4th Street. In 2022, you say? Yeah, yes, yeah, that was. I think I recall October of 2022. I. You
- found it. No, when we talked on the phone, but you had a hard time finding it. The drawings that were.
- Given to me, the preliminary drawings that were part of the approval set are dated 3-29 of 22. And we
- pretty much have the same design, except we're reusing the doors that weren't. And we've made the dormer
- a little larger, and maybe the building a foot or two taller. I was just wanting to clarify if in that
- thing that was previously approved, it was also the demolition. Oh, is it demolition?
- These drawings are a complete new world. Yeah. Because it has a different setback, et cetera. Right.
- Yeah. Yeah. Well, while he's looking for that one, I think I had one other question. Well, I guess it
- was kind of for him, but I guess I'll make it as a comment. So I will hold off on that.
- As I see an application for this site that was approved for removal of a section of sidewalk, I know
- I remember talking about this with you on the phone. Actually, maybe I'll check my email.
- I'm going to put you on the spot.
- I see. Approved application for replacement of back deck. Approved application for window replacement.
- Approved application moving entry. There it is, 2021 barn demolition and garage construction. It was
- previously approved? It was previously approved, that's right. Okay, thank you very much. And then I
- guess the other things are comments, so never mind. So I will entertain a motion on COA 2626. Actually,
- can I ask a question first?
- Did I not? Yes. You did. No, you gave me a chance. But I have a question. OK, yes. Noah, does finding
- that new approval change your staff recommendation? I would really like to be consistent from a program
- manager to program manager. But I would have to look back at the facts of the case from back then. And
- I'm really sorry. I know we had spoken in the past.
- It was a bit of a process between when we last spoke and when I received this application. And I should
- have gone back and double-checked. I had unfortunately forgotten that there had been a prior approval
- for new construction over the side of this garage. So there might be more information there that's pertinent
- to the argument for taking it down for the sake of public safety.
- If you just want to approve a non amended, you can just say motion to approve. If you want to approve it,
- amended as the staff suggestion, then you would say motion to approve, amended, blah, blah, blah, blah,
- blah. So and you're moving to approve? As is. As is. Is there a second? I'll second that to start the
- discussion. All right. Treasurer Butler has seconded it. So Commissioner Golden, please. Time for my
- comments. Yes. So I have personal experience with this property. I've been in that barn two or three times.
- And it's not safe, period. And it has no use other than looking at. The foundation is bad. It's being
- held up by, as Doug indicated, by things just to keep it together. And I wouldn't suggest it be used
- for anything else other than to pretty up the site, which it does not do.
- My other comment is, as one of the original writers of these particular neighborhood guidelines, I lived
- in Prospect Hill and I was part of that, raising that into a full historic district. I always described
- what we did as historic light and that the intent of those guidelines
- We're going to allow change while retaining the feeling of a neighborhood. And I think that this fulfills
- that purpose. OK. Anything else? Nope. Richard Butler. I was wondering if maybe it would fall into the
- second category that you listed for demolition, in that it was built after the original home
- Um, and you know, from apparently a 1950 or after date, so it's not historically contiguous. Um, and
- so if you could just read the second condition for me, please. Um, that historic or architectural
- significance of the structure is such that upon further consideration by the commission, it does not
- contribute to the historic character of the district. I would go by that.
- this shed necessarily contributes to the overall historic character of the district, especially since
- it was added at a later date. That's my comment. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Duesner. I think
- my only concerns here are just a matter of procedure. So I guess I just want to make sure we're ruling
- on these things consistently. If we usually need an engineer's report,
- to make this kind of decision, I would want to stay consistent with that. But I don't know off the top
- of my head how we typically handle this. I don't know if that's necessarily required. Yeah, we've approved
- demolitions without an engineer's report. It's helpful. It just helps to make your case. Yeah, but it's
- not a requirement. Although I say we have had cases where they have bring the structural report and
- we still have denied it.
- Just because different circumstances around it. Yeah. Commissioner Duffy. I like the shed. I don't see
- it as an eyesore myself, but the condition of it concerns me. And so I'm leaning towards supporting
- the demolition. OK. Commissioner Schlegel.
- I think Commissioner Duffy kind of summed up what I was thinking, but couldn't put into words yet. So
- thank you for that. I agree with what you said, so. Yeah, I'm compelled by a couple things. I mean,
- Neighborhood Association unanimously supporting it is a pro. Yeah, I am curious about the condition
- of it since it doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for demolition, but it does seem to be in rather
- sorry shape and it was approved for demolition before. So I know last meeting we
- took time for research and then are bringing things back. So you could do that with this. I've opened
- other thoughts, but I think there are some merits to approving. Yes, I agree with commissioners here.
- I agree with you. I really like the barn. The shape of it, the proportions are beautiful, actually.
- Unfortunately, it's in bad shape.
- So I think that, for me, that fits one of the criteria that we just read. So it would be, I would support
- demolition, unfortunately. I mean, as much as, yes, that's it. Okay. For me, there's a couple different
- things. One, you recently just bought the house. So this is an issue where you've let this thing rot
- and you failed to do anything. The fact that you're already here in April, you bought the thing in November,
- you moved.
