Call the July 24, 2025 meeting of the Leamington Historic Reservation Commission to order. Call the roll. OK. Duncan Campbell. Here. Karen Duffy. Here. Elizabeth Mitchell. Here. Ernesto Castaneda. Daniel Schlegel. Sam DeSaulder. Here. Reignard Cross. Here. Jack Baker. Jeremy Hackard. Here. Melody Duesner. Here.
 All right. I will entertain a motion on we have two sets of minutes. If no one has any issues with any of the minutes, do we have any issues with any of the minutes? And I move to approve both sets of minutes. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. Call the roll. Elizabeth Mitchell? I'm standing. Sandy Soller? Yes.
 Raynard Cross. Yes. Jeremy Hackard. Yes. Melanie Duesner. Yes. Motion carries 4, 0, 1 for both June 26 and July 10th minutes. Thank you. All righty. All right, move. I should read the thing. So at this point, our historic preservation program manager will first present a staff report
 And then we'll hear if the petitioner has any additional information followed by a run 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 wants to comment, please raise your hand until recognized by the chair. If a motion is made, we will then open up discussion of the item for members of the commission. And we encourage all the commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at all times. And then we also have Chris. Right.
 Um, we do have a member of the public who would like to share something, but has limited time here. So, um, it sounds like the chair wants to entertain a motion to allow for a public comment. It's a sidewalk report. Do we want to hear this at the beginning? Uh, I don't have a problem with that. All right. So, oh, I'll submit a motion and I'll second.
 Does anybody? OK. He's going to be quick. Yes. All right. I second it, so. Yes. Call the roll, please. Sorry. OK. We'll jot down some notes here, and we'll be ready to go. OK. Elizabeth Mitchell? Yes. Sandra Soler? Yes. Reynard Cross? Yes.
 Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Melody Duesner? Yes. Motion carries 5-0. All right. Well, what you got, Chris? Thank you. And I'm here to report on the WBA sidewalk preservation program, which doesn't quite exist yet. But I'd like to see it exist. The theory behind it is some of these sidewalks are so bad, they need to go. We don't need to save them. We need to say, of course, it's gone.
 but we need to save the stones. These stones that are good now have lasted 85 years. The bad stones are all gone. These are gems to be able to replace in other people's sidewalks. The city should be saving them when they take out the old sidewalks, and they should be provided at no cost to people who want to restore their sidewalks. That's one of the things that has to start happening.
 And we need to be more liberal when we let go some of these sidewalks, because sometimes it costs three times as much to fix. And also, where are we going to get our good stones if we don't let some of these sidewalks go? And what's interesting, too, is the council is now really paying attention to transportation issues. And they're talking about the sidewalk program. And this is something where we could work with the council in a positive way
 and show them how, yes, we care how these sidewalks work. We have a good plan to restore the sidewalks. And we could even get people in the administration thinking about how can we have grants that might help people fix these walks, because at least half of them are also rental properties. So the current sidewalk repair program only serves people that are homeowners. But the sidewalk doesn't care. It's there for 85 years.
 It'll be there for a while more if we fix it or it's gonna fall apart, someone's gonna trip on it, someone's gonna get sued. So I'm not sure what I'm encouraging you to do except I know Noah has been talking among people in the administration about what to do about it. Maybe there needs to be more of a resolution. You guys could talk about it later. Maybe the commission needs to make a resolution to support a program like this. And the city really needs to,
 address them because they're sitting there, they're not getting any better by themselves, and they are even getting dangerous. So that's my pitch. I just wanted to take a few moments and say it's a preservation action. As I thought about it, it's very important because when we preserve the idea of what the WPA did, we're going back to the last time the government really did things for the people.
 That was really a progressive moment. And you can see the evidence of it in these walks that are still here. So that's the underlying reason we preserve things. It's also important that people don't fall over on these piles of rocks that tend to fall apart over time.
 Thank you. Thank you very much for entertaining me. That might be something we want to look at in the subcommittee meeting, which happens on the first Thursday of every month at the historic Monroe County History Center at five? Four. Four? Four. You're glad to attend. OK. So come on by. I think we've got to talk believable about this, too. Thanks. But we'll put it in the offer. Have a good meeting, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. So see you later. OK.
 Moving on to certificates of appropriateness, our first item of the night is COA 2540 for 818 East 3rd Street, the Tri-Delta House. Petitioner is Shara Williams, who I believe is joining us on Zoom. The request is for repairs of the fascia and dormers, paving of the sidewalkway, repairs of concrete steps.
 painting and finishing of iron handrails, and the replacement of copper downspouts and gutters with copper-colored steel. I'm going to run you through. Is the petitioner here? Is he here online? He would raise your hand and unmute the petitioner. That's to unmute. There we go.
 But I am Sierra and I'm with Tri Delta. OK, we can hear you. Great. Can you hear everybody here? Yes. Perfect. I'm sorry I mispronounced your name. That's OK. OK. So I'm going to run through some materials we received. These are the railings. Sorry, it's not great resolution. They were painted black. They're rusting. The plan is to, as you'll see in your packet, remove some of the rust and repaint them.
 side walkway is paved. This is located around the back of the building. It has since been covered with gravel. The petitioners would like to repave it, as well as making some repairs to exterior steps. And I believe these are on, is this the west side of the building? Yes. Okay, right. And then,
 More significant part of the application repairs to the fascias on the dormer windows, as well as proposed replacement of the gutters and downspouts. As you'll see, the positioner has since recommended using half-round downspouts. The materials submitted are for
 steel gutters and downspouts covered with a reflective copper-colored coating. Staff recommends conditional approval of COA 2540 with rounded downspouts. The scope of work proposed largely entails repairs and replacement and kind of existing features. The repair of deteriorated crown molding on the dormers would not constitute a visual change.
 The rear gravel walkway that the applicants proposed paving is not a particularly significant site feature and has already paved underneath. This proposal has been revised, changing the gutters from a polygonal profile to half round to eight inch profile to match the historic gutters. With round downspouts, the appearance of the new gutters and downspouts would come close to matching the original copper downspouts and gutters. Does the petitioner at this point have anything that she'd like to add?
 All right. Do we have questions from the commissioners? Jeremy? I have no questions. Karen, you have questions? No questions. Melody? No. Duncan? No. Elizabeth? No. Bernard? No. I have no questions. Do we have any questions or comments from the public on this item? Anything from anyone online? All right. Comments?
 Oh, we need a motion. Well, I might move for a conditional approval of all the work except for the downspouts and gutters with asking the applicant to come back and reapply for a COA with a different material.
 Let's talk about it. I should probably explain. This is an outstanding building. They have existing copper gutters and downspouts. Putting something that's painted a color of copper at a particular time in its aging is a downgrade for the building. I appreciate that the petitioner
 is taking good care of the building in many other ways. And I think the railings and all of the other items are inconsequential to the overall historic character of the building. That said, the gutters and the downspouts, the appearance and the way that the age on the building, how they acquire a patina,
 I think is important to consider. So I will stop talking now and see if anybody else wants to comment on this one. Just for clarification, when you're talking about those gutters and it being the material, you're good with the change of it becoming the rounded? So what I'm hearing the petitioners say is that they are going to match the profile of the gutters
 Unless I'm mistaken, are they doing round downspouts as well? I was not sure. After last meeting, if you might remember, the petitioner wasn't present. They changed their application from box gutters to half round gutters. I'm not sure if that applies to the downspouts as well, but I do think that that round profile for the downspouts is important for this building. I agree.
 I will retract my motion and rephrase my motion. We can have a friendly amendment for round downspouts on that one. But I agree. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Karen, comments? Just for clarification, you've retracted? So I'm clarifying that my issue with the gutters is the material, but also
 the profile of the downspouts should be round as well. They should basically replace them in kind. Right. Okay. I understand that and certainly agree with that. I guess I'm not quite sure if are you recommending copper? Yeah. Yeah. If it's available.
