WEBVTT 00:00:00.386 --> 00:00:12.551 - Five o'clock, I'm calling the July 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission 00:00:12.551 --> 00:00:23.798 - to order. Would the staff please call the roll? Absolutely. Bernard Cross? Yes. Jack Baker? Here. 00:00:23.798 --> 00:00:30.110 - John Butler? No. Ernesto Castaneda? No. Melody Dusner? 00:00:30.242 --> 00:00:43.144 - Karen Duffy, here. Jeff Golden, here. Jeremy Hackard, here. Daniel Schlageville, absent. Okay, we have 00:00:43.144 --> 00:00:55.920 - a quorum. All right, we have quorum. Next up is approval of the minutes. Does anybody have any edits? 00:00:55.920 --> 00:00:59.678 - Yes. With the vote recording, 00:00:59.810 --> 00:01:08.593 - 5-3 to limit commissioners' questions. I guess I'll start with a request for information. What is the 00:01:08.593 --> 00:01:17.375 - threshold to pass such a vote to limit a commissioner's time? Is that an edit to the minutes? I'm not 00:01:17.375 --> 00:01:24.350 - clear what you're asking. Well, the vote said it was approved. It passed at 5-3. 00:01:24.834 --> 00:01:30.864 - Now, if that is below the threshold, then it being recorded as passed would be an edit, because if it 00:01:30.864 --> 00:01:37.189 - didn't meet the threshold, that would be an error in the minutes. I still have no idea what you're talking 00:01:37.189 --> 00:01:43.396 - about. Jack's motion to suspend rules for a three-minute limitation, which should have been a two-thirds 00:01:43.396 --> 00:01:49.484 - vote, but we took it as a majority vote, and it passed, and we proceeded that way. So we can note that 00:01:49.484 --> 00:01:50.430 - in the minutes. 00:01:53.026 --> 00:01:59.272 - So a note in the minutes to indicate that they should have received a two-thirds majority vote to pass, 00:01:59.272 --> 00:02:05.759 - because we proceeded as it was passing, so there's a note in there that it should have required two-thirds. 00:02:05.759 --> 00:02:12.065 - Right. And is this the correct time to ask follow-up information, or do I wait until after we... I think 00:02:12.065 --> 00:02:18.191 - if we're getting into process stuff, let's go to Commissioner Comments and... Well, no. A request for 00:02:18.191 --> 00:02:21.374 - information can be made at any time, and I'm just... 00:02:22.402 --> 00:02:30.128 - asking if we'd prefer to do the other requests I have for information which concerns the procedural 00:02:30.128 --> 00:02:38.241 - vote, which was improperly recorded and enforced, or do we do it after the minutes are approved? Perhaps 00:02:38.241 --> 00:02:41.950 - I could interject really quickly. I am sorry as 00:02:42.050 --> 00:02:49.208 - Director I'm filling in for staff today and I would like there's two sets of minutes on the agenda for 00:02:49.208 --> 00:02:56.644 - approval and so we jump right into comments and it's not clear to me which set of minutes we're discussing 00:02:56.644 --> 00:03:03.593 - but it sounds like the previous minutes of July 9th but both are on there so let's clarify since we 00:03:03.593 --> 00:03:10.334 - do have two sets. My understanding was that the amended minutes well the minutes were amended as 00:03:10.850 --> 00:03:18.640 - voted on last meeting. So do we have to go through an approval of those minutes even though they were 00:03:18.640 --> 00:03:25.743 - amended as instructed? Do we? They were amended as instructed and they were put on here just 00:03:25.743 --> 00:03:33.457 - for clarification. Okay, then let's go through them. My questions are for the minutes, right now for 00:03:33.457 --> 00:03:36.894 - the minutes of the 20th, of the 9th of July. 00:03:38.178 --> 00:03:44.129 - Okay, so let's tackle the June 25th minutes right now. Does anybody have a motion on those minutes? 00:03:44.129 --> 00:03:50.438 - Okay, Commissioner Goldman has moved to approve the minutes from June 25th. Is there a second? All right, 00:03:50.438 --> 00:03:56.449 - Commissioner Duffy has seconded to approve the minutes from June 25th. Any further discussion? Well, 00:03:56.449 --> 00:04:02.638 - do I need to raise my amendment again? No, this is you're talking about. Oh, my apologies. Yeah, you're 00:04:02.638 --> 00:04:07.102 - talking about. It's been a long day. Forgive me. Yeah, it's okay. Okay, so 00:04:07.202 --> 00:04:17.303 - The motion is on for approval of the minutes from June 25th. We had a motion and a second. No further 00:04:17.303 --> 00:04:27.603 - comments. I think we're ready to vote. All right. Jack Baker? Yes. Melody Dusner? Abstain. Karen Duffy? 00:04:27.603 --> 00:04:36.318 - Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. All right. That is four votes, one abstain. 00:04:36.514 --> 00:04:43.770 - I'm staying. All right, so that passes. So now we have the minutes from July 9th. Are there any edits 00:04:43.770 --> 00:04:51.240 - to the minutes from July 9th? Yes. Based on my understanding of Robert's rules, it required a two-thirds 00:04:51.240 --> 00:04:58.496 - majority. It did not meet that threshold, but it's still recorded in the minutes. As passing, I would 00:04:58.496 --> 00:05:02.622 - like that to be amended to indicate that it did not pass. 00:05:04.002 --> 00:05:10.830 - It will indicate that we should have taken a two-thirds vote instead of a majority vote, but the majority 00:05:10.830 --> 00:05:17.272 - vote did pass and we operated under that understanding. So we'll change that to acknowledge that we 00:05:17.272 --> 00:05:24.036 - should have taken a two-thirds vote. Okay, well then now I have a request for information for the record 00:05:24.036 --> 00:05:30.607 - as to what the threshold is for passage of such a motion. Two-thirds, so it's six. So you're going to 00:05:30.607 --> 00:05:32.990 - record that it passed even though it 00:05:33.506 --> 00:05:42.834 - We're going to record that we took it with a majority vote. As opposed to. With a majority vote and 00:05:42.834 --> 00:05:51.883 - we should put a little asterisk in there that says we should have taken a two-thirds vote. Well, 00:05:51.883 --> 00:06:01.118 - the minutes, again, I'm asking to be educated here, but is it that the minutes are going to record 00:06:01.282 --> 00:06:11.247 - that the passage with the majority vote was incorrect. Yeah, it's basically. That's for clarification. 00:06:11.247 --> 00:06:21.308 - Yes, that's fine. And again, request for information. What are the consequences which flows from a vote 00:06:21.308 --> 00:06:29.822 - which limited a commissioner's comments to three minutes that was held as passed, which 00:06:29.986 --> 00:06:36.847 - didn't and therefore a commissioner which had more to say beyond three minutes was limited to three 00:06:36.847 --> 00:06:43.844 - minutes. What is the remedy for that? It is my understanding and looking through the rules, typically 00:06:43.844 --> 00:06:50.773 - the remedy is someone raises a point of order or inquiry during that meeting and it can be addressed 00:06:50.773 --> 00:06:57.908 - at that time. Going back and retroactively doing anything is typically not done. Well, a point of order 00:06:57.908 --> 00:06:59.006 - which speaks to 00:06:59.298 --> 00:07:09.073 - a breach of the rules can be raised at any time. So would it be appropriate now for me to raise a point 00:07:09.073 --> 00:07:18.567 - of order with regards to the breach of the rules which occurred in the meeting of the 9th? Is it for 00:07:18.567 --> 00:07:26.462 - amending the minutes? No. Then I think let's take that up in Commissioner Comments. 