- So I don't think that can be held against you. But Treasurer Butler indicated the structure that they're
- talking about demolition. It was built in 1950s. The house is built in the 19Os, whatever you want to
- call them. So I can see there's a difference there. I drove by the place from the outside. I could see
- from the outside some of the issues that were going on.
- And then I find those pictures to be particularly compelling and that the commission previously approved
- demolition in the past. So given all of those things, I think this meets demolition criteria for the
- architectural significance is such that under further consideration does not contribute the historic
- character just given the different time frame. And then I think just the condition of the structure itself
- Those are both reasons to move forward with that. In addition to, I think, what you're wanting to do,
- the addition on the back, on the concrete slab, that seems totally fine to me. I have no issues with
- that at all. It's a beautiful house. I think it'll be perfectly fine with what you've suggested. So
- those are my comments. Okay. Does anybody want to have a second round of comments? Does anybody want
- to add anything else you are allowed? No? Thanks for leaving that wonderful porch.
- Yeah, that's it, yeah. It is great. And so I believe what this is, if you were voting yes on this, this
- is for the addition on the backside of the house and the demolition of the barn behind it, just for
- clarification. What was the construction of the new garage? Yeah, and the construction of that as well.
- Does that make sense to everybody? Yeah, just the question, what was the original staff recommendation
- It was for conditional approval of the expansion of the rear addition. But not the demolition of the
- structure. All right. I think we're ready to vote. Great. And thank you for clarifying what the motion
- is. I was going to ask that question. All right. So there is a motion on the floor that's been seconded.
- We'll go ahead and take a roll call vote. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? Yes. Commissioner Duesner?
- Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Commissioner Hackert? Yes. Chair Hackert, my apologies.
- Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. And that motion is approved 8-0. All right. Thank
- you very much. Thank you. Thank you. OK, so I think let's go back up to COA 2623. Are the applicants,
- Layla Taylor,
- Ms. Layla Taylor doesn't look like in the room online. Only person online is our petitioner, Alan Singh.
- Okay, so I guess we will... Our process is to continue to the next meeting. All right, we will continue
- this to the next meeting. All right, so next up we are shifting over into demolition delays. First up
- is DD2605, Mr. Sanlis.
- This is Nazi OI, this is DD. Demolition delay 2605 for 1214 and 1214 and a half South Lincoln Street.
- Built in 1925, 1214 South Lincoln is a one-story California bungalow with a brick front porch, replacement
- windows, and a rear carport. To the west along Driscoll Street stands a one-story two-by-three bay gable
- front accessory dwelling unit
- likely built in the 1930s. Aside from its form, little original detail remains on the small vernacular
- building. The bungalow at 1214 was first owned by Teamster and World War I veteran Arthur Haddon as
- his wife, Lola. They sold the house in 1934 to another Teamster, John Lucas, and his wife, Sarah. Sarah
- came from Elkinsvale, the town vacated for the damming of Lake Monroe, and John Lucas
- would take work with the Works Progress Administration during the Great Depression. While the Lucas's
- lived at 1214 South Lincoln, they had the ADU built behind their house and rented it to Schuyler Fender,
- a county road worker and his wife Lucille. From 1937 to 1958, the properties were owned by Emery Berry,
- a general contractor and his wife Ida. From 1948 through 1963, their daughter Dorothy, a caregiver at
- the National Armory,
- and her husband, Ernest, a National Guard veteran of the Pacific Theater and hospital record keeper,
- lived in the unit. After Emory's death in 1960, the primary house went to his eldest daughter, Esta.
- A former school teacher, Esta, worked as a bookkeeper at Woolworths and lived in the house until 1971.
- The recommendation for staff is the release of demolition delay 2605. All right. Is the petitioner here?
- mine or definitely not in here. They don't have to be here for demolition and delays. I just wanted
- to see if they wanted to say anything. All right, so we'll turn to public comment. Does anybody publicly
- want to comment? Okay, ma'am, can you state your name and you have three minutes. My name is Diane Sorby
- and I live in the Bryant Park neighborhood, not that far from this little house. And I want to add that
- the house itself is a contributing house and it's all intact except
- for the windows. I know we are not a historic district. And I know that this is not a standalone. I'm
- aware of that. At the same time, I have to say that we just saw a little bungalow over in our view to
- scope down. And there are not that many California bungalows in the city. So it makes it a little bit
- more precious.
- I also want to say that this is an example of two affordable units. The house itself, it rented for
- 1,400 a month. And it's two bedrooms that make 700. The back unit, it rented for 1,200. And I see this
- as an epidemic that's starting to happen all across the city. Bryan Park has had something like
- This year, so far, we've had four different affordable houses put on the chopping block. Last year,
- we had something like three. And so I just wanted to put my two cents in there that this is truly,
- I feel, a really sad case. It's an epidemic, and we really have to consider these. And as I said, I
- know it is not in a historic district.
- That's my two cents. Okay. No, thank you for coming in and sharing. I really do appreciate that. Is
- there anyone online who would like to speak about this? No. Okay. We'll turn to Commissioner questions.
- Let's go the other way around. Commissioner Castaneda. No questions. Commissioner Hanson. No questions.