 It's available. Then, yeah, it seems like absolutely the right thing to do. You have comments? I agree with Karen. Comments? I'd like to hear what the petitioner has to say. I'm sorry, I thought you said me. What's the condition of the gutters now? I mean, copper gutters last virtually forever. Yeah. So I'm not sure if
 Why are they being replaced? Yeah. Yeah. I'd be fine with leaving them in place if they're fine or repairing them, but yeah. Well, somebody has presumably has told them that they're not, and they feel like they need to replace them. But I guess I kind of like to know what kind of shape they're really in because it's very difficult to destroy that stuff unless they've just been terribly maintained, which is
 doesn't appear to be the case. It sounds like after we do comments, we might want a second round of questions for the petitioner. And in regards to your motion, I think you said return with a proposal with a different material. But if you want them to be copper, I think you should say copper. That seems to be the intention. It does. Moreover,
 They're repairable, so rather than replace them, they're invaluable for one thing. But recycled copper's worth more than the whole set of steel gutters. So the steel gutter guys may make a real profit on this job. I don't know. Whoever's told them that theory. They may not be any good anymore, but I'd kind of like to know.
 I'd just like to hear that petitioner answer these questions. Would you talk to why these gutters and downspouts are being replaced? Yeah, absolutely. We would hate to have to replace these, but a lot of the gutters
 seem to, whenever it rains, it is just pouring through. There's holes throughout the gutters. I try to get good pictures, but it's just so high up there that it's hard. And then with the downspouts throughout the entire of the house, it seems that whenever we ask for the downspouts to be repaired, it almost looks like they're duct taping it. Like, if you look at the picture that's showing right now, it just doesn't look good.
 We don't want that on our building. And there's other places on the west side of the building where, and I, excuse me, because I don't know the proper terminology, but the Y-shaped gutters, downspouts do not connect, but they're actually missing.
 So that's causing the actual gutters themselves to not do their job since it won't drain down into the downspouts. So it's overall throughout the entire building that it's just in poor condition to this day. I got you. I think we need another round of comments, and I'll start to address. Actually, Duncan, why don't you jump in if you have a response to that?
 Yeah, I mean, I completely believe what she's saying about them. But my strategy, I think, would be with anything else that's a historic feature, which would be to repair it. So some of them probably do need to be replaced. I mean, obviously, if the bottoms are rotted out with the troughs and the gutters, then that's a complex repair. But I wonder if it's been addressed that they could be repaired in situ, in other words,
 new runs were necessary. And if there are things that aren't connected and water's not draining in the proper place, then that's a repair. In fact, it's a maintenance. It's a maintenance item, yeah. And beyond our purview, unless they change the material, because we don't oversee maintenance.
 But we do in a way, that's part of our brief, is to make sure that these buildings are properly maintained. And I'm appreciating very much that you guys are getting on it, because the longer this remains a problem, the more potential damage you have to the masonry on the building, any of the cornice work. So getting a good gutter, a good working gutter system is in everybody's interest. That said, you might not be talking to the right gutter guys.
 I mean, there are people who work specifically with copper gutters and you don't necessarily want to go to a steel gutter salesman to get some copper gutters because a person who's got a hammer is looking for a nail. So I might encourage you to fish around for other vendors if this vendor can't deliver on a system that matches the profile and material.
 of the existing, because I think that is important and integral to the historic integrity of the building. Do you sense what we're after here? There's a question to the petitioner. Yes, I totally understand where you're coming from.
 I manage this location from Southeast Indiana, so I've reached out to a few different vendors as we launch projects like this and we try to get the old four the estimates and make sure that they're all on the right track. Do you have any recommendation on a vendor who would be able to best approach this? I don't know that we're legally able to do that.
 show favor to some of that stuff. But I do believe that the state has a repository of these kinds of people. And I can look into that. I think the Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology has a list of people who are qualified to undertake certain repairs on historic buildings. And it's possible that they'd have some qualified metalsmiths in there.
 Oh, yeah. Well, I have worked with the vendor that she's listed in her paperwork with round and half round gutters, and they're extremely expert at installing them and putting them on. I hired them to do an addition for me.
 So I imagine that they can work with copper, but you have to ask for copper. I don't see why there would be any reason that they can't acquire it and or repair it. It's just a matter of what you're asking for. It's available in 16 and 20 ounce, 5 and 6 half rounds and round down spouts. You can order it online. So I think any gutter guy could actually deal with it.
 It'd be nice if they knew really how to deal with it and get the joints tight. But there are prefabricated pieces of gutter that any professional gutter installation company can deal with. Essentially, it's the same process that you go through doing a galvanized or aluminum half-round gutter system.
 It's a little bit different because of the profiles and the pieces, but it's a kit of parts. All right, I think we are, do I need to rephrase my motion? Can we rephrase it or do we have to? Move to, I can do a friendly amendment. And then we can get a second. So the friendly amendment would be to
 do an approval of all the work, with the exception of the guttering, anticipating that the petitioner comes back to us with copper gutter, half round guttering, and browned profile downspout to match the existing profiles on the building. Would that be a COA for that specific thing, or can it
 It depends on the extent. If we're talking about repairs, and it's clear that the repairs are maintaining most of what's there that could be handled as maintenance and not require a COA, if there are large parts that are going to need to be replaced, that may require a COA. It might be cleaner just to do it as another COA. And I think for the purposes of this vote right here, we can approve things that are proposed by the petitioner or make amendments, but we can't really
 require that they come back to do something later. This is fair. Unless there's been a violation, which there hasn't been. So the amendment would be for a conditional approval of all the work with the exclusion of the gutters and downspouts, and leave it at that, with the understanding that the petitioner will come back to us with a different proposal. Does that
 Do I need a second for that? Is that confusing enough for you? Sorry. So yeah, I mean, you're just approving everything except the downspouts and the gutters and expecting the petitioner to return later. Yeah, with the matching downspouts and gutters to match what's already in place. Sounds great. Thank you. OK. Yeah, that's the way I'll write it up. Excellent. And I'm going to call the roll on it. OK.
 Elizabeth Mitchell? Yes. Sam DeSaller? Yes. Raynard Cross? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Melody Dusner? Yes. Motion carries 5-0. Thank you, Sierra. Yeah, we'll be in touch about pathways forwards on the gutters and downspouts. Thank you all for your time. Thank you.
 All right, next item on the agenda, COA 2537. This is for 924 West Kirkwood Avenue, located in the Near West Side Historic District. Petitioner is Adam Bowen. This property is a severely altered El Plan cottage from 1900, circa 1900. 924 is a severely altered but nonetheless contributing El Plan cottage. Prior alterations include the replacement of windows, door, and a rear addition.
 In May 2025, work began on replacement of porch columns and railings without approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. Work has paused, pending approval of alterations and the resumption of the building permit. The COA has been continued from the June 26 meeting, where the petitioner indicated that they had also planned to remove a transom window over the door and provided some clarification about porch designs and alterations. So to go over the request,
 repair of the limestone porch footer, replacement of the 32-inch wide front door to a 36-inch wide door. Some additional information for this proposal. The posts will be wrapped with SmartSide product. Prior, they were wrapped with non-pressure treated 1x6 lumber. Dimensionally and visually, it will be the same with slightly different grain variation.
 The composite railing also matches the railing that existed prior. It's just a material change. We preferably want to do composite and smart trim because of its resilience. The deck will look as it did before, just cleaner and not deteriorating. Subsequently, information that's been added since the last meeting, we would like to upgrade 36 inch door. We would like to, sorry, upgrade to a 36 inch door
 and we will match with a double-pane 36 by 12-inch vinyl transom. Included is ADA compliance. I know there was prior speculation that the balusters were dimensional lumber and six to eight inches on center, so I've included photos of what they were previously to show that they are indeed not. The footer will wrap the post
 under the deck and be notched around the four by four on the new hand rail. I've put a footnote that says two by two dimensional in case that is what is needed to push this through. But I'm also happy to go back with the one and a half inch. It was previously as I had originally intended. The top and bottom rails will match the dimension of compliance. It will be painted white.
 Posts are included in photographs to show what we were facing before, the hollowed out posts that were existing or what were originally there without any actual post footing inside of them. This is why we replaced all the columns as the roof and porch were both collapsing. The door I have in the rendering is what a couple of people had said would be more fitting for the time period.
 Although I have already purchased the solid door to replace what was existing, if I must go with this route, I shall. So, uh, here for reference is the door that was previously purchased. Is the petitioner here? Yes, the petitioner is here. Um, this door presented as an alternative. Uh, we did receive comments subsequently from the neighborhood advisory review committee. Um, I'm just gonna minimize this.
 To the HPC, the Near West Side Advisory Committee met today to review the new information on 924 West Kirkwood. We were all in agreement that the information of the proposed replacement railing and post are in keeping with what was there previously and find no issue with the plans, as the proposed door most felt it was appropriate and even matched the posts and their craftsman style. However, a minority in the group still had a slight preference for a half glazed door, more in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. All are pleased that the transom will be replaced.
