- All right, it's five o'clock. I'm calling the Thursday, March 12th, 2026 meeting of the Bloomington
- Historic Preservation Commission to order. Tanda, would you call the roll, please? Certainly.
- Duncan Campbell? Here. Drew Heron? Jack Baker? Here. John Butler? Here. Ernesto Castaneda? Here. Melanie
- Dusner? Karen Duffy? Here. Jeff Golden? Here. Jeremy Hafford? Here. Abby Henson? Here.
- Daniel Schlegel. We have quorum. All right, next up is approval of the minutes. Does anybody have a
- motion on the minutes from February 26? I'll move approval. All right, Jack has a motion. Second. Jeff.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes from the February 26 meeting. We'll go ahead and
- take a vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Karen Duffy?
- Yes. Jeff Golden. Yes. Jeremy Hacker. Yes. Abby Hanson. Can I abstain? I wasn't here. Absolutely. That
- motion passes. All right. Thank you very much. Next up is staff review for certificates of appropriateness.
- Noah. So we have two staff approvals for tonight. The first at 521 West Wiley in the McDole Historic
- District. The petitioner is Nathan Harmon. This request is for the replacement of
- Most of the windows in the house, as well as the front and rear doors. 521 West Widely is a slightly
- altered California bungalow that actually has replacement windows throughout. If you look at the state
- historic architectural and archaeological survey entry for this house, it describes three over one windows.
- The windows that are in there right now are wood, but they're one over one. So unless there was some
- sort of error in the survey, it does look like
- The existing windows are replacements. Um, the request that I received, uh, dear commission short version,
- we would like to replace the original windows with new vinyl replacement windows and the front door
- with a more secure and well insulated front door. The original windows are double hung with single paste
- pain glazing, uh, no mountains, single pain box ash windows with weights and pulleys. The replacement
- windows would be in the same orientation as the originals and the same style.
- in the original unaltered opening. This is likely considered replacement in kind. This is not replacement
- in kind. The door is a single light with no muntins, wood frame, very simple and plain style, and may
- not be original. There is no longer enough solid wood available to properly attach latches and locking
- mechanisms. The door must be replaced for safety. Most of the old windows are repairable, but would
- be inefficient.
- The replacement windows would be indistinguishable from the street and fit the character of the house
- and the neighborhood as per the McDowell Gardens design guidelines, as there is no design change whatsoever.
- The existing frame and trim will be used. In fact, the windows and door in question are all but hidden
- due to the aluminum storm windows a previous owner added, which would be removed, bringing the house
- closer to its 1925 appearance.
- Both houses to the north and south have already replaced their windows with a near identical type. Tommy
- Dees has already measured and manufactured customer placements before we knew that historic preservation
- requirements may pertain. So we sincerely hope that the commission allows us to make use of them. The
- back of the house was added on to long ago and is thus already has more modern windows, as do both windows
- on the upper level.
- Those are not intended to be replaced. There's one unique window on the west side of the house facing
- the alley above the kitchen sink. It is a multi-pane hinged cabinet opening style window, has charm
- and is not going to be removed. Andy Mahler and Linda Lee have owned this property for decades. They
- rented it out as an affordable two bedroom home and have made no significant changes. In recent years,
- they put the house under the care of
- town man or real estate who handled the basic upkeep and leasing. Unfortunately, Andy died late last
- year, and in the course of settling his estate while the house was between tenants and before the Hopewell
- neighborhood, which this house faces, gets underway, Linda decided it was a good time to put some effort
- into repairs. She is still the primary owner of the house, but has assigned a trustee who has hired
- me, Nathan Harmon, as a primary contractor handling repairs and upkeep.
- I have, over the last three months, made a number of improvements, including basic maintenance, efficiency
- in hand requirements, including ensuring the banisters are secure, cleaning vents, caulking, and draft
- sealing, replacing faucet and vanity, minor plumbing repairs, new sump pump, landscaping, et cetera.
- The interior has received cosmetic improvements like cleaning, lots of drywall repairs to cracks and
- holes, all new paint, repairing and refurbishing,
- existing kitchen cabinets, some new trim and light fixtures, et cetera. No changing to framing, structure,
- major appliances, sheathing. Two new electrical services have been permitted, green tagged and installed.
