Historic Preservation Commission approves demolition of deteriorating garage at 301 E. 15th, requires three-sided retaining wall

The Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously Sept. 11 to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA 25‑56) allowing the demolition of a deteriorated detached garage at 301 East Fifteenth Street in the Garden Hill Historic District, and to require construction of a three‑sided limestone retaining wall in the style of the property’s existing wall.

Lede facts: The commission approved the demolition and the required retaining‑wall construction in a single motion; the final vote was 5–0.

Why it matters: The garage had been unused and was reported by the owner and staff to be in advanced structural decline after recent heavy rains. Commissioners and staff framed the approval narrowly: demolition is permitted, but any future reuse of the footprint (including parking) must comply with the Unified Development Ordinance’s alley‑access rules and could require a separate COA.

Staff and petitioner presentations: Historic‑preservation staff described the garage as non‑contributing and in a “severe state of deterioration” with failing masonry and eroding mortar. The petitioner, Christina Gills, said storms had significantly compromised the garage and that her priority was removing a structure that had become a safety hazard and an attraction for trespassing. She told the commission she preferred demolition but remained open to follow‑up work with planning on what could legitimately replace the garage.

Planning constraints and condition: Planning staff advised commissioners that Bloomington’s Unified Development Ordinance requires vehicular access to improved alley lots to be taken from the alley; a second driveway off the street is not permitted. As planning staff put it: “Our code states that when a property has an improved alley access, they must use the improved alley for their … allowable vehicle access.” Staff and commissioners discussed scenarios to avoid creating a second street access and noted that if the petitioner retained the existing slab it could create parking‑access complications; planning staff said removing the slab would alleviate that particular issue.

Commission action: After asking for clarification from planning and discussion with the petitioner, the commission approved demolition of the garage and the construction of a three‑sided retaining wall in the same limestone style as the property’s existing wall. Commissioners emphasized that the COA covered the demolition and retaining wall only; any separate construction (including parking or additional walls) would require a new COA and coordination with planning.

What the petitioner said next: The petitioner committed to returning with any follow‑up proposals after consulting planning staff about parking and access. The commission noted that the petitioner had expressed willingness to consider alternatives and to submit revised plans if needed.

Ending: The commission’s approval allows the immediate, limited work (demo + retaining wall) while preserving planning oversight over any future reuse of the footprint.