Video Description:
Historic Preservation Board – August 2023
Read along below:
Speaker 1 0:00
All right. We’ll go ahead and call to order the August 3 2023 meeting of the historic preservation commission. Can we have the roll, please? Chairman lane here, Commissioner Sibley Commissioner Fenster. Mr. Norton, Commissioner Jacoby, Commissioner Barnard, Councilmember Rodriguez. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we’ll have approval of the July 6 2023. Meeting Minutes. And I would ask counsel, certainly anyone who was here to be a little extra careful about making sure they’re comfortable with any comments made in those meeting minutes and recorded since they may become used later? Yes.
Speaker 2 0:59
Would it be possible just had a crazy week, if we could hold off approving these because I know I talked a lot at that meeting. And your, your caution just now made me more cautious. I can actually read them during the meeting. If we could put it till the end of the meeting. I could speed read it or put it off to the next meeting.
Speaker 1 1:21
Yeah, maybe that would be appropriate to if we can shift the if you want to make a motion to shift that approval of those minutes to the end of the meeting. I in the communications with HPC liaison, we’d like to get an update on status so that maybe that’s appropriate. So would you like to move
Speaker 2 1:44
to postpone discussion of item three to item number after item 10 or after, after?
Unknown Speaker 1:55
Let’s say after item nine after?
Unknown Speaker 1:58
That’s my motion.
Speaker 1 2:01
Do I have a second? Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Barnard and seconded by Commissioner Sibley. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. Okay, we’ll move that review of the minutes until later in the meeting. Next would be report from the chair. I don’t have anything in particular to call out. So let’s move on to
Speaker 2 2:30
really good speaking to the city council the other day. I said I was watching him and I said that’s that’s my chairman.
Speaker 1 2:42
Appreciate that. All right, let’s go to communications from our HPC staff.
Speaker 3 2:52
All right, got a few updates. First and foremost, the window replacement at 554. Call your street that this commission denied a certificate of appropriateness for their last meeting has been appealed by the property owner and is on the agenda for city council on August 22. So yeah. So that’s, that’s number one on my report. So I’ve been working on that appeal report and in coordination with Glenn and Jeremy, as well. So since it’s pretty rare that we have a an appeal of decisions of the sport, not a lot of precedent to work from. So
Speaker 1 3:38
if you can just please make sure your chair gets the chance to recognize you so I can have due process and turn the mic. Thanks.
Speaker 4 3:51
Yeah, that’s subject does. Is it the practice for the commission to appear in the appeal proceedings
Speaker 4 4:07
was how was the Commission’s voice heard?
Speaker 5 4:12
Of course Commissioner. So Jeremy Terrell assistant city attorney and be at the city attorney’s office. In terms of the appeal process, the appeal hearing before City Council will open up with the appeal report, which is prepared by staff which will include the minutes from the historic preservation commission meeting, along with the communications and the administrative record that the historic preservation commission considered and making a decision so that the commissioners
Speaker 4 4:39
does the commission get to see that before it’s presented.
Speaker 5 4:43
Not traditionally, is my understanding. It’d be part of the published packet so the Commission can see it the same time the rest of the public will see it. There’s certainly no problem with sharing it as soon as it’s been finalized with the commissioners but there won’t be there’s no awkward tunity at the city council meeting for commissioners to come and testify in support of their decision, it’s based on the administrative record itself. So it’s based on the minutes of that meeting, along with the decision rendered by the Commission.
Speaker 1 5:14
And I had a follow up question about that, since we’re on the topic. Based on what you’ve just said, Is it at all? Would the commissioners have an opportunity if they so choose? And would it be appropriate for them to take their three minutes of public invited to be heard to make a comment to counsel and or would it be appropriate to write you know, provide correspondence to counsel,
Speaker 5 5:47
my vice, Mr. Chairman, is no involving regards is a quasi judicial matter that would be for city council. So under the city council rules of procedure, public invited or be heard comments may be restricted. And then the city council’s decision has to be based on the administrative record, which was the record at the historic preservation commission made at this last meeting. So that city council can only consider new evidence and very limited circumstances. So that would also include statements made by commissioners himself. So it’d be at City Council’s discretion to consider that new evidence. And the city council is restricted in regards to what new evidence they may consider even my recommendation for the commission itself will be not to send any comments, either written or oral.
