- Five o'clock, I'm calling the July 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission
- to order. Would the staff please call the roll? Absolutely. Bernard Cross? Yes. Jack Baker? Here.
- John Butler? No. Ernesto Castaneda? No. Melody Dusner?
- Karen Duffy, here. Jeff Golden, here. Jeremy Hackard, here. Daniel Schlageville, absent. Okay, we have
- a quorum. All right, we have quorum. Next up is approval of the minutes. Does anybody have any edits?
- Yes. With the vote recording,
- 5-3 to limit commissioners' questions. I guess I'll start with a request for information. What is the
- threshold to pass such a vote to limit a commissioner's time? Is that an edit to the minutes? I'm not
- clear what you're asking. Well, the vote said it was approved. It passed at 5-3.
- Now, if that is below the threshold, then it being recorded as passed would be an edit, because if it
- didn't meet the threshold, that would be an error in the minutes. I still have no idea what you're talking
- about. Jack's motion to suspend rules for a three-minute limitation, which should have been a two-thirds
- vote, but we took it as a majority vote, and it passed, and we proceeded that way. So we can note that
- in the minutes.
- So a note in the minutes to indicate that they should have received a two-thirds majority vote to pass,
- because we proceeded as it was passing, so there's a note in there that it should have required two-thirds.
- Right. And is this the correct time to ask follow-up information, or do I wait until after we... I think
- if we're getting into process stuff, let's go to Commissioner Comments and... Well, no. A request for
- information can be made at any time, and I'm just...
- asking if we'd prefer to do the other requests I have for information which concerns the procedural
- vote, which was improperly recorded and enforced, or do we do it after the minutes are approved? Perhaps
- I could interject really quickly. I am sorry as
- Director I'm filling in for staff today and I would like there's two sets of minutes on the agenda for
- approval and so we jump right into comments and it's not clear to me which set of minutes we're discussing
- but it sounds like the previous minutes of July 9th but both are on there so let's clarify since we
- do have two sets. My understanding was that the amended minutes well the minutes were amended as
- voted on last meeting. So do we have to go through an approval of those minutes even though they were
- amended as instructed? Do we? They were amended as instructed and they were put on here just
- for clarification. Okay, then let's go through them. My questions are for the minutes, right now for
- the minutes of the 20th, of the 9th of July.
- Okay, so let's tackle the June 25th minutes right now. Does anybody have a motion on those minutes?
- Okay, Commissioner Goldman has moved to approve the minutes from June 25th. Is there a second? All right,
- Commissioner Duffy has seconded to approve the minutes from June 25th. Any further discussion? Well,
- do I need to raise my amendment again? No, this is you're talking about. Oh, my apologies. Yeah, you're
- talking about. It's been a long day. Forgive me. Yeah, it's okay. Okay, so
- The motion is on for approval of the minutes from June 25th. We had a motion and a second. No further
- comments. I think we're ready to vote. All right. Jack Baker? Yes. Melody Dusner? Abstain. Karen Duffy?
- Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. All right. That is four votes, one abstain.
- I'm staying. All right, so that passes. So now we have the minutes from July 9th. Are there any edits
- to the minutes from July 9th? Yes. Based on my understanding of Robert's rules, it required a two-thirds
- majority. It did not meet that threshold, but it's still recorded in the minutes. As passing, I would
- like that to be amended to indicate that it did not pass.
- It will indicate that we should have taken a two-thirds vote instead of a majority vote, but the majority
- vote did pass and we operated under that understanding. So we'll change that to acknowledge that we
- should have taken a two-thirds vote. Okay, well then now I have a request for information for the record
- as to what the threshold is for passage of such a motion. Two-thirds, so it's six. So you're going to
- record that it passed even though it
- We're going to record that we took it with a majority vote. As opposed to. With a majority vote and
- we should put a little asterisk in there that says we should have taken a two-thirds vote. Well,
- the minutes, again, I'm asking to be educated here, but is it that the minutes are going to record
- that the passage with the majority vote was incorrect. Yeah, it's basically. That's for clarification.
- Yes, that's fine. And again, request for information. What are the consequences which flows from a vote
- which limited a commissioner's comments to three minutes that was held as passed, which
- didn't and therefore a commissioner which had more to say beyond three minutes was limited to three
- minutes. What is the remedy for that? It is my understanding and looking through the rules, typically
- the remedy is someone raises a point of order or inquiry during that meeting and it can be addressed
- at that time. Going back and retroactively doing anything is typically not done. Well, a point of order
- which speaks to
- a breach of the rules can be raised at any time. So would it be appropriate now for me to raise a point
- of order with regards to the breach of the rules which occurred in the meeting of the 9th? Is it for
- amending the minutes? No. Then I think let's take that up in Commissioner Comments.
