Historic Preservation Board – April 2023
Read along below:
Unknown Speaker 0:00
We will go ahead and call the April 6 2023 meeting of the historic preservation commission to order. Can we have the roll please? Didn’t have this in the study session. Chairman lane, present.
Unknown Speaker 0:19
Commissioner Sibley present. Commissioner Jacoby Commissioner Barnard councilmember Rodriguez.
Unknown Speaker 0:29
Okay. All right. Thank you. So we do in fact have a quorum, although just barely. So we can continue. First item of business is approval of the march 2. Meeting Minutes. Do any commissioners have any comments or corrections? And if not, I’d entertain a motion.
Unknown Speaker 1:02
Okay, we’ve got a motion to approve from Commissioner Barnard and seconded by Commissioner Jacoby. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. unanimously. Thank you. Report from the chair. I don’t have anything in particular to talk about tonight. So we’ll move on to communications from HPC staff.
Unknown Speaker 1:34
All right. Is that on? Thanks. All right. Good deal. I actually do have a few things this month. First and foremost, Callahan house has come to me. Regarding curving that they are working with historic, historic with public works on. So there’s some street work being proposed for Third Avenue that could impact the historic curbing in front of the Callahan house. It’s the Callahan houses board that these particular curbs are, are, you know, are part of the historic property, and they really want to preserve and repair them. However, there’s a disconnect in that public works really thinks that replacement is necessary, they do think they can match the style, there is a pretty distinctive style to this curb. That is, you know, taller than what you would normally see has an interesting little groove on it, they are pretty confident they can match that style. But the color matching would be a challenge, because of the age but also because of the material differences in terms of what was used in concrete then versus now. Part of the issue of the Public Works, thinking that they won’t be able to preserve the existing curbs as they do need to put some gutter pans in for for drainage purposes. So bringing this as an information item at this point. The ultimate question is, what role does this commission want to play in this process? And whether you would like me to arrange to have representatives from the Callahan house and public works at the main meeting to give some additional detail on this project?
Unknown Speaker 3:28
Anybody here have a comment?
Unknown Speaker 3:33
Unknown Speaker 3:36
I think Callahan house is kind of a big deal. I mean, it’s kind of like a signpost for what historic preservation is. So I think we should look at whatever we can on it. Whether we approve, can approve or should anything I think is maybe we determined later, but at least get an update on what’s going on. And maybe the staff can tell us at another time, what what provisions there are for us to approve it or not approve it. That is
Unknown Speaker 4:13
a city owned property. Right. Correct.
Unknown Speaker 4:15
It is a city owned property. And this is the curbing that’s adjacent to the to the street as well, they do have a pretty significant grant they’ve obtained to do some restoration work on the house. And part of that work does include some of the concrete on the actual on the property as well. So concrete is on their mind.
Unknown Speaker 4:40
I would suggest that we need to be sure that we are asking the city to uphold the same standards that we would expect of anyone else that would might be coming in here that you know, so whether or not that’s necessary in this particular case, it’s at least worth looking at.
Unknown Speaker 4:57
Great. Well I’ll touch base with with the folks I’ve been I’m working with I’ve been talking to and have them prepare something for the main meeting to bring to this board. The other thing I owe you is an update on the Terry Lake sewer project that we talked about last week. So last month, I should say it’s all kind of a blur. So speaking with our Public Works staff, this is going through the county permitting process. So it’s a private developer building this line, it would serve the region, basically, there will be some reimbursements for feet from future developers. But basically, private developers building this to facilitate development of a property in that area. The public improvement plans have been approved by the city, they still are working on the actual public improvement agreement. easements for the lines, as it’s designed, have been recorded. So I’ll continue to work with the county and see what can be done. But it’s the feedback I’ve gotten from the engineering folks is that it’s a pretty heavy lift to redesign that it would basically be almost a complete redesign of this particular project. So I’ll continue to see what we can do as far as if not outright preservation memorialization of the farms, but I just from what I know of the engineering processes and the design processes, I think it would be a pretty substantial cost and effort and not to mention time, time consideration, to to deal with this. That said, you know, we’ll definitely continue to communicate with our public work staff that when we have projects like this, to make sure that they communicate with historic preservation staff as well.
Unknown Speaker 6:50
And what role at this point is boulder County’s HPC playing
Unknown Speaker 6:55
their advisory at this point, as well. So that’s the role they’re playing.
Unknown Speaker 7:00
So did they end up making did they meet after us at all? I mean, we were giving them some information. Yeah,
Unknown Speaker 7:05
I haven’t received any additional information from their cat from their liaison on that. So I’ll continue to coordinate with them, and see if there’s some some happy medium that we can find as well. So, you know, this is a project that basically finished going through our city processes, probably close to a year ago. So it’s, it’s been through some pretty substantial efforts. It’s not like it’s early in the design phase. So it’s pretty easy to reroute things. But moving forward, and you know, definitely will be communicating with our members of the DRS of our development review committee that, you know, hey, when you see projects like this, if it looks like it’s going to impact something old, let me know. So so we can determine if it’s something that we need to address or not. So that’s what I have on that. I also, Glen and I have been committed and communication with folks in our clerk’s office, we’re going to work on having a proclamation for historic preservation month at the May 23, city council meeting. And then Commissioner Norton was a great help in tracking down some project costs and grant amounts for various surveys and preservation plans completed in recent years. So we have some numbers to work with, around $25,000 Give or take seems to be going more or less, it could be you know, obviously, depending on size of the area, size of the city, etc. But, you know, we feel like it’s a workable number that we can get,
Unknown Speaker 8:38
get to great
Unknown Speaker 8:42
questions for I have staff.
Unknown Speaker 8:50
Oh, you’re still there we go.
Unknown Speaker 8:55
For that Terry Lake project, when stuff like that happens, assuming that it’s just gonna go forward, um, are those properties maybe going to be documented at all so that maybe there’s records of it for the future kind of figure there probably is a process for that. So there are cultural survey resource surveys for both of these properties. So we do have that information. I still need to track down and see if there was ever a ship a letter
Unknown Speaker 9:24
that was generated for it. So but we do have, you know, surveys for those properties.
Unknown Speaker 9:32
That was when I was part of logline. Right.
Unknown Speaker 9:35
So there’s property with Yeah, so there’s two of them. There’s the bo pray property, which is part of Longmont and then there was the Nisida farm, which is an unincorporated part that it’s in that is in Longmont the pray property. Those structures are the ones that looked like they’re going to be saved or at least not demolished at this point in time. But then issued properties would be impacted by this. So it’s a real challenge because as they are close to 66, and then future widening of the highway could also present some challenges as well. So we definitely have some, you know, I don’t want to say compromises, but we have some coordination to do, to see what we can do to facilitate at least recognition of these properties.
