Video Description:
Historic Preservation Commission Board – May 2024
0:00
I don’t have a way to turn you on. I don’t see your mic come up here
0:27
use us says Commissioner cities
0:36
Okay, well that’s not working
0:50
now it just keeps popping up. This one worked. Of course there’s nobody sitting there.
0:59
Okay. Sherman lane. Here. Commissioner Sibley Here. Commissioner Fenster Here. Commissioner Norton Here. Commissioner Jacoby Here. Commissioner Barnard. Councilmember pack here.
1:19
All right. Thank you. We have a full house. Next order of business is approval of the April four minutes to any commissioners have any corrections? Or comments on those? minutes? If not, I’ll entertain a motion to approve. I’ll second. Okay, so, minutes. Motion to approve the minutes of April 4. By Commissioner Fenster and seconded by Commissioner Commissioner Sibley, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the minutes are approved. Report from the chair, the only thing I have to report is that they were they were correctly. It was correctly identified in the minutes that I said last time that I wasn’t going to be here tonight, which is obviously false. So I’m making that correction. Now as in the report to the chair, I will have or not be at next month’s meeting. So I will be sorry. And we can chat afterwards if you’d like just for a minute or two of prep if you so desire. All right. I did note that counsel did pass a resolution Tuesday night as we expected and thank you for commissioners Sibley and Bernard for being in attendance at the meeting and saw the photograph. So I appreciate that. That may is historic preservation month. Okay, communications from HBC staff liaison
3:20
apparently we’re having all of this works
3:33
here they’re up. This one was working when we tested it a minute ago and it’s not working out
3:47
haha we have. Okay, I think that is the magic. Good evening members of the commission. So we are having some technical issues in council chambers. They’re working on resolving so I won’t be using a PowerPoint this evening. Maria has pulled up the commission packet on your screen so I will be referring to that. As Commissioner Elaine mentioned, we did have a proclamation this week at city council for archaeological and historic preservation month so I’m going to pass the official proclamation down and it can make its way to Maria and
4:37
all right, I’m sure we can scan that and get it to everyone.
4:53
Making a note to myself real quick All right, so one other housekeeping item also first, first and foremost, at the council proclamation on April 30. I would like to thank commissioners Barnard and Sibley for attending. They were did a great job of representing the commission. Another housekeeping item is that our July meeting does fall on July 4, and Maria has worked has looked at other possible dates in the council chambers that might be available. We aren’t finding anything currently that would be available for a reschedule so probably need to consider counts canceling the July 4 meeting as opposed to rescheduling it just from a logistic standpoint, but I will obviously defer to the commission on that item. Um, a few other updates here. We did provide staff provided an overview of the requested conservation overlay zoning for historic Eastside neighborhood association at the April 23. Meeting specifically to discuss really what the purpose process and you know what the purpose and process for a conservation overlay would be, and also to discuss the requested fee waiver by Hina. So we still have some additional work to do. It’s not just as simple as a city council or someone saying we therefore waive the fees. We do have to do an amendment to the land development code, which would need to be approved as a precursor to any sort of rezoning fee waiver. So staff is currently working on doing that analysis and putting getting that information put together for a feature update Council. The other item is so tower of compassion, I will hopefully be bringing this application to the Commission at the June meeting, for consideration of landmark status recommendation to the council. That is on my priority list for the June meeting. I did meet with Damien. Thank you. I’m like starts with the P ends of the day for chata. From History Colorado State historian ‘s office, and we discussed the upcoming theme for the sesquicentennial of the state which is history for all really focusing on indigenous and underrepresented communities in the state of Colorado. And one of the interesting and exciting things about the tower of compassion is if we do landmark it and it is approved for inclusion on the state register, which consensus is there’s no reason to think it would not be. It would only be the fourth sight in the state associated with Asian American Asian American community and Colorado to maybe on the state state register. So that is something that’s, I think, really interesting and also would be very important thing for the for the city of Longmont. And so I’m working we’re going to be working on that to move that forward as well. So I have a plan. They’re still working on it. Everyone’s running behind right now. So I’ll have a better update at the June meeting right now. And then earlier this week, I did complete our quadrennial CLG review with Lindsay Llewellyn, whose name I always botch at history, Colorado. So we are I think, good to go for the next four years on that one. So with that. I think that’s all I have on my general report.