- Commissioner Schlegel. And Noah, this we directed at you. I don't know if you know off the top of your head, but
- Do you know how many California bungalows are left with some of the demolitions we've seen? Like,
- is this? They're more common in this neighborhood. Obviously, Jan's been in the city doing this longer
- than I have. I never thought they were particularly uncommon. Treasure Butler. This is sort of a
- Question about process. Why wouldn't demolition delay require the petitioner to be present, whereas
- the COA does? I just don't understand the logic behind that. Pretty random. That is what it is. It's
- not required, and it says clearly that in no instances a demolition delay considered to be a petition
- requires that.
- What is it considered to be a demolition delay? I'd just like to know why this house is being considered
- for demolition. I guess that's my question. Commissioner Duffy. I don't have any questions. OK, Commissioner
- Duesner. No questions, but I hate these. Yeah. Commissioner Golden. No questions. I have no questions.
- All right, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve.
- All right. Commissioner Golden has moved to approve. Demolition delay 2605. Is there a second? All right.
- Commissioner Schlegel has seconded. Commissioner Golden comments. I hate to see this go and it's a high
- bar. A single designation and I don't see this
- Going that far. Those are my thoughts as well. Unfortunately, I mean, I hate knocking down houses for
- the sake of knocking down houses, but I'm not sure what else. I mean, we don't have many other options.
- Commissioner Dugan. Yeah, I really hate it that we don't have any other options, and I'm glad that the
- point was raised about affordability and not wanting to lose affordable units. And I just want to use
- my comment time to say that I really want to see Bryant Park take some action toward forming some kind
- of historic preservation program. Yes, I agree with the Bryant Park situation there.
- This house appears to be very solidly built and attractive, and I hate to see it go. I mean, I think
- the public comment that this is part of an epidemic is correct, and I think it's really sad that I can't vote on
- all the things that I hate about this, that we're losing affordable housing. This is a well-built home
- that actually has the ADU in the back that everybody is really hot about right now. I mean, it does
- so many things, and it's done so well for so long. It's a crying shame that I am forced to essentially
- vote for its destruction. Commissioner Hanson. Yeah, I would echo a lot of the comments that have already
- been made, and I would just thank the member of the public for coming in and giving some comments as
- well. Commissioner Castaneda.
- Yes, thank you, Jim, for coming and giving some more context. And I think today was particularly interesting
- because we have two cases, one where we had the license, the leverage, or give the permission to them
- or something that we saw that it has some value, at least on the outside, but it was neglected for so
- many years. And that also the petitioners show good intent
- They're showing good intent, they're showing good architecture, replacing what is there, neglected.
- So I thought the case was a lot easier. It wasn't easy, but it's easier, right? But when you see this,
- this house that seems to be in fairly good shape. It's very solid. Right? We've seen cases where it's
- in really, really bad shape, and people make the effort to restore those houses. And this one,
- would qualify it like that. But the process is such that it won't let us do anything else. So it's very
- frustrating. As much as we can spend hours here talking about it, nothing we can do almost. I think
- I share the general lament of all the commissioners in here about the decision that we have to face on this.
- can't take those other things into consideration. Architectural and historical significance is what
- we can weigh in on. I just don't think we have the ammunition for this one to be able to save it.
- All right, that's my comment. Anybody have any secondary comments that they'd like to make? All right,
- we're ready to call the vote. This would be motion to release the demolition delay of 26.05. It's been
- moved and seconded. Roll call vote. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Castaneda?
- Commissioner Duesner. Yes. Commissioner Duffy. Yes. Commissioner Golden. Yes. Chair Hackard.
- Yeah. Commissioner Hanson. Yes. Commissioner Schlegel. Yes. And that motion is approved to be zero.
- All right. Thanks for coming in. I do hope maybe, you know, partarian might be able to go forward with
- this. So yes, Treasurer Butler, you need to read the release at the top. Today regarding the property
- located at
- Can you put the address up for me? 1214 and 1214 and a half south Lincoln Street, the Historic Preservation
- Commission declares that it got notice of the proposed demolition, partial demolition, or I guess whole
- demolition. And after today's discussion, sees no need to review the plans any further and waives the
- rest of the demolition delay waiting period. The HPC may later recommend the property for historic
- designation to the common council.
- OK, next up we have demolition delay 2603. Mr. Samuels. Right. Demolition delay 2603 for 1331 Atwater
- Avenue. Petitioner is Allenson. Request here is for full demolition. 1331 East Atwater Avenue is a 1938
- two-story brick colonial revival house with a pedimented portico.
- Supported by four door columns, other features include line of dentals beneath the cornice and arched
- gable windows. At the last meeting, the vote was for staff to conduct further research into the building
- to determine its eligibility for listing. Staff found that 1331 East Atwater may be eligible for listing
- under criteria 1A and 2C.
- For criteria 1A, that is, has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development heritage
- or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation, or is associated with an individual who played
- a significant role in local, state, or national history. And then 2A, architecturally worthy for embodying
- the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or engineering type.