00:07:26.626 --> 00:07:34.462 - No, but again, a point of order can be raised at any time. And I'm suggesting let's talk about it during 00:07:34.462 --> 00:07:41.999 - a few minutes so we're not having other folks sit around. But it is very appropriate because it will 00:07:41.999 --> 00:07:50.059 - speak to how this meeting continues. If we don't clarify certain points now, then when we get to demolition 00:07:50.059 --> 00:07:55.134 - delays again, and there are other things that need to be clarified, 00:07:55.650 --> 00:08:02.089 - about how demolition delays are treated. If we don't deal with them now, are we gonna wait 00:08:02.089 --> 00:08:09.306 - until commissioners comments so we run the danger of making the same mistakes we did the last time in 00:08:09.306 --> 00:08:16.453 - this demolition delay? Because I see that as relevant to when the issues are raised. You can't raise 00:08:16.453 --> 00:08:22.750 - it after the DD when the questions and the issues of concern relate to how DDs are held. 00:08:23.394 --> 00:08:28.584 - Well, that would be more relevant during the demolition there. So if you have a question about when 00:08:28.584 --> 00:08:33.774 - the demolition delay is handled, we could talk about it at that time for points of clarification on 00:08:33.774 --> 00:08:39.016 - that. We're just talking about the minutes right now and approving them. So I think if we're staying 00:08:39.016 --> 00:08:44.258 - on topic, which we need to do, I think let's talk about the minutes. If you have questions about the 00:08:44.258 --> 00:08:48.254 - process for the demolition delays, let's raise them then. OK. OK, thank you. 00:08:48.802 --> 00:08:57.294 - Okay, so we have the minutes from July 29th. Commissioner Cross has suggested editing them to note that 00:08:57.294 --> 00:09:05.459 - there should have been a two-thirds vote in order for the, oh gosh, what did he say? To suspend the 00:09:05.459 --> 00:09:12.318 - rules. To suspend the rules. Does anybody want to make a motion? I have to approve. 00:09:14.370 --> 00:09:21.929 - Okay, so Commissioner Golden has moved to approve the minutes from July 29th with the note about the 00:09:21.929 --> 00:09:29.638 - two-thirds requirement. Anybody have a second? All right. Commissioner Duffy has seconded. Any further 00:09:29.638 --> 00:09:37.197 - comments? No? All right, seeing none, I think we're ready to vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Melanie Duesner? 00:09:37.197 --> 00:09:44.158 - Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. All right. That is five yeses. 00:09:44.674 --> 00:09:52.223 - All right, thank you very much. I think we are now off to certificates of appropriateness. First off, 00:09:52.223 --> 00:09:59.402 - we have a brief for staff review. Mr. Sandweiss, please take it away. First, COA of the evening, 00:09:59.402 --> 00:10:06.803 - COA 2641. This is 411 West 3rd Street in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District. Petitioner is 00:10:06.803 --> 00:10:10.430 - Andrew Meyer. This is a contributing 1907 house. 00:10:13.538 --> 00:10:20.814 - a large two-story house consisting of two gable roofed wings intersecting in an L shape. The house has 00:10:20.814 --> 00:10:28.443 - been substantially altered over the years with additions, replacement windows and doors, and other exterior 00:10:28.443 --> 00:10:35.719 - features. The side gable wing has a small brick front porch on the east end of the house. This request 00:10:35.719 --> 00:10:40.734 - is for the removal of a rooftop chimney, which you see indicated here. 00:10:41.378 --> 00:10:51.614 - and the roof would be patched with architectural shingles to match the current roofing. The staff approves 00:10:51.614 --> 00:11:02.136 - COA 2641. The chimney that the applicants proposed to remove is a more minor feature that does not contribute 00:11:02.136 --> 00:11:09.598 - significantly to the building's architectural character. Next item, COA 2642. 00:11:10.434 --> 00:11:20.037 - in the Near West Side Historic District, petitioner is Bill Manopopoulos. The request is for the installation 00:11:20.037 --> 00:11:28.854 - of custom vinyl windows to match the grid of the existing wood windows on this house. Originally the 00:11:28.854 --> 00:11:36.798 - front facade of this house faced Seventh Street, but since the construction of, I'm sorry, 00:11:38.338 --> 00:11:45.845 - But since this time, the east elevation has become the front facade, so the house has been moved slightly. 00:11:45.845 --> 00:11:53.072 - The house has an asphalt shingled cross-gabled roof with a brick chimney, wood siding, and a limestone 00:11:53.072 --> 00:12:00.158 - block foundation. The front wing of the house has chamfered corners with gingerbread corner brackets 00:12:00.158 --> 00:12:07.806 - and hanging pendants. The gable wall has wood shingle siding and a central carved wood attic vent and a wide 00:12:08.002 --> 00:12:16.800 - band of trim at the eve. The front elevation holds a hip roofed porch at the L, which stands on limestone 00:12:16.800 --> 00:12:25.516 - posts with the limestone knee walls. The house is stylized six over one woodstache windows. Well, that's 00:12:25.516 --> 00:12:33.899 - not true. That's four over one woodstache. No, no, there's some of both. OK. Anyway, there are some. 00:12:33.899 --> 00:12:36.638 - I guess that's six over one. OK. 00:12:36.994 --> 00:12:43.478 - The house is some six over one wood sash windows throw out. The porch shelters, as you will see, very 00:12:43.478 --> 00:12:50.089 - sort of complicated windows. The porch shelters two front doors, one leading to each wing of the house. 00:12:50.089 --> 00:12:56.636 - The east wing is similarly styled to the front, however, without the chamfered corners. The gable wall 00:12:56.636 --> 00:13:03.057 - has wood shingle siding, return cornices, and a wide band of trim on the eave. The house has a small 00:13:03.057 --> 00:13:05.790 - number of historic additions off the rear. 00:13:05.890 --> 00:13:16.625 - a kitchen owl at the northeast corner and a shed dormer on the east wing. This request is for the replacement 00:13:16.625 --> 00:13:26.579 - of the windows with vinyl windows that would be custom made to match the dimensions and design of the 00:13:26.579 --> 00:13:31.166 - existing windows. And staff approved COA 2642. 00:13:32.898 --> 00:13:38.497 - The table for levels of review in the Near West Side Guidelines recommend approval of windows 00:13:38.497 --> 00:13:45.050 - with alternative materials, as long as the dimensions and configurations are unchanged. While the replacement 00:13:45.050 --> 00:13:51.125 - of original features such as windows do require review, leniency is requested. Some of these windows, 00:13:51.125 --> 00:13:57.380 - namely the 6 over 1 windows, which are kind of 4 over 2 over 1, are significant to the building's ornate 00:13:57.380 --> 00:13:58.750 - late Victorian design. 00:13:59.458 --> 00:14:08.214 - And the reproduction of this pattern is necessary for retaining the significant aspect of the building's 00:14:08.214 --> 00:14:16.887 - appearance. So here's, this is not the only, because there are some of these 6 over 1 windows that have 00:14:16.887 --> 00:14:25.310 - different dimensions which are included in your packet materials, but I wanted to include an example 00:14:25.310 --> 00:14:28.062 - here. Okay. Moving on, COA 2644. 00:14:28.322 --> 00:14:37.983 - Address is 912 West 6th Street in the near west side. That's not right. That's because it's out of order. 00:14:37.983 --> 00:14:47.280 - That's out of order. That's right. Because that's going to be staff review or commission review. This 00:14:47.280 --> 00:14:56.030 - is 2644 101 West Kirkwood Avenue suites 117 and 116 in the courthouse square historic district. 00:14:56.706 --> 00:15:03.212 - petitioner is Kelly Jennings. Suites 117 and 116 of the Fountain Square Mall are located in 00:15:03.212 --> 00:15:10.708 - a non-contributing altered 1860s brick commercial building, which you see on the left, and a contributing 00:15:10.708 --> 00:15:18.275 - Italianate brick commercial building, respectively. The store, Murth, is expanding into 117 and installing 00:15:18.275 --> 00:15:25.630 - new signage at both locations in the same place as existing signage, which you see in the picture here. 00:15:27.330 --> 00:15:35.245 - The request as I received it, we are expanding our store into the adjacent suite 116, formerly known 00:15:35.245 --> 00:15:43.394 - as Ellie May's Boutique. We'd like to put our store name mirth on the tagline, women's apparel footwear 00:15:43.394 --> 00:15:51.387 - accessories on the existing sign space. The letters would be made locally by Everywhere Signs from an 00:15:51.387 --> 00:15:55.070 - acrylic material. And staff approved COA 2644. 00:15:55.874 --> 00:16:02.011 - The proposed signage would be mounted in the location of the existing signage and would be similar in 00:16:02.011 --> 00:16:07.846 - design and materials to other storefront signs found on the Fountain Square Mall building. Okay. 00:16:07.846 --> 00:16:13.622 - All right. Next up, we have items for commission review. This is the procedure for certificates 00:16:13.622 --> 00:16:19.939 - of appropriateness and demolition delays. For each item on the agenda, the historic preservation program 00:16:19.939 --> 00:16:22.526 - manager will first present a staff report. 00:16:22.786 --> 00:16:27.439 - We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional information about the request, followed by public 00:16:27.439 --> 00:16:32.048 - comment. Once public comment concludes, commissioners will be able to ask questions to staff petitioner 00:16:32.048 --> 00:16:36.790 - in the public. We ask that petitioners, the public and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed 00:16:36.790 --> 00:16:41.355 - by the chair. Last question is directly addressed to them. Following commissioner questions, the chair 00:16:41.355 --> 00:16:45.964 - will entertain a motion from a commissioner regarding the petition. Once a motion is made, we will then 00:16:45.964 --> 00:16:49.022 - open up a discussion of the item for members of the commission only. 00:16:49.794 --> 00:16:57.120 - Finally, once the commissioners have each had a chance to speak, the commission will vote on the petition. 00:16:57.120 --> 00:17:04.035 - We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at 00:17:04.035 --> 00:17:11.087 - all times. First up is COA 2643 is the petitioner here, Leslie Wagner. Are they online? I'm not seeing 00:17:11.087 --> 00:17:18.139 - them. They're not online. Okay, so we will move this to after the demolition delay just to see if they 00:17:18.139 --> 00:17:19.166 - might show up. 00:17:19.330 --> 00:17:28.258 - So all right, then we have demolition delay DD 2610. Mr. Sandweiss, can you please give your report? 00:17:28.258 --> 00:17:37.275 - All right, we have one demolition delay for this evening for a request for partial demolition This is 00:17:37.275 --> 00:17:45.054 - at 1317 East Davis Street, which is an outstanding building I'll Go through the details 00:17:45.922 --> 00:17:52.777 - 1317 East Davis is an outstanding rated modernist ranch with two massings separated by a massive limestone 00:17:52.777 --> 00:17:59.183 - chimney block. Excuse me. Is that an important order? Yes. Is that an important order? I was of the 00:17:59.183 --> 00:18:05.653 - opinion that my request for information was going to be dealt with before the demolition delay issue 00:18:05.653 --> 00:18:12.123 - because it... He's giving us a report and then you'll have your chance to ask questions. No, I'm not 00:18:12.123 --> 00:18:15.198 - asking questions about this. I'm asking a point 00:18:15.938 --> 00:18:23.632 - request for information. Okay. All right. Seems reasonable. Okay. What's your question? So in light 00:18:23.632 --> 00:18:31.481 - of what happened at the last demolition delay, I believe that certainly me, I don't know if any other 00:18:31.481 --> 00:18:39.175 - member on this commission needs clarification as to how demolition delays need to be conducted, but 00:18:39.175 --> 00:18:41.022 - I am certainly unclear. 00:18:44.706 --> 00:19:06.279 - with regards to our guidelines, which speak to demolition belay, which is, I don't know if this is one 00:19:06.279 --> 00:19:11.934 - or I, Article 1K. It says, 00:19:13.346 --> 00:19:24.149 - For purposes of rules and procedures, no demolition delay case will be considered a petition. However, 00:19:24.149 --> 00:19:34.637 - members of the Commission may decide to delay the discussion until enough information is presented. 00:19:34.637 --> 00:19:42.398 - I would like to know how this request for information will be dealt with. 00:19:42.498 --> 00:19:50.549 - moving forward. This has happened in the past where commissioners have requested and made a motion for 00:19:50.549 --> 00:19:58.991 - more information and continued the demolition delay to a subsequent meeting asking staff to add information 00:19:58.991 --> 00:20:02.430 - to my report. Motion seconded and voted on. 00:20:21.570 --> 00:20:30.285 - So a motion needs to be presented. Okay. So according to Robert's rules, a request where the intent 00:20:30.285 --> 00:20:39.348 - is clearly expressed and understood would constitute such a motion. And if it isn't stated in technical 00:20:39.348 --> 00:20:48.063 - language, it is up to the chair to state that request in the form of a motion and present it to the 00:20:48.063 --> 00:20:49.022 - membership 00:20:50.306 --> 00:20:57.388 - and ask for a second, is my understanding of Robert's rules in regards to how requests are to be handled 00:20:57.388 --> 00:21:04.268 - correct or incorrect? I thought we were discussing demolition delay. No, we are. He raised a point of 00:21:04.268 --> 00:21:11.013 - order on the demolition delay, and I've allowed it because it makes sense to cover it here, just to 00:21:11.013 --> 00:21:18.298 - make sure we're all on the same page. So my question is, if I say, hey, I would like some more information, 00:21:18.298 --> 00:21:20.254 - according to Robert's rules, 00:21:20.450 --> 00:21:27.389 - The intent is clear, more information. If I say, let's come back and visit this in two weeks, then it's 00:21:27.389 --> 00:21:34.261 - a clear period of time over which this information is to be gathered. That sounds like, in my opinion, 00:21:34.261 --> 00:21:40.999 - based on Watson Robert's rules, the chair should take that up, form it in an appropriate motion, and 00:21:40.999 --> 00:21:47.871 - present it to the commission. Is that how we're going to move forward from now on? We haven't operated 00:21:47.871 --> 00:21:50.206 - in that way. I asked for a motion. 00:21:50.946 --> 00:21:57.912 - Sure. And then I there was a motion that was made to release and there was a second I restated it. So 00:21:57.912 --> 00:22:05.083 - we're going to talk about that. I have I can't think of any time where I've actually I mean other people 00:22:05.083 --> 00:22:12.049 - express they also wanted to have a demolition delay or release the delay and they made the motion. So 00:22:12.049 --> 00:22:16.830 - we move forward with that. Nobody raised a motion to say you know for 00:22:17.090 --> 00:22:23.309 - even like jumped in to try to make another motion. They didn't make a request for Commissioner Golden 00:22:23.309 --> 00:22:29.405 - to withdraw his motion to reconsider. There were other options that were there that were available, 00:22:29.405 --> 00:22:35.685 - but I have tried not to read people's minds in here and let people make the motions that they want to. 00:22:35.685 --> 00:22:41.904 - So under one L it says parliamentary procedure meeting shall be conducted according to the processes. 00:22:41.904 --> 00:22:44.830 - Sorry, the procedure settled in Robert's rules. 00:22:45.858 --> 00:22:53.197 - So then when we go to Robert's rules now, which is where this part of our guidelines refers us to, Robert's 00:22:53.197 --> 00:23:00.332 - rule said, if a member expresses a desire or makes a request that is not in technical language or framed 00:23:00.332 --> 00:23:07.196 - as a motion, once the intent of that request is understood, it's the duty of the chair to frame that 00:23:07.196 --> 00:23:13.991 - request in a motion and present it to the commission. So let me finish. So you didn't hear the word 00:23:13.991 --> 00:23:15.486 - motion, but you heard 00:23:15.746 --> 00:23:23.302 - a request for more information. You heard specific details of the information requested and a timeline 00:23:23.302 --> 00:23:30.784 - to which the member or members would like that information to come. I heard two weeks, several times. 00:23:30.784 --> 00:23:38.780 - So according to Robert's rules, that request clearly understood with enough detail to provide the membership 00:23:38.780 --> 00:23:44.062 - with a clear understanding of what the person making the request needed 00:23:44.770 --> 00:23:50.980 - It is the responsibility of the chair to take that request. Form it into a motion. The burden is not 00:23:50.980 --> 00:23:57.498 - placed on the member to make the motion. The burden is placed on the chair. Read it. The burden is placed 00:23:57.498 --> 00:24:04.016 - on the chair. You have a copy of Robert's Rules right there. Good. It's a burden in Robert's Rules placed 00:24:04.016 --> 00:24:10.165 - on the chair to form that request in a motion. So the fact that you didn't hear a motion is exactly 00:24:10.165 --> 00:24:14.654 - what that rule speaks to. The technical language of I am making a motion 00:24:14.786 --> 00:24:22.261 - was not done. Such a contingency is dealt with in Robert's rules. And so it was the job of the chair 00:24:22.261 --> 00:24:30.253 - to take that request, form it in a motion, present it, ask for a second, which then would form a subsidiary 00:24:30.253 --> 00:24:37.876 - motion which needs to be voted on before the main motion on the floor. That was what didn't happen and 00:24:37.876 --> 00:24:42.686 - I would like my request for information would like A, to clarify 00:24:42.882 --> 00:24:49.174 - whether or not that was done and B, how are we going to treat situations like this moving forward? So 00:24:49.174 --> 00:24:55.465 - when I asked for motions, if somebody had said, well, I think we need to do this delay for two weeks. 00:24:55.465 --> 00:25:01.695 - If somebody had blurted that out, I would have said, do you want to make a motion at that point? And 00:25:01.695 --> 00:25:08.048 - then we would have moved forward with that. It's in the minutes of the night. During the conversation, 00:25:08.048 --> 00:25:11.934 - I cannot make five different motions for five different people 00:25:12.034 --> 00:25:19.677 - wanting to do very different things. That's your jealous chair. No, it's not. Yes, it is. We hit Robert's 00:25:19.677 --> 00:25:26.888 - roots. I did. It's not that. Shall we go back to the minutes of the night? No. This is enough. Sir, 00:25:26.888 --> 00:25:34.531 - I'm sorry. I processed a motion that somebody made. If somebody, one of the other people had come through 00:25:34.531 --> 00:25:41.598 - and said in some other words, I think we need to move this during the motion period to go forward 00:25:42.530 --> 00:25:49.943 - I would have helped them formulate it. Just like the last meeting and even earlier when we were trying 00:25:49.943 --> 00:25:57.428 - to make motions to revise the things, I talked through it and we tried to make the motion what it would 00:25:57.428 --> 00:26:04.840 - be. Well, that's not according to the minutes and that's not according to my recollection. John Butler 00:26:04.840 --> 00:26:10.526 - made a pretty reasonable presentation. Daniel Schlegel said he also would like 00:26:11.490 --> 00:26:18.533 - to have some additional information. Noah responded, yes, that information is attainable. So John Butler 00:26:18.533 --> 00:26:24.637 - said, I would like to have more time. I believe that if given more time, I can make a case 00:26:24.637 --> 00:26:31.412 - for the preservation. And he stated very specific things that he would like to come back and present 00:26:31.412 --> 00:26:38.656 - on, and he made requests of Noah, asking if Noah could research some of this information, and Noah answered 00:26:38.656 --> 00:26:39.998 - in the affirmative. 00:26:40.578 --> 00:26:50.429 - Daniel Schlegel then said, yes, I support this. I do, but I don't count because I'm advisory. But we 00:26:50.429 --> 00:27:00.963 - had two voting members who clearly requested, clearly requested, and members in the audience also supported 00:27:00.963 --> 00:27:08.766 - it based on what Mr. Butler said. So the fact that you can say you did not hear 00:27:09.538 --> 00:27:18.765 - anybody express a request for more information, detail what kind of information the staff program manager 00:27:18.765 --> 00:27:27.471 - indicating. Obviously he heard what was being requested because he responded to say, yes, I can get 00:27:27.471 --> 00:27:36.959 - this information. So how can you say that you didn't hear a request for information? I find that incredibly. 00:27:36.959 --> 00:27:38.526 - Nobody said that. 00:27:39.010 --> 00:27:46.332 - But nobody is required to say that. That's what Robert's saying. There was a motion on the floor. And 00:27:46.332 --> 00:27:53.655 - if you would like to review the entire meeting, it is available on cats. So you're saying that unless 00:27:53.655 --> 00:28:00.834 - somebody uses the word motion, you will not recognize it. When I said I will entertain a motion, if 00:28:00.834 --> 00:28:07.582 - somebody had said, I think we need to delay it, I would have clarified. John Butler did that. 00:28:07.714 --> 00:28:13.396 - No, not at that time. When I asked if there was a motion, it was Commissioner Golden and he said those 00:28:13.396 --> 00:28:19.022 - things. That the things you're talking about were said at other periods of the meeting. I cannot make 00:28:19.022 --> 00:28:24.870 - motions for people. I can help them clarify. Mr. Golden, you made a motion. Of course. Good. And somebody 00:28:24.870 --> 00:28:30.110 - seconded. Yes. Then we had the discussion. It was during the discussion that John Butler said, 00:28:30.466 --> 00:28:36.127 - that he wanted to delay, which would have formed a motion in itself where after the motion on the floor 00:28:36.127 --> 00:28:41.625 - would have constituted a subsidiary motion, which needs to be dealt with prior to the main motion. I 00:28:41.625 --> 00:28:47.286 - don't think there's a green maker. There's a motion on the floor. You deal with the motion on the floor 00:28:47.286 --> 00:28:52.893 - first. No. Could you reread what subsidiary motions are? So first of all, I don't believe that you can 00:28:52.893 --> 00:28:59.262 - have a subsidiary motion that undoes the main motion. So it wouldn't be subsidiary. It would be an alternate motion. 00:28:59.778 --> 00:29:05.608 - You were deciding on the motion whether to release the demolition or not. That was the motion on the 00:29:05.608 --> 00:29:11.726 - table. And that was the motion that passed. It's hard to have a subsidiary or a second, an amended motion 00:29:11.726 --> 00:29:17.555 - to something that is to release it, right? You're not establishing conditions. You're not, you know, 00:29:17.555 --> 00:29:23.674 - setting a timeframe or doing any of the things within your purview. You said you don't think a subsidiary 00:29:23.674 --> 00:29:28.926 - motion can speak against the main motion. Do you have any sources to back that up, please? 00:29:29.154 --> 00:29:36.405 - Here's how it would have worked. The subsidiary motion would be to request for more time, but the motion 00:29:36.405 --> 00:29:43.725 - that was made was to release demolition delay. How could those two be passed at once? A subsidiary motion 00:29:43.725 --> 00:29:51.390 - is a parliamentary tool used to modify, delay, or otherwise dispose of the main motion. Modify the main motion 00:29:51.522 --> 00:30:00.624 - delay the main motion or dispose of the main motion. That is what a subsidiary motion is there. So there's 00:30:00.624 --> 00:30:09.386 - nothing which speaks to the subsidiary motion being in agreement. It is meant to either delay. So it's 00:30:09.386 --> 00:30:18.233 - meant to either delay, modify, or dispose of the motion. Delay the motion. That was what the subsidiary 00:30:18.233 --> 00:30:19.934 - motion meant to do. 00:30:20.258 --> 00:30:26.771 - to delay the motion on the floor to release by two weeks. That was the purpose of the subsidiary motion. 00:30:26.771 --> 00:30:33.098 - Except there was no subsidiary motion. Yes, there was. There was a motion on the floor that had to be 00:30:33.098 --> 00:30:39.363 - dealt with. And I could potentially see your argument had there not been a motion on the floor to be 00:30:39.363 --> 00:30:45.566 - dealt with. There is nothing in Robert's rules that says a motion. It doesn't differentiate between 00:30:45.566 --> 00:30:49.598 - main motion and subsidiary motions. Ms. Duesdorf. I wasn't here. 00:30:49.890 --> 00:30:57.228 - And I'm not super familiar with Robert's rules, but I just wanted to ask. So if there's a motion on 00:30:57.228 --> 00:31:04.713 - the floor and we're talking about it, let's say somebody really disagrees with it, then would we have 00:31:04.713 --> 00:31:11.390 - to vote no on that before we could raise a new motion to ask for more time? Do we have to? 00:31:11.554 --> 00:31:18.860 - completely sort of disposed with the motion on the floor. So we would, if it was something that we really 00:31:18.860 --> 00:31:25.890 - wanted to disagree with, we would first have to vote no on that and then propose. Okay, just checking 00:31:25.890 --> 00:31:32.783 - because I too suspect this may come up again and I just wanted that. But if a subsidiary motion has 00:31:32.783 --> 00:31:39.262 - a purpose, an intrinsic purpose to delay the main motion on the floor, it would make no sense 00:31:39.650 --> 00:31:45.608 - to vote on the main motion. How would you delay the main motion by using a subsidiary motion if the 00:31:45.608 --> 00:31:51.923 - main motion has to be voted first before the subsidiary motion? Mr. Cross, my secondary subsidiary motion 00:31:51.923 --> 00:31:58.000 - was made. You guys discussed it, but you did not make a motion to have a subsidiary. Just because you 00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:03.838 - had the discussion, I could see where if there was discussion on the floor without a motion, then 00:32:04.066 --> 00:32:12.637 - the chair could potentially form a motion based on the comments. But because there was already a motion 00:32:12.637 --> 00:32:21.044 - on the table, and you did not, or any voting member, did not throw out a subsidiary motion, there was 00:32:21.044 --> 00:32:29.697 - nothing to vote on. So, yes, it was not just a discussion. A request was made. And under Robert's rules, 00:32:29.697 --> 00:32:33.406 - a request holds the power of a motion if the 00:32:33.570 --> 00:32:43.653 - Definition is clear. It is specific and its purpose is understood. So we had a discussion, correct. 00:32:43.653 --> 00:32:54.140 - Then member Butler said, I want more time, clear request to do these things, clear request to come back 00:32:54.140 --> 00:33:02.206 - within this time period. And we had from Daniel Slagle agreement to say, I also 00:33:02.402 --> 00:33:08.836 - would like to hear more information and Noah is two weeks enough for you to get this stuff and Noah 00:33:08.836 --> 00:33:15.721 - answered in the affirmative. So we have a clear request, not just a discussion, we had a clear articulated 00:33:15.721 --> 00:33:22.156 - request with parameters for special things to be done. It was acknowledged by staff that that could 00:33:22.156 --> 00:33:28.912 - happen. We had another member saying, yeah, I agree, I also wanted it. That request under Robert's rules 00:33:28.912 --> 00:33:31.550 - is not a discussion we're talking about. 00:33:31.906 --> 00:33:38.043 - We're talking about that specific, clear, articulated request made by the member constitutes a motion 00:33:38.043 --> 00:33:44.240 - under Robert's rules. That request should have been taken by the chair and you should have said, okay, 00:33:44.240 --> 00:33:50.377 - I heard a request, it's doing this, it's doing that, it sounds like a request to take with the matter 00:33:50.377 --> 00:33:56.635 - for two weeks. Is that correct, Mr. Butler, is that what you want? That is what we've always done. I've 00:33:56.635 --> 00:34:00.606 - sat here and seen Sam DeSolar, I've sat here and seen Sam DeSolar 00:34:01.314 --> 00:34:10.065 - take requests, I've seen John Saunders do it. Regardless of whether it was done by these people or not, 00:34:10.065 --> 00:34:18.479 - the rules, Robert's rules, as stated, authorized as the parliamentary procedures for these meetings 00:34:18.479 --> 00:34:26.894 - clearly state that a clearly articulated request is a motion. And happening after a main motion, it 00:34:26.894 --> 00:34:29.502 - acts like a subsidiary motion. 00:34:30.018 --> 00:34:36.756 - with the purpose to delay the main motion, which is the purpose of a subsidiary motion. So, for you 00:34:36.756 --> 00:34:43.831 - to disagree with me, you'd have to A, show that the request made by John Butler was not a request. You'd 00:34:43.831 --> 00:34:50.907 - have to show, you'd have to also show that having been made after the main motion, it doesn't constitute 00:34:50.907 --> 00:34:57.712 - a con subsidiary motion. You'd have to show that despite Robert's rule saying that when a request is 00:34:57.712 --> 00:34:59.262 - made, the chair should 00:34:59.522 --> 00:35:07.304 - present it to the commission in the form of a motion and ask for a second. If all those three things 00:35:07.304 --> 00:35:15.471 - are correct, then what we had happen on the meeting of the 25th of June was incorrect process. And unless 00:35:15.471 --> 00:35:23.870 - somebody can tell me where any of these three pillars are incorrect, I don't see how the logic doesn't hold. 00:35:26.178 --> 00:35:33.140 - No, no, no, no, no. Sir, you've had a lot of time to talk. Commissioner Duffy, you raised your hand. 00:35:33.140 --> 00:35:40.171 - But it's my point of information. I know, when we're trying to get more information, man. Sure. Well, 00:35:40.171 --> 00:35:47.202 - I was just going to say that we have had this kind of difference of opinion happening in the past and 00:35:47.202 --> 00:35:54.302 - where some people wanted more information. And if my memory serves me correctly, what worked and seems 00:35:54.302 --> 00:35:56.094 - to me would work the best 00:35:56.514 --> 00:36:08.969 - is for that person to say, even though another motion is on the floor, so cannot make a motion to dispense 00:36:08.969 --> 00:36:21.309 - of it, could say, I will be voting against this because I would like to subsequently make a motion that's 00:36:21.309 --> 00:36:25.150 - similar but amended or whatever. 00:36:26.626 --> 00:36:34.222 - requesting more information. That's what's been done. And it's not been, I don't remember it ever been 00:36:34.222 --> 00:36:41.819 - left to the chair to. But that was probably before Robert's rules was codified in our guidelines. I've 00:36:41.819 --> 00:36:49.636 - called on Commissioner Baker. Commissioner Baker. I didn't discern any request, a motion at that meeting. 00:36:49.636 --> 00:36:56.126 - I heard, yes, I'd like to have more information. A couple of people may have said that. 00:36:56.226 --> 00:37:04.050 - I was listening, and I didn't hear anyone make a motion, anything that I would have considered a motion. 00:37:04.050 --> 00:37:11.502 - I've been around a little bit. I'm listening to what people say. But I didn't hear that. And let me 00:37:11.502 --> 00:37:19.028 - just say that in redress, the gentleman had the option of also saying, would you withdraw the motion 00:37:19.028 --> 00:37:24.766 - so that I could put a motion on for additional information? And that request 00:37:25.474 --> 00:37:32.213 - wasn't made either. That's perfectly legitimate. Or to amend in some way, or seek to amend. There are 00:37:32.213 --> 00:37:38.951 - things that could have been done that weren't done. The motion just, as I see it, it was a legitimate 00:37:38.951 --> 00:37:45.558 - motion made and acted upon. We're beating a horse dead. And we're beating on the horse. We're going 00:37:45.558 --> 00:37:52.230 - in circles and circles hearing the same thing over and over and over again. And that's all I have to 00:37:52.230 --> 00:37:54.014 - say. Can I ask a question? 00:37:57.058 --> 00:38:06.335 - Mr. Baker, did you hear anyone? No, I'm not asking you. Okay. No, hold on. No, no, no, no. Hold on. 00:38:06.335 --> 00:38:16.075 - Are you telling me that nobody here, despite the fact that it's in the minutes, here, Commissioner Baker 00:38:16.075 --> 00:38:26.558 - say, I would like to postpone this for two weeks so that I can get more information. He made a request of staff. 00:38:26.978 --> 00:38:32.938 - Daniel Schlago said he'd also like, did you hear the request? That's all I'm asking. Did you hear a 00:38:32.938 --> 00:38:39.316 - request for more time? Yes or no? I'm not debating anymore. Yes or no? So even though it's in the minutes. 00:38:39.316 --> 00:38:45.276 - It's in the minutes because you asked for it to be amended and put in the minutes. No, it's in the, 00:38:45.276 --> 00:38:51.415 - well, if it didn't happen, then it shouldn't be in the minutes. But it did happen. And it just clearly 00:38:51.415 --> 00:38:55.230 - articulated in minutes that a request for information was made. 00:38:56.738 --> 00:39:05.899 - I'm sorry that the motion that you wanted was not. No, no, no, no. My request. My point of information. 00:39:05.899 --> 00:39:14.707 - I'm sorry. I was tall. I was. Again, things change. And what I directed a question at the chair and 00:39:14.707 --> 00:39:23.692 - a point of information was there. This is the information that I want. And it's either yes or no. Was 00:39:23.692 --> 00:39:25.630 - there a request made? 00:39:26.434 --> 00:39:34.986 - at the meeting of the 25th of June by Commissioner Baker for more time to gather information, asking 00:39:34.986 --> 00:39:43.454 - for two weeks and requesting staff to provide it. Was a request made by Commissioner Baker? I'm not 00:39:43.454 --> 00:39:51.922 - asking about a motion. I'm not asking about anything else. I'm asking, did he make a request? And I 00:39:51.922 --> 00:39:55.902 - would like to ask Noah, did Noah, did you hear 00:39:56.226 --> 00:40:06.608 - a request to research issues concerning a patent and to check on the number of buildings of a particular 00:40:06.608 --> 00:40:17.187 - style, architectural style as commercial buildings. All right. Did you hear that request from Commissioner 00:40:17.187 --> 00:40:22.526 - Bigg? Excuse me, this point of order, I am now ruling 00:40:22.658 --> 00:40:29.331 - that it is not well taken. We are moving on. It can be appealed to the commission. I would like to raise 00:40:29.331 --> 00:40:35.814 - a point of order. You can raise another one, but I just found that other one not well taken. Okay. Is 00:40:35.814 --> 00:40:42.423 - the chair going to answer the question asked during the request for information? We have already talked 00:40:42.423 --> 00:40:48.970 - about this. And it's already been answered. So the point of order is not well taken. Okay. I have more 00:40:48.970 --> 00:40:50.622 - requests for information. 00:40:52.546 --> 00:41:00.789 - relating to demolition delays. Commissioner Golden. In the interest of a member of the public sitting 00:41:00.789 --> 00:41:09.356 - in this meeting, I'd ask that the commissioner stand down and bring specific information from the minutes 00:41:09.356 --> 00:41:17.761 - that he would like to point out at the next meeting. No, because we have a demolition delay right here. 00:41:17.761 --> 00:41:22.206 - And if these matters aren't dealt with, then certainly 00:41:22.722 --> 00:41:29.645 - How are we going to know what is expected of us, what's expected of the Commission? I would also like 00:41:29.645 --> 00:41:36.636 - to bring up the point to the Chair that there is an underlying theme that maybe the results would have 00:41:36.636 --> 00:41:43.016 - been different after a vote to release the demolition delay was made. So if somebody asks for 00:41:43.016 --> 00:41:48.446 - more information doesn't mean that it's going to happen. The issue is not about 00:41:48.738 --> 00:41:54.974 - whether it would be released or not. It's not about the merits of the case. The point of information 00:41:54.974 --> 00:42:01.395 - speaks specifically to the procedures and guidelines here. And if the procedures and guidelines, within 00:42:01.395 --> 00:42:07.568 - our guidelines, we use Robert's rules. It's codified in our procedures. And Robert's rules indicate 00:42:07.568 --> 00:42:13.804 - that a certain process must be followed. If we don't follow the process, I certainly have a right as 00:42:13.804 --> 00:42:18.558 - a commissioner to speak on it. And if it is that members are going to become 00:42:20.418 --> 00:42:26.550 - forgetful about what happened in meetings, even though the minutes are there would speak to it. And 00:42:26.550 --> 00:42:33.051 - people are going to speak in contradiction to the minutes and then say, well, it's in the minutes because 00:42:33.051 --> 00:42:39.245 - I asked for it to be there. It's in there because it occurred. It's not in there because I asked for 00:42:39.245 --> 00:42:45.684 - it. It occurred. And I felt it important that this be recorded in the minutes to support these questions 00:42:45.684 --> 00:42:48.382 - that I came here to ask. Also keep in mind, 00:42:48.578 --> 00:42:55.548 - that I would have raised these issues at the last meeting, but I was denied an opportunity to speak 00:42:55.548 --> 00:43:02.866 - because an incorrect decision was made based on the vote that didn't pass. So it seems that my questions 00:43:02.866 --> 00:43:10.115 - about procedure is very much relevant because we have managed to breach them on two separate occasions. 00:43:10.115 --> 00:43:17.085 - We've answered the questions. We are going around in circles in the interest of time. We are moving 00:43:17.085 --> 00:43:18.270 - on to the staff. 00:43:18.434 --> 00:43:26.270 - so I have other information I'm not going to take any of them you're not going to take any more right 00:43:26.270 --> 00:43:34.259 - now no sir you have filibustered this meeting my job as chair is to make sure we are going through well 00:43:34.259 --> 00:43:42.249 - I would like to raise a point of order our rules state that when a point of information is on the table 00:43:42.249 --> 00:43:48.318 - it cannot be voted on it's not for debate and it can occur whenever there is a 00:43:49.826 --> 00:43:56.020 - at any time relevant to the proceeding. I think points of information about demolition delay just before 00:43:56.020 --> 00:44:02.038 - a demolition delay vote is an appropriate time. We've already answered these things. We have business 00:44:02.038 --> 00:44:08.350 - that we need to get to. Yes, but I have several issues about demolition delays, which I believe need to be 00:44:10.178 --> 00:44:16.409 - Then we'll take them up for the rest of the time and Commissioner Comments. No, because you can't take 00:44:16.409 --> 00:44:22.580 - them up after the vote. I'm the chair. We're moving on. We are on the agenda. And I've raised a point 00:44:22.580 --> 00:44:28.630 - of order. And I denied it. Okay. You have kept on doing it over and over. We've talked about it. We 00:44:28.630 --> 00:44:34.862 - need to move on. So let me just make this clear. I've raised a point of information. You've denied it. 00:44:34.862 --> 00:44:37.342 - I've raised a point of order relating to 00:44:37.762 --> 00:44:44.351 - your denial of my request for information and you've denied it. On what basis are you denying it? Is 00:44:44.351 --> 00:44:51.330 - it that their questions are not relevant? Because you haven't heard them yet. We are trying to get through 00:44:51.330 --> 00:44:58.376 - the agenda. I am managing it, sir. We have been speaking for a very long time. And you have been skillfully 00:44:58.376 --> 00:45:05.095 - evasive about answering my questions about the last demolition delay request on the 25th of June. This 00:45:05.095 --> 00:45:06.334 - is in a courtroom. 00:45:06.562 --> 00:45:14.263 - We are here. No, it isn't. And you're not a prosecutor asking me as a defendant, sir. We're moving on. 00:45:14.263 --> 00:45:21.890 - We're here to talk about a demolition delay. Let's get to our actual business. We have been around on 00:45:21.890 --> 00:45:29.816 - this. So you're not going to entertain Mike? I've denied it. After hearing you talk for about 30 minutes. 00:45:29.816 --> 00:45:34.078 - All right. Demolition delay 2610 1317 East Davis Street. 00:45:34.306 --> 00:45:42.680 - petitioner is Ross Chitwood. Is the petitioner present? 1317 East Davis is an outstanding rated modernist 00:45:42.680 --> 00:45:51.213 - ranch with two massings separated by massive limestone chimney stack. To one side is half of a front-facing 00:45:51.213 --> 00:45:59.113 - gable with vinyl siding above the first floor with three banded windows. The other side is recessed 00:45:59.113 --> 00:46:01.246 - with a clear story window. 00:46:01.890 --> 00:46:07.789 - A single-sash window sits in the middle of the facade and ribbon windows turn the corner on the side. 00:46:07.789 --> 00:46:13.861 - Typical of the style, a carport extends from the roof to the side of the house. Built in 1955, the house 00:46:13.861 --> 00:46:19.644 - was first owned by Rovenna and Roscoe Parrish. Roscoe worked as a dentist and died two years later. 00:46:19.644 --> 00:46:25.427 - Rovenna worked as a clerk for the IU Records Office and lived in the house until 1963. For the next 00:46:25.427 --> 00:46:28.318 - 60 years, the house was owned by Richard Stiegel, 00:46:28.738 --> 00:46:35.343 - regional manager for Thermo Gas in Ellitsville and his wife Helen. The final owners of the house prior 00:46:35.343 --> 00:46:41.821 - to the current owners were Jack and Joan Myers, owners of the University Sporting Goods store, which 00:46:41.821 --> 00:46:48.490 - they opened in their early 20s at the corner of Kirkwood and Walnut and are operated for 47 years. This 00:46:48.490 --> 00:46:54.903 - request is for partial demolition, as I'll show you, which would include the construction of a side 00:46:54.903 --> 00:46:58.110 - addition that would partially enclose the carport 00:46:58.722 --> 00:47:05.858 - the western end of the carport with a mudroom. This proposal calls for the reuse of limestone siding 00:47:05.858 --> 00:47:13.135 - currently on the east end of the house facing the carport for use as wainscotting on the addition. The 00:47:13.135 --> 00:47:20.482 - roof line of the carport would remain unchanged as would the eastern half of the carport which is open. 00:47:20.482 --> 00:47:26.558 - The recommendation of staff in this case is for the release of demolition delay 2610. 00:47:27.330 --> 00:47:33.526 - This property is undoubtedly eligible for designation as an outstanding example of a modern ranch with 00:47:33.526 --> 00:47:39.662 - a number of significant character-defining features. For an addition to be considered compatible with 00:47:39.662 --> 00:47:46.039 - the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation, an addition must be clearly differentiated 00:47:46.039 --> 00:47:52.295 - but compatible with the original structure, be appropriately scaled, and not destroy historic materials 00:47:52.295 --> 00:47:54.942 - or features that characterize the property. 00:47:56.098 --> 00:48:02.321 - In the opinion of staff, this proposal achieves these standards. This addition would use materials found 00:48:02.321 --> 00:48:07.773 - on the original house, but would be subordinate in size and position, differentiated by the 00:48:07.773 --> 00:48:13.758 - use of wainscoting and siding, rather than floor-to-ceiling limestone, would retain the roofline and 00:48:13.758 --> 00:48:20.040 - partial openness of the carport, and would not obscure significant features on the east end of the house, 00:48:20.040 --> 00:48:25.374 - including the corner window. Does the petitioner have anything that he would like to add? 00:48:29.058 --> 00:48:36.387 - comments from the public? Anybody online would like to speak on this? No? Anybody else in the room? 00:48:36.387 --> 00:48:43.790 - Kind of guessing not, but okay. All right, we'll go to Commissioner questions. Commissioner Goldney, 00:48:43.790 --> 00:48:51.119 - how many questions about this? Commissioner Baker. Does the old carport get torn completely off and 00:48:51.119 --> 00:48:53.758 - redone? It's a redo of the carport? 00:48:58.370 --> 00:49:06.375 - just essentially filling in the left half of that red car is making it like a mud room because currently 00:49:06.375 --> 00:49:14.380 - they enter in a kitchen. So I leave the roof alone. I just put in a foundation and just cut the asphalt. 00:49:14.380 --> 00:49:22.080 - It's pretty simple. So thank you. Commissioner Duffy and questions. Okay, Commissioner Duesner. Just 00:49:22.080 --> 00:49:26.654 - one little additional on that. This sounds like it would be 00:49:26.754 --> 00:49:35.527 - basically reversible if somebody wanted to put it back to this. Is that for the petitioner? It'd be 00:49:35.527 --> 00:49:44.475 - a tile floor, and we have to, by code, have a frost barrier. So I have to put in a foundation for it. 00:49:44.475 --> 00:49:53.248 - But they just wanted, because you walk into their kitchen, and it's a pretty small kitchen, so they 00:49:53.248 --> 00:49:56.318 - wanted a bigger area. My question, 00:49:56.706 --> 00:50:03.781 - I guess I have one for the petitioner. Is the door that's on the existing, like that side door, is that 00:50:03.781 --> 00:50:10.652 - going away? It'll be in the house. Okay. And then I guess question for staff, this is an outstanding 00:50:10.652 --> 00:50:17.795 - property, but it's not in a district, right? So is this one of the, we ran into this at the last meeting 00:50:17.795 --> 00:50:24.734 - where in the demolition delay language, we talk about, we released it, but we may designate it later. 00:50:25.442 --> 00:50:31.563 - for historic preservation. Is this kind of maybe where that applies of we could theoretically say, yes, 00:50:31.563 --> 00:50:37.624 - we release this demolition delay, but if we might later revisit the house and be like, well, the house 00:50:37.624 --> 00:50:43.627 - is still really significant. Maybe we'd want to designate it because usually in demolition delays, at 00:50:43.627 --> 00:50:49.630 - least all the ones I can remember, we've just destroyed the house or they have. This seems different. 00:50:49.630 --> 00:50:54.750 - Yeah, this is trying to clarify. This is a little different because in this case, it's 00:50:55.362 --> 00:51:03.248 - It's not a demolition permit that's, you know, contingent on this demolition delay being released. It's 00:51:03.248 --> 00:51:11.058 - a building plan for an addition. So this is for basically the work that's being proposed and presented 00:51:11.058 --> 00:51:18.717 - to you. So if there was a petition say later or a proposal later that came up to demolish this house 00:51:18.717 --> 00:51:25.086 - or to conduct another alteration that would bring it back to demolition delay, then 00:51:25.634 --> 00:51:31.268 - It could potentially be designated. Okay. All right. I just wanted to kind of clarify that because we 00:51:31.268 --> 00:51:36.903 - are all kind of like that language is odd. But when I saw this, I was like, I bet it applies to this. 00:51:36.903 --> 00:51:42.427 - Well, the other thing, too, is you all can designate on on your own motion. Yes. So whereas you may 00:51:42.427 --> 00:51:48.006 - not want to designate when somebody comes through with a demolition delay, you could decide later to 00:51:48.006 --> 00:51:52.094 - take it up. And that's why we're reserving that, right? That makes sense. 00:51:52.418 --> 00:52:01.149 - I have another question. Yes, please. So this is demolition delay that we really don't have purview 00:52:01.149 --> 00:52:09.881 - over what's going to be done. Just changing what's there. Yeah. Okay. Just want to make that clear. 00:52:09.881 --> 00:52:14.334 - I guess I'm not there. What's being demolished? So 00:52:14.690 --> 00:52:21.383 - to reuse. I mean, I'm not tearing anything down. So yeah, it's weird. Which brings comes up for demolition 00:52:21.383 --> 00:52:27.702 - delay for notable and outstanding rated buildings can apply to a number of changes, exterior changes 00:52:27.702 --> 00:52:34.145 - that could impact buildings, historic significance or eligibility for, I guess, designation that would 00:52:34.145 --> 00:52:40.525 - include additions like this. So it's called demolition delay. They put a sign in their yard that says 00:52:40.525 --> 00:52:43.966 - notice of demolition, which could freak out neighbors. 00:52:44.098 --> 00:52:52.798 - Um, but it's all the same process. So, um, I understand the confusion. Okay. Any other questions? No. 00:52:52.798 --> 00:53:01.839 - All right. Well, I think we're at the point where I'll entertain a motion. All right. Commissioner Golden 00:53:01.839 --> 00:53:10.965 - has moved to release demolition delay 26 dash 10. Is there a second? Okay. Commissioner Baker has seconded 00:53:10.965 --> 00:53:13.694 - to release demolition delay 26. 00:53:13.858 --> 00:53:21.081 - 10 let's go to comments commissioner golden you go first since you made the motion this is a beautiful 00:53:21.081 --> 00:53:28.234 - house i would hate to lose the essence of it but i think this is a sympathetic addition and i approve 00:53:28.234 --> 00:53:35.317 - okay commissioner baker you seconded i agree with the staff report and i will vote yes for this okay 00:53:35.317 --> 00:53:39.454 - commissioner duffy same i support this commissioner dusner 00:53:39.618 --> 00:53:46.043 - Same as long as a small change now doesn't prevent us from greater protection later, which it sounds 00:53:46.043 --> 00:53:52.468 - I don't think that's okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I basically second commissioner do here. I mean, we, 00:53:52.468 --> 00:53:58.893 - we preserve our rights later on to be able to designate this if we so choose, but I think this makes 00:53:58.893 --> 00:54:05.699 - sense. I don't see anything wrong with this. So I will vote to release. Okay. Any other secondary comments 00:54:05.699 --> 00:54:06.526 - from anyone? 00:54:07.682 --> 00:54:17.688 - Okay, I think we're ready to vote. Jack Baker? Yes. Melody Duesner? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Golden? 00:54:17.688 --> 00:54:27.310 - Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Motion carries, five yeses. Excellent, thank you very much. Thank you for 00:54:27.310 --> 00:54:34.430 - coming in, appreciate it. All right, we're gonna... Oh, again, I'm sorry. 00:54:34.882 --> 00:54:42.445 - Commissioner Baker, please read the motion. This is the demolition delay resolution. This is the release 00:54:42.445 --> 00:54:50.224 - today regarding the property at 1317 East Davis Street. The Historic Preservation Commission, HPC, declares 00:54:50.224 --> 00:54:57.499 - that it got notice of proposed demolition slash partial demolition and after today's discussion sees 00:54:57.499 --> 00:55:04.702 - no need to review the plans any further and waives the rest of the demolition delay waiting period. 00:55:04.802 --> 00:55:11.745 - The AHPC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the Common Council. Thank you, 00:55:11.745 --> 00:55:18.962 - Vice Chair Baker, for correcting me on that. All right, let's circle back to COA 2643. Is the petitioner 00:55:18.962 --> 00:55:25.836 - online? So I received an email from the petitioner during this meeting where she said that she will 00:55:25.836 --> 00:55:31.198 - not be attending tonight. She had something else come up. OK, so we have a... 00:55:31.490 --> 00:55:39.514 - give you a written agreement to continue it in which case your 30-day window your 30-day clock would 00:55:39.514 --> 00:55:47.459 - not start tolling or you all can decide to to deny without prejudice and she can bring it back when 00:55:47.459 --> 00:55:55.483 - she's available yeah this is one of the new ones I think maybe let's go with I'm curious what people 00:55:55.483 --> 00:55:57.310 - want to do on this one 00:55:57.538 --> 00:56:04.998 - Do we, let's go questions first since it's, does anybody have questions about our options of what we 00:56:04.998 --> 00:56:12.606 - can do with this? I think it's the... So based on our discussion last meeting, I think, this, or maybe 00:56:12.606 --> 00:56:20.214 - two meetings ago, if we deny, is it with prejudice? Without prejudice. Without prejudice. Then she can 00:56:20.214 --> 00:56:24.350 - just reapply. Correct. And there's no... In the 30 day, 00:56:24.738 --> 00:56:31.347 - This tolls the 30 day clock, so we don't lose the time. So she could not reply, and the 30 days could 00:56:31.347 --> 00:56:38.151 - pass. It actually would, because it's, I think, three weeks until our next meeting, so I think the clock 00:56:38.151 --> 00:56:44.695 - would run out. So I think we need to deny without prejudice. And you all read the background on this 00:56:44.695 --> 00:56:51.499 - case, right? So part of the consideration here is that Bloomington Restorations, Inc. has a preservation 00:56:51.499 --> 00:56:53.054 - easement on this house. 00:56:53.570 --> 00:57:00.376 - So part of the reason why this was not handled as staff approval, there were a couple of reasons. But 00:57:00.376 --> 00:57:07.248 - one of them was waiting on the BRI board to weigh in, which happened on Tuesday. So we could deny, and 00:57:07.248 --> 00:57:13.987 - she could come back to you, and you could do a staff approval? Potentially. Or it would come back to 00:57:13.987 --> 00:57:20.926 - us. Right. Does anybody else have any questions on that? I just want to make sure we're clear on stuff. 00:57:21.410 --> 00:57:27.317 - It looks like you might have a question, but just an observation. I, I like this option for its clarity. 00:57:27.317 --> 00:57:33.167 - I like the fact that it keeps it clear that we're the ones who are sort of like steering this when it's 00:57:33.167 --> 00:57:39.018 - in our court, when it's in her court. Yeah. So I think as opposed to the, we need to ask her permission 00:57:39.018 --> 00:57:44.700 - to bring back whatever this is, this is my, I like this procedure better. Okay. Any other questions? 00:57:44.700 --> 00:57:47.006 - Then I think does anybody have a motion? 00:57:51.746 --> 00:58:00.558 - Yes, for COA 2643. OK, so Commissioner Golden has moved to deny without prejudice. COA 2643 is their 00:58:00.558 --> 00:58:09.371 - second. Commissioner Duesner has seconded. Any further comments from anyone? I think this is the way 00:58:09.371 --> 00:58:18.358 - to go. That's my comment. All right, I think we're ready to call the roll. All right. Jack Baker? Yes. 00:58:18.358 --> 00:58:20.190 - Melody Duesner? Yes. 00:58:21.186 --> 00:58:31.262 - Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Goldin? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. All right, motion carries. Excellent. All right, 00:58:31.262 --> 00:58:40.862 - so now we're through the COAs and demolition delays. That brings us to old business. Mr. Samuels, is 00:58:40.862 --> 00:58:50.462 - there any old business? Old business? No, not that I can think of. All right, any new? New business? 00:58:50.594 --> 00:58:58.726 - Not really. Commissioner Baker. Just a comment. We call it old business. It meant over procedure this 00:58:58.726 --> 00:59:06.699 - evening. Could we have that for a commissioner comment or is that, I'm just, commissioner comments? 00:59:06.699 --> 00:59:15.071 - 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. 00:59:15.071 --> 00:59:19.934 - Let's just have that as commissioner comment if that's okay. 00:59:20.034 --> 00:59:28.300 - We'll move on to the commissioner comments next. Commissioner Baker, please. Sorry. Please go ahead. 00:59:28.300 --> 00:59:36.483 - The way the meeting was handled just most recently, the gentleman made a comment that he would like 00:59:36.483 --> 00:59:44.749 - to have or would like to see and it was not taken as a motion as it should not have been. It was not 00:59:44.749 --> 00:59:48.350 - made as a motion. It was made as a comment. 00:59:49.218 --> 00:59:58.314 - And it was taken as a comment and not something that had to be handled by the president or anyone or 00:59:58.314 --> 01:00:07.409 - by procedurally. And I think that's the way the previous meeting was handled that we've been talking 01:00:07.409 --> 01:00:16.865 - about so much. And that's it. That's all I want to say. OK. Any other commissioner comments? No. Doesn't 01:00:16.865 --> 01:00:18.846 - look like it. For me. 01:00:21.474 --> 01:00:28.528 - I try to run these meetings as honestly as I possibly can. I will make mistakes. Commissioners, it is 01:00:28.528 --> 01:00:35.652 - also their duty to point out points of order, ask for clarification on the rules. I'm not going to get 01:00:35.652 --> 01:00:42.707 - everything right, but the time to do it is in that meeting. We can't go back in time. We can't change 01:00:42.707 --> 01:00:49.969 - something that happened as much as maybe some people want. So I encourage everybody, let's be respectful 01:00:49.969 --> 01:00:51.006 - to each other. 01:00:51.330 --> 01:00:57.961 - Let's have calm conversations where we actually are talking about the issues that are important to us 01:00:57.961 --> 01:01:04.462 - all rather than resorting to theatrics and trying to stay on the agenda. And when requests are made 01:01:04.462 --> 01:01:11.093 - for maybe being able to move it to another part of the agenda so we can accommodate the public, we're 01:01:11.093 --> 01:01:17.854 - here to serve the public first and foremost. And I think we need to take our actions with that in mind. 01:01:18.626 --> 01:01:24.946 - and then be able to deliberate amongst ourselves when we have further questions and things of that nature 01:01:24.946 --> 01:01:31.028 - without wasting everybody else's time. So that is my comment for the day. Thank you all very much for 01:01:31.028 --> 01:01:37.050 - sticking through the rest of this meeting. Any public comments? Anyone online? Doesn't look like it. 01:01:37.050 --> 01:01:43.131 - Anybody here in the audience? No. All right. That brings us to the end of our agenda. So this meeting 01:01:43.131 --> 01:01:43.966 - is adjourned.