8:44
Okay, thank you, Jennifer. One item, I would note, in our January meeting, we did reschedule the July HPC, to the 11th.
8:54
Yes. And so the challenge that we have found is yeah, the problem is there’s we can’t we can’t get into this room. Because there’s enough we can’t get into this space, because there is another board that’s in here. So let’s see if we can find some other options that would be accessible for alarm on public media, since they have to record the meetings. That that is the challenge we’re having because we were looking at trying to do it on the 11th. We’re just coming up with some logistical challenges. So and
9:35
I guess, from my perspective, if there’s nothing, you know, we don’t have a COA or something to review, that’s fine, but I don’t want this survey plan to just kind of sort of keep slipping and slipping and slipping. Yep. So that’s my biggest concern. Let’s see. Commissioner Barnett
9:57
I guess well first is it estimated the museum or?
10:03
I don’t know the answer to that question. So, Maria can, Maria, if you could take a look, have you looked at that space? No, I haven’t. Okay,
10:11
let’s have this open, I believe, July 10. On Wednesday. Okay.
10:19
What’s all make sure, because a straw vote of anybody who has an issue, mostly?
10:29
Is there a possibility of doing it remotely on the lab? We’re doing it.
10:35
I don’t know if that system is set up.
10:39
Yeah, it’s it’s a little bit challenging to do now, what like that. But we’ll take a look at some other venues and have an update of the June meeting. It sounded
10:50
like people, that the 10th might be an option. Again, if we can get the survey plan on the agenda and keep that moving. I think that’s so my
11:00
goal is to have that as an item, at least have a serious update on the on the June meeting, as well. So
11:06
thanks. We had a couple of comments were made at the last meeting. And from you and from Steven, and from the mirror that there had been some contact with respect to article this month in the paper. And I think you had said that the staff had been approached and was putting together some information and links in the minutes.
11:29
I mean, there was a there was an article in there was times
11:33
yes, it was yes. Thank you for jogging my memory. It was regarding the tower of compassion. Not about the month. No, no, but it was generally about
11:44
the town with the article. That’s what the discussion was with.
11:46
I think it was actually more about the Kanemoto project. Okay. Yeah. But that did come out. You know, what are a handful of days after the hearing that over the weekend, I think. Okay, any other questions for staff? Commissioner Jacoby,
12:09
thank you. Yeah. So I did watch the last city council meeting online. And they it sounds like as far as the historic east side, they said they were considering a code change so that all neighborhood groups could have a fee waived if they were to decide to pursue conservation overlay is city, maybe the mayor, you maybe you could tell me? Are you notice? Are you aware that the historic preservation commission unanimously voted to recommend that several months ago? Okay. So the council already knows that. And that’s what I was wondering, because that’s, I think, important to know. Thank you.
12:57
Okay, anything else? No. All right. Let’s see. Now we’re into public invited to be heard for topics other than what we have on our agenda, and seeing only our one applicant in the audience, and no public, we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. And then we’ll move on to are the public invited to be heard sorry, move on to our public hearing, which is a certificate of appropriateness for the Coliseum farm building relocation plan. And I just want to disclose for the commission that Mr. Best doll and I are both on the Economic Development Partnership, we’re both board members, I don’t see that as being a conflict of interest in any way for myself. So make sure to act in on this board. But I want to make sure all the commissioners are aware of that and if anyone has an objection. Okay, thank you. Alright. So we have a staff presentation than
14:02
we do. So I’ll be basically talking you through the report the attachments and the absence of functioning screens for a PowerPoint presentation. So this really is more of a housekeeping type of COA for lack of a better way of putting it so the owner of the historic Carlson farm has requested a certificate of appropriateness for building relocation of historic buildings as was previously approved. So the original COA for the building relocation was approved in 2020 and 2021. And it did expire last year. And the original COA did state that buildings be moved in relation to each other to the eastern portion of the lot as close as possible to the existing layout and spacing between the structures. So included in your packet is a final relocation plan. To the scale that was submitted as part of this application. And so effectively, relocation of these buildings is necessary for further development. On the other portions of the site, the landmark status for the property was amended, late 2022. To apply, make sure to basically amend the landmark designation so that it only applied to the structures as opposed to the larger property. So the relocation plans submitted by Mr. bestel, which is going to be attachment two in your packet is I think satisfies the criteria that was established or the condition that was established by the Commission back in 2021. That the buildings be relocated, basically, relative to where they currently are. And the relocation plan, I think shows up very well. So with that, Mr. Westfall is available to answer any questions that you may have of him, but otherwise, we’ll stand by for any questions or discussion from the Commission. Good.