Unknown Speaker 6:39
Commissioner Barner?
Speaker 2 6:42
Yes, I understand, Jeremy that the under the new rules the City Council can restrict during the public invited to be heard. But the reason that I read that they did that was because if things were going to be subject to a public hearing, they wanted all the comments to be made during the public hearing, since that would be part of the record. That’s and then all parties, it wouldn’t be any ex parte communication since all parties are there for the hearing. So I think the question, if I could amend Chairman’s question a little bit. The question is, is there any thing or any thing in the code or procedure that would prevent a commissioner from expressing his or her view at the hearing about the matter?
Unknown Speaker 7:38
Just a moment, Mr. Commissioner.
Speaker 5 7:46
So I’m just looking at the city council rules of procedure. And did you
Unknown Speaker 7:50
move your mic over a little bit?
Speaker 5 7:53
Yep. I was just looking at the city council rules of procedure. Again, it does say anytime this city council may hold a quasi judicial hearing. So while this is not a traditional, objective standard, it is actually a traditional objective standard. The appeal has to be heard consistent with the land development code appeal processes adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission Code and ordinances. And so City Council itself will be deciding whether or not the historic preservation Commission’s decision was made an error based on certain circumstances, since we’re applying objective criteria since City Council be applying objective standards making that decision. It is a quasi judicial proceeding. And so the public invited be heard restriction would apply to the hearing itself.
Speaker 2 8:43
I’m a little confused, because I read I find I have followed this issue of restricting comment very, very closely. So I’ve read all of it. And I’ve watched it all. And my understanding, and you’re you’re telling me something different from what I understand the decisions were, you’re saying that city council can restrict comments on the public on the during the hearing process.
Speaker 5 9:13
There actually won’t be a public hearing for this appeal hearing. So the only way we ever get public comment is if someone makes requests for augmenting additional evidence concerning this appeal. So under I have to find the exact code provision, but the way the appeal hearing works is that staff will present the appeal report the appellant that appellant applicant will have a chance present argument in support of her position for why the decision was wrong. And then both staff and the appellant will have a chance to request additional evidence be presented. And City Council can only consider that new evidence in limited circumstances. So outside of those limited circumstances any other comments will be inappropriate. For the appeal proceeding, because the City Council is acting like an appellate level court in this case, there’s not going to be necessarily public hearing concerning the appeal process unless they’re considering additional evidence from the appellant or staff.
Speaker 2 10:15
So correct me if I’m wrong, but I heard you say that the issue before the city council is whether the historic preservation commission erred in its decision practice as opposed to whether or not it I mean, I understand that would be the case for planning and zoning. I’ve read that those procedures. Might I just, I just had a different understanding of that, because we’re not we don’t we’re not governed under the same system as Planning and Zoning is. So I thought that the city council would consider the considers the record as evidence, but then also can make its own decision. And you’re saying it’s a limited to whether or not the historic preservation commission erred? I’m just wondering, understand that
Speaker 5 11:19
correct. So under Section 2.56220, which is the source Historic Preservation Commission Code Section concerning appeals. Any appeal of a final decision by the Commission, which includes certificate of appropriateness requests are treated the same as under the land development code. So we actually follow the procedure that applies for Planning and Zoning Commission decisions that are final for the HPC decision in this case, because it’s the final decision. So while there’s other appeal processes under other sections of historic preservation commission decisions, for certificate appropriateness in particular, we follow the land development code appeal procedure like we would for planning and zoning. So it isn’t what we call in the legal profession or de novo review, it’s not a fresh look at it at the matter, is looking at the administrative record that historic preservation commission made by making their decision and deciding whether that was in plain error.
Speaker 4 12:25
Don’t think that’s an adequate procedure? Would you tell me again, what provisions embody that particular procedure?