- No, but again, a point of order can be raised at any time. And I'm suggesting let's talk about it during
- a few minutes so we're not having other folks sit around. But it is very appropriate because it will
- speak to how this meeting continues. If we don't clarify certain points now, then when we get to demolition
- delays again, and there are other things that need to be clarified,
- about how demolition delays are treated. If we don't deal with them now, are we gonna wait
- until commissioners comments so we run the danger of making the same mistakes we did the last time in
- this demolition delay? Because I see that as relevant to when the issues are raised. You can't raise
- it after the DD when the questions and the issues of concern relate to how DDs are held.
- Well, that would be more relevant during the demolition there. So if you have a question about when
- the demolition delay is handled, we could talk about it at that time for points of clarification on
- that. We're just talking about the minutes right now and approving them. So I think if we're staying
- on topic, which we need to do, I think let's talk about the minutes. If you have questions about the
- process for the demolition delays, let's raise them then. OK. OK, thank you.
- Okay, so we have the minutes from July 29th. Commissioner Cross has suggested editing them to note that
- there should have been a two-thirds vote in order for the, oh gosh, what did he say? To suspend the
- rules. To suspend the rules. Does anybody want to make a motion? I have to approve.
- Okay, so Commissioner Golden has moved to approve the minutes from July 29th with the note about the
- two-thirds requirement. Anybody have a second? All right. Commissioner Duffy has seconded. Any further
- comments? No? All right, seeing none, I think we're ready to vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Melanie Duesner?
- Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. All right. That is five yeses.
- All right, thank you very much. I think we are now off to certificates of appropriateness. First off,
- we have a brief for staff review. Mr. Sandweiss, please take it away. First, COA of the evening,
- COA 2641. This is 411 West 3rd Street in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District. Petitioner is
- Andrew Meyer. This is a contributing 1907 house.
- a large two-story house consisting of two gable roofed wings intersecting in an L shape. The house has
- been substantially altered over the years with additions, replacement windows and doors, and other exterior
- features. The side gable wing has a small brick front porch on the east end of the house. This request
- is for the removal of a rooftop chimney, which you see indicated here.
- and the roof would be patched with architectural shingles to match the current roofing. The staff approves
- COA 2641. The chimney that the applicants proposed to remove is a more minor feature that does not contribute
- significantly to the building's architectural character. Next item, COA 2642.
- in the Near West Side Historic District, petitioner is Bill Manopopoulos. The request is for the installation
- of custom vinyl windows to match the grid of the existing wood windows on this house. Originally the
- front facade of this house faced Seventh Street, but since the construction of, I'm sorry,
- But since this time, the east elevation has become the front facade, so the house has been moved slightly.
- The house has an asphalt shingled cross-gabled roof with a brick chimney, wood siding, and a limestone
- block foundation. The front wing of the house has chamfered corners with gingerbread corner brackets
- and hanging pendants. The gable wall has wood shingle siding and a central carved wood attic vent and a wide
- band of trim at the eve. The front elevation holds a hip roofed porch at the L, which stands on limestone
- posts with the limestone knee walls. The house is stylized six over one woodstache windows. Well, that's
- not true. That's four over one woodstache. No, no, there's some of both. OK. Anyway, there are some.
- I guess that's six over one. OK.
- The house is some six over one wood sash windows throw out. The porch shelters, as you will see, very
- sort of complicated windows. The porch shelters two front doors, one leading to each wing of the house.
- The east wing is similarly styled to the front, however, without the chamfered corners. The gable wall
- has wood shingle siding, return cornices, and a wide band of trim on the eave. The house has a small
- number of historic additions off the rear.
- a kitchen owl at the northeast corner and a shed dormer on the east wing. This request is for the replacement
- of the windows with vinyl windows that would be custom made to match the dimensions and design of the
- existing windows. And staff approved COA 2642.
- The table for levels of review in the Near West Side Guidelines recommend approval of windows
- with alternative materials, as long as the dimensions and configurations are unchanged. While the replacement
- of original features such as windows do require review, leniency is requested. Some of these windows,
- namely the 6 over 1 windows, which are kind of 4 over 2 over 1, are significant to the building's ornate
- late Victorian design.
- And the reproduction of this pattern is necessary for retaining the significant aspect of the building's
- appearance. So here's, this is not the only, because there are some of these 6 over 1 windows that have
- different dimensions which are included in your packet materials, but I wanted to include an example
- here. Okay. Moving on, COA 2644.
- Address is 912 West 6th Street in the near west side. That's not right. That's because it's out of order.
- That's out of order. That's right. Because that's going to be staff review or commission review. This
- is 2644 101 West Kirkwood Avenue suites 117 and 116 in the courthouse square historic district.
- petitioner is Kelly Jennings. Suites 117 and 116 of the Fountain Square Mall are located in
- a non-contributing altered 1860s brick commercial building, which you see on the left, and a contributing
- Italianate brick commercial building, respectively. The store, Murth, is expanding into 117 and installing
- new signage at both locations in the same place as existing signage, which you see in the picture here.
- The request as I received it, we are expanding our store into the adjacent suite 116, formerly known
- as Ellie May's Boutique. We'd like to put our store name mirth on the tagline, women's apparel footwear
- accessories on the existing sign space. The letters would be made locally by Everywhere Signs from an
- acrylic material. And staff approved COA 2644.