Unknown Speaker 10:20
Couple of things, first, easier thing on the widening of the highway. It was a research project that I worked in a while ago, and I wouldn’t look for that project to come to fruition anytime in the foreseeable future. Just, you know, it’s been at the same exact stage for about four or five years now since Sidoti put out their review of it. It’s not that
Unknown Speaker 10:49
long, long range of the long range plan.
Unknown Speaker 10:52
And so, as far as I know, it’s not on the city agenda at all. Second, trying to remember this is I’m kind of having to reach a little bit about the property that Terry Lake property that I seem to remember some discussion. And it could be wrong that this was at city council, with the from the developer, that in the short term plan, once they get this thing going, just have the city looking at incorporating that into the into the city. And I guess my question is, in that incorporation process, would it be then subject to possible review of historic preservation commission? Or would that be too late? Once it’s all done, and then the city annexes it, and then it’s part of the city? And if, if it had been our choice, we wouldn’t have necessarily approved all those things. But we didn’t take those decisions. Because it’s county property now.
Unknown Speaker 11:59
So my understanding, and I’ll need to go back and take a look at this. Glen, please correct me if I’m misspoken. My understanding is this development project would be for a portion of that area that’s already incorporated into the city. Because we did do the we were the initial review or on these public improvement plans. I’ll have to go back and do a little bit more research on that. But as part of the annexation process, if this came through an annexation, it would probably cross my desk most likely, just as a staff plan or but it was it’s the historic elements would definitely come up as part of that annexation discussion. So
Unknown Speaker 12:42
we do an annexation agreement. So that’s a good opportunity to ask for certain things. So that part you have right. Commissioner,
Unknown Speaker 12:53
correct. Yes. So I guess my my response is, I need to go back and take a look and see what the annexation documents for this say.
Unknown Speaker 13:05
Okay, thanks. Any other questions for staff? No. Okay, great. Thank you for those updates.
Unknown Speaker 13:13
All right. So now we have public invited to be heard. So we do have a couple of folks out here in the audience and on the signup sheet. So if you’d like you could come up the Are you here to make any kind of comment or no, you’re just here to just be entertained? All right. Okay, all right. Perfect. Well, thanks for showing up. Okay, seeing no one else in the audience, we will close the public invited to be heard. The public hearing portion of the meeting appears to not be necessary. We don’t have any public hearing items on our agenda. So then we’ll move on to new business and board recruitment. What what are we talking about here? We’re losing people.
Unknown Speaker 14:07
So basically, it’s board recruitment time, we aren’t losing any people. But I we are pretty full on this board. Aside from I think we’re short and alternate. So if, you know we’re in pretty good, good shape, but we can continue to communicate with the clerk’s office regarding you know, pursuit of an additional alternate, or just hold off until the end of the year and do it start over in January.
Unknown Speaker 14:33
Do we have anybody? Is anybody expiring this December?
Unknown Speaker 14:38
I don’t believe so. Okay, so just basically putting it out there that there that our clerk is in board recruitment mode, so
Unknown Speaker 14:49
I guess if anyone has a friend that wants to be an alternate, they would have been welcome tonight, right. Okay, thanks. All right, then on to prior business, which was not very, very long prior, our 2023 Retreat follow up. So that was only a few days ago.
Unknown Speaker 15:26
My gosh, here, so um, I captured our whiteboard notes and have them up on the screen. So just really kind of an overview of what we discussed in terms of, you know, additions, changes or tweaks that we need to make to our ordinance. One item, there were a couple items we wanted to discuss further. One I noted was this question of period of significance versus 50 years. So that is something. The other question related to, you know, and this is probably the second item is more long term, but that would be, you know, design guidelines for replacement of demolish buildings. So the big things we wanted to discuss, I think, following up and if anyone has anything else to discuss, we can jump in that period of significance. We talked about state programs, that’s something we’re continuing to look at. And items that we needed to look at in terms of doing cultural resource surveys and preservation plans. The question of certificate of merit, and let’s see, as well, and the bigger the really big one was property owner outreach. So that was another big one. That was less code and more work plan. So with that, we can pull up any of the attachments that we had on Saturday if folks want to discuss anything in particular. Is there anything did I capture? I kind of skimmed through it
Unknown Speaker 17:09
is local. addition to a local?
Unknown Speaker 17:18
Oh, yeah. It was
Unknown Speaker 17:24
your turn about that top item, the local to historic seven. Right, that was just a note to call it in local storage.
Unknown Speaker 17:35
So just to clarify versus front between local and national register,
Unknown Speaker 17:40
right, because we have we have three historic districts, but their national districts, we have no local districts, we only have local landmarks. And the code section that we were talking about at that time was if someone wanted to actually take the time to create a local historic district, right. Yeah. So yeah.
Unknown Speaker 18:08
So I guess I’d take feedback from the commissioners, do we want to pull up that ordinance language again, and cruise through that? To hit I know, there were a couple of points that I forced everybody to stop talking about. So we could get through it?
Unknown Speaker 18:39
Pulling up stuff.
Unknown Speaker 18:55
All right. We’re up to.
Unknown Speaker 19:09
We’re moving kind of fast at the end. So maybe we start at the end.
Unknown Speaker 19:16
That’d be okay. There we go.
Unknown Speaker 19:21
And maybe run it all the way down to the last page.
Unknown Speaker 19:24
Okay. Yeah. So this particular section application for designation of a historic district, it would be a local just adding in local district here. Yeah. So that’s really what we’re talking about here. Alright, so down to the bottom. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 19:50
Yeah, one thing on the enforcement part, there actually is a paragraph that has to do with enforcement. That’s more in the center of the ordinance kind of a weird place. So I might move the location of this section. But other than that, I think 2.56150 is where we’ve referenced enforcement. And then the other thing when we talk about maintenance requirements, something that I saw, I think it was in the Lafayette ordinance, it references the International Property Maintenance code, which is a code we enforce Anyhow, it’s through code enforcement. So it kind of vism a minimum standard, but it’s kind of a good place to start as far as defining somebody neglecting their property. So I think that would be a good addition as well. And then when we went through the criteria, I think maybe a lot of that is redundant because we describe what historic properties are. So I don’t know that we need to go through that paragraph to describing what it is. That’s up a little bit.
Unknown Speaker 21:09
Okay. Well, let’s, maybe if we just hit these two little sections, and make sure no one has any further points of discussion, I will say let’s let the record show that the commissioner Fenster has arrived.
Unknown Speaker 21:23
He’s in the building.
Unknown Speaker 21:28
Commissioner Fenster has waited behind both railroads for 45 minutes is the height of the day. And the development of Longmont in some measure, including the preservation of its historic places, depends on doing something about a medieval railroad running in two directions through the town.
