All right, I'm calling to order the Thursday, March 26, 2026 meeting of the Bloomington Historic Preservation
Commission meeting or commission to order. Would staff please call the roll? Drew Herron? Jack Baker?
Here. John Butler? Here. Ernesto Castaneda? Melanie Duesner? Karen Duffy? Here. Jeff Golden? Here. Jeremy
Hackard? Here.
Abby Hanson. Here. Perfect timing. Daniel Legel. Here. We have quorum. Excellent. I have a motion on
the minutes for March 12. Motion approved. I'll second that. I have one. Oh. Oh. OK. Sorry. I would
suggest on COA 2611, it lists the owner is attending virtually, but the owner was here in person.
Thank you. Good eye for detail.
to approve subject to that change. And I will second that. OK, so we have motion approved subject to
my change, seconded by John Butler. Or was it already changed? I guess the petitioner was online. The
petitioner was online and the owner was here in person. OK. All right, great.
So we have a motion moved and seconded to accept the minutes with that correction. We'll go ahead and
take a vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes. Jeff Golden? Yes. Jeremy Hacker? Yes.
Abby Hanson? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Well, I'm staying. I wasn't here. The minutes are approved. OK.
Next up, we have the election of treasurer. We are required by the city council to have a treasurer.
For this commission, we have $0. But if anybody would like to nominate themselves or nominate someone
for treasurer, I would be willing to hear a motion. Do we have a second to nominate? Commissioner Butler,
we have a second. Any discussion? Any strenuous objections? Yes, are there any other nominees?
Hearing none, I think we're ready to call the roll. OK, it's been moved and seconded to accept John
Butler as treasurer. We'll take that vote. Jack Baker? Yes. John Butler? Yes. Karen Duffy? Yes.
Jeff Bolden? Yes. Jeremy Hackers? Yes. Abby Hanson? Yes. Daniel Schlegel? Oh, yes. And may I please
have, for the record, who made that motion and who seconded it?
I made the motion. Thank you. And then second was Jessica. Thank you. All right. So it passes.
Congratulations, Treasurer Butler. Thank you so much. Very important. Yes. We're one of those banker
advisors. Yes. Please come prepared. All right. Next up, discussion point, procedural adjustments. We
adopted Robert's rules at our last meeting. So there's a couple of things that we're going to need to tweak.
Going forward, the basic format of how we've been doing things is pretty much on point. There's just
some tweaks, so it's going to go over those just so we're all on the same page. Per Robert's rules,
I'll be more formal in referring to folks. I'm going to try to do that so it'll always be Commissioner
so-and-so, no first names. I encourage everybody to also adopt that sort of format.
For comments, when we do the comments period, everybody is allowed to comment up to two times. So if
you've said something we've gone through and you want to respond to something else, you're allowed to
do that. I just ask people raise their hands and I can return to them. But it is a limit of two times.
So just so we're all aware of that function. Whoever makes a motion is given the chance to speak first.
So if anybody moves to approve or deny anything, I will start the conversation with them, and then we'll
be able to go around the room and have our comments. For public comments, there's a three-minute time
limit for when people are talking. That'll be regularly enforced. Going forward, I will restate the
motion before asking for a second. That is a common thing.
Previously, I should have said Commissioner Schlegel has moved that Commissioner Butler be named treasurer.
Is there a second? So I'll start taking on that sort of format. So I might get tongue-tied on that,
ask for a little bit of patience as I'm trying to get used to that. I'll also announce the results of
the vote and state if it has passed or not. I have Robert's rules here and has got Robert's rules. So
if we get into it.
conundrum on something, we can do deep research. We typically don't need that level of detail, but we're
going to try to adhere to the Roberts rules as best we can. So any sort of questions about that? No?
OK. Just wanted to make sure we were kind of all on the same page. So next up, we have staff review
of certificates of appropriateness. I will turn it over to Mr. Sandler. Thanks.
So first up on the agenda this evening, 411 South Valentine in the Elm Heights Historic District. Petitioner
is Michael King. This house is an excellent example of a Tudor revival slash English cottage style.
Notable features include the asymmetrical facade and steeply pitched roof. The textured brick facade
is unusual, though reminiscent of early English cottages, which inspired this style.
The arch door and six over six wood stash windows are still present at this house. Um, and this house
has not been altered since construction, not substantially. A wood deck protrudes over an edge at the
back of the house. The design is very conventional. The request proposed is to demolish the existing
deck and replace it with a wood deck of slightly greater dimensions.
Um, let's see. So, um, it'll be extended nine feet, sorry, four feet in length from the rear of the
house. Um, also the railing is to be brought up to four feet in height, which is slightly taller than
36 inches of the current railing.
And staff approved COA 2616. This application does not involve the removal or damage of historic materials
and would replace an existing feature to the rear of the property. The differences in design between
the current and proposed decks is minor and would not inappropriately increase the feature's visibility
or scale. I hope you enjoyed that because there's more decks I came from.