 Um, okay. Staff recommendation. Staff recommends approval of COA 2537. This revised edition corresponds to the comments rate, sorry, response to the comments raised at the June 26th meeting and adds clarity to the proposed alterations.
 The existing 32 inch door is not original and the two 36 inch alternatives have been proposed. One is solid like the current door and one with three over two lights and vertical panels. The petitioners proposed to replace the transom window with a 36 inch window to match the enlarged doorway. Though this would slightly change the size of the openings, the overall fenestration pattern would be retained. And while strict guidelines do not stipulate a style for replacement doors,
 The selection of a craftsman style door with a window is appreciated. The replacement of the deck boards with wood would not constitute a significant visual change, falls more into the category of maintenance. The repair of the porch footer with the same materials is appropriate, and the wood footers added to the porch will be notched to accommodate the stone foundation. The replacement posts and railings proposed
 will differ from the previous railings in some respects. The height of the railing would be raised to 36 inches. While this is not strictly required by code, since the porch is less than 30 inches off the ground, the petitioners would propose raising it for safety reasons. The proposed replacement columns would match the dimensions and appearance of the former columns with the use of composite siding. And while two inch balusters are proposed, the petitioners expressed a willingness to use one and a half inch balusters if need be.
 The most significant alteration would be the replacement of the half height porch post next to the front steps with a full height column. The space between the two front facing columns on the former porch was eight feet across. And the petitioner is concerned about supporting the four by six roof beam that has been sagging. While there's some room for flexibility and accommodating both historic design and contemporary code and alterations to historic buildings,
 Staff believes that the alterations proposed would retain the important stylistic elements of the porch and fenestration patterns of this property within the parameters of district guidelines. Oh, and the petitioner is present. Do he or they have anything to add? Sure. Here? Mm-hmm. Have a seat. Hi, everybody. Hi. Hi. No, nothing to add. Basically, I've come here in the spirit of
 Whatever you guys think is appropriate, I'm more than happy to accommodate. So I heard door. I'm happy to switch out the door. People think that's better. But in general, whatever you guys think is appropriate, I'm happy to oblige. Thank you. Questions? Jeremy? I guess my question is for Noah, for that half
 post that's going to go full up to the ceiling. Is that common in this district and design? There's a mix that you'll see on this block, some at the half height and some at the full height. But it's not completely out of care? No. That's my question. Would you say that's fairly accurate, Garrett? I think so.
 I think the only question I have is when you were responding to the comments about a door with glass, did you look at ones that were fully half glass on the top? I think we did. I remember in discussion, we were just thinking, well, since it's right on Kirkwood, obviously you could put it.
 something there to block view, but just being right on Kirkwood, it's like maybe a solid door might be better for the visibility inside the home. But you didn't look at it. I just wanted to make sure you didn't misunderstand the suggestion. Visually speaking, that was my preference, but just from a practical standpoint of being on a relatively busy road, it's like, well, maybe a solid door might make more sense.
 I just don't know if you have additional questions, Karen. Yeah, I'm finished. Do you have questions? No questions. Are there any questions? Yeah, I just have one question again about that half height post. It's the beam that
 The full height post is required to support his spans eight feet, right? Let's see. It's more than eight foot span. From the corner post to the house. Correct. Well, I think there's something wrong with this diagram here because I'm seeing
 five and 211, that would be eight, right? Or 711, eight feet. So I'm looking at this diagram here and it's saying that it's a span of eight feet. And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm having trouble understanding why you need a support post to support
 A span of eight feet. I'm almost sure that they make beams that can span that height without being supported in the middle. So why the need to change the whole fenestration, is that what it's called? Look from the outside. The structure. Yeah. I can't follow the justification. I can't see the need for it. So they do make beams that would span that length, right?
 it would change the dimension of everything else, if that makes sense. So I would either have to lower the entry to the porch or raise the roof, if that makes any sense. No. Yes. No, I ask if it makes sense to me. It doesn't. I mean, my limited knowledge here
 would indicate that that wouldn't be necessary. I'm of zero help here, I have no clue. Because there's a beam there. Correct. Right? But you said it's sagging. This means that the beam is just not strong enough. So why not just replace the existing beam with a stronger beam? Well, because dimensionally, if I put the same material in that area, it was where it is, it would not clear an eight-foot span, even.
 If that makes sense. If there was a four by six up there supported by four by fours underneath it, then over the span of eight feet, you would have to have another post. So I think what's your ceiling to under the beam height? Ceiling to under? What's the porch floor to the bottom of the beam if you're using a four by six? It's less than eight feet.
 So basically, if you look on that porch, you see the window, your standard door is 81 inches tall, right? And there's a transom on top of it. That area right there is about eight feet. So you've got eight feet from porch floor to top of the transom. Correct. To the top of the, yeah. And you need 7'6 by code to get under, do you need 7'6 by code?
 I'm not quite sure what the clarity of it is, frankly. Just thicken it. Thicken the beam. You don't have to lower it. Just make it broader. Just put a sister on the back of it. Yeah. Fatten it up. OK. That was my question. I just couldn't sit neat for a full height post being able to support a beam of eight feet. OK.
 Do I have questions? Yeah. So we don't, okay. So I got a question for Noah. Is it just in the verbal description, which I missed, that says that they are putting the post up? Because I didn't see any elevations. Putting the post up, you mean? Instead of having like a null post or a half post. Oh, yes. That was, yeah, that was in an email.
 Okay. Sorry. Hold your horses, sir. Yeah. So I don't have a question. I mean, it was in response to a question that I had sent. Yeah. Comments? Jeremy? Karen? Oh, we got to do a motion. Yeah, we have to do a motion first. Also, do we want to let... Sorry, can you remind me your name?
 Oh, Isaac, that's right. Oh my god, Isaac. Yeah. Isaac, you had a comment you wanted to make? Yeah, OK. So anything that is four inches tall, it cannot span that by code. Kurt will come out there from the building department and tell me no. Absolutely not.
 I hear what you're saying. I think one of the problems that the commission is having is that the putting an extra post up as opposed to thickening that beam a little or sistering something on the back of that beam or even putting a piece of steel in the middle of that beam and just structurally making that something that the Monroe County Building Department can live with.
 as opposed to propping it up four feet over, it really changes the way the front of the house looks in a way that I think some members of the commission find a little untoward, shall we say. I think that's the conversation. We're not saying that you have to put an undersized beam in there to make it exactly the way it was because we all know that the trees that you can get now,
 aren't the trees you could get back when they built these things. And so you're going to have to figure out a way to support that and make the building department happy, right? So you got to meet code. That's understood. That said, the way that you're proposing to meet code is put a post in the middle. And I think there are some other people here that are saying you don't necessarily have to do that. And the visual change that that's going to make is less so
 Do you hear what I'm saying, sir? I'm all in. That's good. It's technically doable. Yeah. I just have no background in it, so I don't know. OK. Duncan, you sound like it's technically doable. I mean, there are laminated beams. There are plywood beams. There are steel beams. There are all kinds of ways to build up structure and stay within the parameters of the dimension without putting a post in there. But that's what I would explore.
 in order to keep the appearance of the boards the same, which is what we're most concerned about. I mean, we're not even that concerned with your changes of materials and stuff. It's just that we want the appearance to be the same. I want the same thing. And I believe it's doable. So are we to the point where we can make a motion? I'm trying to think what it would be.
 We could say something because I think, you know, talking this through, uh, I'm not making a motion yet, but, you know, I think we're all fine with the foundation. They're talking about bringing the limestone back. I think, um, I mean, looking at the guidelines, I'm not thrilled about making a door wider, but the guidelines in this particular district don't address that. And you can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm very happy that the, the transom's coming back. Um, and.
 You know, are you clear what we're saying when we're talking about a half light door? Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, and it doesn't have to have millions or anything because the door that is proposed, it's more craftsman and this is not a craftsman house, but just look around the neighborhood. And I think if we did like a staff approval for a door, a staff approval for a, uh,
 a condition that as long as it met code of just a corner post with the new post, and you came up with the structural solution that made the mineral building department happy, and then putting in the transom above the door. Are there any things and the materials we all seem to be in accord with? Am I missing anything? Okay. So conditional approval,
 So I'm going to start making a motion of a conditional approval for what COA are we talking about here? 2537. 2537 with staff approving one post and beam configuration for the front facade front porch.