Speaker 5 12:35
Absolutely. So in terms of the historic preservation commission code, we’re looking at chapter 2.56220 D. That’s capital D. And specifically subsection two, which says appeals shall be conducted according to procedures set out in Section 1502. Oh, 40k. That refers back to land development code. It’s the review common review procedures. And that’s the appeal section. And specifically on the historic preservation code, it says this should be treated as if it were an appeal to the city council, from a decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. So Historic Preservation code, uses the appeal process of planning and zoning final decisions.
Speaker 4 13:23
And the record that is presented is literally the record made before this commission.
Speaker 5 13:32
Yes, one second, I’ll pull up the other code provision concerning the administrative record.
Unknown Speaker 13:49
So as it concerns the administrative record, we’re looking at section 15.0 2.040. And now we get into subsections. That’ll be subsection capital K.
Speaker 5 14:14
And then subsection 10. So K 10 of that code provision, which discusses staff preparation of appeal reports, as if an appeal is made. I’m paraphrasing slightly just to remove the references to planning and zoning. The liaison shall prepare an appellate appeal report detailing the decision of the applicable decision making body and shall include all appeal letters and minutes of the applicable public meeting or hearings.
Speaker 4 14:41
May I interrupt you? Absolutely. You use the word detailing. Does that mean the author of that appeal report has license to summarize what was in the proceeding before the commission?
Speaker 5 14:59
So the staff we liaison will prepare a council communication form, which is the cover letter for the appeal report.
Speaker 4 15:06
And will that have any substance, in other words is the view of the writer embodied in the report that’s made to the council.
Speaker 5 15:17
It’s not an opinion of the writer, it’s an opinion represents, it’ll list the opinion of the state preservation commission. So it’s a detail of the facts made. So it’ll include the date the certificate of appropriateness was filed by the applicant. It did include the decision by historic preservation commission, including the reasons for how will
Speaker 4 15:36
we the commission know that the content accurately reflects what we did.
Speaker 5 15:44
That comes down to the staff liaisons, preparation of the reports, based on the minutes that will hopefully be approving at today’s meeting. So the the minutes we
Speaker 4 15:53
will get a look at it. Is that right? Correct. Is there any way that we can get a look at it?
Speaker 5 16:02
I mean, it’s certainly a public record that we can provide to the commission, but there’s no provision in our code for the commission to approve or deny of the report. itself, literally, it’s the report itself, as Jennifer has been working on is literally just a recitation of the facts. So it’s based on the documents that were filed and administrative records. So the actual request made by the applicant, the subsequent denial is loaded in the decision from the historic preservation commission. And then snippets of the code that are apply, along with snippets of the minutes itself.
Speaker 4 16:38
I just would like to note for the record that I don’t think that’s an adequate basis for moving the subject to the city council. Specially if we don’t get to look at
Unknown Speaker 16:54
all right, noted. Commissioner Jacoby?
Speaker 6 17:04
Yes, thank you. This is a small point. But I was reading the minutes here and at the public invited to be heard last time, Kyle shields mentioned that he had an equally old home with double pane windows. Since that, since our meeting last time I went by His house is the old portion of his home does not have double pane windows, it has single pane as is it appropriate for it historically designated home and he claimed that it was designated it had double pane windows, it has double pane windows in the refurbished kitchen, which I think he rebuilt about 1520 years ago, if I recall. That’s new information. I can state that now. This is a matter of public record. Is the record today used at all in consideration for the review by City Council.
Speaker 5 18:05
Mr. Commissioner, no wouldn’t be administrative records already closed and historic preservation commission has rendered its decision. Now that could be additional evidence that City Council could consider. So there could be limited circumstances which members the public could make requests for additional evidence. Looking at our code sections that’s not really relevant to City Council’s review. City Council’s review of the historic preservation commission commission decision looks at whether or not the historic preservation commission acted outside their jurisdiction. It looks at whether or not historic preservation commission made a decision without any evidence in the record. Or if there was no clear and convincing evidence to support this trip preservation Commission’s decision. So it’s very limited. So in general, the difference is made at the historic preservation commission decision was correct. Unless the applicant can show by a very high burden that it wasn’t correct.
Speaker 6 19:03
Okay, but nothing we say at today’s meeting would be used and consideration for the appeal. Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right.
