WEBVTT 00:00:02.082 --> 00:00:10.780 - All right, I'm calling to order the Thursday, March 26, 2026 meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation 00:00:10.780 --> 00:00:18.846 - Commission meeting or commission to order. Would staff please call the roll? Drew Herron? Jack Baker? 00:00:18.846 --> 00:00:27.228 - Here. John Butler? Here. Ernesto Castaneda? Melanie Duesner? Karen Duffy? Here. Jeff Golden? Here. Jeremy 00:00:27.228 --> 00:00:28.414 - Hackard? Here. 00:00:28.802 --> 00:00:37.706 - Abby Hanson. Here. Perfect timing. Daniel Legel. Here. We have quorum. Excellent. I have a motion on 00:00:37.706 --> 00:00:46.522 - the minutes for March 12. Motion approved. I'll second that. I have one. Oh. Oh. OK. Sorry. I would 00:00:46.522 --> 00:00:55.161 - suggest on COA 2611, it lists the owner is attending virtually, but the owner was here in person. 00:00:55.161 --> 00:00:57.982 - Thank you. Good eye for detail. 00:01:06.018 --> 00:01:16.207 - to approve subject to that change. And I will second that. OK, so we have motion approved subject to 00:01:16.207 --> 00:01:26.497 - my change, seconded by John Butler. Or was it already changed? I guess the petitioner was online. The 00:01:26.497 --> 00:01:34.366 - petitioner was online and the owner was here in person. OK. All right, great. 00:01:35.234 --> 00:01:42.613 - So we have a motion moved and seconded to accept the minutes with that correction. We'll go ahead and 00:01:42.613 --> 00:01:50.137 - take a vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes. 00:01:50.137 --> 00:01:57.299 - Abby Hanson? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Well, I'm staying. I wasn't here. The minutes are approved. OK. 00:01:57.299 --> 00:02:04.606 - Next up, we have the election of treasurer. We are required by the city council to have a treasurer. 00:02:04.706 --> 00:02:14.540 - For this commission, we have $0. But if anybody would like to nominate themselves or nominate someone 00:02:14.540 --> 00:02:24.759 - for treasurer, I would be willing to hear a motion. Do we have a second to nominate? Commissioner Butler, 00:02:24.759 --> 00:02:33.918 - we have a second. Any discussion? Any strenuous objections? Yes, are there any other nominees? 00:02:36.866 --> 00:02:44.678 - Hearing none, I think we're ready to call the roll. OK, it's been moved and seconded to accept John 00:02:44.678 --> 00:02:52.178 - Butler as treasurer. We'll take that vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. 00:02:52.178 --> 00:02:59.990 - Jeff Bolden? Yes. Jeremy Hackers? Yes. Abby Hanson? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Oh, yes. And may I please 00:02:59.990 --> 00:03:04.990 - have, for the record, who made that motion and who seconded it? 00:03:05.122 --> 00:03:11.545 - I made the motion. Thank you. And then second was Jessica. Thank you. All right. So it passes. 00:03:11.545 --> 00:03:18.373 - Congratulations, Treasurer Butler. Thank you so much. Very important. Yes. We're one of those banker 00:03:18.373 --> 00:03:25.269 - advisors. Yes. Please come prepared. All right. Next up, discussion point, procedural adjustments. We 00:03:25.269 --> 00:03:32.638 - adopted Robert's rules at our last meeting. So there's a couple of things that we're going to need to tweak. 00:03:32.802 --> 00:03:39.881 - Going forward, the basic format of how we've been doing things is pretty much on point. There's just 00:03:39.881 --> 00:03:46.891 - some tweaks, so it's going to go over those just so we're all on the same page. Per Robert's rules, 00:03:46.891 --> 00:03:54.110 - I'll be more formal in referring to folks. I'm going to try to do that so it'll always be Commissioner 00:03:54.110 --> 00:03:59.998 - so-and-so, no first names. I encourage everybody to also adopt that sort of format. 00:04:00.194 --> 00:04:06.964 - For comments, when we do the comments period, everybody is allowed to comment up to two times. So if 00:04:06.964 --> 00:04:13.802 - you've said something we've gone through and you want to respond to something else, you're allowed to 00:04:13.802 --> 00:04:20.706 - do that. I just ask people raise their hands and I can return to them. But it is a limit of two times. 00:04:20.706 --> 00:04:27.678 - So just so we're all aware of that function. Whoever makes a motion is given the chance to speak first. 00:04:27.842 --> 00:04:36.195 - So if anybody moves to approve or deny anything, I will start the conversation with them, and then we'll 00:04:36.195 --> 00:04:44.309 - be able to go around the room and have our comments. For public comments, there's a three-minute time 00:04:44.309 --> 00:04:52.264 - limit for when people are talking. That'll be regularly enforced. Going forward, I will restate the 00:04:52.264 --> 00:04:56.958 - motion before asking for a second. That is a common thing. 00:04:57.090 --> 00:05:03.776 - Previously, I should have said Commissioner Schlegel has moved that Commissioner Butler be named treasurer. 00:05:03.776 --> 00:05:09.968 - Is there a second? So I'll start taking on that sort of format. So I might get tongue-tied on that, 00:05:09.968 --> 00:05:16.283 - ask for a little bit of patience as I'm trying to get used to that. I'll also announce the results of 00:05:16.283 --> 00:05:22.598 - the vote and state if it has passed or not. I have Robert's rules here and has got Robert's rules. So 00:05:22.598 --> 00:05:23.774 - if we get into it. 00:05:24.194 --> 00:05:32.045 - conundrum on something, we can do deep research. We typically don't need that level of detail, but we're 00:05:32.045 --> 00:05:39.596 - going to try to adhere to the Roberts rules as best we can. So any sort of questions about that? No? 00:05:39.596 --> 00:05:47.073 - OK. Just wanted to make sure we were kind of all on the same page. So next up, we have staff review 00:05:47.073 --> 00:05:53.054 - of certificates of appropriateness. I will turn it over to Mr. Sandler. Thanks. 00:05:54.050 --> 00:06:01.254 - So first up on the agenda this evening, 411 South Valentine in the Elm Heights Historic District. Petitioner 00:06:01.254 --> 00:06:07.864 - is Michael King. This house is an excellent example of a Tudor revival slash English cottage style. 00:06:07.864 --> 00:06:14.540 - Notable features include the asymmetrical facade and steeply pitched roof. The textured brick facade 00:06:14.540 --> 00:06:20.158 - is unusual, though reminiscent of early English cottages, which inspired this style. 00:06:21.378 --> 00:06:29.345 - The arch door and six over six wood stash windows are still present at this house. Um, and this house 00:06:29.345 --> 00:06:37.312 - has not been altered since construction, not substantially. A wood deck protrudes over an edge at the 00:06:37.312 --> 00:06:45.201 - back of the house. The design is very conventional. The request proposed is to demolish the existing 00:06:45.201 --> 00:06:50.590 - deck and replace it with a wood deck of slightly greater dimensions. 00:06:51.426 --> 00:07:02.624 - Um, let's see. So, um, it'll be extended nine feet, sorry, four feet in length from the rear of the 00:07:02.624 --> 00:07:14.047 - house. Um, also the railing is to be brought up to four feet in height, which is slightly taller than 00:07:14.047 --> 00:07:17.854 - 36 inches of the current railing. 00:07:21.858 --> 00:07:30.106 - And staff approved COA 2616. This application does not involve the removal or damage of historic materials 00:07:30.106 --> 00:07:37.892 - and would replace an existing feature to the rear of the property. The differences in design between 00:07:37.892 --> 00:07:45.909 - the current and proposed decks is minor and would not inappropriately increase the feature's visibility 00:07:45.909 --> 00:07:51.614 - or scale. I hope you enjoyed that because there's more decks I came from. 00:07:52.770 --> 00:08:02.327 - Okay. 1305 South Madison Street in the McDowell Historic District. This is for petition COA 2618. 1305 00:08:02.327 --> 00:08:12.255 - South Madison Street is a severely altered 1925 California bungalow with an enclosed mid-century limestone 00:08:12.255 --> 00:08:22.462 - front porch. A second story wood deck protrudes from the rear of the property. This application would seek to 00:08:23.682 --> 00:08:36.678 - increase the length of the rear deck perpendicular to the back of the house from 16 feet in length to 00:08:36.678 --> 00:08:49.419 - 20 feet in length, but otherwise the height and width would be retained. And staff approved CA 2618 00:08:49.419 --> 00:08:52.222 - for the same reasons. 