Okay. 1305 South Madison Street in the McDowell Historic District. This is for petition COA 2618. 1305
South Madison Street is a severely altered 1925 California bungalow with an enclosed mid-century limestone
front porch. A second story wood deck protrudes from the rear of the property. This application would seek to
increase the length of the rear deck perpendicular to the back of the house from 16 feet in length to
20 feet in length, but otherwise the height and width would be retained. And staff approved CA 2618
for the same reasons.
This application does not involve the removal or damage of historic materials and would replace an existing
feature to the rear of the property. The differences in design between the current and proposed decks
is negligible. Thank you, Mr. Samweis. For those who were joining us online for those staff approvals,
those are approved. So congratulations. Next up, we have COAs for commission review. I'm going to read
our statement on procedure for this.
For each item on the agenda, the Historic Preservation Program Manager will first present a staff report.
We will then hear if the petitioner has any additional information about the 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 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, actually a chance to speak twice,
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. Mr. Samwise. Thank you, Mr. Hackard.
All right, this petition is COA 2617. Petitioner is Craig Furman. Is the petitioner present? I am.
Thank you. All right, great. 509 West Allen in the McDowell Historic District is a notable example of
a colonial revival house. Notable features contributing to this house include the cornice returns, limestone
sills and lintels, the brick siding, the front porch,
the original wood windows and doors throughout the house, the limestone belt course at the foundation
line, the limestone foundation, and that the house remains largely unchanged from the date of construction.
This application would seek to replace the asphalt shingle roof with a matte charcoal gray standing
seam roof. Existing trim and chimney would remain uncovered.
recommendation from staff is for approval of COA 2617. The McDowell Historic District guidelines on
roofs are somewhat unusual, as in some circumstances the specific roofing material can contribute
significantly to a building's architectural integrity. This district includes a mix of folk Victorian,
craftsman, and colonial revival style houses, most of which have either asphalt shingle or standing
seam roofs.
Although some of these are replacements, they're generally associated with these architectural movements.
Nevertheless, the significance of historic roofing material needs consideration, particularly on a building
of notable architectural significance. The contributing brick house next door has had its asphalt shingle
roof replaced with a gray standing seam roof in the late 2010s. Some of the features that warrant this
building's
Notable rating on the state survey include its portico, crenellated stone fence, and original 4 over
1 windows. In the opinion of staff, the replacement of the existing roofing material would not result
in a downgrading of this property's survey rating. Does the petitioner have anything that he would like
to add? No, I think you covered it well, and I appreciate your considering this. All right. Thank you
very much. Are there any public comments regarding this petition?
room, online. Now is the time to make any comments, by the way, about this petitioner. Does staff see
anybody? I do not. OK. Well, I think we'll start off with questions then. Commissioner Baker, do you
have any questions? Yes. Is the intent of the petitioner to duplicate the roof that's next door? It
looks like a standing seam.
black, non-reflective. Is it your intent to pretty much be very similar or identical to that roof? I
think in the ballpark, but the roof next to us is not standing seam. I don't know the right word for
it, but it's the other kind of metal roof. So what we're trying to do is an actual standing seam. And
the roof next door is kind of reflective and shiny. We're going to get one that is approved. We're going
to get one that is
not reflective at all, just so it doesn't blind neighbors. I think it'd be less of an issue with it
being a two-story house in a neighborhood that's mostly one story, but still we want to get a premium
roof that's actually standing steam and then has the sort of powdered, less reflective tone to it.
Thank you. I see a color palette here with three different shades. Which color are you looking at?
I think we're flexible on that, but my wife and I found ourselves going to the middle one, I guess,
because we think it would complement the brick. And the brick is why we fell in love with the house,
and I think what's most distinctive about it. So something that sort of doesn't take away from the brick
and from the white trim. Thank you. Commissioner Golden, any questions? No questions. Treasurer Butler,
any questions? No questions. Commissioner Schlegel? No questions. Commissioner Hanson? No questions.
Commissioner Duffy? No questions.
I have a question for our esteemed staff member. For colonial revival houses, how common is it to see
a standing seam metal roof on them? So for this period, it would usually be either asphalt or slate
shingle. It's not particularly unusual. A lot of colonial or colonial revival houses have in time had
replacement standing seam roofs, which
that technology has been in use in the U.S. I mean, increasingly, I'd say, since like mid-century. Okay.
Would, in your opinion, do you think the standing seam roof with the color that they're choosing would,
do you think it would match the appearance of the historic material? Yeah, in my opinion. Something
that I mentioned in my staff report is
Something that's a little unusual in the McDowell guidelines, the way that they handle roofing materials,
is that the recommendation, the preferable recommendation, is to maintain the original materials or
those used by contributing properties nearby. That's a little difficult because there could be instances
where roofing material really does contribute a lot to what characterizes the architectural style of a house.