 And well, the door is, oh, and the door slab, yeah, configuration. Is that clear enough to you? And mostly important, is that clear enough to you, Eddie? Let me read it back. OK, great. Conditional approval with staff approval, one post and beam, configuration, and door slab. That works for me. Yeah.
 Does that work enough for somebody to second it? Second. Do you want to do comments? Oh, comments. You're right. We need comments. So I'm sorry. This has been a little convoluted.
 I'll make a comment, and then I'll go around. I want to thank the petitioner for coming in. I want to thank you for bringing those pictures in with the ruler on it. That helps me a lot, so I'm appreciative. Here's a point of contention. Oh, yeah, it was. It was. Yeah, I can give my dander up some. But it's, yeah. And we have a bunch of different districts with very different
 guidelines. And I often notice my fellow commissioners applying one set of guidelines to another. So it's helpful for me to go like, oh, even though I don't necessarily agree with the guidelines, these are the guidelines for this particular neighborhood. So I could step back now and again and correct myself. So that's my comments on myself. Thank you. Comments, Jeremy? I really like that you're going to reuse the limestone around the base. I think that's great.
 reusing that kind of material really helps maintain the quality and the character of the building. So thank you for doing that. Karen? Yeah, I appreciate the redoing, filling out the request in more detail like this. We're sorry for the delay, but that's the way it goes. And also giving the neighborhood a chance to give our input, just
 Recommendation, as Sam said, we're easy on these things, so we don't call it a requirement. It's not. We would prefer the half-light even over the craftsman door that you chose. But that's OK, because we don't require it. No comments. I just appreciate you being so accommodating. Thank you so much. And for taking care of this home.
 Yeah. Thank you. I agree with what we said here. Thanks. Thank you. OK. So this is going to approve with the amendment. Elizabeth Mitchell. Yes. Sam Vassaler. Yes. Reynard Cross. Yes. Jeremy Hacker. Yes. Melody Duesner. Yes. Motion carries.
 Thank you. Next item on the agenda COA 2541 for 906 West 6th Street in the Near West Side Historic District. Petitioners are Keith and Danielle Bullman are either on Zoom. Yeah, it looks like we have Danielle.
 Great. You unmute. I'm going to do that now. Hello. Hello. Hi, Danielle. Hi, everybody. Okay. Get started then. 906 West 6th Street is a T-Plan cottage in the Near West Side Historic District. The building was fairly unaltered until the previous owner made a number of changes that were not authorized by the Historic Preservation Commission or the County Building Department.
 Shortly after the city and county established contact with the previous owner, the property was sold without the violations being reported. The new buyer received COA 2538 to rectify some of these alterations and is now applying for some changes in fenestration on a secondary facade. As the new owners of 906 West 6th Street in Bloomington, Indiana, we plan to replace four windows on the west side of the house and the current window on the garage.
 We plan to keep three of the four west windows the same size or as close as possible. The master bedroom has two windows, one of which is 54 by 27 inches and one 61 by 27 inches. Our plan is to upgrade the smaller window to match the larger egress window with the same size or as close as possible to the current 61 by 27 inches. We plan to replace the garage window, a unique
 tri window that measures 23.5 by 65.5 inches. We plan to replace the garage window with a more narrow window but have not selected a specific model yet. Materials to be used, aluminum clad wood double hung windows for the three bedroom windows and a crank casement window for the bathroom. The garage window will be vinyl.
 We've not secured a window contractor yet. As a result, we cannot provide a brochure on window specifics. This has since been provided of a type of aluminum clad window. Let's see. Just going back through. There's a floor plan showing location of the bathroom and master bedroom respectively.
 Staff recommends approval of COA 2541. The near west side design guidelines take a fairly liberal attitude toward alterations on facades that do not face the street. Existing fenestration patterns on other similar homes in the district and differences in siding on the west side indicate the
 Opening to the petitioner is planning on enlarging was once probably closer in size to the other windows on the house as is being proposed in this application. Although a specific. Oh shoot. As part of this deleted or is it not finished? OK, although not a specific window has not been proposed for the garage. You know this isn't a street facing elevation. The garage is in the rear of the building.
 The garage was, I believe, built in 1960. But this isn't a particularly important contributing feature of the property overall. Does the petitioner have anything they'd like to add? No, that was a great summary. We did get a little bit further since I submitted that.
 have or will hopefully be working with Bloomington Windows Siding and Fence and they came out to make their measurements and so upon approval I can go ahead and get those ordered fairly quickly.
 We are probably going to keep that garage window similar to the current size because it's a slider window. So originally we thought we would do a double hung, but we'll probably leave it just the way it is because then it's easier to side with the same size window. Um, really the most important part was the West side bedroom windows that we want to make sure that, um, the one, the smaller one is symmetrical with the larger.
 That's it. Do we hear anything from the neighborhood design review committee? I'm trying to remember. It's in here. Let's see. It's underneath the picture of the garage. Oh, that's right. I'll follow you guys in. The advisory committee met yesterday to discuss the changes the petitioner requested, specifically the reinstallation of the door and the window replacement on the west side of the house.
 and the window to be replaced on the garage. The committee is fine with the reinstallation of the door and has no objections to the request for changing windows on the west side of the house to be more in keeping with what probably would have originally been there. The garage window will be more in keeping with the neighborhood too as a narrower window, which may not happen. The committee has no objections to these proposed changes. Okay. Questions? Jeremy?
 So there's a lot of different size windows on that one side of the floor. So which of those are going to be changed out? Yeah, can you hold that one, Noah? So there's that one on the far left, and then there's the one on the far right, which seem really small. And then are there two doors in the middle, or two windows in the middle, or is one of those a door? This one here is a door. OK. So which of those are? That's a window.
 It's actually a window. That's the egress window. OK, so which of these are actually, of the ones that we're looking at here, which of these are you actually suggesting being swapped out? Because it's not very clear on the application to me. The middle window, we're asking to make that the same size as the egress window. To the left, the big one. So we're making that one even bigger. And the smaller ones are staying the same size?
 Yes, we can't change the size of the e-dress window. It has to be that size. So we then were just asking that the middle window there, because that's the master bedroom, that those be the same size. OK. Thank you. Yes. Karen, questions? Well, it's a question. It's an observation.
 The window on the right, the one closest to the front, it looks like that's already been a replacement. But you're not planning to extend that to the same? No. We would leave that window as is. No more questions?
 Questions? No good questions? So there's just one window change. And that's the one in the middle. And it's going to be the same size as the one to its left, which is probably the original size. Is that correct? Well, also, there was a proposal for replacing the window in the bathroom with a crank window. Is that right? Casement? Cranks. Yes. Where is that? That's not even on this.
 No, it's back here, right? You can kind of see it at the, yeah, where your pointer is, I think, where the house jets out a little bit there. That's the bathroom window. So that window is going to be replaced with the same size opening, but a crank, like a casement kind of window? Yes, same size. OK. Thank you. Questions? Questions?
 Could you go back to the elevation photograph? This one? Yeah. Well, no, the one with the side, the west side with all the windows. So it's looking like the trim sizes are all over the place. There's a big header trim on the two windows on the right side. And then the egress window has a very minimal header trim.
 So what are you planning to do with the trim? The trim will all be uniform, because once we get the windows in, we'll then work to use that same siding there feathering new boards, as we mentioned at the last meeting. And then the trim would be all uniform around the windows. So what would that uniform trim be?
 I think we'd probably keep it similar to that first window, the thicker trim. When you say the first window, what window are we talking about here? Oh, I'm sorry, closest to the street. Oh, the one on the right. The one on the right, thank you. All right. I think that, and then on the garage window, you're just talking about using the same existing opening and just replacing it with a slider.
 Yeah, it's just easier because then we don't have to worry about the siding right away. We can just get the same size or close to it and then keep the siding for now until we have more time to do that. Oh, so the siding that was in that last application for the garage is now not happening? Not at this time. OK. That's helpful. Thank you.
 OK, do we have any comments or questions from the public on this? No? OK. I'll entertain a motion. I move to approve COA 2541. Do I hear a second? I second. Let's talk about it.