00:08:52.354 --> 00:08:59.273 - This application does not involve the removal or damage of historic materials and would replace an existing 00:08:59.273 --> 00:09:05.807 - feature to the rear of the property. The differences in design between the current and proposed decks 00:09:05.807 --> 00:09:12.405 - is negligible. Thank you, Mr. Samweis. For those who were joining us online for those staff approvals, 00:09:12.405 --> 00:09:19.004 - those are approved. So congratulations. Next up, we have COAs for commission review. I'm going to read 00:09:19.004 --> 00:09:21.374 - our statement on procedure for this. 00:09:21.730 --> 00:09:27.401 - For each item on the agenda, the Historic Preservation Program Manager will first present a staff report. 00:09:27.401 --> 00:09:32.965 - We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional information about the request followed by public 00:09:32.965 --> 00:09:38.850 - comment. Once public comment concludes, commissioners will be able to ask questions to staff, the petitioner, 00:09:38.850 --> 00:09:44.681 - and the public. We ask that petitioners, the public, and commissioners refrain from speaking until addressed 00:09:44.681 --> 00:09:47.998 - by the chair unless a question is directly addressed to them. 00:09:48.642 --> 00:09:54.180 - Following commissioner questions, the chair will entertain a motion from a commissioner regarding the 00:09:54.180 --> 00:10:00.098 - petition. Once a motion is made, we will then open up a discussion of the item for members of the commission 00:10:00.098 --> 00:10:05.799 - only. Finally, once the commissioners have each had a chance to speak, actually a chance to speak twice, 00:10:05.799 --> 00:10:11.337 - the commission will vote on the petition. We encourage all commissioners, petitioners, and members of 00:10:11.337 --> 00:10:16.766 - the public to be civil and respectful at all times. All right. Mr. Samwise. Thank you, Mr. Hackard. 00:10:18.530 --> 00:10:26.092 - All right, this petition is COA 2617. Petitioner is Craig Furman. Is the petitioner present? I am. 00:10:26.092 --> 00:10:33.883 - Thank you. All right, great. 509 West Allen in the McDowell Historic District is a notable example of 00:10:33.883 --> 00:10:42.209 - a colonial revival house. Notable features contributing to this house include the cornice returns, limestone 00:10:42.209 --> 00:10:46.334 - sills and lintels, the brick siding, the front porch, 00:10:46.978 --> 00:10:54.068 - the original wood windows and doors throughout the house, the limestone belt course at the foundation 00:10:54.068 --> 00:11:01.575 - line, the limestone foundation, and that the house remains largely unchanged from the date of construction. 00:11:01.575 --> 00:11:08.526 - This application would seek to replace the asphalt shingle roof with a matte charcoal gray standing 00:11:08.526 --> 00:11:12.766 - seam roof. Existing trim and chimney would remain uncovered. 00:11:29.826 --> 00:11:36.457 - recommendation from staff is for approval of COA 2617. The McDowell Historic District guidelines on 00:11:36.457 --> 00:11:42.956 - roofs are somewhat unusual, as in some circumstances the specific roofing material can contribute 00:11:42.956 --> 00:11:49.787 - significantly to a building's architectural integrity. This district includes a mix of folk Victorian, 00:11:49.787 --> 00:11:56.418 - craftsman, and colonial revival style houses, most of which have either asphalt shingle or standing 00:11:56.418 --> 00:11:57.214 - seam roofs. 00:11:58.402 --> 00:12:05.443 - Although some of these are replacements, they're generally associated with these architectural movements. 00:12:05.443 --> 00:12:12.617 - Nevertheless, the significance of historic roofing material needs consideration, particularly on a building 00:12:12.617 --> 00:12:19.658 - of notable architectural significance. The contributing brick house next door has had its asphalt shingle 00:12:19.658 --> 00:12:26.499 - roof replaced with a gray standing seam roof in the late 2010s. Some of the features that warrant this 00:12:26.499 --> 00:12:27.230 - building's 00:12:27.394 --> 00:12:33.653 - Notable rating on the state survey include its portico, crenellated stone fence, and original 4 over 00:12:33.653 --> 00:12:39.974 - 1 windows. In the opinion of staff, the replacement of the existing roofing material would not result 00:12:39.974 --> 00:12:46.419 - in a downgrading of this property's survey rating. Does the petitioner have anything that he would like 00:12:46.419 --> 00:12:52.740 - to add? No, I think you covered it well, and I appreciate your considering this. All right. Thank you 00:12:52.740 --> 00:12:56.830 - very much. Are there any public comments regarding this petition? 00:12:58.114 --> 00:13:07.313 - room, online. Now is the time to make any comments, by the way, about this petitioner. Does staff see 00:13:07.313 --> 00:13:16.422 - anybody? I do not. OK. Well, I think we'll start off with questions then. Commissioner Baker, do you 00:13:16.422 --> 00:13:25.441 - have any questions? Yes. Is the intent of the petitioner to duplicate the roof that's next door? It 00:13:25.441 --> 00:13:27.966 - looks like a standing seam. 00:13:28.642 --> 00:13:34.848 - black, non-reflective. Is it your intent to pretty much be very similar or identical to that roof? I 00:13:34.848 --> 00:13:41.055 - think in the ballpark, but the roof next to us is not standing seam. I don't know the right word for 00:13:41.055 --> 00:13:47.322 - it, but it's the other kind of metal roof. So what we're trying to do is an actual standing seam. And 00:13:47.322 --> 00:13:53.774 - the roof next door is kind of reflective and shiny. We're going to get one that is approved. We're going 00:13:53.774 --> 00:13:54.942 - to get one that is 00:13:55.106 --> 00:14:01.505 - not reflective at all, just so it doesn't blind neighbors. I think it'd be less of an issue with it 00:14:01.505 --> 00:14:08.032 - being a two-story house in a neighborhood that's mostly one story, but still we want to get a premium 00:14:08.032 --> 00:14:14.367 - roof that's actually standing steam and then has the sort of powdered, less reflective tone to it. 00:14:14.367 --> 00:14:20.702 - Thank you. I see a color palette here with three different shades. Which color are you looking at? 00:14:22.146 --> 00:14:27.647 - I think we're flexible on that, but my wife and I found ourselves going to the middle one, I guess, 00:14:27.647 --> 00:14:33.203 - because we think it would complement the brick. And the brick is why we fell in love with the house, 00:14:33.203 --> 00:14:38.979 - and I think what's most distinctive about it. So something that sort of doesn't take away from the brick 00:14:38.979 --> 00:14:44.700 - and from the white trim. Thank you. Commissioner Golden, any questions? No questions. Treasurer Butler, 00:14:44.700 --> 00:14:50.256 - any questions? No questions. Commissioner Schlegel? No questions. Commissioner Hanson? No questions. 00:14:50.256 --> 00:14:52.126 - Commissioner Duffy? No questions. 00:14:52.482 --> 00:15:00.950 - I have a question for our esteemed staff member. For colonial revival houses, how common is it to see 00:15:00.950 --> 00:15:09.252 - a standing seam metal roof on them? So for this period, it would usually be either asphalt or slate 00:15:09.252 --> 00:15:17.720 - shingle. It's not particularly unusual. A lot of colonial or colonial revival houses have in time had 00:15:17.720 --> 00:15:20.958 - replacement standing seam roofs, which 00:15:21.570 --> 00:15:30.558 - that technology has been in use in the U.S. I mean, increasingly, I'd say, since like mid-century. Okay. 00:15:30.558 --> 00:15:39.460 - Would, in your opinion, do you think the standing seam roof with the color that they're choosing would, 00:15:39.460 --> 00:15:48.020 - do you think it would match the appearance of the historic material? Yeah, in my opinion. Something 00:15:48.020 --> 00:15:51.358 - that I mentioned in my staff report is 00:15:52.066 --> 00:15:59.598 - Something that's a little unusual in the McDowell guidelines, the way that they handle roofing materials, 00:15:59.598 --> 00:16:06.704 - is that the recommendation, the preferable recommendation, is to maintain the original materials or 00:16:06.704 --> 00:16:14.165 - those used by contributing properties nearby. That's a little difficult because there could be instances 00:16:14.165 --> 00:16:21.982 - where roofing material really does contribute a lot to what characterizes the architectural style of a house. 