All right, I'd like to bring the Thursday, November 12th
2026 Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission meeting to order. Can we have the roll call? Certainly.
We'll go ahead and take a roll call. Members present? Renard Cross? Jack Baker? Here. John Butler? Here.
And I apologize. Commissioner Castaneda? Commissioner Duffy? Here. Commissioner Golden? Here. Commissioner
Schlegel? Here.
It is my understanding we have quorum. All right, thank you. The first order of business is the approval
of minutes for October 22nd. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Move to approve. Second.
All right. That's approved. OK, we've got a motion on the floor to approve the minutes from October
22nd. Roll call vote. Vice Chair Baker? Yes.
Chair Butler? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. Minutes
from October 22nd are approved. All right, now Noah, take it away. All right, we're moving on to staff
approved certificates of appropriateness, starting with COA 2683. This is for 703 West 6th Street, a
contributing property in the Near West Side Historic District.
petitioner is John Sherby. 703 West 6th Street is a turn-of-the-century two-story house with a hipped
roof, brick front porch with square posts, a mix of two-over-one and one-over-one windows, a full window,
craftsman-style front door, and weatherboard shingle siding. There's a large one-story rear addition
from the early 20th century and a carriage house on site.
Aside from the replacement siding, the house demonstrates a high degree of historic integrity. This
request is for the conversion of the house into three new units, which will involve several exterior
alterations and rehabilitation projects, including the replacement of the siding with broad horizontal
fiber cement siding, three building of the exterior portion of the chimney, and several alterations
to the fenestration at the rear of the building, including replacement of
Several windows with the same size and configuration. Relocation of the rear entrance from the south
to the southern edge of the west side of the house and removal of two windows at the southeast corner
of the addition.
staff approved COA 2683. The proposed alterations would leave the appearance of the house largely the
same from the public way, with the exception of the replacement of the ahistorical asphalt shingle siding
and several changes to re-fenestration. Care will be taken to rebuild the exterior portion of the chimney
and to repair and retain historic wood windows that are in fair condition. The Near West Side Neighborhood
Association provided the following
This is one of the larger homes in the neighborhood and in a prominent location. Since it is on a corner
lot, we look forward to seeing its exterior brought back to its historic appearance. We're pleased that
the windows, including the divided light windows, will be retained and repaired, that the chimney will
be rebuilt after its removal. Since this is one of the more prominent homes in the neighborhood, we
expect it may have original siding and may still be very usable. So we would hope that this is explored.
It appears that the only significant change of the exterior is at the rear of the home, and we do not
find any issues with what is being planned for this area. Next up, COA 2684 or 618 South Valentine Road
in the Elm Heights Historic District. Petitioner is Kevin Killeen. 618 South Valentine Road is a two-story
colonial brick revival house with a hipped roof
side entry vestibule, and one-story additions at the rear and side of the property. The property has
a limestone urn set on a brick post near the driveway, and the house exhibits a high degree of integrity
overall. The request, we would like to propose a fence in the backyard only. It would be wooden to match
the neighbor's fence, which you can see in the bottom right-hand corner of this slide. I will begin
at the midpoint of our house
will then extend to the backyard where it will not be between a public street and the view of the house.
Staff recommends, sorry, staff approves COA 2684. The rear privacy fence proposed would be made of a
design of materials that are acceptable by Elm Heights Historic District guidelines that were not obscure
any significant historic features visible from the public way.
Next up, COA 2685. This is for 1115 North College Avenue. Petitioner is Chris Bomba. 1115 North College
Avenue is a cross-gabled pre-classical house with a half-width front porch and side entrance with stone
columns, limestone siding on the first floor, shake siding on the gables, and a second story bay window
facing college.
Vase represents an interesting transition between the free classical style of the 1910s and emerging
craftsman elements, including gable roof braces and a bungalow-like front profile. The windows are a
mix of older woodstache windows and newer replacements. The front door has been replaced with a contemporary
fiberglass model. This request consists of several proposed changes, one replacing the current windows
with windows of
the same size and style. However, these would be vinyl windows, as well as the removal of the storm
windows and the replacement of the existing replacement front door with a different craftsman inspired
model. This is another staff approved COA 2685.
The windows at 1115 North College are a mix of older one over one wood windows, which would appear to
be from the first half of the 20th century. I'm sorry, I'm missing some photos that are in your packet,
which I should have included here. The front door is a newer replacement from some point in the last
30 years. Black and white photographs by a Bloomington photographer, Charles Gilbert Shaw, held by the
Monroe County History Center
confirmed that the house has the same configuration of one over one windows in the 20s or 30s, but did
not provide visual evidence of the original front door. While there is not available evidence of what
the original front door looked like, the proposed replacement, a modern take on a transitional classical
slash craftsman door, is not an inappropriate style for the house, and would be less incongruous than
the current front door. Many of the existing windows are in poor shape,
Some features like rotted sales and broken cords are replaceable though. The replacement of windows
with the new material is considered acceptable under Secretary of Interior's standards if the visual
impact will be minimal. Because none of the windows on 1115 North College have mountains and all of
the frames are simple, thin, and white, the overall impression of the proposed replacement windows and
staff opinion would be negligible.
Next item, Certificate of Appropriateness 2686. This is for 108 South College Street. Sorry,
Rogers Street. In the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District, the petitioner is Yao-Ling Wong. This
is a severely altered 1920s wood frame four square with replacement windows, vinyl siding, a rear addition
and a two story
deck slash fire escape. This request would be for the addition of two wooden posts and a cross beam
to the existing deck, which staff has approved because this alteration to an existing nonhistoric fire
escape slash deck would be fairly minor and would not
disrupt the facade or obscure damage any historic features because it's nonetheless an inconspicuously
visible change to the building from the public way. It does require historic review. Next up, COA 2687.
That's right. Thank you. I printed this one out. So this is for A15 in the West, West Fourth Street
in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District. I did have to go back and amend the packet online because
some of the materials for COA 26 and 87
and 2688 were swapped. They're both fairly similar projects. So I'll continue with 87. 815 West 4th
Street is a wood frame T plan cottage with a sunroom on the side portion of the porch. Diamond shaped
window opens from the front roof cable. The porch railing consists of wooden panels and square posts.
This request is for the installation of a south-facing rooftop solar array. Staff approved COA 2687.
The proposed solar installation is set close to the roof surface and pitch at the rear of the house
and would not obscure or damage any historic features. So hopefully now that that's all clear, COA 2688.
Similar application for
south-facing solar panels. Petitioner is James Smith. This is located at 1214 South Madison Street in
the McDowell Gardens Historic District. 1214 South Madison Street is a tea plant cottage with three
over one Craftsman-style windows and its green front porch. There have been one or two small rear additions
to the property, which sits at the corner of Madison and Driscoll. Once more, this request is for the
addition of
solar panels to the property on the south-facing portions of the roof, and staff approved COA 2688.
Once again, the proposed solar installation is set close to the pitch of the roof and will not damage
or obscure any historic features. I'm sorry, do you have this printed off? Thank you. Last one of these, COA 2689,
for 706 West Third Street petitioner is Tom Rosnowski in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District.
706 West Third Street is a one story gabled front California bungalow with a full width brick front
porch, limestone foundation and original windows and doors. It fronts a brick sidewalk on Third Street.
This request is for the installation of solar panels near the southern end of the roof. So that would be facing
Third Street. Once again, this application has been approved by staff because the proposed solar installation
would be set close to the roof pitch and surface and wouldn't damage or obscure any historic features.
Okay. All right. Thank you very much Mr. Santwise. I know that represents quite a bit of work and we
appreciate it.
For this next section, this is a procedure for certificates of appropriateness and demolition delays.
For each item, the Historic Preservation Program Manager will first present a staff report. We will
then hear if the petitioner has any additional information, followed by a round of questions from each
commissioner. We ask that petitioners, the public, and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed
by the chair, unless a question is directly addressed to them.
If a member of the public or a petitioner wishes to comment, please raise your hand until recognized
by the chair. Once a motion is made, we will then open up a discussion of the item for members of the
commission. We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful
at all times. All right, so we've got one commission reviewed certificate of appropriateness for tonight.