 You got comments? Yeah, I think my comment is uncertain as to we don't have a firm trim size on all the windows. It'd be nice to have measurements on that. We typically see that on a plan or something along those lines. And so not quite seeing that here. So I was a little confused as to which of the windows was going to be replaced. I like the idea of upgrading the windows and everything.
 a little unclear on that and then not realizing, as Sam pointed out, the trim is different sizes and just being able to have it in writing of exactly what that trim size is going to be. It's always helpful just to make sure things are being done as they were proposed. That is my observation. Well, I'd just clarify to the committee that our design committee thought
 that the window on the right was going to be replaced to match window number two. So that was going to be my question, because I thought that it meant what the petitioner intended. But nobody else thought that. They all thought that the front one, number one here going at this end, was going to be changed
 to what it had been originally. That's just a point of clarification. I don't know what the committee would have said. Because they were unclear on what was happening where. Because they were going on the assumption of a different assumption of what was being changed. The guidelines are pretty loose, but I hear what you're saying.
 I think you're both saying the same thing. Melody, you have comments? Duncan? Normally, if you're adding a window and you're considering trim detail, you look to the original trim detail on the house. It looks like that front window is original. I think that what they're calling the egress window is probably original. I can't really tell from the photographs, but I would say
 The motion ought to include that those new window trims match the original trims of the house. We can make a friendly amendment if the people are so inclined. Is the petitioner willing to consider matching the original trim on the new windows? Yes. We're planning on reusing the same original siding, so we would also want to use the original trim.
 So that's great, thank you. Duncan, for Cartesia, are you talking about that trim right there on the window table? Well, I just took that as an example because that wide front window looks original to me. And so I'm suspecting that the trim is original because the siding is original. So if that's the original casement trim, then that's what I would imitate on the new windows.
 And if it's been changed elsewhere, like I can't tell on that egress window, that looks original too, but it just can't tell from here. But generally speaking, you don't go for a new trim detail, you go for the original trim detail when you're putting in new windows. And then it would match all the way around, at least all the other original pieces. Eventually, yeah. Elizabeth, do you have comments? No comment.
 I guess, yeah, the only comments are, and this is something we're sort of talking about, is it's very helpful for the commission to have a drawing or even just mark up a photograph of scribble on this window is going here, it's this size, just so we don't have to guess at what of the sizes of the windows are going where. And I think it's actually very helpful in this case that
 district guidelines are pretty lenient, so we can maneuver around that more easily. But in other cases, that might be a big sticking point. But. All right. Would we want to amend the motion to have the trim match the original trim? Is that of interest to folks, or are we? Well, the petitioner has
 stated on the record that they are going to pursue original trim. And I would be happy to accept that in good faith. Do you have other thoughts? OK. So I think we're ready to call the roll. OK. Elizabeth Mitchell? Yes. Sam DeSaller? Yes.
 Reynard Cross. Yes. Jeremy Hacker. Yes. Melody Duesner. Yes. Motion carries 5-0. Thanks for coming in. Thanks, Ms. Bowman. Thanks for your time, Gary. Thank you. Good night. Good night. OK. Next COA, we have 818 East 3rd Street. This is Tri Delta House again. Petitioner is Jeff Arbuckle.
 The request here is for the installation of a standing sign in the front yard. It's Jeff here. Yes, Jeff is online. And unmuted. So this petition is for a five foot by one and a half foot vinyl covered panel on 48 inch wood posts.
 announcing that this is the temporary home of Gamma Phi Beta. You can see the, that is small, but it's also, you'll find it in your packets, the location proposed. Let's see. Before the new sign is, oh, that's not good, 65 feet from the east side of the property at South Woodlawn.
 16 feet from the sidewalk on East 3rd Street and 45 and a half feet from the side of the sorority building. And staff recommends approval of COA 2542. The proposed sign is modest in scale and design.
 similar to many other signs on the Indiana University campus. Its location on the lot does not obscure or damage any historic features. Does the petitioner have anything you'd like to add? No. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you. All right. Questions? No, nothing. Karen? No. Melody? Duncan? Elizabeth? No, not really.
 Any questions? Any comments or questions from the public? Entertain a motion. I move to approve COA 2542. I have a second. I'll second. Discussion? Any comments? I think it's far enough away. It's a temporary sign. I have no issues.
 Okay. Elizabeth Mitchell? Yes. Sam Vassaler? Yes. Raynard Cross? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Melody Dusner? Yes. Motion carries 5-0. Thank you for coming in. Thank you for your time. Okay. Next petition is COA 2543. Petitioner is Jaime Galvan.
 Um, is the petitioner present? I don't see anybody online. I don't see anyone online. Okay. Um, we can move this back in the agenda. Yeah, let's, as a courtesy, bump it back until, and see if they, uh, if they arrive after, before the meeting. Okay. Okay. Uh, we do have important bit of,
 new business, which we ought to bring up now. I don't have copies for everybody out there, but people should be able to share. We have copies of the Maple Heights Historic District guidelines pulled up. This has been put together by the neighborhood as a proposed final draft. So pending any commission comments and questions.
 This is being proposed to us for approval. So the theory is we will treat this like any other COA. So we've been through several rounds on these guidelines and these folks have worked incredibly hard on them and they have come a very, very long way. So I am excited to see them in the state that they are.
 But we will go through, and I'm hopeful that my fellow commissioners have all read these thoroughly and have some comments and questions and this sort of thing. We've also been back and forth with the neighborhood members a lot. So it's not just the three of us. That's great. That's the way it's supposed to be, and that's the hard road. And we took the hard road. Yes. So I am incredibly appreciative of that.
 do not envy some of those interactions, I imagine. Well, I've attended three of the neighborhood meetings. And I think, for the most part, people collaborated really well. Excellent. Any other things to add before we get into this? Oh, good. It's hard to do a summary of the entire set of guidelines. So that way, as I'm taking minutes, I know who's speaking. My name is Kate Crum, K-A-T-E, C-R-E-M. OK.
 Jane Goodman. Tom Doak. D-O-A-K. OK. All right. Thank you. Perfect. Do you have any additional comments before we jump in? OK. Questions from the commissioners? Do you have? I don't have any questions. Yeah, I think there might be a point. We might have a couple of point-by-point things, and we'll maybe get into that. And I think we might do this a little more
 loosely, because I think there will be some back and forth that will help out. But any specific questions, Melody, Duncan, Elizabeth, Bernard? You have any specific questions? About this? Yes. No. OK. Great. No, none of that. All right. So we might, just to go a little further,
 It's been fun working with you on this over the last couple of years. I might step back for a minute and get point by points. There's a couple of issues that I think we want to go over. I think they're small and I think they are easily rectifiable.
 But we were looking at a couple of things that came up yesterday. And would you jump in and talk about them? First, I would like to just comment and say I really like the document overall. I appreciate the diagrams that are in there. I think that it's exceedingly helpful to see these things visualized to help people understand, here's the kind of things that we're looking for. I'd like to see.
 or these documents have that kind of stuff in it. It's really helpful. I think where I had some additional comments and feedback are in the tables, which you would have on, I think it starts on page 21. There are a couple of 21 and 22. There are a couple of areas here where it states a specific
 I guess, instance of something happening and then what needs review and what certain places. I think a couple of these things we need to adjust just given what the HPC purview actually is. And it doesn't really match up with what you had marked on here. So I think that's where we're wanting to get a little bit of some edits done on that. It's not a ton, but it's just like we need to make sure this is
 dialed in. Does that, I think, reflect what we're talking about, Sam? Yeah. Because I think, at least for me, when I was looking at page 21, I thought something needed to be a little bit more specific where it says that altering the back of the building, our purview is for what is visible from a public right of way. And so if we can't see
 you know, what is back there technically wouldn't be something that we would have the ability to address. And how it's written right now is if you're altering the back of the building that there's no distinction there. And so I think that needs to be tuned in a little bit just to more accurately reflect of the alteration of the back of the building visible from a right of way, then that would be something that would require the review that you're talking about here.
 So I think it's just adding that element. Can we respond to that? Yeah, please do. We had a long, extended discussion with our neighbors about whether we wanted to have things reviewed that are visible from the public right of way or from the street. And we landed on visible from the street, not from a public right of way, specifically excluding the alleys. And our neighbors felt very strongly about this. So guideline-wise, neighborhood-wise,
 you want to restrict what is in the guidelines, what's visible from the street? Yes. OK. I mean, I think that's doable, but that's just not clear. It's not clear. But if our appropriate is to.
 with everything that's visible. How can the community exclude that? They can exclude whatever they want to exclude. That is the extent of our writ. But if the guidelines do not want to enforce anything that is not visible from the street, that is the prerogative of the neighborhood, unless I am missing something here. I mean, we will still review it. And these are guidelines.
 But that said, a neighborhood can be more or less restrictive about the things they want to review. If they want to review paint colors, they can review paint colors. If they don't want to do that, they don't have to. And this is a much bigger broad stroke thing than paint colors. But. Well, they can be more restrictive up to the limitations of the ordinance.