00:16:23.650 --> 00:16:34.048 - I don't think that for this house, and in general, this style, although some exceptions, that this change 00:16:34.048 --> 00:16:43.956 - to roofing materials would have much of an impact on its historic or architectural significance. OK. 00:16:43.956 --> 00:16:50.430 - And because it's notable, could be eligible for National Register 00:16:50.818 --> 00:16:59.124 - Nominations with the replacement with this roof material. Do you think it would affect? No That's that's 00:16:59.124 --> 00:17:07.509 - really part of my consideration here. Um, I don't think that's One of the factors that really contributes 00:17:07.509 --> 00:17:15.578 - to this building significance Okay Any other follow-up questions All right, I will entertain a motion 00:17:15.578 --> 00:17:16.606 - on the COA I 00:17:16.802 --> 00:17:23.475 - Okay, Commissioner Golden has moved to approve this. Is there a second? Second. Okay, there's a second 00:17:23.475 --> 00:17:30.149 - by Commissioner Schlegel. Commissioner Golden, do you want to offer any comments? I think that there's 00:17:30.149 --> 00:17:36.822 - not going to be much difference based on what I've seen before and the colors they're choosing and the 00:17:36.822 --> 00:17:42.718 - appearance of the roof, other than the standing scene. So I think that this is acceptable. 00:17:43.618 --> 00:17:50.392 - Commissioner Schlegel, you seconded. Do you have any other comments you want? I have nothing else to 00:17:50.392 --> 00:17:57.368 - add to what Commissioner Golden said. All right, thank you very much. We'll go around there. Vice Chair 00:17:57.368 --> 00:18:04.545 - Baker, anything? I agree that it just doesn't do really anything to change the appearance or the character 00:18:04.545 --> 00:18:11.789 - of the house. It's a two-story house. Anyone walking by will not see the roof. You have to be some distance 00:18:11.789 --> 00:18:12.862 - away to see it. 00:18:13.314 --> 00:18:19.505 - I don't find the roof objectionable from a historic preservation point of view, and I agree with the 00:18:19.505 --> 00:18:26.063 - staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN CLARE DUDA. Yeah, I think this is fine in terms of historical preservation. 00:18:26.063 --> 00:18:32.254 - I don't see how it would interfere with that at all. I have a standing seam roof on my house. It was 00:18:32.254 --> 00:18:38.506 - installed about 15 years ago, and we are going to have to replace it because it was poorly installed. 00:18:38.506 --> 00:18:40.958 - So I would just warn the petitioner to, 00:18:41.218 --> 00:18:47.725 - select a very good company because it can go wrong. So those are my comments. Commissioner Hanson. Yeah, 00:18:47.725 --> 00:18:54.232 - per the staff recommendation, it doesn't seem like it would impact the state survey or national historic 00:18:54.232 --> 00:19:00.491 - registry status if that were to come into play. So I have no objections. Commissioner Duffy. I would 00:19:00.491 --> 00:19:06.750 - support it for the same reason. I think Mr. Samwise thought it through very carefully and very well. 00:19:07.106 --> 00:19:14.520 - Yes. For me, I think our program manager's explanation of going through those questions and answering 00:19:14.520 --> 00:19:21.498 - them satisfied my curiosity and easing my concerns. So I will be supporting this going forward. 00:19:21.498 --> 00:19:28.912 - All right. Any other secondary comments anybody wants to make? All right. Wood staff, please call the 00:19:28.912 --> 00:19:36.254 - roll for approval of COA 2617. OK. So that has been moved and seconded. We'll take a roll call vote. 00:19:36.514 --> 00:19:44.730 - Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair 00:19:44.730 --> 00:19:53.186 - Hackard? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That motion does pass 7-0. All right. 00:19:53.186 --> 00:20:01.801 - That motion approves. All right. To our presenter, thank you very much for submitting this and for visiting 00:20:01.801 --> 00:20:05.630 - us today. All right. Next up, we have COA 2619. 00:20:06.018 --> 00:20:16.220 - I'm just seeing advice taken away. All right. This application for a certificate of appropriateness 00:20:16.220 --> 00:20:26.932 - 2619 is for 301 East Glendora Drive in the Matlock Heights Historic District. Is the petitioner present? 00:20:26.932 --> 00:20:34.686 - Yes, I'm here. All right. This is a contributing 1957 ranch, features three 00:20:34.850 --> 00:20:41.233 - picture windows and a recessed side porch. In August of 2025, the current petitioner applied for the 00:20:41.233 --> 00:20:47.678 - addition of a basement egress window on the east elevation. The commission failed to achieve a quorum 00:20:47.678 --> 00:20:54.061 - of upcoming August 28th meeting, and the petitioner was informed that this item had been rescheduled 00:20:54.061 --> 00:21:01.013 - to September 11th. Although the petitioner answered subsequent questions from staff, he was not in attendance 00:21:01.013 --> 00:21:02.782 - for the subsequent meeting. 00:21:03.746 --> 00:21:10.905 - between September 11th and October 5th, the city was informed that the work described in the application 00:21:10.905 --> 00:21:17.927 - had been completed without the granting of a certificate of appropriateness. A notice of violation was 00:21:17.927 --> 00:21:25.222 - sent to the listed address on October 6th, 2025, and a follow-up letter was sent on November 17th. Neither 00:21:25.222 --> 00:21:31.358 - letter received a reply. The subsequent application for retroactive approval was received 00:21:32.194 --> 00:21:39.653 - after the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Development established direct contact with a property 00:21:39.653 --> 00:21:46.897 - owner. So as then, this application is for the now retroactive approval of a window installed at the 00:21:46.897 --> 00:21:54.213 - basement level of the east elevation of 301 East Glendora Drive. You can see here where a window well 00:21:54.213 --> 00:21:58.014 - has been installed and flashing along the limestone. 00:22:01.954 --> 00:22:09.721 - as well as a layout of the new basement bedroom in which the egress window has been added. Does the 00:22:09.721 --> 00:22:17.565 - petitioner have anything else that he would like to add? No. OK. So the staff recommendation in this 00:22:17.565 --> 00:22:25.331 - case is for approval of 2619. While the added window is visible from the road east of the property, 00:22:25.331 --> 00:22:30.302 - it's low profile and covered well, minimize its overall impact. 00:22:31.106 --> 00:22:36.763 - A wide transom is the most noticeable part of the installation. Installed in a secondary elevation at 00:22:36.763 --> 00:22:42.531 - the basement level below an existing window, its impact on the historic material and character defining 00:22:42.531 --> 00:22:48.188 - features does not appear significant. That being said, without a sufficiently detailed description of 00:22:48.188 --> 00:22:53.790 - the visible exterior alteration, it cannot be approved or exempted from review as a matter of faith. 00:22:57.058 --> 00:23:07.912 - Any public comments regarding COA 2619? In the room? Looks like no. Online? OK. Well, we'll start off 00:23:07.912 --> 00:23:18.766 - with commissioner questions. Vice Chair Baker, do you have any questions? For the petitioner, you put 00:23:18.766 --> 00:23:25.470 - us in a peculiar position. Having to review this already done, 00:23:25.954 --> 00:23:32.696 - My question is, why? Why did you go ahead and install this when you received notice at least twice that 00:23:32.696 --> 00:23:39.567 - you needed to come before the commission? Yeah, I apologize about that. I showed up to the first meeting, 00:23:39.567 --> 00:23:46.180 - and I didn't realize that it had been canceled. I hadn't received any notification, because there was 00:23:46.180 --> 00:23:52.922 - no quorum. And then after that, I just forgot about it, and the letters were sent to the not to my home 00:23:52.922 --> 00:23:55.774 - address. So I didn't actually receive them. 00:23:56.290 --> 00:24:04.492 - you know, I believe that they were sent. And then we had contractors line up so that they installed 00:24:04.492 --> 00:24:13.514 - it. So as you can see, right, the window is there for the safety of that new bedroom. Thank you. Commissioner 00:24:13.514 --> 00:24:21.469 - Golden. No questions. Treasurer Butler. No questions. Commissioner Seidler. Commissioner Hanson. 00:24:21.469 --> 00:24:25.406 - No questions. Commissioner Duffy. No questions. 