- The primary goal was to bury the electrical so it would not be heard anymore for all the good reasons.
- The reason for the second service was with separate meters for a potential future ADU, garage or electric
- car charger at the current shed. Intran,
- dug the underground service lines on January 27th, and the house is currently awaiting a connection
- by Duke. A completely new electrical panel and some new electrical circuit work has been permitted and
- installed, awaiting final inspection and clarification. This new panel is ground faulted and has arc
- fault circuit breakers so that most of the house's old wire did not have to be replaced. All the electrical
- work was done by certified master electrician Doug Taggart.
- Sorry, David Tigert. So none of that work required a certificate of appropriateness. New windows and
- doors, the purpose of this request. The 100-year-old originals have been normally abused over the years
- and are past due for overhaul. They are inherently inefficient, leaking air, heat, and sound. We would
- like to replace them with near-identical modern versions to improve the quality of life for inhabitants,
- increase privacy and safety, and reduce the environmental impact going forward. Respectfully yours,
- Nathan Harmon.
- Staff approved COA 2614. The replacement of windows proposed would match the size and design of the
- existing windows, and the proposed replacement door would be of the same size and similar design to
- the original, although a visibly alternative material is proposed. Rear windows and doors on the addition
- are of a lesser concern, and windows with more unique characteristics will be maintained.
- Staff does take exception to the characterization of historic windows and doors as past due for replacement
- and normally abused. Although this is a rental property and likely subject to more wear, the existing
- storm doors and windows work to preserve older materials along with other maintenance will improved
- insulation, which is why they are often recommended instead of as a window, sorry, why they are often
- recommended as a window treatment and the existing windows appear to be in good shape.
- Nevertheless, the replacement windows and doors proposed would be similar in appearance to the existing
- materials to the extent recommended in the district guidelines. Let's see, next up is for staff review,
- COA 2615. Okay. This one here is for the Kirkwood Manor building at 322 East Kirkwood.
- petitioner is Misty Collins. This building is rated outstanding. It's a free classical house slash commercial
- commercial building built in 1895 designed by Bloomington architect John Nichols. It's a two and a half
- story free classical limestone building listed individually as a notable build sorry as an outstanding
- building. The request that you'll see here is for the installation of gold stick on vinyl lettering
- inside two windows and a glass door on the north side of the building, uh, which you can see here, uh,
- where there's sort of a turn corner on the front of the building. So two window graphics are proposed
- and additional window graphic for the door, um, which staff approves, uh, since the new signage proposed
- is of a modest scale and we're not damaged or detract from any historic features.
- Thank you, Noah. Okay, so moving on to the more commission involved part of the evening. Yeah, so if
- you're here for those two staff approved COAs, they've been approved, so congratulations. Next up, we
- have COAs for commission review. I'm going to read the procedure for how we will deal with these. For
- each item on the agenda, the Historic Preservation Program Manager will first present a staff report.
- We'll then hear if the petitioner has any additional information about their request
- followed by public comment. Once public comment concludes, commissioners will be able to ask questions
- to staff, the petitioner, and the public. We ask that petitioners, the public, and commissioners refrain
- from speaking until addressed by the chair, which is me, unless a question is directly addressed to
- them. Following commissioner questions, the chair will entertain a motion from a commissioner regarding
- the petition. Once a motion is made, we will then open up a discussion of the item for members of the
- commission only.
- Finally, once the commissioners have each had a chance to speak, the commission will vote on the petition.
- We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of the public to be civil and respectful at
- all times. All right, now I have to go ahead. All right, first of all, I'd like to check, is the petitioner
- present? All right, we've got him. This is for 206 North Walnut Street in the Courthouse Square Historic
- District. Petitioner is Han Chong. This is for the Princess Theater, an outstanding rated building.
- The Princess Theater.
- is an outstanding building located in the Courthouse Square, local and national historic districts.
- Bloomington Restorations, Inc. has a facade easement on the property. In 2025, a new owner of the property
- undertook repairs of the terracotta facade and is still undergoing a replacement of second storey. That's
- no longer current. The second story windows have been replaced, as described in the previous application.