Unknown Speaker 22:02
Happens to everybody
Unknown Speaker 22:04
aware of a railroad crossing that has its own Twitter page.
Unknown Speaker 22:13
Martin Street. Okay. All right. So the maintenance requirements, so other than adding in reference to the International Property Maintenance code, which is, as Glenn mentioned, adopted by the city. Any other comments on this? Are we good with this provision? Okay. So then enforcement and penalties, I’m gonna scroll down to that. That’s the last piece right, right. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 22:51
Yeah, and this basically references the section of the municipal code, that is the typical enforcement, which I think I mentioned, is a $500. Fine, and up to 90 days in jail. But then we go a little bit further, and we’ve seen this in other codes. And this was actually researched by our outside counsel, were there their communities and impose maybe more painful is moratorium on permits for a period of time? So we’ve added that in to the potential draft?
Unknown Speaker 23:33
Right. And these just to clarify, these only apply to a landmarked property? Yes, it has to be designated landmark in this case, or would it be designated refers back to
Unknown Speaker 23:49
something demolition is goes above and beyond designated. And so this would be enforcing that as well. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 24:00
Well, I just want to make sure that when we say alterations to a designated property, what is designated mean? A local landmark. Okay, right. So it does not because in other areas, here we refer to a building that might be historic, and that might be something that has a cultural resource survey that says it has some value, but we’re not talking about that kind of a property in this particular code language.
Unknown Speaker 24:26
Well, I’m glad you mentioned that is the the nuance is when we’re talking about maintenance, and we’re talking about maintenance of a designated structure. So it doesn’t do anything as far as a historic structure, which might be we have a survey on it. This goes and enforces against a landmark or an adopted local district. So but the enforcement chapter is anything in the ordinance those enforcement rules affect?
Unknown Speaker 25:14
Sheriff Jacoby? Yeah, I’m hearing what you’re saying. But what I’m seeing here, it says on that last line be to moving or demolishing a designated property or an undesignated property that is subject to Section 2.5 6.190 can get the moratorium on building permits. And that says it doesn’t have to be designated if you go back to that section there. 2.5 6.190. So I get the sense that on designated properties can also be subject to fines.
Unknown Speaker 25:53
And that has to do with demolitions. Right. So that’s exactly what I’m saying is so the penalty goes to anything in the ordinance, including demolition. It’s the section right before that regarding demolition by neglect is what you’re calling it, we’re calling it maintenance requirement that is specifically for designated properties.
Unknown Speaker 26:18
Okay, because this is, so the demolition by neglect is for designated properties. But this is referring to other properties as well. But that’s for demolishing a designated or an undesignated property that’s subject to this section. That’s included. Where I’m sorry, I’m not good at reading this stuff. But I get the sense that this is more inclusive from the word.
Unknown Speaker 26:45
I would agree. Yeah, you’re this be too looks like that includes property of historic value in the demolition within the scope of the demolition ordinance. So anything we’ve identified above, in the ordinance, which includes, you know, properties that might be of value, because they’d been identified as a cultural resource survey or contributing building to it within a district, then those would be covered by that. 25610. Yeah, I would agree with that. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 27:26
Okay, well, I think I mean, this feels like it’s pretty clean and simple. And especially if it’s consistent with what other cities are doing across the region. It makes sense to me.
Unknown Speaker 27:41
The only other thought I had, we had that wonderful spreadsheet that was made for us, most cities are charging or finding up to $1,000. And Boulder, of course, they have deep pockets, they charge up to $5,000 for fines, we’re charging 500. I don’t know if he’d ever come up. But I’m wondering is 500 most communities seem to think a higher amount would be a better deterrent. I’m not sure why we have 500. And if it’s worth going to 1000, like the majority of communities that are on that spreadsheet.
Unknown Speaker 28:14
Yeah, if we moved at all into chapter 15, for a zoning violation, those fees bump up. So that would be an advantage to having in chapter 15. And I’m not sure what that number is, but it’s certainly more than 500. In fact, I think it’s per day two.
Unknown Speaker 28:34
Unknown Speaker 28:36
Honestly, though, I’m not sure that dollar amount matters a whole heck of a lot. I don’t know if it’s 500 or 1000. The big the thing that the stick here is that is the permit. If you do something untoward with your property, now you’re stuck. So I think that’s the bigger,
Unknown Speaker 28:53
bigger challenge. But that’s my
Unknown Speaker 29:03
oops, sorry. Hold on. I got
Unknown Speaker 29:06
for the staff question. What happens after one year moratorium on all building permits? And secondly, what happens after the two year moratorium? What happens then? It just It says if
Unknown Speaker 29:26
depends on what it happens if it’s a designated property are in a district. I think they have to come before the HPC to get approval of what they build on the site.
Unknown Speaker 29:41
If a ton designated they just come in for a building permit, I believe.
Unknown Speaker 29:53
Unknown Speaker 29:56
is it would it then be true because when we revise this ordinance So that basically says, if you have a contributing building in this district, you then these requirements apply. So therefore, when you apply, you would need a database that said, this is a contributing building. So it would potentially get flagged again when the building permit comes up, because otherwise, how do you know? Right? I mean, if you’ve got if we if we say, okay, all of these types of properties are included in this ordinance, then there has to be a mechanism for you, for somebody to know that that mean, we can do a, we can do mailings and whatever to notify people that this ordinance is changing, and it might affect their property and whatever. But But after the fact, let’s say it get does in fact, pass, there’s got to be a mechanism for a staff to say, Oh, well, this has to be reviewed by staff liaison to see if you’re under the same, you know, so that’s, that’s going to have to be put into place. Otherwise, you’ll have no, no way to track it.
Unknown Speaker 31:08
Well, we define it in a number of ways. And one of them is through a preservation plan, which would be the ideal thing. But I think there’s enough things in there that we could catch it prior to that. Because anything that has a survey that says it meets three of the four criteria or something like that, or is contributing to a potential district falls under that historic property, which the demolition part, address, but I’ll take a look at it and make sure that it’s there. But yeah, we talked about on Saturday, that notice is really important. So I think at a minimum, we would get out the notice to anything we have identified now, immediately, but our goal is to do that preservation plan. That would further I guess, make it a more of a public record.
Unknown Speaker 32:05
Right, right. Commissioner Sibley?
Unknown Speaker 32:10
Yeah, um, this, this may just be not me not understanding all of the permitting part. Um, but when we were talking about enforcement and penalties, and we’ve got the permit lapse of 180 days without extension, I’m not entirely sure what that is meaning, number one, and number two. I work for a developer and I know it takes them sometimes three months to get an email out. So I don’t know that extending, you know, a denial of permits or something for a handful of months would be that big of a deal. I’m so when I you know, look over at Loveland, who is saying five years, um, you know, have no permits, I think, Oh, well, now, that would hurt a developer or you know, somebody that was thinking, okay, the money is a small amount of what their considerations are, but time is, you know, more important sometimes. So I’m just kind of throwing that out there too, because I’m not exactly sure I may be missing the point a little bit. So that was it.