00:24:26.178 --> 00:24:35.806 - I don't think I have any questions either. So I will entertain a motion on the COA. So moved. I'll read 00:24:35.806 --> 00:24:45.157 - which number it is. 2619. 2619. To approve COA 2619. OK. Commissioner Schlegel has moved to approve. 00:24:45.157 --> 00:24:54.878 - Second by Commissioner Golden. Commissioner Schlegel, would you like to offer any comments at this time? 00:24:55.682 --> 00:25:03.921 - Commissioner Golden, you second. Do you have any other comments on that? No, I have no other comments. 00:25:03.921 --> 00:25:12.000 - All right, Vice Chair Baker. I don't like being put in this position. It was close to being fined or 00:25:12.000 --> 00:25:20.079 - a lien put on the house. It could have been avoided. That's all I have to say. OK. Treasurer Butler. 00:25:20.079 --> 00:25:25.598 - I agree with Vice Chair Baker's concerns about the timeline of this. 00:25:25.890 --> 00:25:39.303 - but I feel that Overall the change is Tolerable it doesn't seem to have affected the historic fabric 00:25:39.303 --> 00:25:49.662 - and so I will vote to approve Commissioner Duffy I think my comments would be 00:25:49.922 --> 00:25:55.923 - Just to, if you are going to do any other work on this house or if you have any other instar clones, 00:25:55.923 --> 00:26:01.984 - just make sure you're checking in with our program manager on any COAs that might need to be done and 00:26:01.984 --> 00:26:08.045 - make sure you get those submitted before you do any work on future things. I think perhaps maybe this 00:26:08.045 --> 00:26:13.987 - time we lucked out on this one, but we just want to make sure we do everything in the order that it 00:26:13.987 --> 00:26:18.206 - should be done. So I just ask that you think about that in the future. 00:26:18.626 --> 00:26:26.899 - Yes, go ahead. That prompts me a comment. I thought that be sure, if that does happen, if you want to 00:26:26.899 --> 00:26:35.495 - do more work, make sure that you give the office your correct address for any future contact. Yes. That's 00:26:35.495 --> 00:26:43.038 - a great point. Any other comments? OK. Hearing none, I believe we're ready to call the roll. 00:26:43.426 --> 00:26:52.043 - We'll take a roll call vote on COA 2619. There is a motion to approve. Vice Chair Baker. I'm going to 00:26:52.043 --> 00:27:00.576 - say before I vote that if this comes up, anything like this comes up again from this House or others 00:27:00.576 --> 00:27:09.362 - that the petitioner might own, might bring to us, the vote might be different. But I'm going to be easy 00:27:09.362 --> 00:27:11.390 - this time and vote yes. 00:27:12.450 --> 00:27:21.960 - Treasurer Butler? I vote yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Haggard? Yes. 00:27:21.960 --> 00:27:31.376 - Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That motion is approved 7-0. All right. Thank 00:27:31.376 --> 00:27:40.510 - you very much for coming in. I appreciate it. Next up, we have COA 2620, Mr. Sinales. All right. 00:27:41.154 --> 00:27:48.883 - Petition for COA 2620. This is for 2320 North Fritz Drive in the Matlock Heights Historic District. 00:27:48.883 --> 00:27:56.612 - Petitioner is Ian Yarbrough. Is the petitioner present? All right. This request is for the addition 00:27:56.612 --> 00:28:04.495 - of four large contiguous windows on the front-facing facade of an enclosed addition and an additional 00:28:04.495 --> 00:28:10.910 - large squarish window on the north end of the addition. I'll show you what I mean. 00:28:11.554 --> 00:28:20.392 - Built in 1950, 2320 North Fritz Drive is a massed ranch with some populous modern features, including 00:28:20.392 --> 00:28:29.057 - its front door and horizontally oriented transom windows. On its north stand is an enclosed carport 00:28:29.057 --> 00:28:37.982 - or patio. As you can see here, this is for the request of the installation of the window so described. 00:28:39.362 --> 00:28:45.032 - The staff recommendation is for approval of COA 2620. The additional windows on what appears to be an 00:28:45.032 --> 00:28:50.646 - enclosed patio or carport would not alter the contributing features of the house. The fact that this 00:28:50.646 --> 00:28:56.538 - addition has been visibly altered from its original appearance means that the addition of the new windows 00:28:56.538 --> 00:29:02.264 - to this appendix of the building would not convey a false sense of history, while the new fenestration 00:29:02.264 --> 00:29:07.934 - pattern complements the house's mid-century aesthetic and references the original open nature of this 00:29:07.934 --> 00:29:08.990 - part of the house. 00:29:09.762 --> 00:29:18.127 - Does the petitioner have anything that he would like to add? No. I have one recommendation from a friend. 00:29:18.127 --> 00:29:26.177 - The smaller two windows on the north side, I'm probably going to move those up to align with that new 00:29:26.177 --> 00:29:34.384 - window, and then move them back a little bit. I kind of have a sketch up here of just kind of make them 00:29:34.384 --> 00:29:38.014 - more evenly distributed. But other than that. 00:29:40.418 --> 00:29:48.256 - Are there any public comments on this petition in the room? Any comments online? No? All right. We'll 00:29:48.256 --> 00:29:56.094 - start off with questions. We'll start. Well, Melanie just got here. Vice Chair Baker, do you have any 00:29:56.094 --> 00:30:03.778 - questions? I heard what you said, but I didn't tweak. Could you go over that again? Right. So those 00:30:03.778 --> 00:30:07.774 - two existing windows, the smaller, higher, I guess, 00:30:08.322 --> 00:30:17.910 - Could you go up and point to them, please? If you wouldn't mind, it would make things a lot clearer. 00:30:17.910 --> 00:30:27.403 - Thank you. We're going to kind of more evenly distribute them across that side of the wall and then 00:30:27.403 --> 00:30:37.086 - bring them up to a line with the top of the new window. Are you planning, are these large plate glass 00:30:37.346 --> 00:30:46.476 - without mullions, without any kind of grills, just plain. And as I understand it, the two end windows 00:30:46.476 --> 00:30:55.427 - are hinged to open out. Is that correct? And they're somewhat taller. How much taller are they than 00:30:55.427 --> 00:31:00.798 - the one window just around the quarter that's the original? 00:31:01.058 --> 00:31:07.977 - It looks to be six or eight inches. It should be about the same. I think that's what we ordered, was 00:31:07.977 --> 00:31:15.376 - 45 inches tall. And that's what the existing windows are. That's the height of that window that's existing? 00:31:15.376 --> 00:31:22.296 - Right, the height of the front window. That double long. Thank you. Commissioner Golden, do you have 00:31:22.296 --> 00:31:29.215 - any questions? No questions. Treasurer Butler. No question. Commissioner Schlegel. Could you go back 00:31:29.215 --> 00:31:30.654 - one slide, actually? 00:31:37.954 --> 00:31:45.955 - You mentioned that the addition had already had some alterations, I think, but I didn't catch what those 00:31:45.955 --> 00:31:53.574 - were. So it was originally an open area that looks like it has since been enclosed. The inside wall 00:31:53.574 --> 00:32:01.651 - of the original, I guess it's a brick molding going into the kitchen, and then there's also siding behind 00:32:01.651 --> 00:32:07.518 - the wall board in there. So as part of the renovation, tearing all that out. 00:32:09.314 --> 00:32:16.648 - but it used to be an exterior wall at one point. That answers my question. Thank you. Commissioner Duesner, 00:32:16.648 --> 00:32:23.574 - do you have any questions? Commissioner Duffy. No, I was going to ask about those two little windows, 00:32:23.574 --> 00:32:30.432 - so I appreciate that you thought that out. We'll be closing up the other two openings on the wall as 00:32:30.432 --> 00:32:34.846 - well, the weird strange heater vent on the window you see there. 00:32:40.226 --> 00:32:48.493 - So I think I will entertain a motion on COA 2620. I have one. Yeah, please. You described this house 00:32:48.493 --> 00:32:56.678 - as a ranch. Yeah. Thank you. I actually, if you don't mind me asking a question, or point of order, 00:32:56.678 --> 00:33:05.355 - I just wanted to clarify whether any motion that would be made, and I guess this would be up to whoever's 00:33:05.355 --> 00:33:06.910 - making the motion. 