I don't think that for this house, and in general, this style, although some exceptions, that this change
to roofing materials would have much of an impact on its historic or architectural significance. OK.
And because it's notable, could be eligible for National Register
Nominations with the replacement with this roof material. Do you think it would affect? No That's that's
really part of my consideration here. Um, I don't think that's One of the factors that really contributes
to this building significance Okay Any other follow-up questions All right, I will entertain a motion
on the COA I
Okay, Commissioner Golden has moved to approve this. Is there a second? Second. Okay, there's a second
by Commissioner Schlegel. Commissioner Golden, do you want to offer any comments? I think that there's
not going to be much difference based on what I've seen before and the colors they're choosing and the
appearance of the roof, other than the standing scene. So I think that this is acceptable.
Commissioner Schlegel, you seconded. Do you have any other comments you want? I have nothing else to
add to what Commissioner Golden said. All right, thank you very much. We'll go around there. Vice Chair
Baker, anything? I agree that it just doesn't do really anything to change the appearance or the character
of the house. It's a two-story house. Anyone walking by will not see the roof. You have to be some distance
away to see it.
I don't find the roof objectionable from a historic preservation point of view, and I agree with the
staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN CLARE DUDA. Yeah, I think this is fine in terms of historical preservation.
I don't see how it would interfere with that at all. I have a standing seam roof on my house. It was
installed about 15 years ago, and we are going to have to replace it because it was poorly installed.
So I would just warn the petitioner to,
select a very good company because it can go wrong. So those are my comments. Commissioner Hanson. Yeah,
per the staff recommendation, it doesn't seem like it would impact the state survey or national historic
registry status if that were to come into play. So I have no objections. Commissioner Duffy. I would
support it for the same reason. I think Mr. Samwise thought it through very carefully and very well.
Yes. For me, I think our program manager's explanation of going through those questions and answering
them satisfied my curiosity and easing my concerns. So I will be supporting this going forward.
All right. Any other secondary comments anybody wants to make? All right. Wood staff, please call the
roll for approval of COA 2617. OK. So that has been moved and seconded. We'll take a roll call vote.
Vice Chair Baker? Yes. Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair
Hackard? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That motion does pass 7-0. All right.
That motion approves. All right. To our presenter, thank you very much for submitting this and for visiting
us today. All right. Next up, we have COA 2619.
I'm just seeing advice taken away. All right. This application for a certificate of appropriateness
2619 is for 301 East Glendora Drive in the Matlock Heights Historic District. Is the petitioner present?
Yes, I'm here. All right. This is a contributing 1957 ranch, features three
picture windows and a recessed side porch. In August of 2025, the current petitioner applied for the
addition of a basement egress window on the east elevation. The commission failed to achieve a quorum
of upcoming August 28th meeting, and the petitioner was informed that this item had been rescheduled
to September 11th. Although the petitioner answered subsequent questions from staff, he was not in attendance
for the subsequent meeting.
between September 11th and October 5th, the city was informed that the work described in the application
had been completed without the granting of a certificate of appropriateness. A notice of violation was
sent to the listed address on October 6th, 2025, and a follow-up letter was sent on November 17th. Neither
letter received a reply. The subsequent application for retroactive approval was received
after the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Development established direct contact with a property
owner. So as then, this application is for the now retroactive approval of a window installed at the
basement level of the east elevation of 301 East Glendora Drive. You can see here where a window well
has been installed and flashing along the limestone.
as well as a layout of the new basement bedroom in which the egress window has been added. Does the
petitioner have anything else that he would like to add? No. OK. So the staff recommendation in this
case is for approval of 2619. While the added window is visible from the road east of the property,
it's low profile and covered well, minimize its overall impact.
A wide transom is the most noticeable part of the installation. Installed in a secondary elevation at
the basement level below an existing window, its impact on the historic material and character defining
features does not appear significant. That being said, without a sufficiently detailed description of
the visible exterior alteration, it cannot be approved or exempted from review as a matter of faith.
Any public comments regarding COA 2619? In the room? Looks like no. Online? OK. Well, we'll start off
with commissioner questions. Vice Chair Baker, do you have any questions? For the petitioner, you put
us in a peculiar position. Having to review this already done,
My question is, why? Why did you go ahead and install this when you received notice at least twice that
you needed to come before the commission? Yeah, I apologize about that. I showed up to the first meeting,
and I didn't realize that it had been canceled. I hadn't received any notification, because there was
no quorum. And then after that, I just forgot about it, and the letters were sent to the not to my home
address. So I didn't actually receive them.
you know, I believe that they were sent. And then we had contractors line up so that they installed
it. So as you can see, right, the window is there for the safety of that new bedroom. Thank you. Commissioner
Golden. No questions. Treasurer Butler. No questions. Commissioner Seidler. Commissioner Hanson.
No questions. Commissioner Duffy. No questions.
