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.