That is COA 2690, 927 West 6th Street in the Near West Side Historic District,
Petitioner is Teresa Woods. Is the petitioner present? All right, great. Oh no. Should have made that
change, okay. We'll let the record show, 927 West 6th Street, in the Near West Side Historic District.
Okay. Just that slide.
927 West 6th Street is a severely altered hall and parlor house with an enclosed hip root porch and
with a limestone knee wall. There are additions to the west side and rear of the house, although the
original portion is still legible. Most of the exterior materials have been changed over time. This
request is for the extension of
part of the rear addition on the house at a width of 13 feet to extend nine feet from the rear of the
main block of the house. There are also a couple of proposed changes to fenestration, including the
replacement of one of these single pane windows and the installation of
an additional one over one vinyl or aluminum window on both the side and the rear of the addition. Staff
recommends approval of COA 2690. The alteration to the rear addition would not have a significant impact
on the massing of the building and would be minimally visible from the street. The proposed fenestration
changes would be located on a secondary facade and not incongruous with those found on neighboring
contributing buildings
particularly on the sides and additions. You'll see in your packets if you check them out that this
item has been revised. So the original proposal would show something a little different, an expansion
of the side addition. There's also some more information on there about proposed changes to the arrangement
of the windows and doors. Does the petitioner have anything that she would like to add?
Okay, do we have any public comment from anyone in the room or online? All right, well let's
go to Commissioner questions and we'll start with Commissioner Duffy. I don't have any questions about
the project at all, but I have a question.
Because we had three different renovations going on Sixth Street, and I'm wondering, did Sandy, did
you send this? I believe I did. Okay. She didn't show up. Oh, no. So, if anyone else is going to ask.
I'm going to have to look back and see. Yeah, it might be.
me that's mistaken, but I'll save the rest for comments.
From the plans, I know you had said they were altered and I saw the changes and the note in the packet.
Are there any of the, you have to forget my term, but like the different views from like the north,
the west, just to see what the, I hate to say architectural, but like the drawings of how it's supposed
to turn out with the, I know there's a list of the materials, which is really helpful, but just how
it's supposed to look at the end that way. We were both on the same page.
Just because I'm not an architect so for me some of this I'm more visual. And I shouldn't see it in
the packet but I just want to make sure I didn't miss it in the packet. You'll see a couple of drawings
in the packet on my paper. One of which indicates what the rear is going to look like and another shows
the overall floor plan with a couple of windows in place.
So my understanding is that the proposal is for both of the new windows to be one over one. OK. But
aside from the line paper drawings, there's not like the architectural? No. OK. So the measurements
that I have are for the overall dimensions. OK. Thank you. And I don't believe the placement of the
door is changing besides being bumped out.
That's all I have. Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair Baker, any questions? Yes. Could you go through these
drawings? Go through all the drawings you have. I'm having trouble getting an idea of what this is really
going to look like and what the heights are going to be when it's all done.
drawing was provided so that's proposed rear elevations and floor plan all right thank you no more questions all right
I don't know that I have any questions. I think the drawings could be more explanatory maybe, but I
think since it's such a simple sort of addition, I don't really have any questions. Comments will go
the other way. I'll start with Vice Chair Baker. Same comments that you just made. I can get an idea
of what this is, and I'm being pretty trusting based on the photos and the lines.
In general, I certainly would like to see better drawings. I'd like to see some kind of a rendering
that shows, more of a professional rendering. So we really get an idea of the heights and the massing
and all that. This is just a bit too rough for me. I think I'm not going to criticize it too much, but
in future I would like to see better drawings. So we have the information.
good information to make an impact. Thank you. Treasurer Schleyk? I agree with Vice Chair Baker. Commissioner
Golden? I agree with what Vice Chair Baker said, and this is at the back of the house, and it appears
that the roof line is the same. I don't see a problem with it. Thank you. Commissioner Duffy? I have
no objection to it. I thank my colleagues' comments.
are well taken, but I have no objection. All right, thank you. I agree with my colleagues. Once again,
I don't have any objections, but if it was a more complicated project, I would certainly want
more complicated drawings. Okay, so do we have anyone who'd like to make a motion? To approve COA 2699.
I'll second. Okay, we have a motion on the table. Okay, it's been...
Motion and second to approve COA 2690. We'll take a roll call vote. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Chair Butler?
Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Treasurer Schlegel? Yes. COA 2690 is approved.
All right, thank you. So now we move on to demolition delay. All right.
So starting with demolition delay 2614. This is for 331 South Grant Street. The petitioner
is Todd Sachstetter. I'll give you all a refresher. We've seen this one before. Build between 1890 and
1897, 331. Yes? The image up there is not corresponding. Oh, that's right. Can I share screen to that
specifically? Sorry to interrupt. No, it's fine.
Built between 1890 and 1897, 331 South Grant Street is a two-story Queen Anne style house with a hipped
roof and cross gables. The house has a wraparound corner porch and few decorative features. There's
a low limestone retaining wall at the edge of the property and a wrought iron fence installed sometime
in the early 2000s. The property is rated contributing on the Indiana historic sites and structures
inventory and exhibits a high degree of integrity judging from historic photos and materials
including original doors and two-over-one windows. While the first probable owner of the house is listed
in the 1900 city directories, Marie Fuller, the house does not appear in the 1900 census, and nobody
by that name appears in later directories or newspaper references. By 1909, the house had passed into
the hands of real estate agent and landlord William Andy Hazel and his wife Laura.
The couple lived in the house until 1920, and after moving out, rented out rooms throughout the 1920s.
In 29, the house was bought by Joseph W. Robertson, a retired blacksmith for the Monon Railroad, working
as a custodian for the Bloomington Eagles. His wife, Laura, described as a lovable woman, lived with
him in the house along with boarders, most of whom were Indiana University students. Their son, Leighton,
and his wife owned the house until 1979, continuing to rent out rooms,
By 1973, the House had received the distinction of being one of the first rental properties to appear
before the Bloomington Board of Housing Quality Appeals to address a number of safety violations. Speculation
has been raised as to a possible connection with Maddie Jacobs Fuller, a prominent African-American
businesswoman with a similar name to an early owner of the property. At the October 22nd Historic
Preservation Commission meeting,
The commission voted to request further research into the matter. Maddie Pierce Jacobs married her second
husband Levi Fuller in 1906. After that date, after the date at which Mrs. Marie Fuller is listed as
the property owner. Although her addresses in the 1890s and 1910s have yet to be verified, Maddie Jacobs
Fuller lived in several houses on Bloomington's west side before and after this gap. So
Staff's recommendation for a lease of demolition delay remains unchanged. Nonetheless, to get into a
little more detail, this two-story Queen Anne house is larger and perhaps older than a lot of the properties
we consider for demolition delay, and it needs to be considered in that context. The area between 3rd
and Smith has a number of similar Queen Anne-styled homes,
rated notable, contributing, and outstanding for their architectural character. Two notable and one
outstanding Queen Anne house can be found, for example, at the intersection of Smith and Dunn, which
exhibit a high degree of integrity in a number of distinctive original features. One block north are
two Queen Anne houses which retain some characteristic spindle work and siding, but have been labeled
contributing by the state DHPA survey for displaying a lower level of integrity and distinction.
331 South Grant is closer to these properties in terms of architectural significance. Barring any outstanding
historical significance, or unless there's a reason to reevaluate 331's architectural integrity, staff
does not believe that it is eligible for individual designation. Does the petitioner have anything that
he would like to add? I believe he's on.
Yes, yes. Just like I said before, the. It's a part of multiple siding, multiple different types of
siding. The foundation is very poor. I think at this situation, like I said, this is. Many of the historical
items that. Or historical on this have been removed and. It's pretty, it's like I said,
pretty rough building on top of that. It's been converted into six individual units inside, so it's
been changed quite a bit, so that's it. All right, thank you. Do we have any comments from the public?
Anyone online?
All right, let's move to commissioner questions. I'll start with Vice Chair Baker. Procedurally, if
we vote to release, obviously it's released and they can do with it as they wish. If we voted that down
or don't take a vote, what happens is that there's a time limit and it will run out at some point, is
that correct? Well, the time limit for this
is October, sorry, this was initiated, I think, is it September or October 9th? Yeah, September 9th,
so it would expire on the day before our next meeting. The commission does have the right to request
an additional 30 days from the director of hand if they think that there's any need for that.