- By and large, this building exhibits a high degree of integrity with some alterations, including the
- replacement of the front door. Actually, really, that is the one conspicuous exterior change. While
- the survey rating of the property is contributing, the property does compare favorably to some other
- notably rated colonial revival houses from around the same time, including 1709 North Phelane,
- 509 West Allen, which we saw at a previous meeting, and 311 East 1st Street. It's located across the
- street from Elm Heights Local Historic District. The house was owned by Gladys and Joseph B. Black,
- Sr., co-founder of Black 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, as well as his brother
- John and Roger Black, founding what at the time was known as the Metzger Black Lumber Company. Joseph
- owned a majority share of the business, which at its peak managed six lumber yards and stores in South
- Central Indiana. The Black Metzger Lumber Company owed its success in part to the aggressive buying
- of lumber stock after the stock market crash.
- and subsequent contracts with the Civilian Conservation Corps, providing lumber to work camps. This
- residence was built at a time in 1938 when very little residential construction was taking place in
- Bloomington or around the country more generally. Gladys had been a school teacher prior to moving to
- Bloomington, and the couple were active in the Bloomington Country Club and First Baptist Church
- Congregation. The couple's son, Joseph Jr., was raised in this house
- and went into the family business following his return from World War II. Joseph Black Jr. would go
- on to serve as Dean of Ball State School of Business and as a member of the Bloomington City Council.
- Gladys and Joseph Sr. sold the house in 1955. Regarding the potential historic significance, during Joseph Sr.'s
- tenure in this house from, or sorry, no, his tenure with the company from 1938
- To 1950, Black Lumber was not the only lumber company in Bloomington, though it would grow to become
- the largest. While Joseph's brother Roger was more involved in other local causes, Joseph's time was
- dedicated almost entirely to the business. An ardent Democrat and strong believer in Franklin Roosevelt's
- New Deal, Joseph Black would take out advertisements in the local paper supporting relief efforts and
- war bond drives.
- His contract to supply the CCC in Indiana is perhaps his most enduring legacy, as this program saw the
- widespread expansion and improvement of Indiana's state parks and forests, constituting scores of projects
- and camps around the state, particularly in the wooded south. The construction of this substantial house
- in the waning years of the Depression was made possible in part by the Black family's involvement in
- this New Deal project. Now, I guess regarding
- Potential historic significance, so that would be under criterion 1A. There are more documents, I think,
- in the possession of the Indiana State Park Service that relate to this contract, which I was not able
- to get access to while conducting this research. So this is largely based on information that was available
- in Bloomington. So I have to admit that further research may be required to
- really verify some of this. The petitioner is online. The petitioner is online, and also both the petitioner
- and another party have mentioned they're having some difficulty hearing, some inconsistent volume. I'm
- not sure about the audio if there's something that we can do to assist with that. Those don't?
- Those are just for recording. That's the owl. That thing. OK. Thank you very much. So the petitioner
- is online virtually. OK. Would the petitioner like to comment on the demolition delay? I know it might
- have been hard to hear staff or maybe even me. Yeah. It's just kind of coming and going for some reason
- today. I apologize for that. Oh, that was nice and loud.
- Okay, well, do you do you have any comments that you'd like to share with the Commission? Well, I guess
- my comments are, I don't know, probably pretty brief. But okay, again, I currently, I'm the trustee
- of my mother's trust or estate. So as we, we meet my three sisters and brother,
- go into the future here, we might put this property up for sale with some others that we own. We own
- six properties in there where we rent student rooms. Not houses, but we rent rooms. So that's how this
- one and also the one next door, which is another something coming up after this one, I believe.
- And then Tom Bunger owns one next to this as well. So we've talked to Tom. And these lots might all
- be sold at the same time to the same entity, whether that be IU or perhaps a developer. So I was interested
- in talking to Noah and the city planning department before we try to market these and potentially sell
- them in the future.
- find out what we could and could not do. The UDO has them listed as MM, which under that we have, there's
- quite a bit of flexibility, but obviously we would have to be able to potentially tear this down in
- order to do something different there with that land. So that's what I'm here for, just kind of a, again,
- I don't currently have a plan to demo this unit, but
- If I could say that the demolition delay has been approved to potential buyers, that might affect the
- money that we can get out of the property. OK. Any other comments? I think that's where I'll leave it.
- OK. Thank you very much. Are there any public comments on this demolition delay?
- Yes? Go ahead. Well, I'm here. Can you state your name again? Jan Sorby. Thank you. And Steve Wyatt
- from Limited Restoration couldn't come tonight. And we were talking. Oh, hold on just a second. You
- might want to come up to a microphone, because I'm sure he can't hear. Yeah. But these don't affect
- that. That's true. They speak to this. You can do it. That's what they say. OK. OK. You need to speak
- up into this thing that's hovering here.
- You mean blocking the view? So anyway my name is Jan Sorby and Steve Wyatt the director of
- limited restoration could not make it this afternoon and so we had discussed this at BRI so I thought
- that I would step in and come here tonight. I don't know if you've had a chance to see any of the
- Photos from the interior. It's a beautiful house. I know no purview on the inside, but I decided to
- give you that information. Everything's original inside. Anyway, I think that it does merit. I came
- here to support you all and just to add another voice to the fact that this is a fabulous house.
- I think it could be saved and I think it could go into the future to have other families and other people
- like the petitioner grow up in it and enjoy it. And it seems to be a really important part of Bloomington's
- history as blacks is a very important part of the history. How many houses did they supply the lumber
- for? Doors, windows, et cetera, and still do today.