 So I believe the ordinance and certainly the national legislation uses the public view as a definition. And so when you take that away, you take away the interpretability of the court, basically. So the reason that those definitions are in the federal legislation and the state legislation and the local legislation is to allow them to be enforceable.
 So and remember that these are guidelines, they're not rules. So it would be possible for a commission to overrule your guidelines if they didn't think they were appropriate. So you can't impinge upon the regulatory ability of the commission. We might say, even though it's on the back of the building, we're going to tell them they can't do that. But your guidelines say,
 that you don't want to regulate that. As a neighborhood. Yeah, as a neighborhood. But we as a commission might jump in if we feel it is appropriate. But I also feel that this commission looks very carefully at the guidelines and the intentions behind them. Yeah, I think that's right. There almost certainly will be cases, however, where the back of the building is viewable from the public right away. And if that's the case, the commission has jurisdiction.
 even though the community says they don't care. So give me a second for me to choose the right words to articulate what I'm trying to say. We have enough issues with people not knowing a lot of things, right?
 to now throw in two different standards of regulation into a situation where we're, for the most part, we're having issues with one standard of regulation, to me, seems, how do I put it now, creating confusion when we could write guidelines to remove that confusion.
 In reality, it happens all the time. If you think about the porch that we just looked at, when they were changing materials, they were changing dimensions on the balusters, they were changing the height of the railing, none of that follows Secretary of the Interior's standards. But we are instructed under our own ordinance to follow the Secretary of the Interior's standards. So if we wanted to be tough with that porch interpretation or renovation,
 We would say it's got to be painted wood. The balusters have to match. The handrail has to be exactly the same height. Instead, we chose to argue over whether the post went all the way to the header, because that seemed to be the most undesirable alteration. So we parse these issues as a matter of course. And we have a lot of feedback. And we tend to be pretty loose.
 because most of the guidelines that we deal with are fairly loose. But we have those rules if we want to fall back on them. We could be really hard nosed at need. But is that in the best interest of the neighborhood, of the city, of the building? I think it's OK for them to say in their guidelines that they don't want there to be a strict interpretation of the back of the building.
 But just in the knowledge that that's not the final word. But I think taking into account where you all are coming from is critical to the way we operate. There are certain districts that were elevated and they didn't want to be elevated.
 If I look at those districts differently and I tried to bring that up, so there's this institutional memory of why this happened and why they are the way they are. There are neighborhoods that are much, I mean, you look at Elm Heights versus McDowell Gardens, those are two very different animals. McDowell Gardens is incredibly happy with the way that these guidelines get enforced.
 And I think Elm Heights is feeling some growing pains because we're enforcing them, because they're incredibly clearly written. And they look at so many different aspects of the built environment within those guidelines. So they're looking at revising them at this point, because that's what they wrote, and that's what we look at.
 I think clarity in the document is helpful, but also the intention behind that is helpful and getting those two as close as possible is important. This is an eye-opener to now understand that what you're actually talking about is pulling the public right away out of the guidelines. That's not something you necessarily do in the chart.
 But I think it does need to be done in the chart. But like a paragraph specifically saying, we as a neighborhood do not want the HPC to review anything except visibility from the street. Does that make? Well, I was being specific about the defined terminology. I wouldn't start changing it. Well, we have so many alleys.
 and everything is visible from the alley. Every single thing will get reviewed and our neighbors don't want that. They are very clear. They do not want the HPC to take into account the view from alleys. The hierarchy is the primary facade, which is what's facing,
 what's understood in the definitions as the public view or the point from which the public can view the building. The other facades are secondary and tertiary. So they are given less emphasis in interpretation and regulation in all the legislation. And so what you're asking about are secondary and tertiary facades. And so if the alley is going along the secondary facade, which might be partially visible from the
 public view, then it's going to be interpreted more strictly than the one in the very back, which might be completely invisible from the public view. But this is partly why we marked this the way we did on the chart. We sort of left it in your hands, altering the back of the building. No one will review it. And then if he deems appropriate, you can all review it, and you can decide. I think this is the conversation we had. Yes, it is the conversation. We did have some very specific suggestions. I think Sam suggested that you might want
 an interpretive paragraph saying that the community feels strongly that. That's additional guidance for the commission, assuming that the commission goes on for 100 years and none of us make it that long. Elizabeth will still be here, but the rest of us. I think your definition for us, primary, secondary, tertiary, is really useful.
 Well, you don't want to use that language, because that's what's in the federal legislation. We did have a lot of very specific language about public right of way and defining public right of way. And that specifically was what got very contentious in the neighborhood meetings. So we said, OK, just streets. But we can add an explanatory paragraph, certainly. So per that, there's these two items about porches, installing a porch, deck, or patio.
 front facade or street facing side, installing a porch, deck, or patio, the next item, not on street facing side. If you install a porch anywhere except the back, it's always going to be visible from the street. I found those two items, one after another, a little confusing. I mean, it's got the same review level. It's all staff review, which is,
 That seems like a light kind of review for what could be a very major addition. Well, again, our ordinance defines what staff review and what's not. Actually, it's checked here right now as no review. Yeah. Where? In the back of the building. Install a porch deck on non-street facing side. I've got that. Or on the back. I've got that. So where? I'm on page 19. Oh, it's on page 22. 22. So it's got?
 You might be looking at an old version. Oh, maybe I am. Because this one doesn't have the watermarks. Oh, you're right. You're right. You're right. Not bad. We have it under streetscape, and then we also have it under alterations. OK, I'll look at that again and see. Oh, good, because it's got my snarky remarks on it. They weren't snarky. I was just like, what is this? Yeah, OK. Oh, yeah, this is much prettier.
 Does a building on the corner have two primary facades? Yes, yes. So then where would be the back of the building on the corner? The original back of the building. That's part of the couple of secondary facades. So I would, well I think the way I think about it as a person who lives on a corner is I have the
 front of my house, which has the doors and the porch and all that. Then I have the long side of my house. I live on Jackson and 13th, so the long side of my house runs across 13th Street. What I would consider the back of the house would be where my two back doors come out that faces the alley. Right. It's opposite the front of your house, right? Right. Exactly. But I mean, there's the visibility from the street. There's the orientation within the house.
 and the way you think about it that way. But there's also the visibility from the street. And because of the way we have purview over things, and it's a planning mentality, right? It's like there's two primary facades on the corner house. Is that fair? Yeah. And then there's two secondary facades and no tertiary facade. Question. Does that only relate to a house that's on two
 streets if it's if it's if there's an alley that that alley facing side is does the alley make that also a primary a secondary it's not really treated or built to be like public facing even though when it's you know visible from public rideway i mean
 Whereas, I mean, not the case with every corner house, but in general, there's some sort of a front-facing orientation, even on a secondary, not primary entrance that's facing a street. My house has a back part that's visible from the street and a back part that's not, so it gets really confusing. It has like two back ends. There are alleys and there are alleys. And even in Maple Heights, you have an alley like what's next to my house, which is
 There's no way you can miss any part of my house from any part of the street. And then you have other alleys where you have much limited visibility. You should plant some trees. Exactly. Trees aren't a barrier, according to the guidelines. So it's... I understand the spirit of what the guidelines want to communicate.
 But practically, if I decided to do something completely horrendous to the self-pacing side of my house. Which you would never do. Of course not. Right? It has a completely different effect than somebody who lives in a narrow alley where the visibility is much more limited. And so the effect of what I may do to my house is completely different when
 if the same thing was up to somebody else's hope, on the neighborhood or on the street. Well, that's the question, the effect on who. Everyone has different tastes, people want different things, and we don't want to tell our neighbors what they can and can't do. Most of our most vocal neighbors would prefer that we don't have these guidelines at all. This is a compromise. I mean, you're trying to do something that everybody can live with.
 I don't have to have cut lunch. You can just leave it up to us. I mean, I would make it a better lunch. Please. I just want to tell my neighbors. We have this saying in graduate school, constraints are your friends. Yeah, so I think you don't want to free for all, not with us in charge or anybody else in charge.
 I think an explanatory paragraph would go a long way towards codifying what you're after. Because some of my questions are street facing. Why is this not saying public right of way? And so I was obviously very confused. Yeah, so I'm like, why is this saying this? It's very, very curious. Do you want to follow up on the, I mean, that opened a whole can of worms. It did. We're still on Jeremy's comments.