I think what I'm really asking Noah is that when it runs out, when that time limit runs out, that it
is released. Yes. OK. That's all I want. Thank you. Want to make that clear. Thank you. Treasurer Schlegel?
So Noah, I was trying to read some stuff on here to brush back up on this one. The research you had
been able to do with the directories for the, I think it was Marie,
Folars who was listed. You said you hadn't found, like, in those directories from that era, they weren't
found. OK, so subsequently, I'm sorry, I hadn't made this amendment to the recommendation because I
was looking more specifically at Maddie Jacobs Folar and any possible connection with her. Right. Yeah,
I did subsequently find a Marie Folar that I
could not confirm lived at this address, but lived in Bloomington around this time, who's referenced
as a widow of a local judge. Okay. Okay. Okay, I was just curious, I've been talking to Liz Mitchell
throughout the day. So she just had a lot of other questions. I had I had checked with Liz about this
to see if she knew anything about the connection here, at least in this part of town.
Okay, had she gotten back to you? Um, last time we talked, she wasn't aware of any. Okay, but that was
a while ago. It was shortly after our last meeting. Okay. I had been talking to Liz and she Okay, that
might be more for comments then since it's not a question. Okay. Question gold. No question. No question.
Yeah, I don't have any
questions either. So now we'll go to Commissioner comments and we'll start with Commissioner Duffy.
Do we have a motion first? Oh, I think technically there's supposed to be motion on the table before
comments to release demolition delay 26-14.
Do we have a second? Do we have any other motions that people would like to make? I'd like to make a
motion to delay the delay. I don't know if that's the proper request. I can explain once we can get
to comments, but. Do we have a second? So would this be to delay
until the next meeting at which point this would expire or to extend by 30 days? To, well we'd have
to delay and then I guess ask the director of hand for the, since we lose the, we're a day short of
making it to the next meeting unless we have to do a special meeting. I don't know what's, I don't know
how that's taken into consideration by the director. So, but it would be to delay for a special meeting
or to ask for that additional 30 days.
second for that. This is a tricky one. So I appreciate your being in this dilemma. Is it appropriate
to make a comment at this point? Oh, there's no second. Right. So we don't have a motion. Yes. There's
no motion. There's no motions on the floor.
Is there another motion to make? So that we could at least comment on it. That's all I was trying to
do. Right. Viable, still entertaining. Any motion?
No, but okay. I can't really dispose of the item without having a motion in a second and taking a vote.
So I suppose, Mr. Chair, you could decide to do a second round of maybe questions or discussion on process
and then to kind of shake some things out. So there's no way we can move on to comments
if we called them something else for the time being? So when you have a motion on the floor, it's discussion,
right, about the motion. So if you want to have another round of comments so that you can kind of talk
about this. Let's do that. And then you'll need to take a round for the motion and try and get something
on the floor so you can talk about that. OK. So let's have a discussion about our discussion. Schleyk,
Commissioner Schleyk.
The reason I made the comment I did is, in talking with Liz Mitchell, that I work with closely on a
lot of her research to help with that, is she just said that she's not been able to dig as far into
it as she would have liked. And she's just asked for additional time to be able to do, just to make
sure that there's no other lingering doubts, if you will. Not that I don't trust you, because you do
an excellent job. I want to make that clear.
But she just said that the black community has lost so much, not only in Bloomington, but across America.
Please ask to have some saving grace just to give a little more time. And so I'm willing, knowing Liz's
research and her passion, I think just because there is potential just to be able to finish doing research
so she can confirm that out, I thought would be a reasonable request. So that is why I made the motion
in the manner that I did.
Just for asking that additional since we don't have the day to make it or that our meetings a day shy
That was why I did that Anyone else like to make additional comments? I We have so many of these demolition
delays and we all Regret Letting so many go because we just don't have any authority over
We don't want to send them to City Council. They will be acted upon. By state law, we couldn't possibly
take over the designation that has to go to City Council itself, by law. We don't really have any authority,
and I'm just always wrestling with letting a property go and be released. This one is particularly notable.
In my mind, whether it has a bad foundation and has been divided up, it still has mass, it still has
character. When you drive by, you see it, you notice it. And I would rather vote no on a motion to release
and let the time run out than to actually vote no. And that's sort of my stance on this one this evening
is why I'm being quiet about other things.
comments from my uncommented commissioners? Yeah, I think I have a comment. Sure. I'm just thinking
of the future of this product, this property. And I've been in a couple of times. It is in rough shape.
It is in six or seven units. Foundation is bad. That being said, that's not really, you know, what we're
looking at.
But from a realistic point of view, I don't see a future for this property in its current state. It
hasn't received it, and I think it will end up staying like it is. Will it be replaced by some boxy
multi-unit property? Yes, absolutely. But I don't think this rises to the level
Especially since there's so much doubt around a possible connection to a possible person of history.
I just think it's time to let it go. So after that round of discussion, would you like to? No, I have
a question. Can I have a question? Sure. Raised by Daniels, Mr. Commissioner.
And you might have said this before, Noah, but did, in your discussions with Liz Mitchell, did you know
yet and report to her about the wedding, the date of the? No, I hadn't been aware of that at the time.
That's what I thought you said. I found that out a little later. Yeah. So that was from the marriage
indices that Monroe County History Center has online.
So the last names really don't match up because she was a Jacobs until the date this is listed as belonging
to Fuller and the first names don't match up either. I just feel I should point that out. That's all.
All right, now I would consider a motion. I still have a motion out there. Do we have a second?
Hearing no seconds, do we have any other motions? I guess, Treasurer Schlegel, is your motion still
out there as well? Yeah, and I'll leave it on the table. Do we have any seconds for that motion?
I'll second. Okay, so we have a motion to delay. All right.
Yeah, let's clarify this. So the motion needs to be a motion to request additional time from the director
because you're going to run out of your 90 day window. So what happens if she says no? Then it will
do exactly what the time will expire and it will be just being approved. Are you okay with the consequences
of that? Yes, I am.
Director Colleen Hansen, will you be okay if they make a motion to request extra time from you because
the timeline runs out the day before our next meeting? I would rather be safe and make sure that we've
looked at all of the data. So yes, I'm totally fine with the delay. Another 30 days. Okay, all right.
So you have a verbal commitment from the director. We'll still put it in writing and she'll put it in
writing. If there's a second for your motion, sorry.
Commissioner Delaney. My understanding about Dill Delay is if we do request and when we do request,
we should present a reason, so additional research with Elizabeth Mitchell or something. I don't know
if we want to get that specific, so that it doesn't just sound terribly open-ended for the record.
to justify. Thank you. Yes. Yes, that's great. All right, we have a motion on the table. We'll have
a roll call vote. Oh, I think Jack said thank you. Thank you all for your help on that.
So that motion is on the table to request additional time. A request from the director. We're gonna
go ahead and take a roll call vote. This is on DD 2614. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Chair Butler?
Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? No. Treasurer Schlegel? Yes. That motion to continue
and request to the director passes 4-1.
with her hand up, but she is of the public and that public. Yeah, but I wanted to let you know she does
have her hand up. Can we let her comment without? If you're wanting her to be public, someone with their
hand up for the public. Was she trying to comment on that specific item? I don't know because there's
just a hand up and it was during the Commissioner comment period after the, so I've asked her to unmute.
Yes, thank you. Go ahead, Jan. Let me see if I can unmute her. I've asked her to unmute. She is unmuted.
Jan, can you hear us?
Let's just move on then. All right. All right. So we're coming up on two more demolition delays that
have been continued. Basically the same time frame. These two are set to expire
the day of our next meeting. Does that mean we would be able to hear them or not? I'm going to think
about time frame. I would think that you could still hear them. If it was on the day, I would argue
that you could still hear them. But you'd have to dispose of it that day, or it would be deemed incorrect.