- The proposed signage would be mounted in the location of the existing signage and would be similar in
- design and materials to other storefront signs found on the Fountain Square Mall building. Okay.
- All right. Next up, we have items for commission review. This is the procedure for certificates
- of appropriateness and demolition delays. 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 petitioner
- in the public. We ask that petitioners, the public and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed
- by the chair. Last question is directly addressed to them. Following commissioner questions, the chair
- will entertain a motion from a commissioner regarding the petition. Once a motion is made, we will then
- open up a discussion of the item for members of the commission only.
- Finally, once the commissioners have each had a chance to speak, the commission will vote on the petition.
- We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at
- all times. First up is COA 2643 is the petitioner here, Leslie Wagner. Are they online? I'm not seeing
- them. They're not online. Okay, so we will move this to after the demolition delay just to see if they
- might show up.
- So all right, then we have demolition delay DD 2610. Mr. Sandweiss, can you please give your report?
- All right, we have one demolition delay for this evening for a request for partial demolition This is
- at 1317 East Davis Street, which is an outstanding building I'll Go through the details
- 1317 East Davis is an outstanding rated modernist ranch with two massings separated by a massive limestone
- chimney block. Excuse me. Is that an important order? Yes. Is that an important order? I was of the
- opinion that my request for information was going to be dealt with before the demolition delay issue
- because it... He's giving us a report and then you'll have your chance to ask questions. No, I'm not
- asking questions about this. I'm asking a point
- request for information. Okay. All right. Seems reasonable. Okay. What's your question? So in light
- of what happened at the last demolition delay, I believe that certainly me, I don't know if any other
- member on this commission needs clarification as to how demolition delays need to be conducted, but
- I am certainly unclear.
- with regards to our guidelines, which speak to demolition belay, which is, I don't know if this is one
- or I, Article 1K. It says,
- For purposes of rules and procedures, no demolition delay case will be considered a petition. However,
- members of the Commission may decide to delay the discussion until enough information is presented.
- I would like to know how this request for information will be dealt with.
- moving forward. This has happened in the past where commissioners have requested and made a motion for
- more information and continued the demolition delay to a subsequent meeting asking staff to add information
- to my report. Motion seconded and voted on.
- So a motion needs to be presented. Okay. So according to Robert's rules, a request where the intent
- is clearly expressed and understood would constitute such a motion. And if it isn't stated in technical
- language, it is up to the chair to state that request in the form of a motion and present it to the
- membership
- and ask for a second, is my understanding of Robert's rules in regards to how requests are to be handled
- correct or incorrect? I thought we were discussing demolition delay. No, we are. He raised a point of
- order on the demolition delay, and I've allowed it because it makes sense to cover it here, just to
- make sure we're all on the same page. So my question is, if I say, hey, I would like some more information,
- according to Robert's rules,
- The intent is clear, more information. If I say, let's come back and visit this in two weeks, then it's
- a clear period of time over which this information is to be gathered. That sounds like, in my opinion,
- based on Watson Robert's rules, the chair should take that up, form it in an appropriate motion, and
- present it to the commission. Is that how we're going to move forward from now on? We haven't operated
- in that way. I asked for a motion.
- Sure. And then I there was a motion that was made to release and there was a second I restated it. So
- we're going to talk about that. I have I can't think of any time where I've actually I mean other people
- express they also wanted to have a demolition delay or release the delay and they made the motion. So
- we move forward with that. Nobody raised a motion to say you know for
- even like jumped in to try to make another motion. They didn't make a request for Commissioner Golden
- to withdraw his motion to reconsider. There were other options that were there that were available,
- but I have tried not to read people's minds in here and let people make the motions that they want to.
- So under one L it says parliamentary procedure meeting shall be conducted according to the processes.
- Sorry, the procedure settled in Robert's rules.
- So then when we go to Robert's rules now, which is where this part of our guidelines refers us to, Robert's
- rule said, if a member expresses a desire or makes a request that is not in technical language or framed
- as a motion, once the intent of that request is understood, it's the duty of the chair to frame that
- request in a motion and present it to the commission. So let me finish. So you didn't hear the word
- motion, but you heard
- a request for more information. You heard specific details of the information requested and a timeline
- to which the member or members would like that information to come. I heard two weeks, several times.
- So according to Robert's rules, that request clearly understood with enough detail to provide the membership
- with a clear understanding of what the person making the request needed
- It is the responsibility of the chair to take that request. Form it into a motion. The burden is not
- placed on the member to make the motion. The burden is placed on the chair. Read it. The burden is placed
- on the chair. You have a copy of Robert's Rules right there. Good. It's a burden in Robert's Rules placed
- on the chair to form that request in a motion. So the fact that you didn't hear a motion is exactly
- what that rule speaks to. The technical language of I am making a motion
- was not done. Such a contingency is dealt with in Robert's rules. And so it was the job of the chair
- to take that request, form it in a motion, present it, ask for a second, which then would form a subsidiary
- motion which needs to be voted on before the main motion on the floor. That was what didn't happen and
- I would like my request for information would like A, to clarify
- whether or not that was done and B, how are we going to treat situations like this moving forward? So
- when I asked for motions, if somebody had said, well, I think we need to do this delay for two weeks.