Unknown Speaker 33:19
I think our outside attorney thought maybe that was too big of a stick, because we did look at it, because they’re there anywhere from zero to five years. So we kind of split the difference to what he thought was more doable.
Unknown Speaker 33:36
And I will add, I worked in Loveland for five years before coming here. And I don’t know, I don’t recall ever hearing about that ever being applied. So it may be there on paper, but I don’t know that it’s ever been implemented. So things could have changed. Yeah, things could have changed. But yeah, I there. I’m not aware of that that was implemented.
Unknown Speaker 34:06
Unknown Speaker 34:09
So what other sections should we be looking at here? So we’re good with the maintenance and we’re good with the
Unknown Speaker 34:17
well, maybe go up to 2.56190. And I think I put in the first criteria about the period of significance for a number of reasons I see that’s maybe not a good criteria. So I think we probably just take that out entirely, but like this paragraph two, we basically describe what we’ve defined earlier of what a historic property is. So I think that what will be paragraph one could be much shorter, basically. One thing we didn’t talk about a lot is chapter five. And we’ve seen this in other codes where you can’t just come in and demolish property and leave it. Well, you can certainly leave it vacant. But part of this says you need to show us something that fits within that district. So I referenced a section in the land development code, which doesn’t have anything in it yet, but would be those design guidelines. Basically, in the interim, we could just say, consistent with the Secretary of Interior goals for historic properties, or something along that lines. But we do have some planners, on staff basically. And our intent is that we get them started on what those design guidelines would look like. And we just see, you’re probably familiar, Steve, I mean, where we have the design guidelines, architectural guidelines, we would just roll it into into there. And it’d be something like, design guidelines for the original Town Center or something. And I’m hoping this will help satisfy some of the concerns we’ve heard from henna as well, that development should be consistent with the neighborhood. And Sunday, I’ll show you what the governor is proposing but won’t do that tonight.
Unknown Speaker 36:30
Okay, thank you. So yeah, alright, so let’s go. I guess any comments on these five provisions?
Unknown Speaker 36:46
Well, for this section, it’s not specifically those five provisions. But this section is, is titled review of permits for demolition, removing of on designated structures, if we add on designated removal of total, when you say, permits for demolition, that, to me implies total demolition. But, again, if that, looking at that breakdown of what different cities are doing, most of these are also adding partial demolition. And you do define partial demolition earlier in this as greater than 50% of the building, which is a very significant amount to become officially partial demolition rather than just modification. So I would suggest you specify review of permits for full and partial demolition not just permits for demolition. Because if you demolishing more than 50% of a building, I think you’re having a significant impact. And I think that should be included.
Unknown Speaker 37:44
Yep. Well, that’s arguable. But if if you’re if demolition is defined earlier, if the if the term demolition is defined as xy and z, then you don’t need to repeat it again. Here
Unknown Speaker 37:59
is that is demolition defined? Right? Yeah, I think we did. And well, you define partial demolition, but you defined demolition as including full and partial in this kind of instance. Do
Unknown Speaker 38:14
that at all? Yeah, please.
Unknown Speaker 38:16
Okay. Okay, good. Because that’s, I think that’s really important.
Unknown Speaker 38:19
It’s good to have that sort of thing in one place, especially just because the language, what often happens is the language changes just a little bit, and then you start parsing, goofy little words, here and there. So as long as we have it covered, I would say we’re okay. But it should be defined. Clearly that demolition includes any of these things.
Unknown Speaker 38:40
I get cross-eyed Reading legal documents like this, but so long as it’s included, I’m fine with it. It’s in there.
Unknown Speaker 38:48
So specifically, one of the topics that we talked about in the retreat that we never quite resolved was this within the original subdivision, city subdivision any structure X within a period is of significance. I think we were leaning back towards any any structure 50 years, you know, or older, and just, which I don’t know, is particularly problematic. Well, it’s gonna get there, right. Eventually, we’ll just have to deal with it. But it seemed like there wasn’t a better way to handle that. I think we’re in agreement there that that’s just gonna go back to 50 years.
Unknown Speaker 39:29
Some of us that we don’t see 1973 is historic, and that’s what I stumbled on. Right? I mean, it’s, it’s getting there.
Unknown Speaker 39:42
Yeah. 50 the 50 year requirement. That’s a pretty standard on your Holly and gazebos made the commissioners Norton and guide he made the comment that that’s pretty much the widely accepted standard within Historic Preservation so it makes sense to stick with it.
Unknown Speaker 40:00
Yeah, so my only other comment at this is just word, really just a word wording on in to section two near the end, state or federal registers or determined to be a contributing resource. I forgot that we got that last time I can remember. Okay. All right.
Unknown Speaker 40:27
Unknown Speaker 40:28
Yeah. I’m, and I think that it was for Collins where I read this, I have too many things highlighted. Sorry. I’m, but they’re in one of the sections, it did say that it was, you know, contributing buildings and blah, blah, things that had been designated, but they just blanket it and said anything 50. And I thought that that’s, you know, kind of what was on here too. Um, but I thought that was kind of interesting, because who knows, you know, sometimes things slip by, because the other changes, but there could be some important things to save. So, I just wanted to throw that out. I’m pretty sure that was in the Fort Collins stuff.
Unknown Speaker 41:06
You know, one thing I noticed that caught me as odd in Fort Collins is they excluded single family residence from the 50 years old.
Unknown Speaker 41:15
I didn’t see that.
Unknown Speaker 41:16
I don’t know why. It was. I don’t know whether it was commercial buildings are more important to them or
Unknown Speaker 41:24
covered somewhere else. Maybe? Yeah,
Unknown Speaker 41:28
I don’t know. Yeah, I’ll highlight that, because I picked up on that. And that is an oddity that I haven’t seen. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 41:36
I did not catch that part. I just saw the less than 50 and or, you know, anything that was 50. So yeah, yeah. Yeah, I would definitely include residential. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 41:49
They also they applied to demolition to anything that’s on a state or federal designation to or is contributing, or? Yeah, it was pretty broad. It was. And they have funds available that to keep you from demolishing
Unknown Speaker 42:09
Unknown Speaker 42:14
At the risk of being a nitpicker. A to at the end of the sentence, it says district and if you need a T there,
Unknown Speaker 42:25
yes. Somebody cut down on Saturday might have had been
Unknown Speaker 42:32
a bit of a blur. I am looking at this now and think and wondering. So the difference between one and two? In effect two is a little bit more narrow. Right. And one is pretty broad. So it does it makes this just a question. Does it make sense to just use two for everything? Because it? Or? Or do we really want anything that’s 50 years or older within the original subdivision to be reviewed? Because at some point, we’re going to end up reviewing, you know, buildings that were built in 1990 83. And is that the intent? Should we should we just put everything into a structure identified as a cultural resource survey, et cetera, et cetera?