- The ground floor will be reopening for a new restaurant and the restaurateur is applying to install
- new signage over the entrance on existing mounting. So you'll see two signs being proposed. Uh, one
- on existing mounting, uh, over the storefront entrance. And then additionally in the alcove, um,
- a new aluminum sign has already been installed on a racking system that spans between those wooden spandrels
- over the fan light. Staff recommends approval of COA 2607. The proposed signage is similar of the same
- scale as previous storefront signage on the Princess Theater building and would be attached
- using existing mounts. While the design is plastic, as some new signs that have been approved in the
- district are, its measured color and design complement the building's terracotta facade and do not detract
- or distract from the building's significant architectural features. It's come to the attention of staff
- and the planning department that an additional electric bulb signage has been added in the street-facing alcove
- that has not yet been submitted for review to either the Planning Department or Historic Preservation
- Commission. That may no longer be current. I don't know if Planning now has these materials. Yes, great.
- Sorry, I was just saying. So we have the to date materials for the one that's on the screen. But for
- the one that's in the ALCO, I don't think we ever reviewed it. Send it in. I don't know. Because I didn't
- do the portal. OK.
- I can check. Can we send it to you if he's not? OK. Thanks. I mean, you can certainly do us first, and
- that's what's going on now, so that's fine. On March 10, Bloomington Restorations, Inc., which holds
- the facade easement on the Princess Theater, sent the following response to the petitioner and city
- staff. And I quote, Bloomington Restorations, Inc., as facade easement holder on the Princess Theater,
- approves the new signage for Japanese.
- The main sign would be a 64-inch by 36-inch front light box sign in place of the previous tempo signage
- to be installed on existing wall mounts. The secondary sign is an electric bulb signage in the entry
- alcove. Staff agrees with this opinion. The storefront new sign would be similar in scale to previous
- signs in its place and meet district guidelines.
- The light bulb sign in the alcove does not cover a damage significant historic features spanning the
- spandrels over the entrance and is evocative of the building's original use as a theater. Um, is there
- anything that the petitioner would like to add? No. All right. Is there any public comment on this COA
- both in the room or online?
- All right, we'll go to the commissioner questions. Jack, do you have questions? Just for clarity, we're
- moving on two signs, one exterior, one interior here. I'm asking that question because with this previous
- discussion, we're trying to decide whether to separate out those two or to move. But I think we're moving
- ahead, apparently, with both of them on one COA.
- Bulb sign looks like multiple small bulbs. Is that what I'm seeing there? That's right. Very low wattage.
- That's all I have. Yeah, if you've ever seen it lit up, it's kind of low wattage. Maybe halogen? OK.
- John, questions? No. Karen, do you have any questions? No questions. Abby? Jeff? Nope. Ernesto? Duncan?
- I have a question. How is this lit-up sign actually put onto the facade? Like, how is it connected?
- Has it been drilled into things? Oh, this whole mount on the side? Yeah, how did you do that? Basically,
- they have, you know, it's a frame wall and has, I think it's an OSB. And then we found the existing
- frame and then the mounting of the signs mounted right on the existing frame part of it. Okay.
- So there is a two-penetration of the hole in there. All right. Good to know. I don't have any other
- questions. All right. I'll take a motion on the COA. I'll move to approve. All right. Karen moves to
- approve. Do we have a second? I'll second that. All right. John's second. Comments? Jack, do you have
- any comments? No. John, do you have any comments?
- I've seen this site in the interior alcove, and I think it looks very nice. It's not too bright, and
- I think it's a good sign, so I'm going to vote to approve it. Okay. Karen? I don't have any objection
- to these signs. They don't damage the building, and they are removable eventually. You know, they lead
- no trouble.
- OK. Happy. No comment. Jeff. No comment. Ernest. Duncan. No comment. All right. I don't have any comments
- either, so I guess we're ready for a vote. OK. It's been moved in motion on the floor to approve COA
- 26-07. We'll go ahead and take a vote. Jack Baker. Yes. John Butler. Yes. Ernesto Castaneda. Yes.
- Karen Duffy. Yes. Jeff Golden. Yes. Jeremy Hackard. Yes.
- Abby Hansen. Yes. That motion passes 7-0. All right. Thank you very much. It's been approved. Thank
- you very much. Yeah, I appreciate it. All right. Next up, we have COA 2611. Oscar Sibendi is the petitioner.