Unknown Speaker 19:13
Commissioner faster.
Unknown Speaker 19:15
So this,
Speaker 1 19:20
please be Yeah, please, please wait to be recognized by the chair. Thank you. Commissioner fester.
Speaker 4 19:28
This would not be a merits review. Is that correct?
Unknown Speaker 19:35
I’ll find the exact language but essentially
Speaker 4 19:38
the merits review. What is the purpose of an appeal?
Speaker 5 19:48
So I’m reading again from our code sections. So this is
Speaker 4 19:52
no I want your review. As to whether or not this is a merits review by the city council. I go read the code SEC for myself. Sure, practicing law for 60 years.
Unknown Speaker 20:05
I guess I don’t understand your question, Mr. Commissioner, I
Speaker 4 20:08
want to know whether the quote appeal to the city council will involve the merits.
Speaker 5 20:19
So my interpretation of the question is whether or not we’re looking at whether or not the code criteria for a certificate of appropriateness applies, or whether or not the applicant met that criteria? And the answer is somewhat Yes. What is somewhat mean? Well, if the decision by historic preservation commission wasn’t based on any competent evidence, says, Who says city council, Mr. Commissioner, or if it was plainly inconsistent with the review criteria, then City Council could reverse this draft Preservation Commission decision short of those two elements or historic preservation commission exceeding its authority or jurisdiction? They can’t reverse the historic preservation commission decision. And when I say that, I mean City Council.
Unknown Speaker 21:07
I can see. Commissioner Barnard.
Speaker 2 21:12
Yes, I have the code in front of me now. So a little easier for me. And I’m looking at
Speaker 2 21:26
256 Point 220. B. I think that’s what we’re talking about. This is an appeal from final decisions by the liaison on administrative certificates of appropriateness, or is it is I think it’s
Unknown Speaker 21:49
I think it’s Si.
Unknown Speaker 21:51
Si. Pio from final decisions by the Commission see
Unknown Speaker 21:57
correct see is applicable?
Speaker 2 21:59
What is what is B referring to? appeals for final decision by the liaison?
Speaker 5 22:05
So those are referring to decisions by the liaison under.
Speaker 2 22:12
Okay, that’s what that’s what happened last time, the liaison made a decision. But the liaison actually made a decision. I’m trying to remember Jennifer Did you support or
Speaker 3 22:23
oppose. So in the case of to the chair, in the case of this particular type of certificate of appropriateness that requires counsel, not counsel commission approval, staff makes a recommendation, we aren’t a decision maker. For there are more minor types of certificate of certificates of appropriateness that can be approved at the staff level. I was gonna mention some of those that we’ve been seeing a lot of in later in my report, but things such as if someone’s replacing a roof because of hail damage, and they’re not changing the materials, that’s something that staff would look at and say, Yeah, you basically are doing replacing your roof with the same materials, there’s no reason for that to go to the commission. Things of that nature, very minor things, those would be Administrative Approval. You know, obviously, if someone were replacing the materials, like if they were replacing asphalt and wanted to do a tile roof or a metal roof, clearly that would go to the commission. Those might very minor types of, of alterations or repairs, those are the types of things that can be taken care of handled at the administrative level. And so that’s what Section V refers to is an administrative certificate of appropriateness rather than a commission decision on a certificate of appropriateness.
Speaker 2 23:54
Okay, because I’m just trying to get my hands on what is an appeal from a final decision by the liaison. So that’s if you had decided against it, and told them that and then they appealed us, to us, they would do it under this procedure. So then we’re talking about what happens after we’ve decided which is where C comes. And then it says that the appeal states why the decision is incorrect, right. That’s number one.
Speaker 2 24:37
I’m trying to remember my what you said. As far as it says it’s conducted according to procedures and 15. Oh, 4k, is that what you’re referring to? Okay, so
Speaker 5 24:50
you have to correct so we start off it in 2.56 to 220 C, which talks about the actual filing an appeal from a final decision by the Commission. And then it goes to subsection DS appeal proceedings to city council. So first a notice of appeal hearing shall be given according to this chapter. And then looking at number two appeal should be conducted according to procedure set out in Section 1502. Oh 40k, which is the appeal procedures for our final decision Planning and Zoning Commission to city council.