- So that's my two cents, and I really am happy that you're considering saving this house. So thank you
- very much. Thank you for the comment. Appreciate that. Any other public comment inside the room? No?
- Comment online. I'm checking to see if Richard Lewis would like to make a public comment. OK,
- thank you. All right. Hearing none, at least for the moment, let me know.
- Let's turn to Commissioner questions. Commissioner Golden, do you have questions? I have a question
- about both of these demolitions. I'm in support that we move this forward, this particular house. Is
- context an issue? Something that we can consider? You mean... The house next door, I'm just thinking ahead.
- I guess what do you mean by context? That there's these three houses in a row. Right. I'm trying to
- think. I mean, if it's, I guess, particularly significant to the viewshed, or if they're in some way
- related to each other, I guess you could consider that context. You know, about the specific circumstances
- of why they came to demolition delay, then no. OK. Uh-huh.
- So the historical and architectural context of the area. Exactly, if that's relevant. Commissioner Duesner,
- questions? No questions. Commissioner Duffy? I have a processual question for Mr. Sanlis. Based on my
- understanding that if there was no demo delay situation, we could propose
- two houses or more together as a small district, right? I mean, theoretically, we could. When it's a
- demo delay, do they have to be, does that automatically just put blinders on earth that we have to consider
- them separately? Do you know that? It's hard for me to imagine
- how a motion would be made to consider two items together for designation. Yeah. I mean, I don't know
- if Anna could think something up on the fly, but I'm not sure. It might be worth something looking into.
- Yeah. I really just want to know if it's possible. Right. No, I see your point. You see what I'm saying?
- Does the particular process that we're seeing this in change our options? That's a good question.
- Might be good to know definitively though. I think that would be good to know. I have to say I haven't
- read anything that kind of takes that into consideration where if you had two abutting that you could
- decide to hold and delay both of them and then take them together. But why don't you let Noah and I
- look into that a little bit and see if that's procedurally available to you. Thank you.
- question uh treasurer butler and just to sort of follow up on that i can phrase it as a question if
- you really need me to but um would it be possible uh to forward them individually through our process
- but then combine them before the city council portion if you know what i mean right so we'll consider
- the demolition delays separately but maybe the if they were
- I think that's what we're going to try to do. Is there any way where they benefit from their proximity
- to each other? Commissioner Schlegel. So just to go off of those two, because I can't. In all honesty,
- I was trying to look at this on a map earlier, and I just wasn't able to get to that this week. If I
- remember correctly from the last meeting, these are across the street from historic district. And I'm
- just asking because I did not have a chance to read up on this.
- Is that district able to absorb them? I don't know if a part of- I think it would have to be like a
- vote by the majority of the property owners in the district for alteration of the- Yeah, yeah. But yeah,
- that would be something else if they wanted to open up their map and include this on the map. They're
- currently going over their neighborhood guidelines right now, and that's taking up a lot of time, so
- I don't know if they would be- Adding that onto the- Yeah. I don't want to speak for them, but-
- Just for context of that. I was hoping it wasn't that district, but it is that one. That's what I was
- afraid of. Commissioner Hanson questions. No additional questions. Commissioner Castaneda.
- I have a question. Mr. Sanweis, just for clarification, you were also wanting to have some time to do
- some additional historical research to verify some of the information that you found. Yes, I would feel
- more comfortable with that.
- OK. That was my question. All right. One further question. Where are we on the clock on this? See, this
- came up on March 30, is when the delay period started. So we're not quite a month yet. And we have three
- months. Yes. And we could ask for an extension, can we? Well, potentially, it could exceed its past
- number of days. Yeah, we could ask the director of camp for another 30-day extension.
- but we've got plenty. Okay, does any other question is just real? Okay. I have a question. Please. Is
- anyone from the Historic District across the street aware of what's going on with these lots? They were
- here last time. They are aware. Okay, that's true. I can't remember the other one's name. Okay, I remember.
- They are aware. Okay. I would entertain a motion on this demolition delay.
- another question about that. So how do we continue? Move to continue. So all right, Commissioner Golden
- has moved to continue. Demolition delay 2603. I'll second that. Okay, Treasurer Butler has seconded.
- Commissioner Golden. No further comments. Treasurer Butler. Which one of these am I supposed to- Oh
- no, I'm not reading it. Sorry about that. No comments. Commissioner Dues, no comments. No.
- Duffy. Commissioner Schlegel. Commissioner Hanson. Commissioner Castaneda. For me, I think it is important
- to continue this for two main reasons. Verify some of the historical information that Mr. Sandweis has
- uncovered and to answer and address some of the questions that we have asked procedurally about can
- these be merged together in some fashion or how could we possibly move them together. I think it's important
- to have all of those facts available to us
- before we make any sort of determination. If it were to go forward, I want to make sure we have all
- of our ducks in a row. So that is my comment. Any secondary comments from anyone? No. OK. Hearing none,
- I think we are ready to vote on this. The motion is to continue demolition delay 2603. OK. We'll go
- ahead and take a roll call vote on that motion to continue. Treasurer Butler. Yes. Commissioner Castaneda. Yes.
- Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Hacker? Yes. Commissioner
- Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. And that motion to continue passes 8-0. All right. Thank you,
- everyone. Next up, we have we don't read anything on this because we just continued it. So we're good.
- Next up is demolition delay 2604. Mr. Sanay, over to you. All right.
- Demolition Delay 2604 at 326 South Eagleson. Petitioner is Alan Sin. This is for a full demolition.
- 326 South Eagleson is a two-story 1940s colonial revival house with a flat-roofed portico and squared
- columns. The first floor is brick and the second story is clad with aluminum siding with a slight garrison
- overhang. The property is rated contributing on the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory.
- as an intact example of a post-war colonial revival house. In the opinion of staff, while this house
- maintains a good deal of integrity, its lack of particularly distinctive architectural detail craftsmanship
- or technical innovation fails to meet the threshold for architectural significance. The house's design
- is fairly typical of two-story traditional houses from the post-war construction boom.
- This house is a block away from the northern boundary of the Elm Heights Historic District. The first
- owners of this property were from 1946 through 1964 were Harold and Olivia Pennington, who owned a furniture
- workshop, Pennington's Wood Products, from the 1940s through 1960s. The best known and documented residents
- of 326 South Eagleson Avenue would likely be David Randall,
- who lived at this address with his wife Mary from 1964 through 1975. He presided as head of the Lilly
- Library from its founding in 1960 until his death in 1975. During this time, Randall greatly expanded
- the library's rare book and manuscript collection. And Mr. Randall's contributions to the Lilly Library
- are well recognized, have been summarized in a New York Times obituary. According to Randall, his down
- payment on this house was paid for
- in part by the sale of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the University of Virginia. When applying
- criteria of eligibility for significant individuals, and this is generally how it'll be handled for
- national register applications, property must be compared with other extant properties to determine
- those that best represent the individual's productive life.
- While this is the only standing residence of Randall from his time at Indiana University, his career
- was most closely associated with Indiana University's Lilly Library, a building that stands several
- blocks to the north of his property where he worked for the entirety of his time in Bloomington. The
- significance of Randall's residence to his career is uncertain and may require further research, although
- it makes scant mention in his memoir. Outside of the Lilly,
- Randall most frequently met with donors and collectors at their own homes. Staff does not believe that
- this property is eligible for individual local designation. Does the petitioner have anything that they'd
- like to add? All right. Any comments in the room? All right. Please come on up. State your name.
- talk toward the thing hovering in the middle of the room. I'm Jan Sorby. And again, I'm here. Steve
- Wyatt and I were talking this afternoon about this. And like you all are thinking about, clumping it
- together as a small historic district, I'm really excited to hear that you're thinking about that. I
- think that more research would be really wonderful to find out more about Mr. Randall.
- If the New York Times is, you know, sort of looking at him, then maybe there's something that we should
- be looking at as community as well. So I just want to encourage you to look into that further and maybe
- clump them together in a small historic district. Thank you. Any other comments in the room? No. Online,
- any public comments?
- We'll turn to Commissioner Questions. Commissioner Castaneda, any questions on this? No questions.
- Commissioner Hanson? No questions. Commissioner Schlegel? No. Treasurer Butler? No questions. Commissioner
- Duffy, questions? I have a couple of questions. Well, for either the petitioner, but probably Mr. Sanlis.
- About the building of this house.
- Do we have a specific date? It looks like it was built in 46 or 47 by the Penningtons. By the Penningtons.
- Do we know if they were involved as, you know, local carpenter builders? They were furniture builders.
- So Harold was a former showers employee who went into business by himself. I remember that. And I'm
- wondering if there's any way to find out because
- I'm thinking, and I mean, are there many named local carpenter builders associated with particular houses
- in Bloomington? Maybe this is an avenue to pursue here. My question is, if in your further research,
- you might see if there's... So relating his
- to the building itself? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? I don't have any questions. I thought it was a further
- question. Last meeting, someone asked about what's underneath that siding at the top. Did we ever get
- any answers on that? He didn't know. No, I'm not sure. All right.
- Any other questions? All right, I'll entertain a motion. I'll move that we continue. All right, Commissioner
- Duesner has moved to continue, DD 2604. Commissioner Schlegel has seconded. Commissioner Duesner, comments?
- It makes sense to me to move to continue so that program managers can continue to do more research on
- people who lived there,
- as well as that we both can pursue the possibility of grouping this with the other house. And I think
- that's what we need to continue. Thank you. Commissioner Schlegel. I fully agree with Commissioner Duesner.
- All right. Commissioner Cassidy, anything else?
- I think this is a good approach. We need more time to do more research on it. I think it's worth it.
- I like the kind of the line that you want to follow if this is something that extends more and,
- you know, try to make our case about it. So, yeah. Commissioner Hanson? No additional comments. Pleasure,
- Butler. I would like to know more about the architectural conditions, significance of the materials,
- of the structure. So taking more time and allow us to do that in addition to the other things people
- brought up. Commissioner Duffy. Yeah. When I see this house, I see it as a little sister to the house
- next door. It's later. And it's very close together. I didn't measure it when I, but I walked around.
- I mean, it's really just at one point, it's just a few feet away.