I don't think I have any questions either. So I will entertain a motion on the COA. So moved. I'll read
which number it is. 2619. 2619. To approve COA 2619. OK. Commissioner Schlegel has moved to approve.
Second by Commissioner Golden. Commissioner Schlegel, would you like to offer any comments at this time?
Commissioner Golden, you second. Do you have any other comments on that? No, I have no other comments.
All right, Vice Chair Baker. I don't like being put in this position. It was close to being fined or
a lien put on the house. It could have been avoided. That's all I have to say. OK. Treasurer Butler.
I agree with Vice Chair Baker's concerns about the timeline of this.
but I feel that Overall the change is Tolerable it doesn't seem to have affected the historic fabric
and so I will vote to approve Commissioner Duffy I think my comments would be
Just to, if you are going to do any other work on this house or if you have any other instar clones,
just make sure you're checking in with our program manager on any COAs that might need to be done and
make sure you get those submitted before you do any work on future things. I think perhaps maybe this
time we lucked out on this one, but we just want to make sure we do everything in the order that it
should be done. So I just ask that you think about that in the future.
Yes, go ahead. That prompts me a comment. I thought that be sure, if that does happen, if you want to
do more work, make sure that you give the office your correct address for any future contact. Yes. That's
a great point. Any other comments? OK. Hearing none, I believe we're ready to call the roll.
We'll take a roll call vote on COA 2619. There is a motion to approve. Vice Chair Baker. I'm going to
say before I vote that if this comes up, anything like this comes up again from this House or others
that the petitioner might own, might bring to us, the vote might be different. But I'm going to be easy
this time and vote yes.
Treasurer Butler? I vote yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes. Chair Haggard? Yes.
Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That motion is approved 7-0. All right. Thank
you very much for coming in. I appreciate it. Next up, we have COA 2620, Mr. Sinales. All right.
Petition for COA 2620. This is for 2320 North Fritz Drive in the Matlock Heights Historic District.
Petitioner is Ian Yarbrough. Is the petitioner present? All right. This request is for the addition
of four large contiguous windows on the front-facing facade of an enclosed addition and an additional
large squarish window on the north end of the addition. I'll show you what I mean.
Built in 1950, 2320 North Fritz Drive is a massed ranch with some populous modern features, including
its front door and horizontally oriented transom windows. On its north stand is an enclosed carport
or patio. As you can see here, this is for the request of the installation of the window so described.
The staff recommendation is for approval of COA 2620. The additional windows on what appears to be an
enclosed patio or carport would not alter the contributing features of the house. The fact that this
addition has been visibly altered from its original appearance means that the addition of the new windows
to this appendix of the building would not convey a false sense of history, while the new fenestration
pattern complements the house's mid-century aesthetic and references the original open nature of this
part of the house.
Does the petitioner have anything that he would like to add? No. I have one recommendation from a friend.
The smaller two windows on the north side, I'm probably going to move those up to align with that new
window, and then move them back a little bit. I kind of have a sketch up here of just kind of make them
more evenly distributed. But other than that.
Are there any public comments on this petition in the room? Any comments online? No? All right. We'll
start off with questions. We'll start. Well, Melanie just got here. Vice Chair Baker, do you have any
questions? I heard what you said, but I didn't tweak. Could you go over that again? Right. So those
two existing windows, the smaller, higher, I guess,
Could you go up and point to them, please? If you wouldn't mind, it would make things a lot clearer.
Thank you. We're going to kind of more evenly distribute them across that side of the wall and then
bring them up to a line with the top of the new window. Are you planning, are these large plate glass
without mullions, without any kind of grills, just plain. And as I understand it, the two end windows
are hinged to open out. Is that correct? And they're somewhat taller. How much taller are they than
the one window just around the quarter that's the original?
It looks to be six or eight inches. It should be about the same. I think that's what we ordered, was
45 inches tall. And that's what the existing windows are. That's the height of that window that's existing?
Right, the height of the front window. That double long. Thank you. Commissioner Golden, do you have
any questions? No questions. Treasurer Butler. No question. Commissioner Schlegel. Could you go back
one slide, actually?
You mentioned that the addition had already had some alterations, I think, but I didn't catch what those
were. So it was originally an open area that looks like it has since been enclosed. The inside wall
of the original, I guess it's a brick molding going into the kitchen, and then there's also siding behind
the wall board in there. So as part of the renovation, tearing all that out.
but it used to be an exterior wall at one point. That answers my question. Thank you. Commissioner Duesner,
do you have any questions? Commissioner Duffy. No, I was going to ask about those two little windows,
so I appreciate that you thought that out. We'll be closing up the other two openings on the wall as
well, the weird strange heater vent on the window you see there.
So I think I will entertain a motion on COA 2620. I have one. Yeah, please. You described this house
as a ranch. Yeah. Thank you. I actually, if you don't mind me asking a question, or point of order,
I just wanted to clarify whether any motion that would be made, and I guess this would be up to whoever's
making the motion.
would include the described additional work, moving those two existing windows and any changes to the
exterior mechanicals. It'll be up to whoever makes the motion, so we'll see what we get. I move to approve
COA 26-20, including the exhibit presented to us today, moving the two small windows on the side of that. OK.