Speaker 2 25:26
Okay, well, Chairman, I’ll come back. I’m gonna take a look at that.
Speaker 1 25:32
Okay. All right. Any other questions for city attorney before we move on? Oh, thank you. Thank you for the time explaining the detail or appreciate that was back to HPC liaison.
Speaker 3 25:48
Have a few more items. Great. So as I mentioned, about the reroofing as an FYI just if you see roofing roofs being replaced, we’ve I’ve been processing of, we’ll call it a fairly CIP steady stream of requests for certificates of appropriateness for replacement of hail damaged roofs. So no surprise, the weather’s been kind of kind of rough lately. So we are seeing a lot of damaged roofs that need to be replaced. So and in all those cases, it’s based, it’s been a pretty much an exact material replacement. So that’s really just an FYI, for you. The other thing is board recruitment time, season is upon us. So that process begins on September 1, and runs through October 13. So we have one vacant position. As an alternate, I believe, I’ll have to double check, but we have some positions that can be filled. So if there are any folks, you know, that are interested, send them our way, and we will be happy to direct them accordingly. Um, additionally, just the other other thing, just wanted to confirm that we are planning to meet in September, that meeting is scheduled for September 7. So we have Labor Day, so just want to confirm that we will have a quorum, as we are looking ahead, so just want to make sure if we if we if we need to cancel that meeting. We can cancel it. If everyone’s going to be here. We can absolutely proceed as planned.
Speaker 1 27:32
Yeah, that is the that is the Thursday after the Labor Day weekend. Correct? Just to be
Speaker 3 27:38
yes. Yeah. So labor days. Yeah. Labor Day is that Monday, so is the Thursday after that week? I would say up that weekend, but
Speaker 1 27:48
seems like other than one person, we should be able to have bulk of the commissioners here. Okay, great. Um, so just keeping tabs on my little list here, I’m gonna ask again about survey plans and status of the cultural resource survey on the tower of compassion.
Speaker 3 28:08
Yes. So survey plan, we are working on a scope with our consultant to get that taken care of. And then on the tower of compassion, we just need to finalize some purchasing.
Speaker 1 28:20
What do you think timeline is on that? As we
Speaker 3 28:24
timeline, I would like to get that purchasing stuff finalized before the next meeting and get it started as soon as Carl’s able. So on the survey plan, we just got to work on work with our consultant to get this scope. And, you know, we’ve been having some back and forth as far as you know, samples that we’ve seen things that we’d like to see, etc. So I think out on that, Glenn,
Unknown Speaker 28:49
at the same time, okay.
Unknown Speaker 28:54
Fair enough. Commissioner Barnard.
Speaker 2 28:57
Yes, I was at another meeting today. Different from this with members of the Kinomoto family. And I asked him, Who would be the appropriate person in the family to contact and he told me it was kind of Mona and he gave me his phone number. If you want me to give that to staff or demographic,
Unknown Speaker 29:19
yep. Feel free to email that to me. Okay.
Speaker 1 29:24
Okay, thank you. Anything else? All right. Any questions for our liaison? Commissioner Jacoby?
Speaker 6 29:35
Yeah, quick question just about and there’s probably no hard and fast line here. But I’m curious when liaison can make a decision and when it comes to the Commission. The example I’m thinking of is historically designated home where I know that replacing a door and I I said well, I don’t recall hearing about out that she said, I went to planning and talk to them about it. And apparently it was approved. They also made a change to a fence that apparently was not pre approved. And they said they heard about it. And so they were very careful about coming to you for further recommendations. And so I’m not sure what where the dividing line, is it just like replacing like that we don’t see or is it minor? And then you have to define minor but minor alterations as well. So I
Speaker 3 30:33
don’t recall processing a door replacement. If it were a different style, I probably would have sent it this way. Obviously, if they were replacing, typically, if it’s something if they were, clearly if it were a historic door, I would absolutely send it this way. It’s something I would, I would, if he needs a building permit, obviously, they’re getting something in writing fences. Usually when people are doing fences, they it’s it’s essentially not something that’s a historic component of the home. So that’s something that we really don’t feel it’s necessary to send to the Commission as well. So typically, those aren’t a component of the home, they aren’t usually referenced on the I would take a look at the cultural resource survey for the property. And if the fence was listed as something significant, then I would bring it here. But if it’s not, then that’s something you know, it’s not a permanent alteration to the structure. Clearly, doors get a little tricky. If it’s a 1980 special. It’s there’s a little more leeway on that one
Unknown Speaker 31:43
was a newer door from
Speaker 3 31:44
previous okay, maybe that’s why we did it. It could have been, it could have been that as well.