Yes, OK. All right, petitioner.
for demolition delay 2615 is Alexa Lucas. Lewis, sorry. This is for 503 North Grant Street. 503 North
Grant is a side gabled buff scratch brick four square with three tapered porch posts, original three
over one and four over one windows. These unusual bricks can be found on several contemporaneous commercial
buildings built by the Mitchell Brothers. The house has a small rear shed addition
and replaced an earlier single family, sorry, single story house with a similar footprint. The house
was first owned by barber Alfred Bryant and his wife, Clella, proprietors of Bo Brummel Barber and Beauty.
After several years, the couple sold the house to Maurice and Ruth Sharer, an express delivery man.
Maurice moved to the country in the late 1930s where he and his wife were active in the Monroe County
agricultural and horticultural society, and other local volunteer organizations. From the 1940s through
1955, the house was occupied by the Dess family. Morris and Sophie Dess were Jewish immigrants from
the former Russian Empire, and Morris worked as a purchaser for Fell Ironworks. Their son, Dr.
Howard Dess, worked as a division director at Union Carbide prior to becoming a library science professor
at Rutgers University.
The desks sold the house to salesman Robert Lafferty and his wife Joan. The couple's son Mike grew up
in the house and would become an active member of the Brown County, Indiana music scene. From 1975 through
1977, the house was occupied by Elizabeth Noyes and her two children. At the time, Noyes was earning
her JD from Indiana University and would go on to serve as a judge in the Monroe County Circuit Court.
So you may remember
At the last meeting, there was a request to continue these items to see if any more information could
be found about potential architectural significance of the building. I reached out to the Indiana Department
of Historic Preservation and Archaeology and made a determination of eligibility request for both this
property and the next property. I included materials that
I had access to, including exterior pictures and floor plans, which I'm not sure are current, but were
in possession of the city, public records. They got back to me Tuesday, the day before Memorial Day,
and said there was not enough information for them to make a determination because there weren't any
interior pictures.
You know, there aren't any interior pictures available for these buildings. Um, at least none that I
could find online or, you know, in public city records. So in lieu of, I reached out to, um, the DHPA
a couple of times, um, asking if they had any further comments.
besides asking for more information. And I have not heard back, so in lieu of any additional information,
I don't feel like I can change my recommendation. As the petitioner present, would you like to add anything
to that? Sure.
Good evening. Tim Cover with Legate Architects representing Alexa Lewis, the homeowner. One quick question.
The start date for the demo delay, we filed on 9-4. And so I'm just kind of curious at that as far as
when it shows being uploaded to the city was 9-4. Just if that impacts things.
So today marks actually the fourth meeting for this property. The first two were missed because there
was no quorum. The third one, as Noah mentioned, there were some comments raised about whether or not
the brick was tied to the Mitchell Brothers, a significant
group here in town back in that era. And today, meeting number four. I'd like to say the one thing that
hasn't changed in the four meetings has been the staff's recommendation to release the demolition delay.
And so what I'd like to kind of mention or point out is that the staff was asked to do research. Noah has done.
Quite a bit of research and looking into this building and the next project as well or house and found
no ties to the Mitchell Brothers or this brick being tied to anyone of significance. I've done extensive
research on the properties. The owner has paid a third party to do extensive research and
She also has found no ties to the Mitchell brothers or linking this house in any significant way. Staff,
as Noah mentioned, also reached out to DHPA with questions about the house and if there was any other
information on it for the exterior.
That is the group that gave it the initial contributing designation, as you guys are aware. Their comments
coming back with not being able to make a determination, which with that, they're finding no information
based on the exterior and what they're looking at to elevate this project. There's no archaeological
info. There's no event that occurred here.
There's no tie to a significant person or the Mitchell Brothers that has been found anywhere. And there's
no significance to the design or construction that had a distinctive characteristic that has been brought
up by the state or mentioned as a reason for retaining this property. So the questions were asked, the
questions have been answered. We would respectfully
ask at this time to let these projects move on and to go ahead and vote to release the demolition delay.
I've got a few other colleagues. I don't know if they, if everyone can speak on behalf of the petitioner
or if they need to speak as a member of the audience. That would be public comment. I think, right?
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
to unmute if we know who's online. We have one person online and another individual here in the audience.
All right, so we'll move on to public comment. Let's go online first and then we'll move back. We do
have Jan Sorby who was trying to speak earlier in public comment. Anyone else that wishes to speak,
if you could raise your hand, that way I can have you unmute.
We have John Richards that would like to comment. Are you there, John Richards? I am here. I cannot
get my video enabled. I apologize. I'm counsel for the petitioner, and I would echo exactly what Mr.
Cobert said that with respect to this petition
And the one that. Comes right after this one that there's been. No connection to the Mitchell brothers
that's been uncovered by either Mr Kover. Representatives of the petitioner or by Noah. My understanding
is that the state has provided no evidence to change the staff recommendation. Miss Mr Kover indicated
this is the fourth meeting on on these two petitions.
first two a quorum was not achieved and at the last meeting in October it was pushed to this evening.
So we believe it's appropriate to approve the staff recommendation to release the demolition delay with
respect to both this petition and the one that comes right after this one. That's all I have.
public comment in the room, please. So I would just like to add a third on to the research that also
to Mr. Cobra Richards comments that there was no connection to the Mitchell brothers. I also spent time
in the Monroe County History Center's research library and scan digital records also found no evidence myself
And then also these houses lie in the city's carefully selected and designated qualified opportunity
zone to support Bloomington's development goals. And tenants for this year refused to move into the
property on their move-in day due to conditions of the house, including damp walls, signs of flooding,
and other hazardous conditions, and deterioration by mold. So things that tried to, as best as we could,
maintained by the former owners as well. But ultimately, our goal is to bring these addresses up to
speed with livable conditions to bring back tenants to this designated qualified opportunity zone location.
And those tenants would ultimately support the university and the local economy. So we appreciate being
heard. Thank you. Oh, yes. My name is Sydney. Sydney Hargis. Thank you. Yes. All right. Thank you. Yes.
Sorry. No worries. OK.
Steve Wyatt would like to speak. Okay, thank you. Go ahead Steve.
National Register nomination potentially could be made as a multiple property submission based on the
theme of the wire cut bricks. So that's probably the most viable path I would take to a DHPA recognition
that these buildings could be National Register eligible. That's all. All right, thank you.
Okay, so I think now we've made it to Commissioner questions. I'm asking that as a question, but I think
that's where we are. So Commissioner Duffy, would you like to start? Yeah, I have two questions, one
for each person. I'll start with Ms. Hargis. Yes. Just you were talking about the interior
Condition of the which we really don't consider but just for clarification has the City Hand Department
Have has the build have the buildings past City Hand Department inspection The last hand inspection
was in 2023 at that time they did not find any life safety issues. It's been a few years That's not
particularly
That is the latest information we have. OK, thank you. That was that question. And my other question
is for you, if you know this, I don't know. Was there any other source of this special kind of brick
other than the Mitchell Bridge? You might remember an application we had on 3rd Street earlier this
year where there was a building that could hit by a car that was made of this kind of brick.
And they were, so I was trying to help them find a replacement and I was checking salvage places and,
you know, contemporary brick manufacturers and I really could not find it. There are a handful of examples
in Bloomington. Most of them are on South Walnut where there's probably like maybe like somewhere between
four and six buildings that are made out of this or similar kind of brick.
Then there's a couple of Mitchell Brothers properties, or ones that bear their names, that are also
made of this brick. Not everything they built was made of it. But it's all from around 1930. So I thought
it was an interesting path to go down and see if maybe there might actually be some more significance
there, or it might prove some sort of relationship with a local builder,
It's still a bit of a puzzle to me where exactly the bricks came from, but it really just seems like
just a couple of years. So some of the buildings built by Mitchell Brothers are identified, but others
may not. Others may not be, but they may have been built by Mitchell Brothers. Well, the city and county
just don't keep a lot of the building records from back then. So basically, unless they put their name
on it or it's advertised in the newspaper, you can see that they were the first owners.
I just don't think we'd be able to tell. Thank you. Commissioner Gold, no questions. Thank you. To follow
up, sorry, no, I'm going to keep you popular guy tonight. So for these bricks and their uniqueness,
were there any other residential locations with these bricks or was it strictly commercial outside of
this house and its neighbor? So the neighbor does not have this kind of brick.