00:33:07.778 --> 00:33:16.423 - would include the described additional work, moving those two existing windows and any changes to the 00:33:16.423 --> 00:33:25.491 - exterior mechanicals. It'll be up to whoever makes the motion, so we'll see what we get. I move to approve 00:33:25.491 --> 00:33:34.814 - COA 26-20, including the exhibit presented to us today, moving the two small windows on the side of that. OK. 00:33:35.170 --> 00:33:42.328 - Golden has moved to approve COIA 26-20 with the additional windows. And Commissioner Duffy seconds. 00:33:42.328 --> 00:33:49.557 - All right, Commissioner Golden, you have any comments? It looks like a good project that's not going 00:33:49.557 --> 00:33:56.859 - to change the appeal of this house and probably make that room a lot more functional. So I'm going to 00:33:56.859 --> 00:34:04.446 - support it. OK, Commissioner Duffy. I like the way it complements the mid-century modern look. All right. 00:34:05.186 --> 00:34:12.654 - Commissioner Duesner, any comments? Commissioner Hanson. Commissioner Schlegel. I agree with Commissioner 00:34:12.654 --> 00:34:19.770 - Duffy and her comments, so I'll support it as well. Treasurer Butler. I really like this proposal. I 00:34:19.770 --> 00:34:26.956 - think this is exactly in the style and flavor of the house. And so I'm very happy to support it. Vice 00:34:26.956 --> 00:34:34.142 - Chair Baker. I agree with the staff recommendation and the changes to the two small existing windows. 00:34:34.978 --> 00:34:42.556 - And as for me, I think it's a contributing house. This is already an addition that's had work done on 00:34:42.556 --> 00:34:50.208 - it. And they're just kind of making it better. So I really have no issues with this at all. So OK. Any 00:34:50.208 --> 00:34:57.786 - other second comments from anybody before we move on? No? OK. I believe we're ready to call the roll. 00:34:57.786 --> 00:35:03.358 - All right. We'll take a roll call vote on COA 2620. Vice Chair Baker? Yes. 00:35:04.354 --> 00:35:11.230 - Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. 00:35:11.230 --> 00:35:18.242 - Chair Hackard? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That motion is approved 8-0. 00:35:18.242 --> 00:35:25.323 - All right. The motion passes. All right. Thank you very much for coming in and talking to us and giving 00:35:25.323 --> 00:35:28.318 - us all the plans. Appreciate it. All right. 00:35:29.378 --> 00:35:37.606 - Next up we have on the agenda is old business. Mr. Sanlis, do we have any old business to discuss? I 00:35:37.606 --> 00:35:45.835 - don't have any old business. Anybody have any other old business they'd like to go over? The way you 00:35:45.835 --> 00:35:54.144 - said that. All right. New business. So last time we met, we talked about being able to go through and 00:35:54.144 --> 00:35:57.566 - review the rules and procedures document. 00:35:57.858 --> 00:36:05.225 - Mr. Sandweiss uploaded into our Google Docs some documents that showed some changes, proposed changes 00:36:05.225 --> 00:36:13.170 - that I had kind of written out. I was gonna go through some of those, talk through sort of like my reasoning, 00:36:13.170 --> 00:36:20.682 - open up the floor, see if people have different reasoning or other sort of areas where they might wanna 00:36:20.682 --> 00:36:21.982 - make suggestions. 00:36:22.082 --> 00:36:27.695 - My goal here is to have a conversation. We're not going to vote on anything tonight because I think 00:36:27.695 --> 00:36:33.309 - what we want to do have a conversation. No one need to prepare something like what we did last time 00:36:33.309 --> 00:36:38.922 - where it was kind of like a resolution of we're going to adopt this kind of stuff. And we'll see if 00:36:38.922 --> 00:36:44.592 - we need to continue this to a discussion to another meeting or if you will make up something for the 00:36:44.592 --> 00:36:50.654 - next time. I just want to lay that out for everybody. But so first off, if you go into the document itself, 00:36:50.946 --> 00:36:57.699 - Article 1 is meetings. So Article 1A, that's where it had previously said we always have two meetings 00:36:57.699 --> 00:37:04.650 - every month, or the second and fourth Thursdays of every month. That does not apply in November, because 00:37:04.650 --> 00:37:11.470 - that would be Thanksgiving. And then in December, I mean, that's right around Christmas. We never meet 00:37:11.470 --> 00:37:14.846 - then. So my suggested wording changes in that was, 00:37:15.234 --> 00:37:22.114 - from January to October, the commission shall meet the second and fourth Thursdays of every month of 00:37:22.114 --> 00:37:29.197 - five. And then for November and December, the commission shall meet on the second Thursday of the month 00:37:29.197 --> 00:37:36.350 - only. Just to make that very clear and clean up anything, and I can't imagine how mad would a petitioner 00:37:36.350 --> 00:37:43.774 - be if we were doing something on Thanksgiving? And I wouldn't be here, so. Also in that section, Article 1D, 00:37:43.970 --> 00:37:50.382 - I've made a slight change. The agenda, and I entered it, for regularly scheduled meetings shall be set 00:37:50.382 --> 00:37:56.857 - at least six days before each meeting and emailed the members. I think for other meetings where I think 00:37:56.857 --> 00:38:03.207 - there's a possibility of calling an emergency meeting or whatever, that time frame might not hold up. 00:38:03.207 --> 00:38:09.557 - So I was trying to be clear of if it's regularly scheduled meeting, it needs to be the six days, just 00:38:09.557 --> 00:38:12.670 - to make sure we're all on the same page for that. 00:38:12.930 --> 00:38:21.673 - Section 1F, where it's talking about decisions and recommendations shall be by roll call vote. And then 00:38:21.673 --> 00:38:30.500 - I put in who is keeping track of that stuff. And I was suggesting this secretary indoor hand staff shall 00:38:30.500 --> 00:38:38.907 - record the vote of each commissioner. So just saying who's doing it and making that perfectly clear 00:38:38.907 --> 00:38:42.270 - in that section. Let's see. Section 1I. 00:38:42.498 --> 00:38:49.313 - This might be old, because I don't know if this, I did this on the part where we adopted some of the 00:38:49.313 --> 00:38:56.129 - new rules, so just bear with me a little bit. Section 1 I said all minutes or tape recordings of the 00:38:56.129 --> 00:39:03.146 - proceedings. I just said recordings. Like, we're not tape recording anything. And I don't think we need 00:39:03.146 --> 00:39:07.870 - to start doing that again to meet this. I think that would be insane. 00:39:09.538 --> 00:39:18.010 - And then toward the end of that section, there's 1K. It's just talking about basically there's places 00:39:18.010 --> 00:39:26.980 - where we're saying hand staff or staff liaison. I was just trying to clean it all up and make it consistent 00:39:26.980 --> 00:39:35.784 - throughout. And any place where it was in between, I just kind of made all of them hand staff, I believe, 00:39:35.784 --> 00:39:38.110 - just to make it very clear. 00:39:38.306 --> 00:39:45.783 - That's who this is. We're always consistently referring to those folks in that way. And then the last 00:39:45.783 --> 00:39:53.260 - item that's in that section 1L, it said, upon resignation of a commission member, the mayor within 90 00:39:53.260 --> 00:40:00.738 - days shall appoint a new member for the remainder of the resigning member's term. We have no power to 00:40:00.738 --> 00:40:07.262 - compel the mayor to do that at all. So I think this is kind of a, it doesn't hold weight 00:40:07.586 --> 00:40:16.477 - So I'm just suggesting we get rid of it. It's also already in state law and in our code. So we need 00:40:16.477 --> 00:40:25.812 - to have it here. We could say something like we shall request the mayor to leave that one alone. I think 00:40:25.812 --> 00:40:34.970 - just based on practice and what has happened, I mean, we can't compel whoever is the mayor to make any 00:40:34.970 --> 00:40:36.126 - nominations. 00:40:36.514 --> 00:40:45.093 - At all and this being in here is not gonna do anything one way or the other except for set up a false 00:40:45.093 --> 00:40:53.755 - expectation in my opinion so that is why I suggested we strike that but People disagree that's totally 00:40:53.755 --> 00:41:02.334 - fine Okay Next up was officers. This is where we've added the treasurer and secretary. Yes, please. I 00:41:02.466 --> 00:41:09.895 - So I went back and looked at all of your edits, and I had a couple of things to add to you to be consistent 00:41:09.895 --> 00:41:16.774 - with the changes from the council and your M. You had an M in there that was the removal for cause. 