Speaker 1 31:50
Yeah. And I can say that we have had discussions as a group in HPC group in the past, with staff and trying to sort of guide as a commission when we think where the line is, it’s not really clearly defined in the code. And there’s a lot put on the layout, you know, on staff to make the initial determination. So
Speaker 3 32:16
yeah, the other you know, the other factors would be Is it visible? Is it something visible to the street? Is it something being done to an original portion of the house that was referenced in the cultural resources survey during the time of significance? So, there’s a lot of it depends there.
Speaker 1 32:33
Thanks. Any other questions for staff? No. Okay. We’ll go ahead and close that portion of our agenda and open the public invited to be heard for topics other than anything on the agenda, seeing no one in the audience, we will go ahead and close the public invited to be heard. We do not have any items that are public hearing items, we will move on to new business item eight, the demolition code amendments,
Speaker 7 33:05
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I won’t go through the whole history of this, I’ll just pick it up in April, when we pulled you I think I had a conversation with the chair just trying to get an idea because I came into this process about halfway through. And maybe we lost our way previously. So we did a little poll and decided what was really important for the HPC. And we got a number of items. But mainly it was centered around the demolition code, trying to incorporate a new concept of demolition by neglect. And then also, the process was kind of a monkey process that needed to be fixed. So we showed you just basically my draft back in April, we had a lot of good comments from that. Jeremy has spent a lot of hours on it, and I think really made it a good document. So if you feel so if you feel it’s worthy. We are going to ask you to make a recommendation to city council. We can just jump to that right now if you’d like but I I think you’re probably going to want to go through each page.
Speaker 1 34:23
Yeah, I’d like to roll through and just stay hit as we go. I mean, obviously some of these are housekeeping items, but any of the major points I’d like to hit in order, discuss any, you know, job, bit by bit move through make sure as we go everybody’s okay with what we’re doing move move down and rather than sort of shotgun
Speaker 7 34:43
and I’ll put it up on the screen. The only other thing I wanted to add is if you do make a recommendation, we have a tentatively scheduled. We’re really getting kind of backed up and with city council and we are budgeted in September. We have a 10 additionally scheduled for what we call a zero reading. So it’s just kind of to give the concepts to the city council and kind of explain how we got from point A, which was kind of the historic preservation overlay to these amendments to the existing chapter 2.56. So that would be October 10. Right now, tentatively, and then can I do it from here? Excellent. We’ll make it full page. Okay with that? Yeah, let’s just go through and I’ll kind of explain why the certain red lines were made. And please ask, ask away.
Speaker 1 35:47
So let’s, I would say if we can hit the definition section, first, we’ll just run through those changes, and then pause and discuss. Maybe that would be a good way to chunk it out.
Unknown Speaker 36:13
You want to just talk about ones that were changed?
Speaker 1 36:15
Yeah. If anybody else has a question about anything else, we can handle it. Let’s just review the changes.
Speaker 4 36:23
Okay. 56560625 6.020.
Speaker 7 36:39
So it’s demolition or first changed.
Speaker 7 36:49
So I think part of what we realized is, to a certain degree, we define it here as far as what is demolition? So I think what Jeremy figured out is does it really matter whether it’s partial, or it’s complete demolition? It’s all addressed in the same section. So we added in this definition, I think this might have been in the original draft that you saw on April 1, we just added the specifics of exterior facing a public street of a property. So I don’t think there was any major changes here. But we’ll get into the why there isn’t a partial demolition. In in a future section.