OK. But there are a few down south on Walnut that do. Walnut and Hillside. That's right, and Hillside.
So there's a couple, if you turn that corner, on Hillside and then up on the hill. Oh, and this is straight
up. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then there's just a place. One, what's the next street over, is it? Southern,
yeah. They've got one there.
So and those are residential ones with it? Yes, not just so. I can think of I think two commercial buildings
that have these and then maybe a half dozen residential buildings. OK, and then when you were talking
about. Your investigation with the bricks and some of the other. Groups organizations that you were
did one of them. Didn't one of them you had sent several requests to and they hadn't replied to
Wait, request for my information? Yeah, for the information. Well, to this day, when I made a determination
of eligibility request. OK. And they just hadn't gone back? And then the other one was just because
there's no available interior photos? Well, right. That was the response that I got from the DHPA, which
that was the one group that I reached out to asking for more information on architectural significance,
because that's where the initial survey rating came from. So I wanted to see if there was
Is there any reason to reconsider that? Okay. Okay. Vice Chair Baker, any questions? Yes, Noah, did
I hear you say that you were awaiting some information still? Well, I had reached out to them again
this past Tuesday to try and solicit some more information to see that maybe, you know, if they couldn't
make a full determination of eligibility request, if they could at least provide some comment
the significance of the materials provided and I called and left a message and I emailed and I have
not heard back. Okay, thank you. I have a sort of a similar question to what some of these
other commissioners were asking. And so you've contacted these people and you provided them with information
about the exterior of the house. Right. And is, I don't know how to ask this, but
if the exterior was really lacking would they have let you know at that point and say even without the
interior we can just look at the outside and we know this house isn't worth it or is it the case that
they're asking for interior stuff mean that the outside might be eligible is that I think they decided
not to give a full determination because they didn't feel like they had enough information to
basically respond. OK. Thank you. All right. So now, would anyone like to make a motion? In the interest
of starting the discussion, I move to release demolition delay, DD 2615. OK. Do we have a second?
Not hearing a second, would anyone else like to make a motion? When does this one run out Noah? I mean,
I went ahead and checked back in my calendar. The date that I saw was November 10th.
Sorry, September 10th. It's also the... Yeah, I mean, I did have another demolition delay meeting on
September 4th. This is for a different property, however. So unless I'm forgetting something or my calendar is wrong,
Now as the chair, I can't make a motion, but can I pass the gavel and make a motion? I would like to
make a motion to delay in order to get your questions answered with the stage. And so that we can have
all the information to make
All right, so we have a motion that's been seconded. So, okay, so let's be really clear. You would like
to continue to the next meeting. Yes. In order for additional research to be done with the understanding
that the next meeting is the 90th day. Yes, yes. Now is it the 90th day? I want to make sure. Sorry
about that. Should it be amended to include and ask for additional days?
Is it up to 30 days additional can be requested or is it 30 days period? It reads just like it's 30
days. It's either 90 or 120. Did you want to revise your motion? I'm not finding anything specifically
about whether it's the date of application or the date of acknowledging a complete application.
Right? Many times it's the date that the clock starts is when a complete application is received. I'm
actually not finding that language. The way that it's generally been done is because it's like a public
notice period. It's initiated when the sign goes up at the property, which is usually the same day as
the meeting.
So could we move forward with the motion and then could that be changed to the later date if we? I want
to make sure. Right, we want to make sure, yeah. If you wanted to make sure that it does it? Okay. No,
it's because of, you know, 31 days in October would be 91 days, so. Okay, so I would like to. I'm extra
quick. Yes, thank you. So I'd like to amend it to include a request for an extra 30 days.
than a request to the hand director. Okay. Can we have a discussion now? Who was the second? Jack seconded.
Thank you. I have another question following on this, which is, is this request to get more information
from the state
I'm a little confused about the purpose again, and maybe it's to follow up on the national register
possibility. I don't know. I would accept both of those ideas. My initial motion was just for the state
to have time to get back to Noah about the things that he'd ask about. I don't know how he would word
that, but we could also include other information or avenues. Investigating that avenue as well.
Do you have a thought about that possibility? There's really two ways that that could look. One would
be either trying to get information from the survey coordinator to see if she sees any reason for changing
the rating on either this building or the next one we're going to look at, or getting a determination
of eligibility request, which is what I tried to do. That would require interior pictures.
and that would really depend on whether the property owner would want to cooperate with that. It's a
possibility that we simply, I don't know. I would have liked to hear back from them. I really don't
know at this point. All right, so we'll start a discussion. Vice Chair Baker? All right.
I have the same attitude here as I did on the previous side. I'd rather let it run out than say yes
to release. I appreciate all the comment from our architectural friends. I like architecture. I love
looking at interesting buildings and enjoying the spaces. And I also hate seeing good pieces of architecture
torn down. And I think that's what these are.
There's not much we can do. We can recommend to council and we hesitate to do that and council typically
will not designate a property. We're generally left powerless to just either let the time run out, say
yes or no to release. I would rather let the owner sit and mull this over a bit.
I would rather see them put effort into these buildings and money into these buildings. We hear they're
not in good shape. Well, they're not in good shape, obviously, because it's deferred maintenance. The
way you get to a property, to a place where you want to tear it down, is you don't put anything into
it. I've seen this with Indiana University. I've seen it with other buildings. It's everywhere. We're
running millions and billions behind because of deferred maintenance. These are just small examples.
They've been let run down. They could be beautiful buildings.
beautiful buildings, we find a way to put money into them. But it takes a really special building before
we can get everybody organized and the money organized to put into them. These buildings, in my mind,
are worthy. This one, the next one, and the last one are three that just stand out in a neighborhood,
and they mean neighborhood. And what comes after is not going to be neighborhood. They'll call
it neighborhood, but it won't.
It's just an unfortunate confluence of things happening that have gotten into this condition, but I
would rather let the time run out and say yes to release. All right. Thank you, Vice Chair. Treasurer
Schlegel? The Vice Chair said that more eloquently than I could have, so I will just say I agree. Thank you.
It's time to let these go. They're zoned for more development there. There's an opportunity zone. The
change is happening in this part of town. It's never going to get designated at City Council,
in my opinion. So let them move forward.
I'm thinking about what Commissioner Baker said. He didn't use the words demolition by neglect, but
that's a whole difficult problem that we don't want to be supporting in any way. And I share Mr. San
Luis' disappointment that he didn't get an answer on this, and I think I'd like to
see him communicate further with them and try to get an answer. All right, thank you. I agree with a
lot of the things all my colleagues have said. And I apologize to you guys that this has taken so very
long. But one of the things that the Historic Preservation Commission is in our power is to take the
time to look at properties.
and to really take the time to make the best decision we can. And it's important for us to do this because
these properties, you know, if you're looking at a 100-year-old house, I mean, I know that, you know,
a month or two months of delays seems like a lot, but it's not a lot when you compare it to the 100-year-old
house. So I support being very, very careful. I'm also cognizant of that our delays cost people time
and money, and I'm sorry about that.
At the same time, I feel like Mr. Sandweiss has some good questions. He'd like the state to answer.
I think these properties, I mean, they check some of the boxes that we could use to save them. I mean,
the unique brick, not just because of the Mitchell Brothers. We don't necessarily have to establish
a connection to the Mitchell Brothers. This is a unique type of brick that's used on, what, six houses
in all of Bloomington.
It's also, they're from an era where we also have a smaller sample size, also making them rare. I agree
with Commissioner Golden that they're in a zone that is changing, but that's sort of outside of our
purview. We're asked to look at the individual structures. And we have to take the context
into consideration. I think that's wise. But I also feel like I'm,
going to try to keep my blinders on and just look at these properties. And so I would support a delay,
which is why I made the motion. Surprise, surprise. All right. If we don't have any need for
more Commissioner comments, then we can move to a vote.
Okay, it's been moved and second on DD 2615 to continue to, if someone could rephrase that, my apologies.
Go ahead. I have the motion is to request to the hand director to grant additional time to a way to
response from the state and to investigate other options. Thank you. We'll go ahead and take a roll
call vote. Vice Chair Baker. Yes. Chair Butler.
Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? No. Treasurer Schlegel? Yes. That motion to request additional
time is approved four to one. All right. So moving on to the next property, demolition delay 2616.