- If somebody had blurted that out, I would have said, do you want to make a motion at that point? And
- then we would have moved forward with that. It's in the minutes of the night. During the conversation,
- I cannot make five different motions for five different people
- wanting to do very different things. That's your jealous chair. No, it's not. Yes, it is. We hit Robert's
- roots. I did. It's not that. Shall we go back to the minutes of the night? No. This is enough. Sir,
- I'm sorry. I processed a motion that somebody made. If somebody, one of the other people had come through
- and said in some other words, I think we need to move this during the motion period to go forward
- I would have helped them formulate it. Just like the last meeting and even earlier when we were trying
- to make motions to revise the things, I talked through it and we tried to make the motion what it would
- be. Well, that's not according to the minutes and that's not according to my recollection. John Butler
- made a pretty reasonable presentation. Daniel Schlegel said he also would like
- to have some additional information. Noah responded, yes, that information is attainable. So John Butler
- said, I would like to have more time. I believe that if given more time, I can make a case
- for the preservation. And he stated very specific things that he would like to come back and present
- on, and he made requests of Noah, asking if Noah could research some of this information, and Noah answered
- in the affirmative.
- Daniel Schlegel then said, yes, I support this. I do, but I don't count because I'm advisory. But we
- had two voting members who clearly requested, clearly requested, and members in the audience also supported
- it based on what Mr. Butler said. So the fact that you can say you did not hear
- anybody express a request for more information, detail what kind of information the staff program manager
- indicating. Obviously he heard what was being requested because he responded to say, yes, I can get
- this information. So how can you say that you didn't hear a request for information? I find that incredibly.
- Nobody said that.
- But nobody is required to say that. That's what Robert's saying. There was a motion on the floor. And
- if you would like to review the entire meeting, it is available on cats. So you're saying that unless
- somebody uses the word motion, you will not recognize it. When I said I will entertain a motion, if
- somebody had said, I think we need to delay it, I would have clarified. John Butler did that.
- No, not at that time. When I asked if there was a motion, it was Commissioner Golden and he said those
- things. That the things you're talking about were said at other periods of the meeting. I cannot make
- motions for people. I can help them clarify. Mr. Golden, you made a motion. Of course. Good. And somebody
- seconded. Yes. Then we had the discussion. It was during the discussion that John Butler said,
- that he wanted to delay, which would have formed a motion in itself where after the motion on the floor
- would have constituted a subsidiary motion, which needs to be dealt with prior to the main motion. I
- don't think there's a green maker. There's a motion on the floor. You deal with the motion on the floor
- first. No. Could you reread what subsidiary motions are? So first of all, I don't believe that you can
- have a subsidiary motion that undoes the main motion. So it wouldn't be subsidiary. It would be an alternate motion.
- You were deciding on the motion whether to release the demolition or not. That was the motion on the
- table. And that was the motion that passed. It's hard to have a subsidiary or a second, an amended motion
- to something that is to release it, right? You're not establishing conditions. You're not, you know,
- setting a timeframe or doing any of the things within your purview. You said you don't think a subsidiary
- motion can speak against the main motion. Do you have any sources to back that up, please?
- Here's how it would have worked. The subsidiary motion would be to request for more time, but the motion
- that was made was to release demolition delay. How could those two be passed at once? A subsidiary motion
- is a parliamentary tool used to modify, delay, or otherwise dispose of the main motion. Modify the main motion
- delay the main motion or dispose of the main motion. That is what a subsidiary motion is there. So there's
- nothing which speaks to the subsidiary motion being in agreement. It is meant to either delay. So it's
- meant to either delay, modify, or dispose of the motion. Delay the motion. That was what the subsidiary
- motion meant to do.
- to delay the motion on the floor to release by two weeks. That was the purpose of the subsidiary motion.
- Except there was no subsidiary motion. Yes, there was. There was a motion on the floor that had to be
- dealt with. And I could potentially see your argument had there not been a motion on the floor to be
- dealt with. There is nothing in Robert's rules that says a motion. It doesn't differentiate between
- main motion and subsidiary motions. Ms. Duesdorf. I wasn't here.
- And I'm not super familiar with Robert's rules, but I just wanted to ask. So if there's a motion on
- the floor and we're talking about it, let's say somebody really disagrees with it, then would we have
- to vote no on that before we could raise a new motion to ask for more time? Do we have to?
