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.