This is for 509 North Grant Street, same petitioner. Built in 1931, 509 North Grant is a hip roof red
brick four square with a half width porch with tapered posts and six over one wood windows and two stone
accents protruding from the wall beneath the centered second story windows. The house is a small rear
shed addition. This house replaced an earlier single story house with the same footprint.
or similar footprint. 509 North Grant was first owned by Harold P. Burgess, a salesman for Shell Petroleum
and his wife, Violet. From 1936 to 1940, they rented the house to several other young families. The
house was then sold in 1940 to Clarence Parrish, a cobbler and farmer who raised chickens and pigs at
a second property in the country where he and his wife, Grace, moved in 1943.
The house was then bought by Helen Noel, a secretary for the zoology and economics departments at Indiana
University, who rented spare rooms to students. In 1964, Paul and Dremme Stevens bought the house. Paul
was a mailman who had spent time as a prisoner of war in Germany, and Dremme P.G. Stevens served as
a state delegate for the Indiana Democrats. The Stevens moved out in 1985.
fairly similar situation to this. I included it in my determination of eligibility request. I have not
received any additional comments from the Department of Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology.
Does the petitioner have any additional comments? Hi, Tim Cover, Flegate Architects. So
Our comments from the first round most apply again here. I think this house was kind of tagged on with
the other one because we got into a discussion about the brick on the other house. Both have been, the
question has been asked to the state as well. I would argue that silence is an answer. It's if the state felt
that looking at these houses would raise them to a level, next level for designation. I think they would
have said so. If they want to dig into the interior because they're trying to find something, the whole
discussion and the reason that we're still sitting here is because there was a feeling that the exterior
of these houses was significant in some way.
We've answered that question. The state has remained silent on the question and basically that silence
is to say it doesn't raise to the level of significance. So again, we'd ask that the projects be released
so that we can move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Public comments?
It's from Jan Sorby. She typed it and since she's having some issues, I'll read that. We also have a
comment from John Richards. So from Jan Sorby, it says, I urge the city to delay demolition until further
research can be conducted. The brick work is beautiful and unique and it would be a shame for Bloomington
to lose these two properties because of a lack of time to fully research.
I'm gonna go ahead and have John Richards unmute. And your camera, if you're able to on your end, your
video should be working now, John. Thank you, I appreciate that. Again, I'm counsel for the petitioner.
My comments with respect to this petition are the same as with respect to the last petition, and I also
echo what Mr. Covert just said, so we would request that the
commission follow the recommendation of the staff. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments in
the room? Okay, hearing none. We'll move on to Commissioner questions. Start with Commissioner Duffy.
Okay. No sir. All right. Thank you. Treasurer Schlegel. Yes. Vice Chair Baker.
So now we can consider a motion. Thank you Commissioner Gold. Do we have a second? Hearing none, would
anyone else like to formulate a motion?
same thing we're doing for 26-15 with this one? Is that okay to phrase that way? We are making a motion
to request 30 days additional time from the hand director to do further research. Yes, and allow the
state to provide a response. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. I will second that.
So. Let's see which way you first last time. Chair Baker. I did him last time we go again first. Same
comments as last time with one additional talking about silence. In this case, silence allows the owner
to reconsider their position. And that's where I'm at with these. I think they have enough value that
we shouldn't act in haste.
I know the owners would rather that we acted in haste. But I think that we're doing our job better by
letting them reconsider what they might want to do with those properties. They may not do any good,
but that's the only tool that I see that we can use. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Treasurer Schell.
I still agree with Vice Chair Baker. He said it very well. No further comment. Thank you. Thank you.
Well, I do not assume that silence from the state means that they have found nothing of significance.
They specified that they wanted a little more information, so I would support this to allow that to
complete itself, to be completed. Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Duffy's comment.
I think that the state's position is that they would like more information. And so I don't think that
that necessarily translates that they're rejecting this. And so I don't see that silence as a call to
vote for the demolition. So I'm gonna be supporting a further delay so we can get all the information.
I think that's important. All right, can we get a roll call vote?
This is on Demolition Delay 2616. We'll go ahead and take a vote. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Chair Butler?
Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? No. Commissioner Schlegel, or Treasurer Schlegel?
Yes. That motion to continue passes four to one.
Next item, demolition delay 2618. It's 425 North Roosevelt Street. Petitioner is Todd Saxtetter, who
I believe is online. 425 North Roosevelt is a minimal ranch with a windowless front door and a three
over three picture window. The house is three bays in width and one bay in depth with a metal roof and
aluminum siding.
Built in 1959 by Roscoe L. Sexton, a supervisor at the Indiana University Physical Plant and developer
of small houses in the Green Acres neighborhood, Roscoe and his wife, Martha, owned the house until
1980, renting it to Indiana University students and faculty. First resident, John Wendell Black, enrolled
at Indiana University Law School after his service as a captain in the Korean War. And he lived in the
house for one year.
and would later retire back to Bloomington after a career with Bank of America. From 1960 to 1966, the
house was occupied by John and Barbara Beebe. Professor John Beebe taught Russian at Indiana University.
And although he specialized in medieval philology, his time at IU was mostly spent teaching in the Air
Force language training program. During the first half of the 1970s, the house was occupied by PhD student,
linguistic student, Rex Moser and his wife Ayako Moser.
The staff recommendation was release of demolition delay 2618. Thank you. Does the petitioner have anything
you'd like to add? No. All right, thank you. Public comment in the room? Public comment online? I do
not see any indication. All right, let's move to commissioner questions. Commissioner Duffy?
Mr. Gold? Judge Urschling? Vice Chair Baker? All right, so. I'm feeling like this might work. Do I hear
a motion? I'll move. OK. Have a little bit of an appetite. I move to release Demolition Law 26-18. Do
I hear a second? I'll second. OK.
I thought I hadn't. I didn't finish the sentence, I'm sorry. Okay, we have a motion. So now we can have
a discussion. I'll start with Commissioner Duffy. I'm satisfied with the staff report on this. Commissioner
Golden. Again, this is
We want to talk about contacts drive through this area now. That's going to be a big block. But it's
not worth seeing. Thank you. Treasurer Schlegel? Thank you. Vice Chair Baker? It's affordable. That
always hurts, seeing affordable housing go. But I think we have to save our best shots for those sorts
of houses that have what we think are architectural significance. This one has less.
deal. Not well. All right, thank you. I sympathize empathize with all the comments that have been made.
I think that this, you know, it's a very modest home and I hate to see very modest homes get torn down.
But there's very little architecturally for us to work with here. And there's doesn't seem to be any
individual that would marry
trying to save this, so I support letting it go. All right, so roll call vote. Okay, this is for demolition
delay 2618. There's a motion on the floor to release. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Chair Butler? Yes. Commissioner
Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Treasurer Schlegel?
that motion to release it's been approved five zero all right thank you oh yes please today regarding
the property located at 425 North Roosevelt
The Historic Preservation Commission, HPC, declares that it got notice of proposed partial demolition
and after today's discussion, sees no need to review the plans any further and waives the rest of the
90 or 120-day demolition delay waiting period for one year. The HPC may recommend the property for historic
addition to the Common Council.
I didn't read that correctly. The HPC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the
Common Council. Thank you. Sorry. This one's the last demo delay of the evening. Demo is going to be
2619 for 121 South Jefferson Street. Petitioner Sherry Hillenberg. Petitioner, I believe, is present.
OK. 121 South Jefferson Street is a one story T plan post-war house with a half width
front porch, rear addition, board and batten siding, and a mix of three over one and new over one or
one for picture windows. 121 South Jefferson was built in 1951. It was inhabited until 1967 by Bert
and Martha Laws. From 1939 until 1977, Bert Laws worked as the announcer for Indiana University basketball
and football games, as well as the Little 500 bike race. Additionally, he served as superintendent
of maintenance and operations for the Bloomington campus. Martha was a violinist active in
several philanthropic groups including Tri Kappa and the Omega, no relation, and the Omega Club. Burton
Martha had lived in an apartment prior to buying 121 South Jefferson Street and would move in 1967 to
4425 Cambridge Court, a mid-century split level house. From 1969 until 1985, the house was subsequently owned by
philosophy professor John Teenson and his wife Marianne. The couple moved to Memphis where John would
spend the better part of his career. Staff recommends the release of Demolition Delay 2619 with a bit
of an explainer here. Burt Laws was a well-recognized member of the Bloomington community with a long
career as a voice for IU Athletics, covering part of the golden age of Hoosier men's basketball team.