16:17
Any questions for staff? No, Mr. Best of all, do you have anything you’d like to add? Or it’s your opportunity?
16:30
Just the we’re excited about where we are now. And that I was thinking that the second certificate of appropriateness, which was a year later, roughly, I guess, bikers can hear me. I’ll speak up. That’s good. Maybe I just need to get under the cone of silence here. I think I was just gonna say we’re excited about where we are. And we have building permits, pending the relocation to where they need to go as as you all directed us to, and they conform to that is really it was my mistake, probably because I was thinking the second certificate appropriateness still covered us. And we’ve, we’ve got it. I think we have six months left on that. But we, I would just would appreciate extending the 21. One. So we have another two years, these things always take a little longer than expected. We have. We’re in the preliminary plat process. We’re actually at the final plat. So we think our next submittal will subdivide the property and we’ve done all the infrastructure. So things have been moving along, we ran in place for a while because we’re tied to fourth, the filing the fourth filing the wall. So just finally, and that’s good, because the infrastructure will interlock, and we’ve we’ve been coordinating with staff on that. So I’d be happy to answer any questions.
18:00
Any questions for the upcoming? No. Okay. Thank you.
18:06
Thank you.
18:10
All right. Well, any board discussion?
18:17
Motion to to renew the certificate of appropriateness per the staff recommendation.
18:28
I’ll second. Okay. I have a motion to approve the extension by Commissioner Barner. And excuse me, seconded by Commissioner Norton. Any further discussion? No, then All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. So Motion carries unanimously. Thank you for coming in. Okay, let’s see. We have new business commission interviews, we have an update on potential new commissioner.
19:03
We do have one applicant for historic preservation commission this application cycle with that we would need a we need to establish a review committee that will meet sometime in May and make a recommendation to city council regarding this particular applicant, so I will turn it over to the commission to discuss who would like to be
19:25
so is this a thing where you need basically two people so it’s not a real meeting but it’s okay. All right. And I’m going to on volunteer myself because I’m not gonna be here. So now I need to to volunteers. Commissioner Bernard, I think I can do it as well. Okay. Commissioner Barnett and Commissioner Norton, volunteer thank you for volunteering.
19:56
To do so that’d be a something that Are you will coordinate
20:00
correctly, I will coordinate with both commissioners Barner and Norton and can very well be something we could do via teams or something like that as well. So we’ll make it as smooth as possible and efficient as possible for everyone. So I’ll reach out probably Monday on that one for you. I feel like last time we did this, you guys had some pre written questions. Is that still how it were? I will have to go back into the records and see how we did last time.
20:32
I could see if I have anything. Okay. Yeah, we had a little scorecard or something, actually. Yeah,
20:36
I want to say there was a score sheet. So I’ll have to go back into our records and take a look at how we handle things previously, and get with you on Monday for that. Thanks.
20:47
Okay. Well, thank you. And thank you, commissioners, Bernard, for volunteering. All right. Let’s see we had a discussion last week about or last month about solar and historic properties. And it looks like we’ve got some more information in the packet. So Jennifer, do you want to walk us through that? Sure. So
21:09
again, as we discussed, at the last meeting, you requested a couple of you requested some additional samples of guidelines relating to solar systems and historic districts. We did find two I think good ones. One, the National Alliance of preservation Commission’s has actually some sample guidelines. So that’s a handy dandy cheat sheet there as well. And then the city of Denver also has some really good ones as well. So I included the section of the Denver guidelines relating to solar materials, solar instant sustainability, and specifically solar panels. And I also included that particular sample guidelines from the national association or national sorry, National Alliance preservation Commission’s so that is for your reference. And if that is something we want to either of those we would like to adapt to meet our requirements and put the city of Longmont, Ceylon, I’m happy to put that together for consideration at a future meeting for formal formal guidelines.