Golden has moved to approve COIA 26-20 with the additional windows. And Commissioner Duffy seconds.
All right, Commissioner Golden, you have any comments? It looks like a good project that's not going
to change the appeal of this house and probably make that room a lot more functional. So I'm going to
support it. OK, Commissioner Duffy. I like the way it complements the mid-century modern look. All right.
Commissioner Duesner, any comments? Commissioner Hanson. Commissioner Schlegel. I agree with Commissioner
Duffy and her comments, so I'll support it as well. Treasurer Butler. I really like this proposal. I
think this is exactly in the style and flavor of the house. And so I'm very happy to support it. Vice
Chair Baker. I agree with the staff recommendation and the changes to the two small existing windows.
And as for me, I think it's a contributing house. This is already an addition that's had work done on
it. And they're just kind of making it better. So I really have no issues with this at all. So OK. Any
other second comments from anybody before we move on? No? OK. I believe we're ready to call the roll.
All right. We'll take a roll call vote on COA 2620. Vice Chair Baker? Yes.
Treasurer Butler? Yes. Commissioner Duesner? Yes. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Commissioner Golden? Yes.
Chair Hackard? Yes. Commissioner Hanson? Yes. Commissioner Schlegel? Yes. That motion is approved 8-0.
All right. The motion passes. All right. Thank you very much for coming in and talking to us and giving
us all the plans. Appreciate it. All right.
Next up we have on the agenda is old business. Mr. Sanlis, do we have any old business to discuss? I
don't have any old business. Anybody have any other old business they'd like to go over? The way you
said that. All right. New business. So last time we met, we talked about being able to go through and
review the rules and procedures document.
Mr. Sandweiss uploaded into our Google Docs some documents that showed some changes, proposed changes
that I had kind of written out. I was gonna go through some of those, talk through sort of like my reasoning,
open up the floor, see if people have different reasoning or other sort of areas where they might wanna
make suggestions.
My goal here is to have a conversation. We're not going to vote on anything tonight because I think
what we want to do have a conversation. No one need to prepare something like what we did last time
where it was kind of like a resolution of we're going to adopt this kind of stuff. And we'll see if
we need to continue this to a discussion to another meeting or if you will make up something for the
next time. I just want to lay that out for everybody. But so first off, if you go into the document itself,
Article 1 is meetings. So Article 1A, that's where it had previously said we always have two meetings
every month, or the second and fourth Thursdays of every month. That does not apply in November, because
that would be Thanksgiving. And then in December, I mean, that's right around Christmas. We never meet
then. So my suggested wording changes in that was,
from January to October, the commission shall meet the second and fourth Thursdays of every month of
five. And then for November and December, the commission shall meet on the second Thursday of the month
only. Just to make that very clear and clean up anything, and I can't imagine how mad would a petitioner
be if we were doing something on Thanksgiving? And I wouldn't be here, so. Also in that section, Article 1D,
I've made a slight change. The agenda, and I entered it, for regularly scheduled meetings shall be set
at least six days before each meeting and emailed the members. I think for other meetings where I think
there's a possibility of calling an emergency meeting or whatever, that time frame might not hold up.
So I was trying to be clear of if it's regularly scheduled meeting, it needs to be the six days, just
to make sure we're all on the same page for that.
Section 1F, where it's talking about decisions and recommendations shall be by roll call vote. And then
I put in who is keeping track of that stuff. And I was suggesting this secretary indoor hand staff shall
record the vote of each commissioner. So just saying who's doing it and making that perfectly clear
in that section. Let's see. Section 1I.
This might be old, because I don't know if this, I did this on the part where we adopted some of the
new rules, so just bear with me a little bit. Section 1 I said all minutes or tape recordings of the
proceedings. I just said recordings. Like, we're not tape recording anything. And I don't think we need
to start doing that again to meet this. I think that would be insane.
And then toward the end of that section, there's 1K. It's just talking about basically there's places
where we're saying hand staff or staff liaison. I was just trying to clean it all up and make it consistent
throughout. And any place where it was in between, I just kind of made all of them hand staff, I believe,
just to make it very clear.
That's who this is. We're always consistently referring to those folks in that way. And then the last
item that's in that section 1L, it said, upon resignation of a commission member, the mayor within 90
days shall appoint a new member for the remainder of the resigning member's term. We have no power to
compel the mayor to do that at all. So I think this is kind of a, it doesn't hold weight
So I'm just suggesting we get rid of it. It's also already in state law and in our code. So we need
to have it here. We could say something like we shall request the mayor to leave that one alone. I think
just based on practice and what has happened, I mean, we can't compel whoever is the mayor to make any
nominations.