- completely sort of disposed with the motion on the floor. So we would, if it was something that we really
- wanted to disagree with, we would first have to vote no on that and then propose. Okay, just checking
- because I too suspect this may come up again and I just wanted that. But if a subsidiary motion has
- a purpose, an intrinsic purpose to delay the main motion on the floor, it would make no sense
- to vote on the main motion. How would you delay the main motion by using a subsidiary motion if the
- main motion has to be voted first before the subsidiary motion? Mr. Cross, my secondary subsidiary motion
- was made. You guys discussed it, but you did not make a motion to have a subsidiary. Just because you
- had the discussion, I could see where if there was discussion on the floor without a motion, then
- the chair could potentially form a motion based on the comments. But because there was already a motion
- on the table, and you did not, or any voting member, did not throw out a subsidiary motion, there was
- nothing to vote on. So, yes, it was not just a discussion. A request was made. And under Robert's rules,
- a request holds the power of a motion if the
- Definition is clear. It is specific and its purpose is understood. So we had a discussion, correct.
- Then member Butler said, I want more time, clear request to do these things, clear request to come back
- within this time period. And we had from Daniel Slagle agreement to say, I also
- would like to hear more information and Noah is two weeks enough for you to get this stuff and Noah
- answered in the affirmative. So we have a clear request, not just a discussion, we had a clear articulated
- request with parameters for special things to be done. It was acknowledged by staff that that could
- happen. We had another member saying, yeah, I agree, I also wanted it. That request under Robert's rules
- is not a discussion we're talking about.
- We're talking about that specific, clear, articulated request made by the member constitutes a motion
- under Robert's rules. That request should have been taken by the chair and you should have said, okay,
- I heard a request, it's doing this, it's doing that, it sounds like a request to take with the matter
- for two weeks. Is that correct, Mr. Butler, is that what you want? That is what we've always done. I've
- sat here and seen Sam DeSolar, I've sat here and seen Sam DeSolar
- take requests, I've seen John Saunders do it. Regardless of whether it was done by these people or not,
- the rules, Robert's rules, as stated, authorized as the parliamentary procedures for these meetings
- clearly state that a clearly articulated request is a motion. And happening after a main motion, it
- acts like a subsidiary motion.
- with the purpose to delay the main motion, which is the purpose of a subsidiary motion. So, for you
- to disagree with me, you'd have to A, show that the request made by John Butler was not a request. You'd
- have to show, you'd have to also show that having been made after the main motion, it doesn't constitute
- a con subsidiary motion. You'd have to show that despite Robert's rule saying that when a request is
- made, the chair should
- present it to the commission in the form of a motion and ask for a second. If all those three things
- are correct, then what we had happen on the meeting of the 25th of June was incorrect process. And unless
- somebody can tell me where any of these three pillars are incorrect, I don't see how the logic doesn't hold.
- No, no, no, no, no. Sir, you've had a lot of time to talk. Commissioner Duffy, you raised your hand.
- But it's my point of information. I know, when we're trying to get more information, man. Sure. Well,
- I was just going to say that we have had this kind of difference of opinion happening in the past and
- where some people wanted more information. And if my memory serves me correctly, what worked and seems
- to me would work the best
- is for that person to say, even though another motion is on the floor, so cannot make a motion to dispense
- of it, could say, I will be voting against this because I would like to subsequently make a motion that's
- similar but amended or whatever.
- requesting more information. That's what's been done. And it's not been, I don't remember it ever been
- left to the chair to. But that was probably before Robert's rules was codified in our guidelines. I've
- called on Commissioner Baker. Commissioner Baker. I didn't discern any request, a motion at that meeting.
- I heard, yes, I'd like to have more information. A couple of people may have said that.
- I was listening, and I didn't hear anyone make a motion, anything that I would have considered a motion.
- I've been around a little bit. I'm listening to what people say. But I didn't hear that. And let me
- just say that in redress, the gentleman had the option of also saying, would you withdraw the motion
- so that I could put a motion on for additional information? And that request
- wasn't made either. That's perfectly legitimate. Or to amend in some way, or seek to amend. There are
- things that could have been done that weren't done. The motion just, as I see it, it was a legitimate
- motion made and acted upon. We're beating a horse dead. And we're beating on the horse. We're going
- in circles and circles hearing the same thing over and over and over again. And that's all I have to
- say. Can I ask a question?
- Mr. Baker, did you hear anyone? No, I'm not asking you. Okay. No, hold on. No, no, no, no. Hold on.
- Are you telling me that nobody here, despite the fact that it's in the minutes, here, Commissioner Baker
- say, I would like to postpone this for two weeks so that I can get more information. He made a request of staff.
- Daniel Schlago said he'd also like, did you hear the request? That's all I'm asking. Did you hear a
- request for more time? Yes or no? I'm not debating anymore. Yes or no? So even though it's in the minutes.
- It's in the minutes because you asked for it to be amended and put in the minutes. No, it's in the,
- well, if it didn't happen, then it shouldn't be in the minutes. But it did happen. And it just clearly
- articulated in minutes that a request for information was made.
- I'm sorry that the motion that you wanted was not. No, no, no, no. My request. My point of information.