 Uh, yeah. That's kind of crazy. Um, yeah, I think the explanation paragraph will help, but I think especially for that back facing and these two, um, on, on 21 and then on 22, the instances with the porch, at least to me on a,
 I think what Sam was getting on that first one, okay, if it's not on a street-facing side, what is that? Is it a porch? A porch deck or patio? It can be a porch. I mean, you look at the previous mayor's house, he's got a porch. He lives on the corner, and they've got a porch that is on the side of the house, but it's visible on the primary facade.
 both primary facades and secondary facade. Yeah, so if somebody builds a porch on the side of the house, say, it's not a corner lot, so it's just facing here and then here. You build a porch, you can still see from the street. It's going to be on the street-facing side unless it's on the back. So you have these two things, installing a porch not on the street-facing side and on the back, and both of them have no review, which is an issue.
 seems like an oversight. Oh, good. So at least for me. Yeah, maybe. I mean, the intention, I believe, there was to just say that we don't run any review on something that's not facing a street. So if we take out the row that says on the back of the building. Actually, I believe that went in. And take the other one out. Because, is that right? I mean, because if you don't want it on the back,
 I just leave them both in, but change the one that says not on street face. Well, shoot. I think installing a porch, deck, or patio, and then leave it at that, and then put the review as HPC and staff. Because I think that is the level of review you want and need for something that is visible from the street, which is what you're going for. And then the second one's OK.
 The second one is fine, just to clarify that it's not visible from the street. Don't look at it. So we're saying installing a porch deck or patio and then strike the part about not on street facing side? No, I'm just saying change the review on the first one. So right now, that first one is no review. The wording is fine, but we need to add review from the staff in BHPC or just BHPC.
 Well, HPC reviews and staff review was also. Some of these are written down as HPC, so. Yeah, I think that's something that we would probably want to look at. Well, generally speaking, staff reviews things where there aren't major alterations. And just, I don't know if this helps you or not, but you sort of can't regulate what's going to be reviewed, but you can ask for a light interpretation.
 And so you don't want to get confused with changing the rules of the commission between how your community wants things to be interpreted. So if you're making a statement about back of the building or from the alley or whatever, it should be expressed in, I would use the word interpreted as opposed to reviewed, because you can't take the review status away from the commission. So you can't say no review on any of this stuff, actually.
 Well, I mean, I think no review is just that we, well, OK. No review indicates to our neighbors that they don't have to request a COA. So somebody said, well, do I have to get a COA to put up a playground equipment for my son? They don't. No, the answer is no. So no review gives, this is meant to give information to our neighbors. Do I have to do this? There are some cases where the rules and procedures of the BHPC
 Enabling legislation allows us to leave some stuff out of review. For instance, paint or some maintenance issues like replacement of gutters that aren't copper. So I mean, it makes sense to include some stuff in there that really can be exempted from review. But yeah, like Duncan was saying, some of the larger items there we really can't ignore.
 And I know this is apocryphal, but let's just say that one of your neighbors wants to build a seven-story deck or porch on the back of their house. And you say it can't be, you know, you're telling the commission that they can't review it. Well, they're going to. I mean, weird.
 things happen that you love your neighbors or not, you wish hadn't happened. And the commission is really your protector, not your enemy. So as a general rule, I would anticipate the worst in your community and hope that the commission will.
 Can I ask for a point of clarification? Just to make sure. So we have these two lines on page 22. So what we're changing this to is the line that says installing a porch, deck, or patio not on a street facing side should be both staff and HPC review. Correct. OK. And then the line that says installing a porch, deck, or patio on back of a building, we can leave as no review or not?
 We're thinking that one should probably just be stricken, because strictly speaking, there's no definition of the back of the building. That's what I was asking originally. So that line just gets taken out? Yeah. OK. That is fine. We can do that. I mean, if you take that out, though,
 allows you to reinterpret the line above it to include the back. Does that make sense? No, we're just talking at this point, I think. I mean, we're going to go around and get people, but I think we bring up an issue, we work through it, because I don't know if there's a better way to do it than I'm happy to,
 Those were the main, three main things where it seemed a little off to me. Yeah, those are the main things. So we're taking, I'm sorry, we're taking more time? Yeah, I don't think we've resolved that yet because I keep going back to what Duncan said about no review. And I think that for me has totally confused the issue. And does that,
 column need to be retitled from no review to very light interpretation or something fluffier. I mean, a lot of guidelines don't chart like this. So I think from what I'm hearing from you, you're just sort of talking back to your neighbors to give them assurances about what's going to happen and what isn't. And I know
 What about the neighborhood review? One of the difficulties with things like the Secretary of Interior's standards, of which there are 10, is interpretation. And the reason that people have difficulty with the interpretation is because they're purposefully left open to interpretation. This is intentional over 600 years of interpreting historic structures and charters that define how to do it. These definitions and these like
 The thing we're talking about, which is the hierarchy of facades, that goes back to the Rome Charter. I'm finding that when you start to change it, it goes downhill quick because it's already been kind of figured out that there needs to be a hierarchy of facades and you need to have
 some authority that is making those interpretations based on Secretary of Interior's standards. When you start to leave that because some neighbors don't like it, you're leaving behind centuries of progress toward good resolution. I know that's not fair in a lot of ways, but that is how we got to the rules we got to. It's like talking about constitutions.
 You know, those aren't accidental rules. You know, they're things that got worked through. And so if you, you know, when I do guideline, when I approach it with, you know, as a paid consultant, let's say, I give everybody the federal legislation, the state legislation, and the local legislation. I say, after you've read this five times, let's start, because it is codified. And so,
 this little discussion about street facing and all that, that's not in any of those rules. It's public view, because it's open to interpretation. I know it sounds threatening, but it's intended to be open-ended. But I know how people respond when they say, you're going to regulate my property.
 So you have an interpretive paragraph, getting back to what we can actually do to address those concerns. You have an interpretive paragraph, which I think everybody's on board with. And then you have this chart. And do you have thoughts or suggestions about what to do about this first column? I'd get rid of it. That's what I was going to say. I'd get rid of the whole thing. I think it would be a headache. I mean, if I were advising,
 Professionally, I'd say get rid of the whole thing, because it's already codified in the ordinance, how things get reviewed. What I would talk about is how you want to be lightly interpreted, which issues are primary for you, secondary, and so on. But I read through these this morning, and I think they're really good. I don't like this chart, but if you like it because it gives the neighborhood some comfort, I'm not going to fight you.
 I think it's taking it slightly in the wrong direction. But I've spent the rest of my life reading all these codified rules and being taught about them, then you haven't had that experience. And so my mindset is different. Why I'm glad you're here. So the way you've got it written is so that people, unlike him,
 He knows what you're talking about, so I get that. We were trying to make it easy. We started from the Midwest side. Personally, I don't have a problem with that because it's letting people see because we don't know what he knows.
 Yeah, and they don't necessarily want to read a 50-page document. And they probably won't read it anyway. Most people out there don't want to read it. And just for the record, if I'm making any faces, it's because I've got a bit of a migraine right now, so it's nothing personal to the discussion. The biggest, I'm sorry to just carry on, but the bottom line for it, at least when I was
 getting my education in this is what's going to end up in court and what is the judge going to have in front of him that is going to allow him to adjudicate a situation. And if he has an ordinance and good, careful definitions and good rules of conduct for the commissions, he's in really, really good shape. When something comes up that's at variance with that and you try to get it enforced in court, you're not going to have much to stand on. So you want to stay
 You want to stay within the rules of the game in that sense. Now, that doesn't mean that's ever going to happen, but it does happen. We've gone to the Supreme Court. So that's kind of the rule of thumb, I guess. So how do you feel about striking column one, the no review column? I'm good with it.
 I feel like our neighbors will wonder what we did. I think they want to be able to look stuff up and say, oh, good, replacement and kind, I don't have to do anything. Installing a seasonal gardening fence, okay, good, I'm good. I kind of like it. Say you strike that column. You look at, say, replacing exterior elements and you leave that column there,
 I'm on the top of page 21, the second item down, and you strike the no review column, and it's got blanks for hand staff review, BHP. I think that speaks to it in a different way. Okay, so we're saying leave those items to strike the no review column, potentially? I mean, that does.
 the question, why are they there? I mean, you could also just strike all those elements within there and strike the vertical column too. Then you have your explanatory paragraph and you say any item not mentioned below is intended to... I don't like that. I hear what you're saying. Question.