Unknown Speaker 43:26
I thought it was within the original subdivision. That’s 50 years old, but doesn’t look like it. Yeah, I guess in today’s code, it just says anything within the original city subdivision. And then if you’re outside the regionals, then you have the standard of there has to be a survey done or
Unknown Speaker 43:51
just the question I don’t know if any commissioners have a thought about that or whether we want to be broader with inside that original subdivision or not. I’m sure Sibley
Unknown Speaker 44:00
I’m mouthy today I’m I’m gonna throw it out there to keep it fairly broad and wide. I don’t know exactly what all the stuff is. That’s you know, they’re they’re talking about for you know, to change the housing and things like that. You’re talking about the stuff coming maybe from the governor’s office, I’m my house is built in the 68 and I can see possibly one day in the future that ranch style house that has a two car garage and its own driveway is going to be a historic and so you know, even though today not so exciting, but in the future. You know, somebody else might be looking back at that going oh, I wish we would have saved more of those houses because they have all been demolished for condos or something. So I guess I’m in favor of keeping it broad.
Unknown Speaker 44:55
Alright, let’s say first I’ve got going order here. Commission Jacoby,
Unknown Speaker 45:03
I would echo Commissioner Sibley, I think covering retrospective scopes are wonderful. If you’ve got one that works well, you know, and trying to figure what would be worth saving what’s not. In the intermediate term, I don’t think historically, as a society, we’ve been very good at that. I mean, we tear things down that are moderately old that we don’t value and then later, we say those are valuable. So I think that the 50 year mark, I think, is good. In fact, I was thinking, you may cringe at this. But the going the other way, for outside the original city subdivision, maybe we should look at all structures over 75 years old. And add that to it. I can tell you, there’s this wonderful house, I think it’s 11/15 Avenue, I encourage you to look at it, it looks like it’s as old as anything downtown. It is probably, you know, original homestead house, it’s been swallowed up. It’s there’s nothing near it that looks nearly as old. It’s out by the slough and buy one of the irrigation ditches and it was original Farm Home. But it’s not on our radar and our surveys. We just frankly, aren’t up on our surveys yet. If we’re going to rely on our surveys for this, we’re going to miss things, I think. And this this house I’m thinking of and it’s just one example. It’s in soso shape, it could use a lot of work, I could see someone saying let’s just tear it down and build something else. And it wouldn’t be on our radar with this language. So I wouldn’t say any house or any structure over 75 years if it’s outside of the original city. Mark. Something to consider.
Unknown Speaker 46:52
Unknown Speaker 46:55
Yes, I’m wondering whether the city of Longmont has made an effort to period and classify development and construction in the city bounds. In other words, have we looked at the city comprehensively to? I don’t want to use the word landmark to identify period structures, where we have some reason to know that they are of landmark Mark quality for that period. For example, when you mentioned 1973, for some of us who look at such things 1973 was a particular period of time, in which certain kinds of residential structures were built. And it had very little years predecessor, and only a few years successor. But in with a small l at landmarks, those particular houses, have we made any effort to more comprehensively period where construction has been done within the city limits?
Unknown Speaker 48:17
Not that I’m aware of.
Unknown Speaker 48:20
I think that would be the point of trying to really push the Preservation Plan and the surveys to really start to do that. And that’s why i That’s why I think the language in number two right now is good. Because if knowing that we’re trying to push that preservation plan, and some surveys, this, that the fear of putting, you know, just well timeline on the entire city. The other goal is we want to get this ordinance passed. And if we have some blanket coverage that every house in the city could be, you know, coming in here for a garage addition, it’s not going to pass because if anybody pays attention to it, they’re going to lose their minds. And it’s going to be overly cumbersome, right? So if we get if we can say, Okay, this is what we have, we’re going to try to get this preservation plan that’s going to actually start to identify some things, and then we can, you know, we can that that whole process of a preservation plan can be and should be an open public process. So people can come in and say, Hey, we think our neighborhoods really cool and we’d be really excited about the idea of, you know, eventually having some kind of designation or get off my lawn, you know, so, I think that’s, to me, this feels right.
Unknown Speaker 49:40
Without making a special deal about the original Yeah, it makes sense. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 49:45
And we can have the originals. I mean, we can have the number one within the original city subdivision 50 years or older. But But I liked the language and too because it’s, it’s it’s specific enough. while also remaining flexible, yeah.
Unknown Speaker 50:07
Any other comments are on this section before we scroll? What other pieces of this ordinance were we that overly chatty about uncertainty?
Unknown Speaker 50:20
That was the major part. That’s the meat of the matter right there.
Unknown Speaker 50:26
Okay, so what is good?
Unknown Speaker 50:31
Unknown Speaker 50:32
this is still sort of my pet project. But I don’t know if we ever came to conclusion about doing something about our certificate of merit. And again, when we designate a house, it serves two functions. It serves to recognize the house as something special in our community. But it also serves to give us some oversight into the maintenance of the historic character. Those are two different things. And I think we could modify our certificate of merit, to require a certificate of appropriateness for external additions, if we hung the carrot of the permit incentives we give for historically designated homes, we wouldn’t give them we can’t give them the tax incentives, we wouldn’t give them a little brass plaque, we’d give them a little bit less. But we would still retain some control of the exterior appearance and maintenance of some of these historic but maybe not so special homes. So I still think it’s worth thinking about i i would vote for it. But I haven’t heard a lot from other commissioners what you think if you think we should pursue this or not, and and add it to the code.
Unknown Speaker 51:50
Gonna do my best to speak for commissioners Norden guy who, and they can yell at me next time if I’m wrong. But I got the impression from the retreat that from the perspective of the State Historical Society that they were not particularly in favor of that because it was there. I think the phrase was preservation light. And so it was just sort of this muddy middle ground of not actually upholding standards. And it just, it was maybe a little muddy here. I thought, when you first proposed the idea, I thought it was oh, this is really cool. But thinking about just how it just gets implemented, maybe, maybe we just need to get properties, you know, surveyed and then get homeowners, you know, informed about the benefits of, you know, potentially designating their properties and getting money for it. I mean, maybe it’s a little more just outreach? I don’t know. I thought that was the impression I got from I started backing off it Saturday, because because of that.
Unknown Speaker 52:56
I don’t I don’t see it muddying things if we use the same language for a permit incentives that we have already. And for the certificate of appropriateness requirements that we have already. I don’t it’s not really. It is it is yeah, historic preservation light. But I do think it serves a purpose. I think we have a need.