- I'm sorry. I was tall. I was. Again, things change. And what I directed a question at the chair and
- a point of information was there. This is the information that I want. And it's either yes or no. Was
- there a request made?
- at the meeting of the 25th of June by Commissioner Baker for more time to gather information, asking
- for two weeks and requesting staff to provide it. Was a request made by Commissioner Baker? I'm not
- asking about a motion. I'm not asking about anything else. I'm asking, did he make a request? And I
- would like to ask Noah, did Noah, did you hear
- a request to research issues concerning a patent and to check on the number of buildings of a particular
- style, architectural style as commercial buildings. All right. Did you hear that request from Commissioner
- Bigg? Excuse me, this point of order, I am now ruling
- that it is not well taken. We are moving on. It can be appealed to the commission. I would like to raise
- a point of order. You can raise another one, but I just found that other one not well taken. Okay. Is
- the chair going to answer the question asked during the request for information? We have already talked
- about this. And it's already been answered. So the point of order is not well taken. Okay. I have more
- requests for information.
- relating to demolition delays. Commissioner Golden. In the interest of a member of the public sitting
- in this meeting, I'd ask that the commissioner stand down and bring specific information from the minutes
- that he would like to point out at the next meeting. No, because we have a demolition delay right here.
- And if these matters aren't dealt with, then certainly
- How are we going to know what is expected of us, what's expected of the Commission? I would also like
- to bring up the point to the Chair that there is an underlying theme that maybe the results would have
- been different after a vote to release the demolition delay was made. So if somebody asks for
- more information doesn't mean that it's going to happen. The issue is not about
- whether it would be released or not. It's not about the merits of the case. The point of information
- speaks specifically to the procedures and guidelines here. And if the procedures and guidelines, within
- our guidelines, we use Robert's rules. It's codified in our procedures. And Robert's rules indicate
- that a certain process must be followed. If we don't follow the process, I certainly have a right as
- a commissioner to speak on it. And if it is that members are going to become
- forgetful about what happened in meetings, even though the minutes are there would speak to it. And
- people are going to speak in contradiction to the minutes and then say, well, it's in the minutes because
- I asked for it to be there. It's in there because it occurred. It's not in there because I asked for
- it. It occurred. And I felt it important that this be recorded in the minutes to support these questions
- that I came here to ask. Also keep in mind,
- that I would have raised these issues at the last meeting, but I was denied an opportunity to speak
- because an incorrect decision was made based on the vote that didn't pass. So it seems that my questions
- about procedure is very much relevant because we have managed to breach them on two separate occasions.
- We've answered the questions. We are going around in circles in the interest of time. We are moving
- on to the staff.
- so I have other information I'm not going to take any of them you're not going to take any more right
- now no sir you have filibustered this meeting my job as chair is to make sure we are going through well
- I would like to raise a point of order our rules state that when a point of information is on the table
- it cannot be voted on it's not for debate and it can occur whenever there is a
- at any time relevant to the proceeding. I think points of information about demolition delay just before
- a demolition delay vote is an appropriate time. We've already answered these things. We have business
- that we need to get to. Yes, but I have several issues about demolition delays, which I believe need to be
- Then we'll take them up for the rest of the time and Commissioner Comments. No, because you can't take
- them up after the vote. I'm the chair. We're moving on. We are on the agenda. And I've raised a point
- of order. And I denied it. Okay. You have kept on doing it over and over. We've talked about it. We
- need to move on. So let me just make this clear. I've raised a point of information. You've denied it.
- I've raised a point of order relating to
- your denial of my request for information and you've denied it. On what basis are you denying it? Is
- it that their questions are not relevant? Because you haven't heard them yet. We are trying to get through
- the agenda. I am managing it, sir. We have been speaking for a very long time. And you have been skillfully
- evasive about answering my questions about the last demolition delay request on the 25th of June. This
- is in a courtroom.
- We are here. No, it isn't. And you're not a prosecutor asking me as a defendant, sir. We're moving on.
- We're here to talk about a demolition delay. Let's get to our actual business. We have been around on
- this. So you're not going to entertain Mike? I've denied it. After hearing you talk for about 30 minutes.
- All right. Demolition delay 2610 1317 East Davis Street.
- petitioner is Ross Chitwood. Is the petitioner present? 1317 East Davis is an outstanding rated modernist
- ranch with two massings separated by massive limestone chimney stack. To one side is half of a front-facing
- gable with vinyl siding above the first floor with three banded windows. The other side is recessed
- with a clear story window.
- A single-sash window sits in the middle of the facade and ribbon windows turn the corner on the side.
- Typical of the style, a carport extends from the roof to the side of the house. Built in 1955, the house
- was first owned by Rovenna and Roscoe Parrish. Roscoe worked as a dentist and died two years later.