- I find it impossible to think that the person who ever built it didn't take the neighboring house into
- account. It's made of brick, it's got pillars, it's got a simpler but nice little portico. I think it
- was deliberately built to reference the house.
- next door and that got me thinking about this woodworker and the fact that I'm always looking for named
- builders or creators of things and that's very unusual and it's something I'd really like to see a support,
- I'd like to support it if it's there, if it's possible to find out but my eye tells me that whoever
- Whoever built it was referencing the house next door. I don't think they had blinders on and I can't
- put blinders on either. That's my comment. I think for me, I'm a little bit interested in getting some
- more detail about the first director of the Lilly Library and seeing if
- you might be able to find anything else about his, how he operated it and if he did more stuff at the
- house. Um, I feel like that's a pretty significant thing of he helped build that library up into what
- it is now. And I don't want to overlook that of if there's a combination of this and maybe the carpenter
- or something else, um, I think would be particularly interesting. And that I just want to note that
- the house directly north of this house is notable. I don't know who owns it. It's really, I mean, it's,
- than like, you know, I use like right there. I think there's a convenience store and there's IU, maybe
- the university owns it. I don't know, but there's this string of houses there. And that's where I think
- the combination of how can we, if we can put demolition delays together and something else, I think
- it's just helpful to explore those options to understand what we might be able to do and what we can't
- do. I mean, we need to know our parameters. If we're limited by stuff, I understand. I just want to
- know fully what we can
- and cannot do. So I, long way of saying, I support continuation of this. Any other second comments anybody
- would like to add? All right, hearing none, I think we're ready to call the vote. I just been moved
- in second to continue demolition delay 2604. We'll take the roll call vote. Treasurer Butler?
- Yes. Commissioner Castaneda? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden?
- Yes. Chair Hacker. Yes. Commissioner Hanson. Yes. Commissioner Schlegel. Yes. That motion to continue
- passes eight zero. All right. Thank you very much. Um, we're moving on to, uh, old business. Uh, Mr.
- Sandweiss. You have a few pieces of old business I'd like to share. Um, this first one comes from the
- city, uh, parks department. So as you may recall in 2024, the Banneker center, which is in the near
- west side historic district.
- received historic preservation grant funding to restore the limestone steps. Doug Bruce, who was here
- earlier this evening, was the supervisor for that project, which is now complete. So if you are stopping
- by the Banneker Center, those steps have recently been restored.
- her conversation or ongoing conversation. Anna Holmes has been looking into further revision to our
- rules and procedures to allow votes on COA petitions when the petitioner does not attend and does not
- tell staff that they are not attending so that they can be voted down without prejudice so that the
- COA isn't automatically approved.
- on expiration of a 30-day period. So I'm hoping to have that for you guys at the next meeting. Can I
- have a question about that? Sure. We might need that for the next meeting. Would we be able to look
- at that and schedule a vote on that and then implement it later in the meeting? I mean, as soon as you
- change your rules of procedure,
- I mean, I guess as the chair, you can change the order of the meeting. You could change the order of
- the agenda. I think one of the things I saw, I emailed my draft to these guys today just to look at
- it. And it's not really very many changes in our rules of procedure themselves, which don't have definitions
- or explanations in it. And so one of my concerns is this is a huge change for a petitioner who thinks
- that like, if they can't make it and they forget to call Noah, they're just going to be able to show
- up the next time.
- So I think that would be my only concern. And I guess it's not terribly disadvantaging a person because
- they just get denied without prejudice and they can just call Noah and say, oh my gosh, I'm sorry, I
- forgot to come. Please put me back on the agenda. They don't need to refile, right? They don't have
- to put together a new application. But I think I would just say that like we,
- We do need to find a way where since the change and the impact of that is not going to be super clear
- in the rules and procedures that we are messaging that with our process and how we explain things online
- about what to expect when you're a petitioner in a historic preservation case. So yes, you could pass
- it. You could reorder the agenda. You could pass it and then you could use it.
- if you needed to. And since we do have one case that now has already had to be continued, if they don't
- show up again, then we end up in that same boat, right? With a case that we can't consider on the merits
- because the petitioner isn't available and you do need to have some way to dispose of it. So, and right
- now you are required to continue it according to your own rules. Yeah, with their agreement.
- I know it says continue with their agreement, which we never do. So in one place it says continue. If
- the petitioner isn't there, it will be continued to the next time. And then there's another place where
- it says continued with the agreement of the petitioner, right? But we always have just continued it
- to the next time, because that's what the rules say, at least in one place that you have to do. So anyway.
- I think that's the only thing I would say is that I'm a little bit concerned about making sure that
- people are aware of what's happening. I would think it would be beneficial to them because then, like
- you said, they don't have to refile anything. It's just we'd be like, OK. You aren't here. We can't
- consider it. We'll do it next time. I think it's good. Don't think that anyone would be unfairly prejudiced
- by putting the rules into motion and then applying them at the same meeting. Thank you.
- Also old business, I know I've brought this up before there are a couple of events coming up one is
- a Weatherization workshop with electrify, Indiana that's going to be taking place here at City Hall
- on April 30th At in City Council chambers that I believe 5 30 p.m. And so that is somebody who
- or an organization that I've invited to come to teach people about how to weatherize their homes. Oh,
- awesome, details, thank you. Yeah, okay. That's from 6.30 to 8 p.m., so don't show up an hour early.