Unknown Speaker 53:17
Well, I think it’s worth keeping on the topic, especially when those two are back here and can talk through it a little more. I think we ought to, I mean, I don’t have a problem keeping it in, in our list of items that we’re kind of talking about as a commission.
Unknown Speaker 53:31
Okay. I’m gonna put it off
Unknown Speaker 53:41
Okay, any other comments about the ordinance Okay, hold on just simply
Unknown Speaker 53:49
it’s not so much about the ordinance. I’m but I thought of Rick’s suggestion when I was reading, again, through one of the other the city’s, um, they have Heritage Awards yearly. And I think that that was actually Fort Collins again, but it might have been Lafayette, I can’t remember. But anyways, I thought that was kind of interesting. And I’m, you know, if we ever entertained such a thing, you know, I mean, if you could possibly do something that, you know, maybe would celebrate somebody’s success if they redid a building that maybe didn’t hit some of the other qualifications and can get a blast, brass plaque and all those kinds of things. But hey, you know what, you guys did an amazing job doing what you could to save this house or whatever, you know, but anyways, I just wanted to throw that out there as kind of a also ran idea.
Unknown Speaker 54:44
Thanks, Commissioner Fenster.
Unknown Speaker 54:46
You’re the before we leave the subject. I want to go back to the notion of historic and this commission doing something that anticipates beyond coming newness of the classification of historic so we have a rather, all of us have a rather colonial predicate for historic but there are a period pieces in Longmont and some of them really stand out and they are not classically historic. They are however, called the monument pieces. They’re worth preservation, if that can be made, economic, economically viable for the owners, et cetera, et cetera. And the the owners ought to know that these structures have historic significance in 1973 house built in Longmont, Colorado, has for me, based on my background, historic significance, which will be known in the future. So in our capacity, isn’t there something more comprehensive that we can do that anticipates that part of the future?
Unknown Speaker 56:11
A preservation plan?
Unknown Speaker 56:14
Well, yeah, it gets to that. It gets to that eventually. Yeah. But it’s it may start with some kind of notice to the city, that it needs to do something more. That history is not confined to what is today historic. It’s good point.
Unknown Speaker 56:39
All right. Well, let’s see. Let’s move on from the ordinance you say? Well, I guess, in terms of next steps, Glenn, you’ll take this back to your attorney consultant.
Unknown Speaker 56:53
Yes. Yeah. And ultimately, we? Well, we probably want to get you guys to get one more look at it. And we’ll I’ll present it to council in a work session. Maybe prior to doing all the final drafting.
Unknown Speaker 57:11
Make sure is it helpful for have any of the commissioners at that work session? are good betas or not? Well, if if that is helpful, then feel free to reach out. Okay, I’m sure there would be people willing to do that. Okay, so then on to some of the other topics we had
Unknown Speaker 57:41
from the retreat.
Unknown Speaker 58:07
So with respect to the cultural resource surveys, there was a note from even last in the meeting minutes about a consultant that you all had that was experienced with grant writing. So
Unknown Speaker 58:21
yeah, I think I think we all talked about that survey plans really be an important first step. And at those prices, we can do that. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 58:31
Great. Great. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 58:36
Of course, there has been inflation discovered,
Unknown Speaker 58:40
you know, a commissioner guy was thrown out twice that amount. So it was happy to hear that it was a little more affordable. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 58:54
When you do get into the preservation plan, that would probably be something we would probably budget for, for next year. Right. But I think $20,000 I think we can do that with our current budget. Great.
Unknown Speaker 59:12
Let’s see. And then I know we had we have a little more. Is this the end of the document or as you
Unknown Speaker 59:18
pretty much this is? Yeah, we’ve covered Yeah, it was in there. I wasn’t making it up. Yeah. So
Unknown Speaker 59:26
we’re towards the end. So we’ve already talked about the certificate of merit. We haven’t really covered the outreach efforts as much.
Unknown Speaker 59:35
Right. So I did want to cover that specific to Commissioner Jacoby’s suggestion that we consider potentially pursuing a landmark status for the tower of compassion. So I just took the opportunity to reach out to Carl McWilliams since I know him and Just wanted to get a sense of what it might take to get a cultural research survey of that building because I don’t know that we have one. And he throughout maybe a max of $1,500, which doesn’t seem like a terribly onerous amount. And so I was wondering, I think that’s a great idea. I think it’s, and so I think, you know, if we can, if the commission is behind it, you know, what could we do to kind of push that forward? And I also wanted to suggest that maybe we ought to ask, or at least talk to parks. And say, we’re thinking about doing this is that you’re going to our burn over that because we seem I don’t want to be the bull in the china shop here, either.
Unknown Speaker 1:00:46
That’s a great idea. I will mention, Commissioner Sibley found this, which has a great picture of it. Where did you find this SUSE,
Unknown Speaker 1:00:58
grabbing lunch and Lewisville, there was a little kiosk on the side of the thing, and it just had a pile of those. And I thought I’ll be done. Oh, my goodness. Yeah. And I talked about the family that, you know, family members were that started that builds that were from Hiroshima. And I mean, there was just all kinds of great information in there. I thought. So.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:19
There’s a great timeline, and it was like four or five pictures on the history along model going back to BC. So.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:26
Okay, well, so what would be the appropriate? Okay, let me first ask, is there anyone here that thinks that’s a bad idea? Okay, all right. So given that, would it be appropriate for staff to reach out? Or would it be appropriate for me as a chair of this commission to reach out to the chair parks and just say,
Unknown Speaker 1:01:53
we can do that? Yeah. Okay. You can do that. And then that conversation with them?
Unknown Speaker 1:01:58
And then do you think it would be easy enough to if that’s if there’s no issue, no roadblock there than to simply just get, just hire Carl to do that survey? What would take?
Unknown Speaker 1:02:11
Yeah, if it’s that amount? It’s possible.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:14
I guess we even have some funds associated with HPC. Right. I don’t know what that is. But I thought it was really, Karen told us that a long time ago, there was like, some city budget of some $1,000. You know, whatever. 5000 8000. Maybe it was 10. There was sort of available, that’s what she used when she sent out on mailing. Right. She said she had some sort of budget.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:41
I have to confirm that. I’ll check with Jay. And I do know that some of that budget was used for sending folks to the saving places conference and also to making sure we have a stash of the historic landmark plaques as folks come in with landmark applications or knee replacements. Okay. But I’ll check with Jane on that.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:07
Okay, thanks. Do you want to any kind of formal motion that the Commission recommends that we get a cultural resource survey of that building?