00:41:16.774 --> 00:41:23.790 - So as you know, losing your residency in the city or too many absences, you forfeit your seat. And so 00:41:23.790 --> 00:41:30.737 - we're trying to do more training and kind of get people up to speed. So one of the things in the new 00:41:30.737 --> 00:41:31.838 - code of conduct 00:41:32.002 --> 00:41:39.057 - is the attendance policy, and that that would constitute cause for removal. So there's language in there 00:41:39.057 --> 00:41:46.045 - now that just says exactly what the changes say to the code, which basically is that you can be removed 00:41:46.045 --> 00:41:52.764 - for cause, and that cause is violation of the code of conduct or absenteeism, and that it describes 00:41:52.764 --> 00:41:59.617 - what absenteeism is. So it's just to make it consistent. I have a question about the absenteeism. Who 00:41:59.617 --> 00:42:00.894 - keeps that record? 00:42:01.762 --> 00:42:07.937 - You know, who's watching whether we're here or not? And who notifies us? I found the language kind of 00:42:07.937 --> 00:42:14.234 - stiff. So the secretary or the recording secretary keeps it in the minutes. The clerk's office actually 00:42:14.234 --> 00:42:20.348 - is in charge of all of our boards and commissions. And so the deputy clerk has been the one assigned 00:42:20.348 --> 00:42:26.644 - to boards and commissions. And that's like 100% of her job, is looking at all of that. The letters come 00:42:26.644 --> 00:42:28.158 - from the clerk's office. 00:42:28.482 --> 00:42:34.396 - to notify people if they have been removed due to absenteeism. So we'll be running everything through 00:42:34.396 --> 00:42:40.193 - the clerk's office from now on. You mean we send the minutes to the clerk's office? She will either 00:42:40.193 --> 00:42:45.991 - work with the staff liaison, either she gets in and looks at them, or she'll ask for a report, or I 00:42:45.991 --> 00:42:51.847 - don't know. I think these are things that we're still trying to figure out, like whether it's on the 00:42:51.847 --> 00:42:57.760 - staff liaison to notify that somebody's been absent twice in a row, those kinds of things. I mean, we 00:42:57.760 --> 00:42:58.398 - are staff. 00:42:58.658 --> 00:43:05.732 - required to keep a record of who attends. So I mean, the way that this has worked in the past and that 00:43:05.732 --> 00:43:12.737 - I anticipate it working in the future is if this becomes an issue that we will have to actively share 00:43:12.737 --> 00:43:19.674 - that with the clerk's office. OK. I've also been kind of, I just kind of keep an eye on who's coming 00:43:19.674 --> 00:43:26.610 - and going as well and might just mention something to Noah on have we heard from someone in a while. 00:43:26.610 --> 00:43:28.190 - Good. Just to kind of. 00:43:28.738 --> 00:43:34.850 - Because sometimes stuff happens and people can't do anything. So they might need to move on. But I kind 00:43:34.850 --> 00:43:41.020 - of will check in on that. Commissioner Schlegel. So I actually have a question on that. So I'm not sure, 00:43:41.020 --> 00:43:47.014 - Anna, if it's for you, for Noah, or for Jeremy. For instance, since I have a board I report to at the 00:43:47.014 --> 00:43:48.542 - History Center, they will 00:43:48.738 --> 00:43:54.840 - at least twice a year, shift our meetings, which are always Thursdays. So I guarantee you, twice a year, 00:43:54.840 --> 00:44:00.943 - I'm going to miss them two meetings, which already puts me half down. And if I take a two-week vacation, 00:44:00.943 --> 00:44:06.871 - that's going to strike me down again. I mean, I'm going to have strike, strike, strike out. So I just 00:44:06.871 --> 00:44:12.973 - wanted to clarify, is there an excused absence for when I let Noah know, like, hey, Noah, my board moved 00:44:12.973 --> 00:44:16.286 - a meeting. As executive director, I have to attend this. 00:44:16.546 --> 00:44:23.201 - There actually is a process for extenuating circumstances, which you send it to the council, to whoever 00:44:23.201 --> 00:44:29.088 - appointed you, and basically explain that you have the two meeting conflict because of your 00:44:29.088 --> 00:44:35.550 - job responsibilities. And I don't think that that gets you out of being removed, but it gives you at 00:44:35.550 --> 00:44:36.894 - least a placeholder. 00:44:37.154 --> 00:44:43.028 - so that they would consider that if they were to consider removal based on absences. The fact that you 00:44:43.028 --> 00:44:48.845 - had given them that notice. And then same with vacay, because there's almost no time where I can take 00:44:48.845 --> 00:44:54.549 - two weeks of a vacation to go overseas and not miss one of these because of the frequency. So would 00:44:54.549 --> 00:45:00.480 - that be very similar as well to be able to say, hey, I have this trip planned. Don't remove me, because 00:45:00.480 --> 00:45:02.590 - I would like to go do something fun. 00:45:02.786 --> 00:45:08.421 - These meetings aren't exciting. Yeah, exactly. But I mean, I think that's going to be a huge thing for 00:45:08.421 --> 00:45:14.329 - anyone else that would be interested. When I've had people ask me if I would join the HPC or the commission 00:45:14.329 --> 00:45:19.910 - again, things like that. I mean, I'd flat out say no if I'm like, hey, I got removed because my board 00:45:19.910 --> 00:45:25.709 - moved two meetings, I took a vacation, and then I got sick. They gave me the boot. I mean, I think that's 00:45:25.709 --> 00:45:31.344 - going to be a big black mark on the city because I know I won't be the only one with that issue. Sure, 00:45:31.344 --> 00:45:32.766 - for sure. Could you read? 00:45:33.186 --> 00:45:39.910 - what that means. Could you please restate it, please? Do you want me to read all the removal for cause 00:45:39.910 --> 00:45:46.961 - or just that last bit? Just the absenteeism. Excessive absenteeism is a failure to attend three consecutive 00:45:46.961 --> 00:45:53.751 - regularly scheduled meetings of the board, commission, or council, or four regularly scheduled meetings 00:45:53.751 --> 00:46:00.475 - in any 12-month period, provided that any member may submit in writing to the appointing authority any 00:46:00.475 --> 00:46:02.238 - extenuating circumstances. 00:46:03.010 --> 00:46:10.078 - Such written submission may be made within five business days before the formal decision to remove is 00:46:10.078 --> 00:46:17.286 - reached. Acceptance of extenuating factors by the appointing official or body puts the member on notice 00:46:17.286 --> 00:46:24.354 - that a further excessive absenteeism shall result in removal. And as I've seen, the clerk's office in 00:46:24.354 --> 00:46:31.353 - these cases does reach out to the board member, board or commission member. So it won't be done with 00:46:31.353 --> 00:46:32.254 - zero notice. 00:46:33.090 --> 00:46:38.926 - So that does provide the opportunity for writing to have a copy. So for instance, if they noticed that 00:46:38.926 --> 00:46:44.763 - I was gone for being sick, the board shifting, took a vacation, they'd reach out to me and then I have 00:46:44.763 --> 00:46:50.826 - to reply within those five days or within five days of each of the times I missed. Sorry, I was processing 00:46:50.826 --> 00:46:53.886 - all of it. I'm not sure, but if you already know what 00:46:53.986 --> 00:46:59.671 - Do you know the meetings that your board has already moved those dates? It's always March, so I missed 00:46:59.671 --> 00:47:05.688 - that one last month. And then sometime around between October, November, December, there's usually something 00:47:05.688 --> 00:47:11.263 - weird that pops up, and we shift it. And then I know, for instance, in October, my plan right now is 00:47:11.263 --> 00:47:17.003 - to go overseas, but things might have gotten complicated. So may or may not pull that off. But I'm just 00:47:17.003 --> 00:47:22.302 - getting over being sick. I almost stepped down today, but I wanted to make this exact point is, 00:47:22.786 --> 00:47:28.395 - Because other places I've been, at least if you have a valid excuse, like, hey, I was throwing up. I 00:47:28.395 --> 00:47:34.226 - didn't want to be there, make everyone else sick. Or hey, I had this other obligation that happens every 00:47:34.226 --> 00:47:40.058 - so often. There's excused absences. So it doesn't sound like the city's granting that. And I just wanted 00:47:40.058 --> 00:47:45.611 - to make sure there was something with that. I think that language is actually intended to allow for 00:47:45.611 --> 00:47:51.998 - those circumstances. It doesn't exactly read like that, which is something we probably do need to address with our 00:47:52.354 --> 00:47:57.698 - Committee on Council Processes is the committee that works on this. But what I would do is I would go 00:47:57.698 --> 00:48:02.989 - ahead. I mean, you know what the agenda is, you know what the date is, and you can do that five days 00:48:02.989 --> 00:48:08.227 - before a meeting notice. So I would go ahead and do that on an individual basis unless you have all 00:48:08.227 --> 00:48:13.623 - your dates for the calendar year and you want to submit that one time at the beginning of the 12-month 00:48:13.623 --> 00:48:15.614 - period. And it's a rolling 12 months. 