- Rovenna worked as a clerk for the IU Records Office and lived in the house until 1963. For the next
- 60 years, the house was owned by Richard Stiegel,
- regional manager for Thermo Gas in Ellitsville and his wife Helen. The final owners of the house prior
- to the current owners were Jack and Joan Myers, owners of the University Sporting Goods store, which
- they opened in their early 20s at the corner of Kirkwood and Walnut and are operated for 47 years. This
- request is for partial demolition, as I'll show you, which would include the construction of a side
- addition that would partially enclose the carport
- the western end of the carport with a mudroom. This proposal calls for the reuse of limestone siding
- currently on the east end of the house facing the carport for use as wainscotting on the addition. The
- roof line of the carport would remain unchanged as would the eastern half of the carport which is open.
- The recommendation of staff in this case is for the release of demolition delay 2610.
- This property is undoubtedly eligible for designation as an outstanding example of a modern ranch with
- a number of significant character-defining features. For an addition to be considered compatible with
- the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation, an addition must be clearly differentiated
- but compatible with the original structure, be appropriately scaled, and not destroy historic materials
- or features that characterize the property.
- In the opinion of staff, this proposal achieves these standards. This addition would use materials found
- on the original house, but would be subordinate in size and position, differentiated by the
- use of wainscoting and siding, rather than floor-to-ceiling limestone, would retain the roofline and
- partial openness of the carport, and would not obscure significant features on the east end of the house,
- including the corner window. Does the petitioner have anything that he would like to add?
- comments from the public? Anybody online would like to speak on this? No? Anybody else in the room?
- Kind of guessing not, but okay. All right, we'll go to Commissioner questions. Commissioner Goldney,
- how many questions about this? Commissioner Baker. Does the old carport get torn completely off and
- redone? It's a redo of the carport?
- just essentially filling in the left half of that red car is making it like a mud room because currently
- they enter in a kitchen. So I leave the roof alone. I just put in a foundation and just cut the asphalt.
- It's pretty simple. So thank you. Commissioner Duffy and questions. Okay, Commissioner Duesner. Just
- one little additional on that. This sounds like it would be
- basically reversible if somebody wanted to put it back to this. Is that for the petitioner? It'd be
- a tile floor, and we have to, by code, have a frost barrier. So I have to put in a foundation for it.
- But they just wanted, because you walk into their kitchen, and it's a pretty small kitchen, so they
- wanted a bigger area. My question,
- I guess I have one for the petitioner. Is the door that's on the existing, like that side door, is that
- going away? It'll be in the house. Okay. And then I guess question for staff, this is an outstanding
- property, but it's not in a district, right? So is this one of the, we ran into this at the last meeting
- where in the demolition delay language, we talk about, we released it, but we may designate it later.
- for historic preservation. Is this kind of maybe where that applies of we could theoretically say, yes,
- we release this demolition delay, but if we might later revisit the house and be like, well, the house
- is still really significant. Maybe we'd want to designate it because usually in demolition delays, at
- least all the ones I can remember, we've just destroyed the house or they have. This seems different.
- Yeah, this is trying to clarify. This is a little different because in this case, it's
- It's not a demolition permit that's, you know, contingent on this demolition delay being released. It's
- a building plan for an addition. So this is for basically the work that's being proposed and presented
- to you. So if there was a petition say later or a proposal later that came up to demolish this house
- or to conduct another alteration that would bring it back to demolition delay, then
- It could potentially be designated. Okay. All right. I just wanted to kind of clarify that because we
- are all kind of like that language is odd. But when I saw this, I was like, I bet it applies to this.
- Well, the other thing, too, is you all can designate on on your own motion. Yes. So whereas you may
- not want to designate when somebody comes through with a demolition delay, you could decide later to
- take it up. And that's why we're reserving that, right? That makes sense.
- I have another question. Yes, please. So this is demolition delay that we really don't have purview
- over what's going to be done. Just changing what's there. Yeah. Okay. Just want to make that clear.
- I guess I'm not there. What's being demolished? So
- to reuse. I mean, I'm not tearing anything down. So yeah, it's weird. Which brings comes up for demolition
- delay for notable and outstanding rated buildings can apply to a number of changes, exterior changes
- that could impact buildings, historic significance or eligibility for, I guess, designation that would
- include additions like this. So it's called demolition delay. They put a sign in their yard that says
- notice of demolition, which could freak out neighbors.
- Um, but it's all the same process. So, um, I understand the confusion. Okay. Any other questions? No.
- All right. Well, I think we're at the point where I'll entertain a motion. All right. Commissioner Golden
- has moved to release demolition delay 26 dash 10. Is there a second? Okay. Commissioner Baker has seconded
- to release demolition delay 26.
- 10 let's go to comments commissioner golden you go first since you made the motion this is a beautiful
- house i would hate to lose the essence of it but i think this is a sympathetic addition and i approve
- okay commissioner baker you seconded i agree with the staff report and i will vote yes for this okay
- commissioner duffy same i support this commissioner dusner
- Same as long as a small change now doesn't prevent us from greater protection later, which it sounds
- I don't think that's okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I basically second commissioner do here. I mean, we,
- we preserve our rights later on to be able to designate this if we so choose, but I think this makes
- sense. I don't see anything wrong with this. So I will vote to release. Okay. Any other secondary comments
- from anyone?