- Is the petitioner here? I'm the owner of the house. You're the owner of the house? He's on Zoom. OK.
- Is he on Zoom as iPhone? I've been trying to communicate with whomever is iPhone, and I'm not getting
- any response.
- I mean there's no further questions I'd be happy to take this off. Yeah go ahead. Yeah sure. 708 West
- 12th Street in the Maple Heights Historic District. The petition here is for a new ADU. The primary building
- Building on this property is a slightly altered folk Victorian home with classical features and a wraparound
- porch. In 2026, an initial proposal for a two-story garage slash ADU was denied over concerns about
- the visual compatibility of the shallowly pitched roof and sparse fenestration. The applicant has returned
- with a design meant to address these comments.
- The staff recommendation is for approval of COA 2611. The existing house is approximately 20 feet tall,
- as is the proposed carriage house. The property is located on a double-wide corner lot, though the new
- construction would be set back from the primary 12th street facade and accessed from an alleyway and
- a lot width away from North Fairview. The materials proposed are compatible with the district guidelines.
- The new design addresses the commission and neighborhood comments about the roof pitch with the addition
- of second story dormers and adds additional windows. Note that the elevation drawings, in the elevation
- drawings, the labels for the south and west facades have been swapped. Do you have a recommendation?
- Oh, it's for approval. Yeah.
- staff recommends approval. Did I not say that? No, you couldn't stop. So you recommend approval? Yeah,
- I recommend. Okay. Does the owner, do you have any comments that you'd like to add to this? I'm intrigued
- by you why you wanted me to put dormers because my original house has no dormers. But if this gets a
- pass, then that's what I want. Okay. Do we have
- online as well. Did Oscar get through to you? There's nothing I've just been corresponding with, trying
- to correspond with the person listed as iPhone. I've asked them to unmute. Hello? Hi, there we go. Oscar?
- Oscar? Yes, how are you? I'm doing well and you?
- That's okay. Do you have any other comments that you would like to add on to Noah's proposal
- or recommendations? Do you have anything to add that you want to add to what Noah has already said?
- Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments from the public?
- OK. Jack, do you have any questions? Was a question raised about the reveal of the clapboard, about
- the six inches versus four inches or some such thing? Right. I had received a comment from the neighborhood
- saying that they would prefer, or this neighborhood committee would prefer, a six inch clapboard with
- a four inch reveal over the eight inch clapboard with a six inch reveal that's proposed.
- So this is a comment that I received from the Neighborhood Design Review Committee. And who's
- the Neighborhood Design Review Committee? I believe it's comprised of people in the Neighborhood Association
- who decided to volunteer for it basically. Okay, what is it that we're discussing? Let's let them have
- their conversation right now. We'll hold on just a second.
- That was my only question, is whether we put it to commissioners, whether we feel like it would be more
- in line with neighborhood rules to do the smaller reveal rather than the larger reveal. That's all I
- have. OK. All right. No questions. OK. Karen? No questions. Abby? No questions. Jeff, do you have any
- questions? Oh, questions. Or not so. Do you have any questions?
- Duncan, anything? I really don't have any questions about this either. Okay, I'll entertain a motion
- on the COA. I'll move to approve. Where are we here? COA, I'm sorry, which COA? This is... 26-11. 26-11.
- Okay, dash 11. Sid, move approval.
- with stipulation that the sidewall reveal go to the four inch as recommended by the Neighborhood Association.
- All right, do we have a second for that? I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion, a second, Abby seconded.
- So we have comments. Jack? I don't have strong feelings about it, but I wanted to
- Just get it on the record and have commissioners make comments about the size of the reveal before we
- go to a vote. Okay. John? So the... I'm fine with the way the roof pitch has been changed. I think that
- complements the house.
- I think that's a good change that's been made. Just to address a couple of questions she raised. I was
- on the commission at the time, but I do not believe they were requiring you to have dormers. What they
- were asking you to do is make the roof pitch match the roof pitch of the original structure. And so
- by making the roof pitch a little steeper, then that resulted
- in the dormers. So they weren't necessarily wanting the dormers, they were just wanting the pitch of
- the roof to match. And so this does that now. And so I think that addresses that concern. As to the
- reveal and the clapboard siting, I don't have an opinion on that. Although I would wonder, would that
- change the cost of the project? And if it would, then I wouldn't
- necessarily require that. So those are my comments. Karen? I don't have an opinion on the siding either.