22:29
Thanks, I ran through these I didn’t. I didn’t notice anything that necessarily contradicted, right, one or the other, I think, I think they’re both really good. And a really good foundation that we could use, I would probably be in favor of picking one and just saying use one of the two and to avoid sort of any potential confusion. That would be my sort of thought, but interested to hear what if anybody else has an opinion or has any comments about the proposed guidelines?
23:18
And we go, here we go. Thank you. My impression was that the guide, disappeared, the Denver guidelines seemed a little more specific to me. And, but very amenable to what we would be doing and I would lean more towards using the Denver guidelines, I think, than the others which were more generic, which, again, if we want to pursue it and to lead more flexibility, maybe the the guidelines from there they’re the national lines of preservation Commission’s that looked a little more generic to me if we wanted to embrace more flexibility, but I thought the Denver guidelines were very good and, you know, the borrower brain, I mean, they worked on it, you know, I I’d be happy to use that. Edinburg guidelines.
24:17
So if we wanted to, sort of for formally adopt one of these, we do that as part of a little as as a public hearing process here. Or,
24:29
you know, I’ll have to take a look at that. Because they are I mean, the commissioners should be the one adopting the guidelines. It’s just a matter wouldn’t necessarily be an ordinance, it may very well be via emotion. So let me get with Jeremy and determine the most legally defensible way of doing that. And I’ll get back to you in the June meeting.
24:57
Commissioner Barnett
25:00
We have I think we have two possibilities here. One is the, a kind of a generic one is A, this is a good starting place for local preservation conditions. Okay, so that’s what it is a starting place. And then the other one is a big, you know, a big city decision, which gets into a lot of detail. So I guess my question would be, can we take a look at Lewisville or, or some other comparable city to Longmont, which may not want to go into the detail that Denver did may not be the same issues? More like our type issues?
25:45
So realistically, there aren’t a lot of places that have adopted specific guidelines for dealing with solar panels and other sustainability efforts. It’s, it’s something that’s really being looked at a lot more now. But I did have my associate planner, Melanie, she she did a lot of research on this. And these were the two really the two she found in our area. Boulder Boulder has some but not as quite as specific.
26:19
As not as specific as I’d
26:21
have to go back and look at it. They’re a little bit more global sustainability materials. They I think they were about that I would have to go back and take a look at them. These were really the two kind of most specific to solar guideline sets that we’ve that she was able to find.
26:44
Commissioner Fenster
26:46
Yeah, it occurs to me that we might be well served, if we adopted a set of guidelines as a template, and then work from there, then we would have something to go on. And it would advance the cause, at least through step one. Because right now, we’re just talking about having something but we haven’t put anything into our lexicon.
27:23
And yet, I’ll check with legal and get their get their opinion, as far as the best way to go about this from my, my thinking is that it may because this is such an evolving area, that it might serve us well to adopt something that’s a bit broader. And as you know, technology comes along and different things are available, incorporate them accordingly. But in terms of how guy you know, guidelines, sometimes if you get excessively specific, they can sometimes become cumbersome and very difficult to implement and and apply.
28:02
Yeah, I actually liked the the I’m gonna get it right here.