At all and this being in here is not gonna do anything one way or the other except for set up a false
expectation in my opinion so that is why I suggested we strike that but People disagree that's totally
fine Okay Next up was officers. This is where we've added the treasurer and secretary. Yes, please. I
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
with the changes from the council and your M. You had an M in there that was the removal for cause.
So as you know, losing your residency in the city or too many absences, you forfeit your seat. And so
we're trying to do more training and kind of get people up to speed. So one of the things in the new
code of conduct
is the attendance policy, and that that would constitute cause for removal. So there's language in there
now that just says exactly what the changes say to the code, which basically is that you can be removed
for cause, and that cause is violation of the code of conduct or absenteeism, and that it describes
what absenteeism is. So it's just to make it consistent. I have a question about the absenteeism. Who
keeps that record?
You know, who's watching whether we're here or not? And who notifies us? I found the language kind of
stiff. So the secretary or the recording secretary keeps it in the minutes. The clerk's office actually
is in charge of all of our boards and commissions. And so the deputy clerk has been the one assigned
to boards and commissions. And that's like 100% of her job, is looking at all of that. The letters come
from the clerk's office.
to notify people if they have been removed due to absenteeism. So we'll be running everything through
the clerk's office from now on. You mean we send the minutes to the clerk's office? She will either
work with the staff liaison, either she gets in and looks at them, or she'll ask for a report, or I
don't know. I think these are things that we're still trying to figure out, like whether it's on the
staff liaison to notify that somebody's been absent twice in a row, those kinds of things. I mean, we
are staff.
required to keep a record of who attends. So I mean, the way that this has worked in the past and that
I anticipate it working in the future is if this becomes an issue that we will have to actively share
that with the clerk's office. OK. I've also been kind of, I just kind of keep an eye on who's coming
and going as well and might just mention something to Noah on have we heard from someone in a while.
Good. Just to kind of.
Because sometimes stuff happens and people can't do anything. So they might need to move on. But I kind
of will check in on that. Commissioner Schlegel. So I actually have a question on that. So I'm not sure,
Anna, if it's for you, for Noah, or for Jeremy. For instance, since I have a board I report to at the
History Center, they will
at least twice a year, shift our meetings, which are always Thursdays. So I guarantee you, twice a year,
I'm going to miss them two meetings, which already puts me half down. And if I take a two-week vacation,
that's going to strike me down again. I mean, I'm going to have strike, strike, strike out. So I just
wanted to clarify, is there an excused absence for when I let Noah know, like, hey, Noah, my board moved
a meeting. As executive director, I have to attend this.
There actually is a process for extenuating circumstances, which you send it to the council, to whoever
appointed you, and basically explain that you have the two meeting conflict because of your
job responsibilities. And I don't think that that gets you out of being removed, but it gives you at
least a placeholder.
so that they would consider that if they were to consider removal based on absences. The fact that you
had given them that notice. And then same with vacay, because there's almost no time where I can take
two weeks of a vacation to go overseas and not miss one of these because of the frequency. So would
that be very similar as well to be able to say, hey, I have this trip planned. Don't remove me, because
I would like to go do something fun.
These meetings aren't exciting. Yeah, exactly. But I mean, I think that's going to be a huge thing for
anyone else that would be interested. When I've had people ask me if I would join the HPC or the commission
again, things like that. I mean, I'd flat out say no if I'm like, hey, I got removed because my board
moved two meetings, I took a vacation, and then I got sick. They gave me the boot. I mean, I think that's
going to be a big black mark on the city because I know I won't be the only one with that issue. Sure,
for sure. Could you read?
what that means. Could you please restate it, please? Do you want me to read all the removal for cause
or just that last bit? Just the absenteeism. Excessive absenteeism is a failure to attend three consecutive
regularly scheduled meetings 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 may be made within five business days before the formal decision to remove is
reached. Acceptance of extenuating factors by the appointing official or body puts the member on notice
that a further excessive absenteeism shall result in removal. And as I've seen, the clerk's office in
these cases does reach out to the board member, board or commission member. So it won't be done with
zero notice.
So that does provide the opportunity for writing to have a copy. So for instance, if they noticed that
I was gone for being sick, the board shifting, took a vacation, they'd reach out to me and then I have
to reply within those five days or within five days of each of the times I missed. Sorry, I was processing
all of it. I'm not sure, but if you already know what
Do you know the meetings that your board has already moved those dates? It's always March, so I missed
that one last month. And then sometime around between October, November, December, there's usually something
weird that pops up, and we shift it. And then I know, for instance, in October, my plan right now is
to go overseas, but things might have gotten complicated. So may or may not pull that off. But I'm just
getting over being sick. I almost stepped down today, but I wanted to make this exact point is,
Because other places I've been, at least if you have a valid excuse, like, hey, I was throwing up. I
didn't want to be there, make everyone else sick. Or hey, I had this other obligation that happens every
so often. There's excused absences. So it doesn't sound like the city's granting that. And I just wanted
to make sure there was something with that. I think that language is actually intended to allow for
those circumstances. It doesn't exactly read like that, which is something we probably do need to address with our
Committee on Council Processes is the committee that works on this. But what I would do is I would go
ahead. I mean, you know what the agenda is, you know what the date is, and you can do that five days
before a meeting notice. So I would go ahead and do that on an individual basis unless you have all
your dates for the calendar year and you want to submit that one time at the beginning of the 12-month
period. And it's a rolling 12 months.