- It's always nice to go with the neighborhood's recommendation when possible. But the pitch of the roof
- is a huge improvement. And so I'm in support for that reason.
- Okay. Abby? Yeah, I agree. I think it looks like it complements the house. I have no further comments.
- Jeff? I would have supported the original COA. So I'll probably vote no on this. Okay. Ernesto? Yes.
- Appreciate the effort on trying to complement the original house. I do have comments regarding
- About the siding, I would agree about the exposure of the siding not doing eight but four inches. I
- also have some issue with the proportions of the windows for the dormers. I think they're out of proportion.
- I know why they're doing it. If I understand this correctly, they're using double homes and they need
- to meet egress.
- So when you use double hung windows, the size of those windows get really big. So one thing that we
- have done before is, in my case, to meet egress, you use casements that look like double hungs. And
- you meet egress, and it looks good too. Also, the two windows above the garage door,
- Basically the opposite, they're just too small to squat. So if you want to get them proportionally right,
- it would be taller. And lastly, the windows along the side, typically you wouldn't find horizontal windows
- in this type of architecture. You would either find square or rectangle. Those are my comments.
- Do you have comments? Now you got me thinking. Yeah, I mean, I basically agree with all the things you
- said. I've been staring at it, wondering what was bothering me about it, particularly the horizontal
- windows and those upper proportions. Which is just to say it could be better, but it does
- complement the existing house better than the original, I think, better than the original proposal did.
- But in changing the roof, they created some additional issues, design issues that I'm troubled by, but
- unless they're willing to sit down and actually take some hard advice that has just been offered to them.
- to do about it. In the siding issue, it doesn't trouble me that the house and the garage aren't the
- same in particular. Anything else? I think for me, I would just support the original COA. I'm not troubled
- by the difference in the size of the siding. They're not connected. They're separate from each other.
- So that is not really a concern for me at all. And so I think
- But the motion on the table is to approve the COA with the condition that they match the size of the
- siding for this new to the house. So that's what we're actually voting on. Just want to make sure we're
- clear for everybody. And so, yeah. That's all the comments. So I guess we're ready to go for the vote.
- OK. So it's been motioned and seconded to approve this with a conditional change to
- to change the siding. The size of the siding. Size of the siding. So a vote on yes for this would be
- to agree to change the side of the siding versus what was proposed in the COA. Jack Baker? Yes.
- John Butler? No. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Excuse me, Melody's not here. Karen Duffy? No. Jeff Golden?
- No. Jeremy Hackard? No. Abby Hanson? Yes.
- OK, so that motion does not pass. It was 3 yay, 4 no. All right. So I'll entertain another motion. I'll
- make a motion to approve the COAs originally written. Is there a second? Second. All right. Do we want
- to have any further comments on this? Any comment? John? Karen? Further comments? Abby? Jeff, any other
- ones? No. Ernesto, any other comments?
- No. Duncan? No. I don't have any other comments either. So we're ready for a vote. Great. So now this
- motion is for COA 26-11 as proposed in your packet. Mhm. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes.
- Ernesto Castaneda? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. Abby Hanson? Yes. That
- motion passes 7-0. All right. Thank you very much. It has been approved.
- Next up on our agenda, we have old business next, which is the reading of changes to rules and procedures.
- So from what I understand from my last conversation with legal, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is
- I wanted to present this as a first reading because it's a series of amendments that I proposed that
- I know people may need to take some time to read. And also I wanted to make sure that everything was
- kosher by the legal department. So this is a series of amendments to our rules and procedures that I'm
- proposing.
- order to meet new changes that City Council has made to Title II which handles boards and commissions.
- So if you don't mind I'll just read them off and we can handle this like a COA or if you decide that
- you want to continue this to a future meeting and treat this like a first reading then we could also
- do it that way. Okay so whereas the
- Bloomington, Indiana Common Council voted on Thursday the 18th to amend Title II of the Bloomington
- Municipal Code entitled Administration and Personnel to Consolidate and Amend Boards and Commissions,
- whereas changes made to the rules governing boards and commissions impose differences from the existing
- Historic Preservation Commission rules and procedures involving the rules of officers and calling for
- special meetings, whereas language amended to Title II of the Bloomington Municipal Code
- as general provisions for commission procedures, including parliamentary procedure removal for cause
- and vacancies. The Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission shall adopt the following amendments
- to its rules and procedures. Article one, amend to read, see special meetings. A special meeting of
- a board commission or council may be called by the chairperson, the mayor, or by a majority of members
- then serving on the board commission or council
- requesting such a meeting in writing. Upon receiving such a request, the chairperson shall thereafter
- call a special meeting to be held within 20 days. Three days notice is required. Amend to add
- M, parliamentary procedure. Meetings shall be conducted according to procedures set forth in Robert's
- Rules of Order and N, removal for cause. Except for appointees who serve at the pleasure of the mayor,
- a member of a board commission or council may be removed for cause. Cause shall include but not be limited
- to violation of the code of conduct specified in subsection three and excessive absenteeism. Excessive
- absenteeism is a failure to attend three consecutive meetings scheduled of the board commission or council
- or four regularly scheduled meetings in any 12 month period provided that any member may submit in writing
- to the appointing authority
- any extenuating circumstances. Such written submission shall be made within five business days before
- the formal declaration to remove is reached. Acceptance of extenuating circumstances by the appointing
- official or body puts the member on notice that further excessive absenteeism shall result in removal.
- And oh, vacancies by death. Let's hope not. Resignation failure to appoint.
- In the event that a vacancy opens in the membership of a board commission or council through resignation
- or death, the appointing authority shall appoint a person to fill the unexpired term of the resigned
- or deceased member. If a member's term has expired but the appointing authority has failed to act, the
- appointment of the member whose term has expired carries over until the appointing authority reappoints
- or appoints a successor. And then Article 2 amend to read,
- a annually at its first meeting of the year. The commission shall select by majority vote of its members,
- a chair, vice chair, secretary and treasurer who shall serve for one year and who may be reelected to
- second one year terms. The commission may not, sorry, the commission may appoint a non-member to serve
- as secretary and add E duties of the secretary. The secretary shall keep for every meeting written documents
- in which the result of any vote are recorded and, when appropriate, specific findings of fact and conclusions
- are set forth. Does anybody, if you ask, does anybody have any questions? We'll go around. Yeah, Duncan,
- go ahead. This three-day notice, does that comply with open door? It seems awfully sure. I believe open
- door is a 48-hour notice. Oh, really? Yeah. Legal, do we have an opinion on that?
- After talking with Anna Holmes today, it sounds like she gave you guys the proper advice. But say the
- question again one more time. Sorry. So it's a three-day notice. Does that comply with open
- door requirements? The three-day notice should be in compliance with open door law. OK. Any other questions?
- Most of it seems to be pretty perfunctory. I'm not sure what we've got to do with a treasurer. He may
- open another door. Well, I guess if anybody wants it on their resume. Ernesto, do you have any questions
- about this? No. Thank you. Jeff? No questions. Abby, do you have any questions? Karen? No questions. John?
- Does it even matter what we say, right? This is sort of going to happen anyway. Not that I oppose it
- in any way, but yeah, exactly. No questions. Jack, do you have any questions about it? So just to add
- onto that, typically it's 48 hours. So three days is plenty of time for the notice. Melody, I know you
- just dropped in. Do you have any questions about the revisions that Noah had put together on this? No.
- I don't have any questions either, so I think
- I'm maybe just wondering from everybody here, would you like more time to think about this, or do you
- think there's any need to? I'd do it. Yeah, exactly. It's just like, what can we do anyway? Well, no,
- I said that this hadn't, at some point, this hadn't been passed the purview of legal yet. So it seems
- like we want to wait for that. Has that already happened? No, I thought you talked to Anna about it.
- I sent it to Anna.
- and he hadn't received any sort of red line version of it. So. Did she give you any feedback on it yet?
- She said that the commission can go ahead and vote. I mean, that sounds pretty clear to me. If I get
- too few comments on it, I get nervous. No, yeah. I did speak with her briefly. She wasn't able to be
- here, but she seemed confident that you were in line with the
- rules of procedures and open door law and all of that. OK. Excellent. So I guess, I mean, we treat this
- like the COAs where I take a motion on this from a commissioner. I motion to approve it as written,
- I guess. Is that for the proof? What is the name of this? To approve the resolution to amend the rules
- and procedures. That's exactly what I wanted to say. OK. Let's say. OK. So John's got a motion, and
- Jack's second.