Speaker 1 37:42
Okay. Oh, and then let’s just cover the whole thing. So that it looks like we’ve just basically deleted two other definitions that no longer are appropriate to include, is that right?
Speaker 7 37:53
Right. We actually the historic property was added early on, because I think that thinking was, we would reference that section in a lot of different places. So it’s better to define it here and then just say, historic properties. It really only shows up in the demolition section. So we just took the words from this and dropped it right into that section. So it made this definition not really necessary.
Speaker 1 38:18
Okay. All right. So discussion about the demolition definition or any commissioners that would like to comment on that as everybody. I mean, I think the essence of this was to try to avoid the boulder. Everything’s gone, but the front facade, therefore it’s still it’s not demolition, right. That’s, that’s the essence of it. Any further questions or discussion? No? Okay. Commissioner Fenster.
Speaker 4 38:50
Yeah, 50 cent, excuse me 2% or more of the exterior walls?
Speaker 4 39:02
Would if you took off the front, if you took off the back 1/3 of the building? Would you be a compliance based on this definition?
Unknown Speaker 39:22
I believe so.
Speaker 4 39:26
Well, then they begs the question of whether that would be a significant problem in some instances, where there is an A historic integrity to more than the front half of the building
Unknown Speaker 39:42
to say the back half the back third.
Speaker 4 39:48
In other words, are there instances in which the integrity historic integrity of the structure is enough all encompass So, so that there’s a reason to worry about the back third of the building. Because I can think of, okay, yeah, please. Well, cottage enabled structures are an example of that they have, they are integrated in a way that’s a little different than other periods structures. So that the back third, because we’re talking about after a third, the back third can be significant, because it can affect the roof lines. The angles of departure for part of the structure, etc.
Speaker 7 40:51
So maybe if it said something affecting the integrity of the front facade or something, because I think we do put more emphasis on the public view of a historic structure.
Speaker 4 41:04
Sure, but some in the cottage period aren’t so easily defined
Speaker 7 41:13
that way, right. So it might be a landmark for more than architectural reasons. Is that what you’re saying?
Speaker 4 41:20
Partially? Yes. Partially, yes. But I’m, I’m worrying about the the integrated design that particularly cottage structures have a period had.
Speaker 1 41:40
Can I ask a clarifying question for you? Are you thinking of a separate building on our site, but you’re you’re talking about are still connected? Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 4 41:52
locations of porches, locations of roof lines, where they’re dormers the location of dormers, or insets. What I’m worried about is whether you’re leaving yourself enough, whether we’re leaving ourselves enough latitude to preserve relatively unique structures, whose front facade is only part of what is really involved.
Speaker 7 42:27
Well, the certainly goes much further than I think, our original, which basically says you’re destroying the whole property. It’s a step in the right way. But I’d be happy to hear other alternatives. I mean, I don’t think this is unusual from other cities in the area. As far as how they define demolition. It seems,
Speaker 3 42:53
if I make one, it seems that what Commissioner Fenster is describing perhaps would be a more extreme exterior alteration that the that this commission would need to approve, regardless. So it may not be demolition, per se, but it would be an exterior alteration that would warrant approval of this commission.
Speaker 1 43:18
I mean, the question is fair, if somebody has a landmark property, and takes off the back half 49% of the building, are they not required to get approval for that? Because if that were the case, I don’t know that that’s really our intent.
Speaker 3 43:36
I would I would consider that to be an exterior alteration that would need that would require approval of this commission versus right.
Speaker 7 43:46
Yeah, I was kind of thinking along the lines versus going into the building department and asking for a demolition permit.
Speaker 3 43:52
Yeah. And if it were a landmark that the building permit would it would be flagged in our system? They would need to, they would contact me, and I would say, yeah, no, they need to go to the commission to get this taken care to get this approved.
Unknown Speaker 44:04
So we have multiple safeguards.
Speaker 3 44:06
There’s there’s a few fail safes in there. Okay. guard rails, I should say.