00:48:16.162 --> 00:48:21.727 - So that's the other thing, too, is that sometimes it just ends up being one of those things where it's 00:48:21.727 --> 00:48:27.345 - like, yeah, from December to December, it might have been an issue. But since it's a rolling 12 months, 00:48:27.345 --> 00:48:32.748 - you end up being in OK shape. So the intent is not to remove people who are actively participating. 00:48:32.748 --> 00:48:38.205 - The intent is to have a trigger for those that are just not showing up because they just didn't feel 00:48:38.205 --> 00:48:43.715 - like coming. Yeah, I think I would also just, in those sort of situations, I would pipe up in support 00:48:43.715 --> 00:48:44.958 - of that sort of stuff. 00:48:45.154 --> 00:48:50.614 - In your situation in particular, I mean, you attend pretty regularly. So I think it would be nuts if 00:48:50.614 --> 00:48:56.290 - we just kind of were like, OK, we've got to give Commissioner Schlegel the boot now because he got sick. 00:48:56.290 --> 00:49:02.021 - That's not what anybody's trying to discuss. So when it says appointing authority, do I have to literally 00:49:02.021 --> 00:49:07.481 - write a note to the mayor then, if I was appointed by the mayor's office? I would go ahead and write 00:49:07.481 --> 00:49:12.995 - it to the mayor's office with the CCD NOAA. Here's why I'm going to be absent, and thank you for, and 00:49:12.995 --> 00:49:14.238 - to the clerk's office. 00:49:14.562 --> 00:49:21.214 - So that the clerk's office has a record of it and Noah has a record of it that you've explained your 00:49:21.214 --> 00:49:27.207 - extenuating circumstances. So I know it sounds very procedural, but I think people who are 00:49:27.207 --> 00:49:34.122 - active participants like you will go through that effort of doing that. And the ones that aren't showing 00:49:34.122 --> 00:49:40.840 - up are probably not going to bother to do this process either. I think to your point, I feel like the 00:49:40.840 --> 00:49:41.630 - one meeting 00:49:41.890 --> 00:49:48.312 - Missing consecutive meetings over a long period of time, I get. But I think that every once in a while, 00:49:48.312 --> 00:49:54.611 - everybody deserves a vacation. So I hope so. I'm hopeful this city is flexible on this kind of stuff, 00:49:54.611 --> 00:50:00.847 - because we don't want to punish good public servants for doing stuff that we need done. So thank you 00:50:00.847 --> 00:50:02.206 - for bringing that up. 00:50:02.306 --> 00:50:08.419 - I'll be testing that this year for sure. I know I'm fine being a test case, but I just wanted to publicly 00:50:08.419 --> 00:50:14.358 - state that, because I know this is on the record, not tape recorded, but on the record. So I just want 00:50:14.358 --> 00:50:20.241 - to make sure that was really clear really early, because otherwise I'd just resign instead of getting 00:50:20.241 --> 00:50:26.469 - kicked off. So just to make it easier. Commissioner Duesner, did you have a question? I know that attending 00:50:26.469 --> 00:50:31.774 - by Zoom, we can't vote doesn't count toward crime. But does it count toward our attendance? 00:50:32.610 --> 00:50:38.734 - So yes, it counts towards your attendance. It doesn't count towards quorum. You have to have 50%. You 00:50:38.734 --> 00:50:44.799 - still have to have 50% in the room. But you can vote, though. But you can vote unless there's a list 00:50:44.799 --> 00:50:51.103 - of things you can't vote on, like a budget or a personnel appointment or something. There's a few things 00:50:51.103 --> 00:50:57.288 - like that that you cannot vote on. But since we don't have any money, that's not going to happen. Yay. 00:50:57.288 --> 00:51:00.350 - So I just wanted to clarify that in terms of like, 00:51:00.578 --> 00:51:06.561 - illness or travel, I may be doing some research travel and that kind of thing. Attending via Zoom is 00:51:06.561 --> 00:51:12.782 - not a problem, and I'm a little less worried about it now that we have more people, so we're more likely 00:51:12.782 --> 00:51:18.825 - that people, but anyway, that's good to know. I can bring some additional information. There are some 00:51:18.825 --> 00:51:24.808 - limitations about how much you can do that, so I think it's like two meetings in a row, no more than 00:51:24.808 --> 00:51:26.526 - 50% of the overall meetings. 00:51:26.690 --> 00:51:34.561 - that they wrote into the state law after they kind of removed all the COVID restrictions, which allowed 00:51:34.561 --> 00:51:42.356 - you to do it all the time. So we can definitely talk about that, but it is allowed on a limited basis, 00:51:42.356 --> 00:51:50.000 - and it doesn't count towards Quorum. OK. Any other questions on this first section? Any other things 00:51:50.000 --> 00:51:53.406 - that we've covered thus far? OK. So next up. 00:51:53.506 --> 00:52:00.856 - Obviously, in the Article 2 as officers, we've added the treasurer and the secretary since we've already 00:52:00.856 --> 00:52:08.065 - voted those in and noted that the commission, well, a non-member can serve as secretary. I think we're 00:52:08.065 --> 00:52:15.345 - still working through how exactly we're going to phrase that. But hopefully, maybe by the next meeting, 00:52:15.345 --> 00:52:22.974 - we'll have that sort of figured out as to how that appointment process will work and move forward with that. 00:52:23.458 --> 00:52:30.730 - What are some of the other major things that I changed in here? A lot of the stuff for certificates 00:52:30.730 --> 00:52:38.074 - of appropriateness, some of the sort of like the management of those things was kind of put onto the 00:52:38.074 --> 00:52:45.346 - vice chair. I went through and suggested all the edits that it be hand staff that is handling a lot 00:52:45.346 --> 00:52:51.454 - of that sort of administrative stuff that seems much more a staff thing rather than 00:52:51.682 --> 00:53:00.762 - a commissioner sort of appointment. Let's see, what else? And then I think we might want to talk about 00:53:00.762 --> 00:53:09.666 - the procedure for if a petitioner is not attending in a meeting. So I don't know if you want to talk 00:53:09.666 --> 00:53:18.747 - through how we might need to make some edits there. So a petitioner has their thing on the agenda, but 00:53:18.747 --> 00:53:20.510 - they don't show up. 00:53:21.346 --> 00:53:27.665 - is continuing it considered action or not. So how are we going to handle it? Could you kind of talk 00:53:27.665 --> 00:53:34.111 - through that for me? So we were talking about a situation where you all have a 30-day clock, where if 00:53:34.111 --> 00:53:40.620 - you don't take an action on a certificate of appropriateness, it's deemed approved. And that's a state 00:53:40.620 --> 00:53:41.694 - law requirement. 