Unknown Speaker 1:03:17
Or do we need that? Is it helpful? Sure.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:22
commissioner, Commissioner Jacoby, would you like to make that motion? Since you were was your idea in the first place? Second, I’ll second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. Okay, there we go. You have a motion from the HPC that we get a cultural resource survey of the tower of compassion.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:44
And we will vet it with Parks folks. Ultimately, it’s a city council decision to so we might touch base there. See if there’s any reason B with a forward against it. So does.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:02
Okay. Anything else from the retreat that commissioners would like to discuss?
Unknown Speaker 1:04:12
Unknown Speaker 1:04:15
Keep going through my notes. I’m sure. And this actually goes back to something that you were talking about. I’m I’m sold I forgot. Oh, wow. I haven’t highlighted here. I’m sorry. This thing disappear from screen? Um, so we were talking about and I can’t remember where it is in your document, but we’re talking about designating a property without like doing it. Yeah, without owner’s consent. Did you guys did you happen to catch the Fort Collins stuff on that? I didn’t notice that. No. So I’m this was kind of interesting because it does say that Uh, if owner is not initiative name initiating designation, Director shall contact the owner of the house or property. And basically it says they can send a letter and they have about five days to, you know, I guess respond, but it says such written request for consent shall be deemed as having been received for the purposes upon passage of five days. But anyways, I will give you this if you are interested, because I thought, well, that kind of ties into what we were talking about. I’m sure you had brought up some information about that.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:36
So basically says if they don’t respond, it will be designated,
Unknown Speaker 1:05:41
designated there for five days.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:45
I don’t understand, but
Unknown Speaker 1:05:48
five days seems like a pretty short period.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:52
Well, I mean, there was more to it, but it was kind of one of these things where, you know, if some if they wanted to put information,
Unknown Speaker 1:06:01
do we need to worry about whether that would constitute a taking?
Unknown Speaker 1:06:08
Yes. Yeah, I gotta turn it off. Yeah. Yes. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:20
Unknown Speaker 1:06:23
Yeah, we’ll definitely take a look at that a little deeper. And I My experience has been, and I think rightfully so there’s usually a much higher bar, or designation without the owner’s consent than with places I’ve worked in the past, they had, you know, a list of criteria. And if the owner consented, you had to meet like, one, maybe two. But if the owner did not want to, they had to meet like four or five of like, seven criteria. So there’s definitely a higher bar that rightfully should be established in that case, but we’ll take a look at
Unknown Speaker 1:06:56
it. Again, I didn’t know understand all of it. But it just it caught my attention after our discussions.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:05
Like this is this is one test, notifying the owner? Because it refers back to another section, which I think probably has a few other things.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:18
I was looking at it quickly.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:21
But yeah, well, looking at
Unknown Speaker 1:07:24
Unknown Speaker 1:07:25
One of the things we talked about this historic preservation month, and I know you said something about this going to be this city council and may 23. Is your Is there anything else? We talked about us doing something or possibly interview with? I
Unknown Speaker 1:07:43
think that’s what we could commit to? And we’d certainly all the commissioners should come for that to generally get a picture with city council. And but we did talk about a melee and I think we said it, we just don’t have the horsepower right now to And besides that, I think to do a mailing I think we want to reference any new ordinance as far as demolition. I would like to get to two for one. And we got the Kanemoto thing. Don’t forget that. So
Unknown Speaker 1:08:20
I don’t know if all my months. But Historic Preservation month is May. So at the end of the historic preservation month, we’re gonna have an event with city council
Unknown Speaker 1:08:33
may 23. Kind of the end.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:36
World a weekend isn’t next weekend. So that’s pretty much I think,
Unknown Speaker 1:08:39
I think that’s the first regular meeting in May. Something happened?
Unknown Speaker 1:08:45
Well, maybe. But it just seems that one of the things I liked and I hate I just volunteering chairman, but I really think that we should have some kind of public exposure that we’re aware of historic preservation month, and that this is doing it have an interview set up an interview with Steve and somebody at the Longmont paper. I’d be sad just seems it’s something should happen during the month, not just say at the end. Oh, we’re just celebrating preservation, I think it was last month seems kind of an afterthought, that the city council should do it, but just I would prefer that it come up in an April meeting. But yeah, that may is such as such or that we get it earlier in the month. But at the very least, I think it would be good to have the public aware that there is a historic preservation commission that we’re doing a bunch of stuff and that can come out in a in an interview with the chair.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:51
We can ask newspapers interested?
Unknown Speaker 1:09:56
I think realistically this is something we can start looking at now for next year. as well, and putting in work programs, we can, you know, we start thinking about now we can, was 70 of these things need to be done pretty far in advance. So we’ll start, you know, doing some brainstorming for 2024.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:16
Okay, and I think that’s a good idea. But I still would like to discuss the idea of having Steve do an interview that crosses any lines that I’m not aware of with the city.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:30
I don’t have a problem with it, but I can’t make them do it. Steve? Well, we can we can touch base with them, when we say them a miss of the press.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:43
Okay, but, you know, that’s okay. So that would be coordinated with you and Steve, that
Unknown Speaker 1:10:51
we can touch base with the newspaper and see if they’d be interested.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:01
It Steve is willing.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:05
I did approach the times call with a suggested article on saving the dickens barn, and the history of Mary Dickens and so on. And thank you very much didn’t happen. So it is a private paper and they’re allowed to do what they want. Certainly worth a try, though. But yeah, it we really, should we we talked last year about planning ahead this year. We didn’t do it. And if we really want to make more of a deal of preservation month, I think really, we have to make more of a deal of it ourselves. In the next several months not wait until next April.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:46
Just real quick, uh, the Latin barn. Is that a done enough deal that that could be public knowledge, or is that still sort of getting all settled out?
Unknown Speaker 1:11:57
Next agenda on the item? Okay, next item on the
Unknown Speaker 1:12:01
agenda. Okay. All right. Oh, yeah, I guess I don’t look at my own agenda. Commissioner Sibley?
Unknown Speaker 1:12:10
I don’t know who does this. I get emails from every Longmont group that I can possibly sign up for. So apologies. I think this comes from the city but there is a weekly events email that I get. I’m maybe it’s daily camera, I’m not sure. But anyways, I’m they will send all these different things. And it’s everything from you know, what, what’s happening at a brewery with trivia night to whatever. And I was wondering, I don’t know if whoever house or if anybody has tours that are even just a regular tours that they do all the time, that maybe we could, you know, gather some of those things. And I’d even be happy to just call the museum and say, Hey, guys, what what stuff do you have happening that we could just like, throw out there and say, Hey, and celebration for and then you know, tag it onto one of these things. So at least there’s something even if it’s not something special, somebody that’s been in town just a few years isn’t going to know. So that that might be a way to show that there is some stuff out there without reinventing the wheel. I don’t know who does the marketing for that stuff.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:26
I don’t either. Commissioner Bart
Unknown Speaker 1:13:30
want to come back to the community meetings idea that we talked about. And the idea of having to people from the HPC set up some type of community meetings. I don’t want to get lost. But I haven’t heard anything from staff where the staff has to be involved or whether it’s how we would proceed at this, this item that concerns me a little bit. And I wanted to pursue this also was the report from counsel that we got saying that we’ve two of us, if any two of us are discussing something, it’s an open meeting. And I’m not sure how that works. I mean, well, there’s three sorry, three for us. Three for us. Okay, but my notes are wrong. That’s fine.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:29
So if I guess just to follow that up, if we did have two commissioners, sitting notice that we were there for some sort of resource that people wanted to show up and talk about things. Is there any need for any staff to manage that what’s what’s the protocol for those sort of things?