28:12
NAPC
28:14
perfect. Any third is any NPC I liked their guidelines? Because they were they felt to me like specific enough. Right? They, they were they were clear. Primarily elevations, this is our recommendation, secondary elevations. Right, what you can do on other structures, what if you can do if it’s detached? And then what not to do under any circumstances really clear to make that is maybe as important as anything, right, just making it really clear what what is not recommended. And I kind of felt like that. I mean, for the better. So tiny little aside, I spent some time on a planning commission a bunch of years ago that spent an inordinate amount of time making a wind turbine regulation in response to one person’s installation of a wind turbine. And then we never had another application in the next 10 years around wind turbines. And so, you know, I think you can get too far into the weeds with some of this stuff, if we have a good set of guidelines that pretty clearly say this is the intent. And this is really what you can’t do, then it leaves enough, enough to sort of, you know, the staff can make a determination if it’s if it looks like it’s pretty easily falls within this, they can grant the COA if it’s if staff has a sense that this might be a little sticky, I don’t know, I’d rather have the commission, you know, feel more comfortable bringing it to the mission and then that’s part of why we’re here as a commission to to sort of make a judgment call as to whether it’s good Whether it’s appropriate or not, so my leaning would be towards towards using the the NAACP standard as a good guideline, and then not worrying too much about weeds and details. That’s my two cents.
30:22
Commissioner Sibley.
30:24
Yeah, I was just gonna say I liked theirs as well. And I really liked that it called out the different types of systems. That’s what we have now, basically. But to your point, there could be more so that to my mind, if it labels three, that means, hey, if there’s something else out there, bring it up. So I kind of liked how that was set. I agree.
30:50
Commissioner Barner,
30:51
could you ask the staff to look at the Breckenridge ordinance that was adopted? Okay. So I think the the balance here is between historic and green. And you can find it and that’s just a very, you know, 32nd search. This was the big discussion in Breckenridge, between the two. And they want it both. And they tried to figure out how to do that. I think it was finally adopted. I can’t I didn’t have time to find that out. But it was proposed and expected to be adopted in the article. So I’ll send you that article. Great. Mayor Peck.
31:37
Thank you, just my input. I would think that with the NAPC, as technology evolves, they would be more apt to give guidelines, whereas a municipality that made up their own, we’d be struggling with the technology as well, and maybe not put us in that position down the road. So
31:59
thank you. Mr. Jacoby.
32:03
I think, yes, both sets of guidelines are very good. And the idea of approaching it with more general guidelines, especially since we’re just starting makes a lot of sense. My My one concern that I had, which is why I was thinking about the Denver guidelines was, they were a little more specific and restrictive, for example, just the idea of setting solar panels back from the eaves a certain distance in the front of a house. They addressed that the N A, whatever, whatever, did not really address that. And if someone came to us, as you know, with a proposal, if we adopted the more general guidelines, but we would like to see, say the solar panels back a little bit, to add it, after they come to us with the application would seem more difficult to me. Then if they came, we had that already in the guidelines. And we said we are willing to waive that. Because whatever circumstances. That’s the main reason I was thinking that Denver guidelines were better because they were more complete. And given that kind of circumstance, it would be easier, I think, to wave a guideline then to add something at the 11th hour. But I agree, I mean, the technology is changing to have overly specific guidelines is is not necessary.
33:31
Well, if this is something that needs to get back into, you know, staffs court for a little bit to see and come back with a recommendation of how this will get implemented. Maybe that’s also an opportunity for commissioners, to take a little bit closer look at the Denver and like you said, Commissioner Jacoby, if there’s, you know, if there are three thing or you know, some number, some small number of extra pieces that we like, we potentially could could do a hybrid without I just don’t want to get into something that’s just so crazily detailed. Right. We don’t need another demolition ordinance exercise. It’s just
34:14
that cured me.
34:20
But but it’s a fair point, right. Yeah. Okay. Great. All right. Any other discussion? No. All right. Well, thank you for bringing that up. That’s great. I mean, it’s, I think it’s really encouraging that there’s something out there that I think gets us on some pretty good footing without a lot of effort. Thanks for finding that. Absolutely. Okay. Let’s see. No, so now we’re just down to the end of the show here. Any comments from commissioners? No. Okay. Ours City Council Representative Mayor Peck any? No? Okay. All right. Well, there we go. With that, then I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Second. Okay. I heard the one closer so I’m gonna go with a motion by Commissioner Fenster and seconded by Commissioner Norton, by a hair. All those in favor. All right, we are adjourned. Thank you all for coming out for the evening. Thanks again