- You can. There'll be food and apparently something for kids to do if you bring kids. Secondly, on May
- 20th from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.,
- There's going to be a historic rehabilitation tax credit presentation at the Monroe County Public Library
- in room 2A. The presenter is going to be from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. And if you
- own a property that's in a national register district or may be eligible for listing on the national
- register or state register for state tax credits,
- This presentation will give you a little more information on how to do that. So the state tax credit
- is for homeowners, and the national tax credit is for income-producing properties. So I'm more familiar
- with the federal one. They both have sort of different rules. But it's essentially if you're going to
- be doing a faithful or Secretary of Interior standards approved
- renovation of a building. You could be able to get money back for that, so. Uh-huh. A question about
- the event. Uh-huh. Is that being billed as the preservation month event for? It is preservation month.
- It did not include that language, though. Perhaps I should. Can you do that on social media? Because
- you usually have something. It is on social media. I didn't use the preservation month language.
- Maybe chuck it in. Just curious. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good point. Like, I might not go. It's preservation
- month. I'm there. Well, we could still have a movie or a lecture or something else. What time is it,
- boys? Is it preservation month already? OK. New business. I have some new business. First of all, former
- Commissioner Renard Cross, who you may remember,
- is going to be rejoining us as a council appointee. So that will be in a non-voting position.
- Did he accept? I actually don't know if he's accepted yet. I would assume that he's. Well, I can't assume.
- The council voted to appoint him as one of their non-voting members. So we'll see if he actually accepts
- it or not. Yeah.
- Also, Abby Hansen is going to be leaving us so unexpected housing change. So we'll be living in Bloomington
- anymore. So we'll be able to serve. Well, that brings us to commissioner comments. Commissioner Hansen,
- would you like to.
- at anything else? Yeah, all I'll say is that even though I've been a part of this for a short time,
- it's been a really rewarding experience. I wish I could be here longer. When I was speaking to Chair
- Haggard about it, he said that if I ever move back to Bloomington, I should reapply. So I absolutely
- will do that. And just thank you all for what you do. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Any other
- comments from the commissioners? I have a follow-up comment. So the houses that we're talking about,
- the three houses on Fugelson, that third house is owned by you.
- We don't have any. Okay. Thank you. Any other commissioner comments. Oh I'm sorry. This is also very
- important old business which I should have brought up earlier. Apologies. Cottage Grove has been scheduled
- for a first potentially second hearing or reading
- So that's going to be on May 6th. May 6th meeting of the Bloomington City Council. Just they changed
- their rules this year so that they can vote during a first hearing. So I'm going to treat that as far
- as I'm concerned as though it may be the only reading. However a second reading is also scheduled for
- May 20th in case they don't vote that time.
- So if this is something that you're interested in showing up for, plan on showing up for that first
- reading. I would encourage everybody to show up. What time is it? Speak out. It starts at 630. Yes,
- it starts at 630. And it will probably be long, because it usually is. Yes. Well, I think they still
- have the Hopewell that they're dealing with. Yes. It's a long agenda, though. Yeah. Yeah, it'll be probably
- later in the meeting.
- I mean we'll see will we know ahead of time or when does the council post their agenda how far in advance
- is it like us keep an eye out yeah for council posting the agenda so you see where that's gonna be okay
- yeah so keep an eye out for that
- encourage everybody to attend that, speak out, hopefully, and support. Any other commissioner comments?
- Any public comments in the room? Additional public comments? I will add two cents again. Excellent.
- I remember Nancy Hiller telling me about Pennington's products, wood products. And so maybe that's something,
- and it has an 8-1
- two numbers. So I knew it was here locally somewhere. Is it a family that is related? But I don't know.
- But I remember that she said their products had been featured, like, on HGTV and places like that. So
- there's a connection there to the Pennington family that owned the house, built the house. I was just
- thinking. When I thought about the name, I thought about that. And I thought, there might be something there.
- They're an Indiana company. I think they might be in Johnson County, but I'm not for sure. All right.
- State name? James Ford of Cottage Grove. And I don't have a comment or a question. Is the voting decision
- made on the fly when the council decides in the first reading, or is it something you'll know ahead
- of time? It is their prerogative to make that decision at the meeting.
- So they've just updated all of their bylaws and their procedures, which I think are still just on the
- landing page of the code. I don't think they've been integrated into the code yet, so you can probably
- find them pretty easily. The ordinance, it's Title II amendments in the code. But I think they can decide
- at the time whether they want to go ahead and take a vote or if they want to just go ahead and schedule
- it for the second hearing.
- I think Councilperson Piedmont-Smith gave an overview of it at the meeting last night. So if you find
- the video, I know she was talking a little bit on it, you might be able to see there, but they would
- move to consider, to vote at the meeting. So you don't know ahead of time. So you need to go to that
- one. Yeah, you might need to go to both. All right. That's it for public comments in the room. Public
- comments online. I asked and there's been no response.
- Okay, seeing that there are no other comments, we are at the end of their agenda. This meeting is adjourned.