He's associated with several sites around Bloomington,
including his two or three of his residences, and sports venues including assembly hall and memorial
stadium. By national register criteria, to have some association with the significant person, sorry.
For a residence to be, I got lost. For a residence to qualify for its association with a historic individual,
we would need to have some sort of
association with a significant person's significant achievements, or else no better representative property
would have to be found. Frustratingly, the Indiana University Archives do not appear to have any documents
or interviews attributed to Mr. Laws, and local newspaper articles do not indicate that he conducted
any particular business at his house. Considering the lack of evidence to the contrary,
Staff does not consider this house a good representative property of Burt Law's career. Does the petitioner
have anything that she would like to add? The only thing I would add is a couple of things. One,
the house is, as you can see, it's in pretty bad shape. The previous owner lost her hand occupancy permit
because of the deficiencies in the house. It needs about a $26,000 roof repair. That's what you see
on the front. Why does it tarp?
been raining inside of it. And for whatever reason, when this house was constructed, it actually straddles
two lots that our legal lots of record never combines. I'm not really sure why it does that. So it seems
to us the best thing to do is to tear it down and replace it with something. All right. Thank you. Any
public comment online?
Any public comment in the room? All right. Commissioner questions. Commissioner Golden, we'll start
with you. No questions. All right, Treasurer Schlegel? No, I don't think I have questions. Okay, Vice
Chair Baker? No. All right, thank you. Vice, or vice, the other way. Commissioner Duffy, sorry. No,
no questions.
I don't really have any questions either. So do we have a motion? Move to approve the motion July 26,
19. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay, we have a motion on the table. Now let's have some discussion.
Treasurer Schlegel. Come back to me. I need a form. Okay, Vice Chair.
Commissioner Doe. Commissioner Doe. Architecturally this has no significance and based on Noah's comments,
there's no real connection to its owner. So I'm going to support releasing this. Thank you.
Director Schlegel? Not Doe.
what Jack said previously and just try to steal it from myself, but I mean, I always feel bad when houses
like this, but knowing more with your additional comments does help, especially with the lot thing,
that's just really odd. And I understand the, you know, it's not your fault you have this house now
that has all this damage, but it is always hard to see what is more affordable housing, but I mean,
there's a lot to it.
I struggle with it, but I can understand and sympathize with that. Yeah. Thank you. The only thing that
I would add is I grew up in a small house and I grew up poor. If there's a special individual that was
in a small house, I always want to try to save that small house as an example to the community that
you can come from a little place and do big things.
I don't think this quite reaches the bar for me for that. So I support this. Thank you. And now we'll
move on to roll call vote. Certainly roll call vote on 2619 motion to release a demolition delay.
Chair Baker. Yes. Vice Chair Baker, you just had gotten promoted. Yes.
Today regarding the property located at 121 South Jefferson the Historic Preservation Commission declares
that it got notice of
demolition slash partial demolition and after today's discussion sees no need to review the plans any
further and waives the rest of the 90 or parenthesis 120 day demolitions. The demolition would delay
waiting period for one year. The HPC may later recommend the property for historic designation to the
common council. Thank you.
So now we're moving on to old business, right? Yes. I mean, you'll see on your packet that there are
a couple of items under new business that are going to warrant a little discussion, but if anybody has
any old business that they'd like to bring up. Not seeing any old business people jumping up. We can
move on to new business. Okay. New business. Um, so I'd like to start with, um,
The first item under new business is a request for commission. Oh, you need leave? All right, I'll see
you Karen. Yes, yes. Your comments may be helpful. Your comments would be helpful, but if you got to
go. Okay, thank you Commissioner.
We have a project that may be coming up for demolition delay because it involves some exterior alterations
to a notable, I believe it's notable, maybe it's out, it's notable. A notable building, the Bloomington
Reform Presbyterian Church on 1st Street. I think it's 1st and Lincoln? 1st and Lincoln? Yes. Yes. So
the petitioner,
or not petitioner, the architect for the project, Barry Clapper, would like to present a little bit
about her proposal before it comes in for demolition delay. So we can make sure whether there need to
be any changes or any additional questions. So I'm going to start presenting you with some pictures.
If you're familiar with this property, I think we all drive down First Street on occasion.
This is elevations of the building as it exists now. So the proposed addition would be to the east elevation,
which you'll see. Those are coming out kind of black, but you could see it would consist of a two story
side addition. A three story. Three story, that's right. Somewhat step back from the front facade. Is
there anything you want to
describe about the project? Sure. So I'm Barry Clapper from Springpoint Architects and Adam Quirk from
the church who's on the building committee is also here in case you have any questions for him. We wanted
to bring this forward today. We know that this is a prominent church, a very beautiful building that
anchors a prominent corner and the church has
has been utilized in this, this building has been utilized for the last 100, almost 100 years. And they
very much love this building, but it has some significant challenges, mainly around accessibility. The
building is technically two stories and then a partial third story.
It's actually a split level church. So when you walk in from the east side or from the west side, you
enter into a stair landing and you go up to the sanctuary level or down to the fellowship hall. The
main stair, which is at the corner, you actually go up that half story on the outside and then go in.
So it's difficult to get into this church
In addition to that, the restrooms are very minimal. There are essentially two restrooms serving the
entire facility at this point. So this addition really is a reinvestment in this building so that it
will continue to serve the congregation into the future. And in addition to addressing those needs,
so there will be
There will be an elevator added and we'll be more than doubling the fixture counts and the restroom
facilities with the addition. We'll be able to actually create a zero entry off the South parking lot.
So because the building, the lower level of the building is partially below grade, we're able to catch
up at that one
one location and actually bring people in from the parking lot into that lower level. And then there'll
be an elevator that will serve all three floors. So while it is three floors, it's aligning with the
floors of the existing building. I just want to make that clear. Anyhow, so that's... I'm happy to answer
any questions.
the project, we wanted to bring it before you. We'd be coming back for partial demolition. Actually,
almost all of the east elevation would remain intact. We were proposing a narrow addition just on the
east side. I just want to explain that. We studied the east side and the south side.
where the east side seemed to be the most preferable because the sanctuary gets natural light from the
north, the west, and the south. And the natural light in that space is really important to the worship
experience. And all of the service areas of the building are stacked against the east side. So while
there are these lovely stained glass windows on all of
all elevations in the building, they actually face into storage rooms or support rooms on the east side.
So what we're able to do is to reutilize those windows in the new addition. We'll be able to reutilize
all of them and we'll make a plan for the remaining openings that are there. So that's an explainer
as to why we're doing what we're doing and where we're doing it.
Okay, so we just wanted to bring this before you tonight. And see if you had any thoughts or suggestions
or concerns. Well, my concern, and this isn't a deal breaker in any way, is the facade of the building,
I wanna keep that front facade, it's very square. Yes. And so by adding on to the,
side there, I mean, there's a tension, right? You bet. So, I mean, that would be the... So it is a classical,
a re-provival building is fully symmetrical, and what we're doing is altering that symmetry. Right.
And that's understood. But I also understand your parameters, so... So what we're doing to help offset
that is we're
pushing the addition back as far as we can to expose that corner, which is pretty critical, actually.
So you can still read the original form and the presentation of the church. That impressive primary
elevation hopefully isn't diminished while continuing all the detailing and such so that it's not a
jarring addition in any way.
sort of the fenestration, the punched openings, that whole language. We're trying to be as quiet as
we can be and as respectful as we can be of the building. I appreciate that. Any other? One I want to
say, I think you took the words right out of my mouth, Barry, when you said this is a reinvestment.
I think that's a phenomenal way to look at it. I think it's great that the church is doing well and
needs to expand and have better facilities.
I wasn't here in the late 90s. I was still in high school. But the history center, how we had our edition
brought on. And it's clear. I mean, you can see, original Carnegie building, not Carnegie building.