So that's the other thing, too, is that sometimes it just ends up being one of those things where it's
like, yeah, from December to December, it might have been an issue. But since it's a rolling 12 months,
you end up being in OK shape. So the intent is not to remove people who are actively participating.
The intent is to have a trigger for those that are just not showing up because they just didn't feel
like coming. Yeah, I think I would also just, in those sort of situations, I would pipe up in support
of that sort of stuff.
In your situation in particular, I mean, you attend pretty regularly. So I think it would be nuts if
we just kind of were like, OK, we've got to give Commissioner Schlegel the boot now because he got sick.
That's not what anybody's trying to discuss. So when it says appointing authority, do I have to literally
write a note to the mayor then, if I was appointed by the mayor's office? I would go ahead and write
it to the mayor's office with the CCD NOAA. Here's why I'm going to be absent, and thank you for, and
to the clerk's office.
So that the clerk's office has a record of it and Noah has a record of it that you've explained your
extenuating circumstances. So I know it sounds very procedural, but I think people who are
active participants like you will go through that effort of doing that. And the ones that aren't showing
up are probably not going to bother to do this process either. I think to your point, I feel like the
one meeting
Missing consecutive meetings over a long period of time, I get. But I think that every once in a while,
everybody deserves a vacation. So I hope so. I'm hopeful this city is flexible on this kind of stuff,
because we don't want to punish good public servants for doing stuff that we need done. So thank you
for bringing that up.
I'll be testing that this year for sure. I know I'm fine being a test case, but I just wanted to publicly
state that, because I know this is on the record, not tape recorded, but on the record. So I just want
to make sure that was really clear really early, because otherwise I'd just resign instead of getting
kicked off. So just to make it easier. Commissioner Duesner, did you have a question? I know that attending
by Zoom, we can't vote doesn't count toward crime. But does it count toward our attendance?
So yes, it counts towards your attendance. It doesn't count towards quorum. You have to have 50%. You
still have to have 50% in the room. But you can vote, though. But you can vote unless there's a list
of things you can't vote on, like a budget or a personnel appointment or something. There's a few things
like that that you cannot vote on. But since we don't have any money, that's not going to happen. Yay.
So I just wanted to clarify that in terms of like,
illness or travel, I may be doing some research travel and that kind of thing. Attending via Zoom is
not a problem, and I'm a little less worried about it now that we have more people, so we're more likely
that people, but anyway, that's good to know. I can bring some additional information. There are some
limitations about how much you can do that, so I think it's like two meetings in a row, no more than
50% of the overall meetings.
that they wrote into the state law after they kind of removed all the COVID restrictions, which allowed
you to do it all the time. So we can definitely talk about that, but it is allowed on a limited basis,
and it doesn't count towards Quorum. OK. Any other questions on this first section? Any other things
that we've covered thus far? OK. So next up.
Obviously, in the Article 2 as officers, we've added the treasurer and the secretary since we've already
voted those in and noted that the commission, well, a non-member can serve as secretary. I think we're
still working through how exactly we're going to phrase that. But hopefully, maybe by the next meeting,
we'll have that sort of figured out as to how that appointment process will work and move forward with that.
What are some of the other major things that I changed in here? A lot of the stuff for certificates
of appropriateness, some of the sort of like the management of those things was kind of put onto the
vice chair. I went through and suggested all the edits that it be hand staff that is handling a lot
of that sort of administrative stuff that seems much more a staff thing rather than
a commissioner sort of appointment. Let's see, what else? And then I think we might want to talk about
the procedure for if a petitioner is not attending in a meeting. So I don't know if you want to talk
through how we might need to make some edits there. So a petitioner has their thing on the agenda, but
they don't show up.
is continuing it considered action or not. So how are we going to handle it? Could you kind of talk
through that for me? So we were talking about a situation where you all have a 30-day clock, where if
you don't take an action on a certificate of appropriateness, it's deemed approved. And that's a state
law requirement.