- Any further comments from anybody who can go around Duncan Dude? The only thing that occurred to me
- was we have had some conversations about revisiting these rules and procedures in general, because under
- normal circumstances, these are up to us to determine. I'm not even sure why we're voting on ones that
- seem to be mandated. But unless we want to try to do more, I guess we could just amend it at any time we want.
- Yep. Let's just take care of this and get it out of the way. Ernesto, do you have anything else?
- No comments. Thank you. Jeff. No. Abby. No comments. Karen. No. John. Jack. Just to remind commissioners,
- we do have to have a treasurer and a secretary. So think about if you would like to have or would entertain
- that position, even though it implies minimal effort. Melody, anything?
- For the secretary position, it can be a staff person. So when we come around to doing the folks on that,
- we can, I think city needs to work through some stuff on their end to see if a staff person would be
- able to do that, which would be great. So we'll see what's going on with that.
- And I would be curious, Noah, maybe if, depending on how that goes, if we can have the election for
- those two, the treasurer and secretary, either at the next meeting or the meeting after that. Yeah,
- I don't see why not. So maybe if we can turn that on the agenda for the next meeting, unless there's
- some kind of weirdness that's going on behind the scenes for the city, go ahead and consider that at
- that time, perhaps. All right, any other comments? I'm done.
- All right, so I guess we'll call the vote on the adoption of these. OK, so that has been moved and seconded.
- We'll go ahead and take a roll call vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Ernesto Castaneda? Yes.
- Melanie Dusner? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Jeremy Hackard? Yes. Abby Hanson? Yes. And
- that motion passes 8-0. Excellent. Thank you very much.
- related to that and what Duncan kind of led into something I was going to say encouraged everybody to
- take a look at the rules and procedures last time in preparation for this meeting. I do think it would
- be nice if you take a look at that and you see anything that you think maybe we might need to adjust.
- It would be great to bring to the commission for discussion. I went through and I've redlined a couple
- of things. I shared some ideas with
- and maybe we can talk about it next time, but there's a couple of places where it's just trying to get
- some clarity, especially like when we have meetings. Currently, under the rules and procedures, we're
- supposed to meet on Thanksgiving every year. We don't do that. So it's kind of like amending those sorts
- of stuff and just trying to be a little bit more consistent about who is doing certain things.
- places in here where it's talking about a notice is sent. Who's sending the notice? Well, the hand liaison.
- So just being a little bit more clear about that sort of stuff. So I went through and made some red
- line changes and stuff. I'd be happy to share with other folks if you'd like to take that as maybe a
- starting point to thinking about that sort of stuff. But I'm open to other comments regarding that.
- But it just was trying to clean up the language a little bit.
- and make sure it's kind of aligning with how we're doing stuff and taking some things like, I think
- keeping a roster of the commissioners and things like that is technically like the vice chair's duty,
- even though that's really what like staff does. And so just trying to adjust those sort of things to
- better reflect the reality of how we're operating. So I can do that and maybe we can have a discussion
- about that at the next meeting if that would work for folks.
- All right, so Noah, any other old business that we need to discuss? Any new old business? Let's see.
- Any other old business? We're going to be seeing somebody in for a past violation coming up next week.
- This is 4301 East Glendora, if any of you remember that. Yeah, this is from last year, yes. This is
- an installation of a window and a basement. Yes.
- That's right. So they'll come at the next meeting. Yeah, they're going to be at the next meeting. Okay.
- I also, yeah, I did want to bring up that we're going to have to elect some new positions now that we've,
- you know, ratified these changes to rules and procedures. So that's something that everybody has to
- look forward to. Those are really the main points that I have right now. Okay. Any new business?
- anybody wants to introduce any? Commissioner Comets. Does anybody want to speak on anything in general?
- I'm happy to take feedback or anything else. All right. Public comments. Are there any public comments?
- We had a couple people leave. Is there anybody online? Wow. Okay. Well, that brings us to the end of
- our agenda. So
- All right, this meeting is officially adjourned.