Unknown Speaker 1:14:54
Um, so you’re talking similar to like, the council does, right? There is Have that, that do set that up and get that advertised and everything. So we would probably reach out to them and see if they have the capacity to do that.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:16
My thought was that we could perhaps a good time to try that would be if we once this ordinance suggested ordinance got put out? You know, it can be potentially around that if there’s enough out if that makes sense. Actually, I guess it’s sort of after the fact. But
Unknown Speaker 1:15:43
you could do that before it’s adopted. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:48
Just to have a topic, you know, anything. But what I guess it’s something to think about, and perhaps if there are other commissioners, that would be interested. I mean, at some point, there’s a matter of, you know, there’s only so much time in the day, and this isn’t anyone’s day job here on the commission, either, right, you know, speak for myself, I have a fair amount going on. So I, you know, there’s a limit to how much I got to stretch myself to do these things. I mean, one phone call with a paper is no big deal. But we’d need to have a kind of a is a willingness as a body to do this, you know, each.
Unknown Speaker 1:16:34
It’s just how many people typically show up for coffee with counsel, do you get a large number of small numbers of very variable,
Unknown Speaker 1:16:43
we had over 60, last last
Unknown Speaker 1:16:45
16, and you do it monthly, so and that’s covering all topics for the city, I, I have a tough time thinking we’re gonna get a consistent number of people interested in historic information, if we do this on a regular basis. One thing I was thinking just while we’re talking here, is sometimes they have main street festivals, and people set up booths for everything in anything. And we could set up a booth there. for historic preservation, we could invite the st frame Historical Society to come there too. And just whatever we can do get manpower there anything historic, just to drag people in and maybe raise awareness at some event like that, that that wouldn’t be a one time event for the year maybe. But there’s a million people milling around on Main Street at that time. And so I think the odds of engaging people might be better at something like that than just sitting down at Ziggy’s and saying, Hey, come talk to us. And we just be sitting there watching our coffee go cold, I think, frankly,
Unknown Speaker 1:17:49
judging by the number of people at Publix invited to be heard on Tuesdays City Council in comparison to the folks who came here, I would tend to agree with you.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:05
All right, well, let’s keep that on the conversation. I think it would be worth just, it’d be just essentially just having some sort of update every, some some agenda column in every meeting where we can just kind of go through some of these things and and just talk about what have space to talk about what we might want to do. All right, let’s then go to the last item on the agenda, which is the dickens barn Preservation Plan update.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:42
Sure. So really just update on this one is we are trading the agreement back and forth with lawyers and have some little details that we need to finish coordinating with our parks people. But fingers crossed, hopefully by the next meeting, we’ll be at a point where we have signed agreements that we can send up the food chain as it were.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:08
Right. And then we do have to have a formal action by the HPC on that condition regarding the Seminole lemon.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:21
Okay, so could that happen next meeting on the fourth,
Unknown Speaker 1:19:24
we’re hoping that is my goal.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:27
So that would be great, right? And if that happens on the fourth, that is in fact, at the beginning of historic preservation month, and perhaps could be a yeah, just be a big win. And that might be something really worth the paper might be more interested in something like that. And then if you know what myself or some other commissioner wants to comment to the paper on the record about that particular item that’s maybe a little more exciting than just talking to the preservation Commissioner about whatever they have on their mind. I’d say that that’s a it’s a, it’s a worthwhile sort of newsworthy point and that might accomplish our goals.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:10
Okay. Okay, well, that’s great. It’s photo op. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So perfect.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:19
Any questions on that for staff? Are we? We’re good. Okay. Great. All right. Well, then, any other comments from HPC? Commissioners? Anyone else have anything they would like to say? Tonight?
Unknown Speaker 1:20:36
Sorry, I didn’t.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:39
Just, you said that you staff said they were gonna look into the available funds, just reminder to some point. I mean, I’ve already made my reservation, so I’m going whether there’s any reimbursement or not, so for the saving places in the hood. In August 27 to 29th? I think it is, yeah, they do
Unknown Speaker 1:21:05
an on the road thing, and la junta that is on my list to check into as well. So stay tuned. Oh, I’ll be looking into that. Hopefully, once a year, and yeah, it’s a once a year thing they do in addition to the February conference, they kind of do a road trip.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:25
Okay. Well, I just like to thank staff for the efforts that you’ve made, especially recently here with the retreat and so on, and getting us set up and getting us moving. I really do appreciate the work that’s involved in that. And I’m sure all the commissioners do. Any comments from our city council representative?
Unknown Speaker 1:21:49
Thank you, Carolyn. Just real quick, some thoughts on historic preservation month is that the city does employ a social media team. And social media teams often need content to help push right. And I think that’d be something that would be an easy thing that they could incorporate into their work, you know, as far as being informative on behalf of the city. So something to think about, especially if you’re looking at trying to get in front of May, instead of at the end of May, right as far as the proclamation is concerned. So just an idea there. I don’t know if when I’m pretty sure the Museum does it. But historic walking tours, but they may not be doing it yet, because of weather. I’m not sure that’d be something you’d have to confer with the museum about. So that would be another one that you could possibly an existing thing, like an event that you could tie into or that, you know, the social media team could tie into as well. So just some some ideas that wouldn’t require so much, you know, muscle from staff be fairly easy to put together. I think that could also serve the historic preservation commission goals for highlighting Historic Preservation month. Outside of that. Thank you all for your time. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:23:04
Okay. I’m trying to look up on my calendar here. When Eric was doing his tours. I know I am doing a tour coordinated with a museum, a historic tour in early June. So it’ll be after the preservation month, but it will be in early June. I don’t think I put down here when Eric is doing his tour, so I’m not sure when he is but again, I think he’s waiting for warmer weather.
Unknown Speaker 1:23:31
Okay. All right.
Unknown Speaker 1:23:34
Well, with that, I would accept a motion to adjourn. Alright,
Unknown Speaker 1:23:42
so I’ve got I’m going to call that a motion from Commissioner Jacoby and seconded by Sibley all those in favor. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all for your time.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai