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.