And so what about the situation where you accept an application, the person doesn't show up, they don't
show up again, you don't have a quorum and all of a sudden 30 days are over and they're basically approved
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.
so that a petitioner can't just not show up enough times to be deemed approved just because our bylaws
say that they have to be present, which is actually not part of the state law, that they have to be
present in order for their petition to be considered. So something like you guys could have a denial
without prejudice,
which if they miss one meeting the next time you take it up, you deny it without prejudice if they're
not going to be there and say, we're denying without prejudice, we will allow this person to come back
with the same application if they notify NOAA within that 12 days prior to the next agenda. Something
like that so that we can allow the person an opportunity not to have to submit a whole new application
and get a new application number, but to stop that clock so that people aren't just getting
their certificates of appropriateness granted just because they're not showing up. Now, if it's an issue
of a quorum or you guys don't get to it or something, you know, you guys are on break and it's something
that's a commission-related delay, then I think we take our lumps, right? Because then that's exactly
why that 30-day shot clock is in there is so that a petitioner doesn't have to wait if the commission
is unable to get to their business.
I think that makes a lot of sense of just making sure we have some kind of action. And at least for
me, I think it would be nice if you would be able to draft maybe some of that language that we could
look at. I'd feel much more comfortable coming from you of making sure that it kind of complies with
all the laws and ordinances and things of that nature. And sorry, I should have mentioned this at the
beginning.
A continuation is not considered an action for the purposes of this statute. The action is either approve
or deny. The continuation is just considered kind of a procedural move. So you cannot do it unless you
have the approval of the outside party. So if the petitioner for some reason said, oh, yeah, I agree
to 30 days. I really want to come back. I'm sorry. I was sick, or I couldn't be there.
then they could submit in writing the fact that they would agree to a continuation. And in that case,
that does toll the 30 days. But otherwise, a continuation that's just done on your end does not stop
that clock. OK. I think that's good, just to make sure we're kind of on the right side of all this stuff,
especially if somebody comes back and challenges something. We've had the right procedure and have done
the right thing, just to ensure the COAs are approved appropriately.
So thank you for that. Throughout this section, again, most of these changes were hand staff is being
responsible for doing things. Trying to see if any other major tweaks, like there are a couple places
where I put in like commas and stuff. I don't know if we need to go into the specific line of where
that is. And then let's see if there was any other massive change that I had suggested. I don't think
so. I think that kind of,
was the majority of my sort of major changes that I had suggested. Did other people when they read through
this, were there any points of sort of they had questions or they wanted clarification or something
or perhaps had some suggested language that they think should be added? Or if you didn't do it,
that's okay. I like what you're doing here and I think that
by tightening up and the imaginary force is being removed and it's becoming a person from hand or you
know, I think that's straightforward and I think it's the right direction. So I appreciate what you've
done and I'm on the same page. Okay. So I think maybe next time around if you can kind of maybe figure
out that language for the person not showing up and what we need to do and maybe share that with Noah
if we could put together sort of that
I don't know. It was a resolution or something. Right. I could write another version of that resolution.
Yeah, too. Then we could look at it one last time and vote on accepting it or denying it at that time
if people are comfortable with it. Or if you'd like another meeting to think about it, I'm OK with that,
too. I'm happy to hear suggestions on that. Does next meeting sound good? It seems like by consent,
that seems all right. OK.
Well, that brings us to the end of that section of the agenda. Next up, commissioner comments. Do any
of my fellow commissioners have any things that they would like to share? I just want to thank all of
you guys. I think you're a really great commission to serve on. I appreciate all of your personalities.
I think this has been, I don't know, enjoyable.
It's sort of weird, but I appreciate you guys. Thank you, Treasurer Butler. Any other comments? If not,
I would like to share a couple of comments. We have had a changeover in commissioners for advisory positions.
So we have a new commissioner who will be joining us, Carrie Champion. She's the director of the Wiley House.
Unfortunately, that means that we are losing Duncan Campbell. And I wanted to take some time to thank
Duncan for his decades of work on historic preservation around the state. His time at Ball State where
he taught, and then all of the work that he did in town for this building, Wiley House, Johnson's Creamery.
Historic preservation in the city would not look the same if it wasn't for him.
And so I just want to thank him in this venue for all of that work and all of the years that he spent
on this commission in voting and non-voting roles. He is a font of knowledge. And I hate to see him
go, but I just want to send thanks to him. I will miss his opinion, for sure. So ineligible. Yes, very
knowledgeable.
All right, next up is public comments. Are there members of the public who would like to speak? If you
would like, you can state your name and you have three minutes. My name is James Ford. I just wanted
to comment about something that was discussed earlier today. And maybe this is something that has to
work at the state level. But in a secondary school, if a teacher is absent, there's a pool of substitute
teachers that they can call and say, hey, will you come in and sit down for my class that day?
It seems like there could be some knowledgeable people or non-voting people who could stand in for a
voting member who's going to be absent. They know they're going to be, so it wouldn't count against
their. Oh, like have a proxy vote? Like each person could have a proxy? Maybe. That would be an issue
for the mayor, because the mayor appoints all the voting members. It's something that we've looked at
in the past. It just sort of runs into a brick wall there. No.
Is there any other public comments in the room? Any public comments online? No? Okay. Well, we have
come to the end of our agenda so this meeting is adjourned.