 Is everything in the columns mentioned somewhere else in the document? Is there anything in the columns in the tables that's not mentioned elsewhere in the document? Sidewalks? I think so. OK. And if it's already in the document, you could just put a blurb at the bottom of the section saying review, staff review, HPC, and then move on to the next item and just
 do a really good chart altogether. Because they're going to, and this is just from my perspective, I would want to read the entire section that deals with whatever it is that I want to do. I would never rely just on the chart. So if I want to build a deck, I'm going to go to the section that speaks to decks. And if there is a specific review process for decks, why not just include it in one little line
 under at the end of that section in the document for the X instead of creating this whole additional chart. People in my neighborhood really like the chart. They like charts. They look it up right here. I think my problem is more, it almost seemed to me at points when you were putting X marks there that you really meant no review by you.
 I thought that's what you meant. No, you're saying they don't have to. Yeah, that's the problem that I have with this chart. But I think that the chart is helpful when you have neighbors who need like an index. Because if they want to know more, you don't have to put
 refer them to a page number, they can find it quite clearly from your table of contents. Which is also live links, so they go directly to it from the TOC. By the way, the document was designed by Kate, and she did a fabulous job. But I think you have to really be careful about what exes you leave in that column.
 I think I have just a general question about the ones that were the axis of no review. Are those the things did you try to match that up to the Bloomington historic preservation rules and procedures document where it talks about certificates of appropriateness not requiring certain reviews is was that the intention there because there's like a list of things that don't
 that it specifically says there's like seven of them that do not require official review. And then there's some things that talks about staff having approval authority regarding changes to certain things. I just didn't know if these columns matched these things that are called out in the rules and procedures. Because I mean, those are the rules and procedures that we have to follow. And so I think maybe double checking
 that information with these rules and procedures would be good because then I think it would correlate the list and I think support some of the things that Duncan's been talking about of these are things that have been adjudicated over time. Near what side a lot of people do like, and I've heard it, this table. What most district guidelines have is there will be a list of things that are generally reviewed by staff, a list of things that are generally exempt from review, and that
 mostly comes from the commission's rules and procedures. And then a statement of intent, like we were talking about, it's intended that there's less strenuous or strict review for secondary or tertiary facades or facades not facing the street, whatever the intention of people in your neighborhood is. And I guess that just sort of reflects the reality that things are
 flexible, but ultimately based off of the rules that we have to work with. And sir, we're spending so much time on this. I do want to say, again, I liked a lot of the other stuff that was in this. Yeah, and I think that's because it's just a quick glance. Oh, you have to make sure your intention is very clear in a very little bit amount of time. So sorry. I think there's a couple of things
 Do you have other specific things you want to... I was just wanting to call out that correlation of the rules and procedures. If we're not off the chart, can I say something about the chart? We're off the chart. I would suggest a paragraph, a sentence, saying that the chart is not the final authority.
 please make reference to the section that speaks to that specific issue for clarification. So a little caveat at the bottom of each page on the chart. Right. So that, whereas it might be a quick reference to Cliff's notes, you know, there's no substitute for reading. Right. You know.
 Do you have specific things within that we have not yet addressed? I have a comment I'd like to make. I think they did a wonderful job with the front matter, laying out your reasons for becoming a district in language that was clear and fresh and I think better than
 A lot of the other guidelines I've read, I think it would make a lot of sense to people who were suspicious. And I just think it was really commendable. I was impressed. And then you followed that up immediately with a similarly straightforward and clear description of the process in a way that didn't sound intimidating or overwhelming at all.
 I thought it was really outstanding. It's supported by all these diagrams which give you insight into these real-world situations. There's nothing like seeing a real photograph of a real house to me. I know you've worked on it for a long time. It's come a long way just since we saw it in April at our subcommittee meeting.
 I'm seeing it for the first time, but I found it very easy to navigate, and a document that makes a case for itself very effectively. Did you have? No, but I wanted to ask you if you think we're going to vote on this tonight, because Elizabeth has said she's going to have to leave soon, and I noticed that they just showed up. Right. That's a good question.
 It sounds like there are a number of things. Are you guys willing to come back yet again? The clock's going to start at midnight for several of us who restart at IU very soon and just run out of time to work on this. So I don't know. I'll leave that to you, Kate, since you're making the changes. I'm certainly willing to.
 Yeah, I think we could do a conditional approval with some staff. With staff, yeah. And the committee member who's been working with you can sit in and help out with that too. So you've got to scoot from like in five, right? Oh, so OK. So I would move to approve these guidelines with
 making edits in consultation with NOAA to ensure that they align with the historic preservation rules and procedures. I think that that's it. Somebody feels free to throw something in there if that's making any sense. Do you have thoughts here? No.
 these guidelines are too important, and the implication of voting on it and approving them. Conditionally, you're not happy with that? No. You could vote no. That's fine. Is it an issue that you live in the neighborhood? No. I mean, we just spent, what, half an hour, 45 minutes arguing over one point made by Jeremy.
 who knows what's gonna happen if it reaches me or somebody else. We could easily spend another 45 minutes haggling over something that somebody just noticed a while ago. And the idea that I'm getting from approving it with conditional, making conditional approval is like arguing over commas and you know, grammar and no, I think the issues that
 are going to come up are more substantive than that and probably need to be discussed in commission rather than. I would point out that we have discussed most of the, there is very little that has changed about the document. The public right of way was a major change, but other than that, there is actually not much that has changed except for revising it according to the commission's guidelines from the subcommittee meeting.
 All right. Let's try and be, I mean, we got a couple of minutes to figure this out. Does anyone else have issues with the conditional approval? It's up for a second. I made the motion. So you've motioned that. Yeah, so we're still waiting for a second. So if nobody seconds it, then. Do I hear a second for a conditional approval or no? If we don't second it, that means they're coming back. Yep. Well, we have to make a motion. We're going to vote at another.
 time, they wouldn't necessarily have to come back. Well, I second it, because I don't see the sense of coming back, talking for another 45 minutes. I think we've discussed and discussed, and we're kind of where we are. And I think we should call the vote. OK. So this is a conditional approval to make edits.
 to work with NOAA so that the guidelines align with the HPC. Is that? HPC rules and procedures. Rules and procedures. Okay. Elizabeth Mitchell. Yes. Sam Nisaler. Yes. Raynard Cross. No. Jeremy Hackard. Yes. Melody Duesner. Yes. Motion carries four.
 one. There's some photographs.
 Yeah, and I mean, I'm kind of done working on this the most, so Noah, if I can maybe talk to you, we can. I can try and do some of the light work. I don't want to change it too much for you guys, because I know you've done a lot of stuff. Right, but especially if we can go over the chart. We have a couple of extra petitioners here. I don't know if we'll have time to get to your case tonight.
 But are you here for the you're here for the three twenty four self right. I apologize for the target as we just came from the house we're working on. This week. Which is why. Okay yeah we have a commissioner that has to leave at seven so we will not have forum. So we cannot vote on your case tonight.
 I don't know what else we can do. We have to have a form to conduct any business at the HPC. So with apologies, we're going to have to continue this to the next meeting. I'm real sorry, Mr. Bell-Bell. But we will put you first on the agenda for our next meeting. In the meantime, I'm also, if you would like to talk through the changes that you are
 Proposing to make, I'm happy to meet with you sometime next week. And we can flag any issues. Could discuss them at this meeting. We just couldn't make a vote. Yeah, I don't want to. Because we kind of have different people at the next meeting, and then we'll have to rehash everything. And if you don't have a quorum, it's not an effective use of it. The meeting's over. It's over now. Sorry.
 So if the meeting's over, there is nothing to discuss. There's no quorum. There's no decisions or anything to that extent. That's OK. If you have concerns, and I can alleviate those and prepare for the next one, I'd like to hear those things, whether there is a group without a quorum. And you guys, anybody who has any comments they want to share in lieu of meeting tonight can share those with me, and I can communicate that with the petitioner. Yeah.
 You want to wait till the next one, or you want to? I'm going to wait until the next one. I'd rather it be an official meeting. OK. Yeah, I think the- Just for rules and procedures. Yeah, for rules and procedures. I don't think there's major things that we have issues with that I have issues with, but I'm also happy to meet with you in the meantime. OK. Yeah.
 Sorry, it didn't work out. No, it's OK. I was the one that was at a party. We went over to the house, working on the frame, and we're doing the filming this week. Gotcha. All right, so we are adjourned. Thank you all for coming in.