00:53:42.114 --> 00:53:50.019 - And so what about the situation where you accept an application, the person doesn't show up, they don't 00:53:50.019 --> 00:53:58.153 - show up again, you don't have a quorum and all of a sudden 30 days are over and they're basically approved 00:53:58.153 --> 00:54:06.590 - even if some of the lack of effort was on their end. And so we are trying to figure out a way to address that. 00:54:07.074 --> 00:54:14.267 - so that a petitioner can't just not show up enough times to be deemed approved just because our bylaws 00:54:14.267 --> 00:54:21.250 - say that they have to be present, which is actually not part of the state law, that they have to be 00:54:21.250 --> 00:54:28.303 - present in order for their petition to be considered. So something like you guys could have a denial 00:54:28.303 --> 00:54:29.630 - without prejudice, 00:54:29.954 --> 00:54:35.642 - which if they miss one meeting the next time you take it up, you deny it without prejudice if they're 00:54:35.642 --> 00:54:41.387 - not going to be there and say, we're denying without prejudice, we will allow this person to come back 00:54:41.387 --> 00:54:47.075 - with the same application if they notify NOAA within that 12 days prior to the next agenda. Something 00:54:47.075 --> 00:54:52.819 - like that so that we can allow the person an opportunity not to have to submit a whole new application 00:54:52.819 --> 00:54:57.950 - and get a new application number, but to stop that clock so that people aren't just getting 00:54:58.082 --> 00:55:03.741 - their certificates of appropriateness granted just because they're not showing up. Now, if it's an issue 00:55:03.741 --> 00:55:09.400 - of a quorum or you guys don't get to it or something, you know, you guys are on break and it's something 00:55:09.400 --> 00:55:14.897 - that's a commission-related delay, then I think we take our lumps, right? Because then that's exactly 00:55:14.897 --> 00:55:20.394 - why that 30-day shot clock is in there is so that a petitioner doesn't have to wait if the commission 00:55:20.394 --> 00:55:22.334 - is unable to get to their business. 00:55:23.618 --> 00:55:30.194 - I think that makes a lot of sense of just making sure we have some kind of action. And at least for 00:55:30.194 --> 00:55:36.837 - me, I think it would be nice if you would be able to draft maybe some of that language that we could 00:55:36.837 --> 00:55:43.479 - look at. I'd feel much more comfortable coming from you of making sure that it kind of complies with 00:55:43.479 --> 00:55:50.187 - all the laws and ordinances and things of that nature. And sorry, I should have mentioned this at the 00:55:50.187 --> 00:55:50.910 - beginning. 00:55:51.330 --> 00:55:57.609 - A continuation is not considered an action for the purposes of this statute. The action is either approve 00:55:57.609 --> 00:56:03.710 - or deny. The continuation is just considered kind of a procedural move. So you cannot do it unless you 00:56:03.710 --> 00:56:09.693 - have the approval of the outside party. So if the petitioner for some reason said, oh, yeah, I agree 00:56:09.693 --> 00:56:14.846 - to 30 days. I really want to come back. I'm sorry. I was sick, or I couldn't be there. 00:56:15.138 --> 00:56:21.157 - then they could submit in writing the fact that they would agree to a continuation. And in that case, 00:56:21.157 --> 00:56:27.118 - that does toll the 30 days. But otherwise, a continuation that's just done on your end does not stop 00:56:27.118 --> 00:56:33.373 - that clock. OK. I think that's good, just to make sure we're kind of on the right side of all this stuff, 00:56:33.373 --> 00:56:39.510 - especially if somebody comes back and challenges something. We've had the right procedure and have done 00:56:39.510 --> 00:56:43.582 - the right thing, just to ensure the COAs are approved appropriately. 00:56:44.098 --> 00:56:51.146 - So thank you for that. Throughout this section, again, most of these changes were hand staff is being 00:56:51.146 --> 00:56:58.195 - responsible for doing things. Trying to see if any other major tweaks, like there are a couple places 00:56:58.195 --> 00:57:05.105 - where I put in like commas and stuff. I don't know if we need to go into the specific line of where 00:57:05.105 --> 00:57:12.153 - that is. And then let's see if there was any other massive change that I had suggested. I don't think 00:57:12.153 --> 00:57:13.950 - so. I think that kind of, 00:57:14.594 --> 00:57:22.309 - was the majority of my sort of major changes that I had suggested. Did other people when they read through 00:57:22.309 --> 00:57:29.519 - this, were there any points of sort of they had questions or they wanted clarification or something 00:57:29.519 --> 00:57:36.440 - or perhaps had some suggested language that they think should be added? Or if you didn't do it, 00:57:36.440 --> 00:57:40.766 - that's okay. I like what you're doing here and I think that 00:57:41.122 --> 00:57:47.613 - by tightening up and the imaginary force is being removed and it's becoming a person from hand or you 00:57:47.613 --> 00:57:54.167 - know, I think that's straightforward and I think it's the right direction. So I appreciate what you've 00:57:54.167 --> 00:58:00.721 - done and I'm on the same page. Okay. So I think maybe next time around if you can kind of maybe figure 00:58:00.721 --> 00:58:07.212 - out that language for the person not showing up and what we need to do and maybe share that with Noah 00:58:07.212 --> 00:58:09.630 - if we could put together sort of that 00:58:11.810 --> 00:58:18.383 - I don't know. It was a resolution or something. Right. I could write another version of that resolution. 00:58:18.383 --> 00:58:24.769 - Yeah, too. Then we could look at it one last time and vote on accepting it or denying it at that time 00:58:24.769 --> 00:58:31.342 - if people are comfortable with it. Or if you'd like another meeting to think about it, I'm OK with that, 00:58:31.342 --> 00:58:37.602 - too. I'm happy to hear suggestions on that. Does next meeting sound good? It seems like by consent, 00:58:37.602 --> 00:58:39.230 - that seems all right. OK. 00:58:39.330 --> 00:58:47.681 - Well, that brings us to the end of that section of the agenda. Next up, commissioner comments. Do any 00:58:47.681 --> 00:58:56.033 - of my fellow commissioners have any things that they would like to share? I just want to thank all of 00:58:56.033 --> 00:59:04.548 - you guys. I think you're a really great commission to serve on. I appreciate all of your personalities. 00:59:04.548 --> 00:59:08.478 - I think this has been, I don't know, enjoyable. 00:59:08.642 --> 00:59:17.207 - It's sort of weird, but I appreciate you guys. Thank you, Treasurer Butler. Any other comments? If not, 00:59:17.207 --> 00:59:26.267 - I would like to share a couple of comments. We have had a changeover in commissioners for advisory positions. 00:59:26.267 --> 00:59:35.326 - So we have a new commissioner who will be joining us, Carrie Champion. She's the director of the Wiley House. 00:59:35.714 --> 00:59:43.370 - Unfortunately, that means that we are losing Duncan Campbell. And I wanted to take some time to thank 00:59:43.370 --> 00:59:51.102 - Duncan for his decades of work on historic preservation around the state. His time at Ball State where 00:59:51.102 --> 00:59:59.209 - he taught, and then all of the work that he did in town for this building, Wiley House, Johnson's Creamery. 00:59:59.209 --> 01:00:05.214 - Historic preservation in the city would not look the same if it wasn't for him. 01:00:05.730 --> 01:00:14.348 - And so I just want to thank him in this venue for all of that work and all of the years that he spent 01:00:14.348 --> 01:00:22.796 - on this commission in voting and non-voting roles. He is a font of knowledge. And I hate to see him 01:00:22.796 --> 01:00:31.499 - go, but I just want to send thanks to him. I will miss his opinion, for sure. So ineligible. Yes, very 01:00:31.499 --> 01:00:32.766 - knowledgeable. 01:00:33.442 --> 01:00:39.178 - All right, next up is public comments. Are there members of the public who would like to speak? If you 01:00:39.178 --> 01:00:44.803 - would like, you can state your name and you have three minutes. My name is James Ford. I just wanted 01:00:44.803 --> 01:00:50.428 - to comment about something that was discussed earlier today. And maybe this is something that has to 01:00:50.428 --> 01:00:56.275 - work at the state level. But in a secondary school, if a teacher is absent, there's a pool of substitute 01:00:56.275 --> 01:01:01.566 - teachers that they can call and say, hey, will you come in and sit down for my class that day? 01:01:01.890 --> 01:01:08.091 - It seems like there could be some knowledgeable people or non-voting people who could stand in for a 01:01:08.091 --> 01:01:14.230 - voting member who's going to be absent. They know they're going to be, so it wouldn't count against 01:01:14.230 --> 01:01:20.492 - their. Oh, like have a proxy vote? Like each person could have a proxy? Maybe. That would be an issue 01:01:20.492 --> 01:01:26.754 - for the mayor, because the mayor appoints all the voting members. It's something that we've looked at 01:01:26.754 --> 01:01:30.622 - in the past. It just sort of runs into a brick wall there. No. 01:01:30.914 --> 01:01:39.251 - Is there any other public comments in the room? Any public comments online? No? Okay. Well, we have 01:01:39.251 --> 01:01:44.254 - come to the end of our agenda so this meeting is adjourned.