- Okay, I think we're ready to vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Melody Duesner? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Golden?
- Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Motion carries, five yeses. Excellent, thank you very much. Thank you for
- coming in, appreciate it. All right, we're gonna... Oh, again, I'm sorry.
- Commissioner Baker, please read the motion. This is the demolition delay resolution. This is the release
- today regarding the property at 1317 East Davis Street. The Historic Preservation Commission, HPC, declares
- that it got notice of proposed demolition slash partial 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 AHPC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the Common Council. Thank you,
- Vice Chair Baker, for correcting me on that. All right, let's circle back to COA 2643. Is the petitioner
- online? So I received an email from the petitioner during this meeting where she said that she will
- not be attending tonight. She had something else come up. OK, so we have a...
- give you a written agreement to continue it in which case your 30-day window your 30-day clock would
- not start tolling or you all can decide to to deny without prejudice and she can bring it back when
- she's available yeah this is one of the new ones I think maybe let's go with I'm curious what people
- want to do on this one
- Do we, let's go questions first since it's, does anybody have questions about our options of what we
- can do with this? I think it's the... So based on our discussion last meeting, I think, this, or maybe
- two meetings ago, if we deny, is it with prejudice? Without prejudice. Without prejudice. Then she can
- just reapply. Correct. And there's no... In the 30 day,
- This tolls the 30 day clock, so we don't lose the time. So she could not reply, and the 30 days could
- pass. It actually would, because it's, I think, three weeks until our next meeting, so I think the clock
- would run out. So I think we need to deny without prejudice. And you all read the background on this
- case, right? So part of the consideration here is that Bloomington Restorations, Inc. has a preservation
- easement on this house.
- So part of the reason why this was not handled as staff approval, there were a couple of reasons. But
- one of them was waiting on the BRI board to weigh in, which happened on Tuesday. So we could deny, and
- she could come back to you, and you could do a staff approval? Potentially. Or it would come back to
- us. Right. Does anybody else have any questions on that? I just want to make sure we're clear on stuff.
- It looks like you might have a question, but just an observation. I, I like this option for its clarity.
- I like the fact that it keeps it clear that we're the ones who are sort of like steering this when it's
- in our court, when it's in her court. Yeah. So I think as opposed to the, we need to ask her permission
- to bring back whatever this is, this is my, I like this procedure better. Okay. Any other questions?
- Then I think does anybody have a motion?
- Yes, for COA 2643. OK, so Commissioner Golden has moved to deny without prejudice. COA 2643 is their
- second. Commissioner Duesner has seconded. Any further comments from anyone? I think this is the way
- to go. That's my comment. All right, I think we're ready to call the roll. All right. Jack Baker? Yes.
- Melody Duesner? Yes.
- Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Goldin? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. All right, motion carries. Excellent. All right,
- so now we're through the COAs and demolition delays. That brings us to old business. Mr. Samuels, is
- there any old business? Old business? No, not that I can think of. All right, any new? New business?
- Not really. Commissioner Baker. Just a comment. We call it old business. It meant over procedure this
- evening. Could we have that for a commissioner comment or is that, I'm just, commissioner comments?
- Is that? Yes. It's the next item. Rule how you need to, but it's a comment I'd like to make. Yeah, sure.
- Let's just have that as commissioner comment if that's okay.
- We'll move on to the commissioner comments next. Commissioner Baker, please. Sorry. Please go ahead.
- The way the meeting was handled just most recently, the gentleman made a comment that he would like
- to have or would like to see and it was not taken as a motion as it should not have been. It was not
- made as a motion. It was made as a comment.
- And it was taken as a comment and not something that had to be handled by the president or anyone or
- by procedurally. And I think that's the way the previous meeting was handled that we've been talking
- about so much. And that's it. That's all I want to say. OK. Any other commissioner comments? No. Doesn't
- look like it. For me.
- I try to run these meetings as honestly as I possibly can. I will make mistakes. Commissioners, it is
- also their duty to point out points of order, ask for clarification on the rules. I'm not going to get
- everything right, but the time to do it is in that meeting. We can't go back in time. We can't change
- something that happened as much as maybe some people want. So I encourage everybody, let's be respectful
- to each other.
- Let's have calm conversations where we actually are talking about the issues that are important to us
- all rather than resorting to theatrics and trying to stay on the agenda. And when requests are made
- for maybe being able to move it to another part of the agenda so we can accommodate the public, we're
- here to serve the public first and foremost. And I think we need to take our actions with that in mind.
- and then be able to deliberate amongst ourselves when we have further questions and things of that nature
- without wasting everybody else's time. So that is my comment for the day. Thank you all very much for
- sticking through the rest of this meeting. Any public comments? Anyone online? Doesn't look like it.
- Anybody here in the audience? No. All right. That brings us to the end of our agenda. So this meeting
- is adjourned.