And I see that in the same way. And I was trying to figure out how to ask about the style, but John,
you already covered, or Jerry, you already covered that. So I think it's fantastic.
And Mary, you've brought other projects before. They're always well laid out, well planned. A lot goes
into it. So I'm actually kind of excited to see more and hear more about this. I think I see no reason
why I wouldn't vote in favor of it. And the only question I have, and it's just curiosity personally,
is for the, since it would be a demo delay in part, how, I guess I'm asking how you're attaching it
or how like,
how the new addition's gonna, you're gonna get access to the original part. And I'm just curious. Sure.
And I know the interior's not our purview, but I'm just genuinely curious. No, no, it's a great question.
So what we're going to do is remove the stairs out of that staircase. So we will utilize the opening.
Well, the openings are offset, because they're a half story. Okay.
And we haven't gotten to the detail yet, but we'll probably reconstitute it if we can. I'd like to leave
that brick exposed from the inside and perhaps shift those openings so that they can then serve that
lower level and the upper level. So the stairwell is the only element that will be reconfigured to some degree.
But there will be a new wall that will hold up the new floor structure that will be up against the original
east wall. So we won't be using that wall in any way structurally for the new addition. Does that answer
it fully? Yes, it does, thank you. And I'm very excited you're reusing the stained glass and a lot of
that, keeping the original brick wall. I just think that's, I like architecture and history, so to me
I'm like, ooh, that's kind of neat.
Yeah, that will be there. Any other thoughts from Jack? Vice Chair? Could we go to the drawing,
the revised? So what I'm seeing, what you said, we're on the right-hand side here, which is which elevation?
That's the east side. That's the east elevation. No, if you go to the model stuff, it might be easier
for everybody to see. So you see slightly different.
If it's a good idea, I like what you said there. You're getting light from three different directions
by putting your new addition on that side. You're not really blocking anything. You're actually opening
up the others to light. Questions are, are you able to duplicate materials, brick? You're able to duplicate?
We will not be able to duplicate it. It's a very rich, multicolored brick.
There will be no way that we could find an exact match. So what we will do in a case like this is find
a complementary brick. There are a number of different colors, and then we can pull out one of those
colors that will work well. And that's something we want to do because we want to show that this is
built at a different time. And so we want to distinguish the old from the new. So the brick will help
us do that.
That is one of the bigger challenges of the project is to find the right brick. Some lines of demarcation
in the building then. Exactly. Exactly. Are you able to match windows? Are you replacing windows other
than your stained glass? Are you having to buy new? So there will be some windows. We have a certain
number of windows that we can work with that will be relocated and
We have more openings than we actually have windows. So we've talked about having new windows made in
the style of the old windows. The light in the building is really extraordinary, especially at certain
times of the day. So it's a really important architectural piece of the building.
So we're hoping to be able to replicate as well as we can those existing stained glass windows. How
will you handle new roofing? So we will. There is an asphalt shingle roof on the building now. So we
will be over framing the existing roof. So it's a hip roof.
And the form of the new roof will be the same, it will be a hip, and so it will over frame the existing
roof. So we'll be matching that. We'll be matching that. Now we may, we haven't gotten to this detail,
but you can see that we're pulling around all of the limestone accents, but there is quite an ornate
kind of freeze at the top, it's sort of like a dental crease. I'm not sure if we'll fully replicate
that. We may do a little bit more of a streamlined version of that. Of the gear? Yeah, just of that
detail, which is a little bit fuzzier. And I feel like that's appropriate, maybe not to do the full
thing. Again, helping to distinguish what's new and what's old and that this is built 100 years later.
Oh, great. And I'm reading this. This was typed out by Jam Sorby, who is here and is not able to say
this based on audio. Jan said, the petitioner reached out to the neighbors, which they greatly appreciate,
and wrote, the addition was thoughtfully designed and carefully positioned to minimize its visibility
from surrounding streets.
The congregation insisted on using brick to preserve the building's architectural character and has
demonstrated a strong commitment to remaining at this location. The neighborhood is delighted by the
church's investment in its future and its continued commitment to being an integral part of the community.
And again, that's from Jam Sorby. Thank you. My two cents? Yes, please. OK, so I don't like to leave
people in suspense, so I'm just going to say,
what my staff recommendation is going to be. I think this is a perfect illustration of how to build
an addition for a historic building, which obviously varies on a lot of these. It is differentiated
but complementary to the historic building. It's to a large extent reversible, though I don't think
they'd ever want to reverse it. It's appropriate in scale, it's set back from the front,
You can tell what's going on and I, you know, I just think it checks all the boxes of one in addition
to historic building, particularly one of this stature should be. Thank you. Thanks. I do have a question.
Before I ask this question, I'm going to say this looks great and I support it. It's about the process,
so this is demolition delay. So we really don't have a preview over what's going to happen?
That's my experience in the past. So is the church historically designated? The church is not historically
designated. That's my point. So Jeff is correct. You have your purview over the request for the demolition
delay and the release of that. But if it's not a historically designated building, they do not need
to come back with a request for a CLA. They can just go straight to permitting.
So I'm taking this as you all coming here to let us know that this is what you intend to do. Right,
and I really appreciate that because that makes the decision easier. So if there are particular aspects
of the design that you would like us to follow up with you on, we're happy to do that. I think it looks
great. If there's any issues, we're happy to do that.
The preference at this time is that the church would prefer not to be designated. And so we thought
that this would be the best way to kind of work collaboratively with you. Appreciate it. And we appreciate
that. All right. To bury no flat roots, that'll carry half the water.
for the whole structure. We do have a little bit of a flat room, though we do. I asked, Barry came out
and looked at it. And Barry was like, that flat room. And I was like, yeah. All right, well.
This is great. OK, thank you so much for your time tonight. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Thanks.
Thank you, Barry. OK, so you'll see us hopefully in December.
So there's the historic district subcommittee renewal on our agenda. So if you look way back, those
of you who are here, which I think is everybody in this room, to January or February of this year, there
were some changes to Title II, which handles boards and commissions, which changed among or now requires,
among other things, that all subcommittees of boards and commissions
be approved by city council. So we are going to have to get the historic district subcommittee re-approved.
I was talking with Deputy Clerk Crosley today about that process. It sounds like city council's still
working out what this is gonna look like. So I think, I'm hoping we might be able to get an application
to get the subcommittee
renewed in some time in January or February. So the subcommittee can still meet this December, but it
may be the case that we'll miss a meeting or two. I'm just not sure. What's the purpose of the subcommittee?
The subcommittee is for working with historic districts, either ones that are developing their guidelines.
Yeah, either developing guidelines or questions about people who want a designated district. It's all
this sort of public facing stuff.
So the deputy clerk is working through what that process might be, whether it goes to full council or
to the committee on council processes. We've offered to submit a letter on behalf of this board kind
of indicating the importance of this subcommittee and how it is a public outreach arm of the commission
to maybe use that as a model for these are the kinds of subcommittees we want to keep and we want to
continue to reach out to people, other opportunities to come in front of members of the commission.
So Noah is directly engaged in figuring out how to get it done. Thank you. We appreciate that. Yeah.
All right. So that concludes new business. Any commissioner comments? We have an event coming up at
the History Center. It's December 11th, which is a Friday. To celebrate, it will be Indiana's 210th birthday.
No, I brought an extra one for you, or I can send you a digital copy. But it's Hooch and History. Cardinal
Spirits is a co-sponsor. We'll have alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, so people won't feel pressured.
They have to drink. It just talks about Indiana's history 210 years ago. It's limited to 50 people,
and it is a ticketed event. Is there a charge? $20.
So pretty good deal for two lectures, a couple of drinks, and going to see all of our exhibits
and everything. So we've sold some tickets. They just went up yesterday at noon. So if you're interested,
definitely. And I have more of these, or I can send an attachment, whatever people would like. So that's
all I had. Did he send an email with an attachment? I don't know if I have your email. Yeah, he could
send it to you now. I wasn't sure what was allowed, so. OK.
public comments since they seem to have left unless there's someone online let's see anybody else that's
still online has not either responded asking them who they are or they and they've not raised their
hand okay well that's seeing any indication that's good enough for me I hereby adjourn this meeting