Unknown Speaker 44:13
Other Commissioner comments. All right. Well, let’s, let’s go on and circle back to any final questions.
Speaker 7 44:29
We eliminated local, excuse me, local preservation organization, because we don’t have any. And certainly, if we do, we could certainly add it back in. But that was the main reason for that. Probably came over from whatever code we copied it from. In fact, I don’t know of an example maybe somebody knows what local historic organization might look like other than the HPC.
Speaker 7 45:09
Learning computer just shut down. So Please standby. Well, I guess it doesn’t matter because I have it up here. All right.
Unknown Speaker 45:24
And again, we eliminated total demolition because we defined it in the in the demolition definition. This is all unchanged. powers and duties are unchanged.
Unknown Speaker 45:45
Mr. Jacoby, of
Speaker 6 45:46
course, just getting back to local preservation organization. The Callahan house board is City Board. But would that be appropriate? And again, I don’t know if it would ever make a difference here.
Speaker 7 46:00
Yeah. Yeah, I hadn’t thought of that. that’s specific to that particular site.
Speaker 6 46:06
Same for in Historical Society. I is historical, but I don’t think they’re involved with preservation. But that’s another organization in the city.
Speaker 7 46:16
Yeah, and where it showed up? And what we’ll get to it Is it another group that could bring forward a district or a landmass mark, other than the commissioners or the property owner, or city council. So that’s where it did pop up in the in the ordinance. Okay, criteria for designation of landmarks and local historic districts. And so there was a lot of rearrangement here. It was very redundant from what we had before. So Section A really is talking about somebody coming up an owner coming in to get your approval of landmark designation. This is criteria that we showed you back in April, it was some criteria that was suggested, I believe, by our attorney that we hired about a year ago to take a look at the ordinance. So it’s pretty identical. It is identical from what you reviewed back in April. What we’ve done in this section is just rearrange and try to make it not so redundant. Then we go into B and we talk about what it is to create a local historic district. And it’s made up of a lot of landmarks that meet the criteria above. And then we have Section C, which is designation of landmark without the consent of the owner must require the set of set of satisfaction of the following criteria. A petition signed by 100 We just simplified it to registered Longmont voters versus referring back to the charter because I don’t know a lot of people will look back at the charter. So this is a commonly understood comment. The proposed landmark meets one or more of the designation criteria in that paragraph a the council finds that the proposed Landmark has extraordinary historic significance that is actually defined in the definitions and that’s something that wasn’t changed. Let’s see there are some references that change just because we move some sections around that’s paragraph five. And so so that is that section, not a lot of major changes there. And then we go into the process for designation of landmarks. Just added some clarifying language. Here’s where we remove local preservation organization kept all these requirements the same, we the reference changes in C one.
Unknown Speaker 49:36
Okay, Commissioner Norton with a question or comment?
Speaker 8 49:40
Yes, thank you. So, um, both in this section with the application for designation of a landmark and then the next section down here 2.5 6.070 designation procedures for local historic districts. Um, it’s been limited only to the commission the council or a property owner, I understand why a local historic preservation organization was taken out. I think it’s easier to leave something in that isn’t used and try to get it back in later, especially considering we’ve been talking about these, I think for four years, these particular amendments, but my concern is that there’s nothing in either of these sections that allows a citizen of Longmont to petition the city to list city properties. And three years ago, we did have this issue we had the woman who lives in the neighborhood who lives along that golf course with I think there’s like one standing historic structure left the silo and they paid for their own survey, and they came before us and asked the city to designate it. And I I do think that we need, we need a mechanism that at least recognizes that local citizens might want to request that the Commission or the council think about designating a property that they don’t own, and that that’s entirely appropriate.
Speaker 7 51:12
I think there is an opportunity, I guess I’m looking at 2.5607 for a district. And I think there is an opportunity for a landmark to be suggested by Well, it is it’s by electors, I believe, am I getting that right? Or did she I was here for that. I don’t know if she came before the Planning Commission, and then you took up the charge?
Speaker 8 51:39
I don’t know if she came before the planning commission first. Historic Preservation? Yeah, I’m sorry. No, no, no, that’s okay. Um, but 2.5 6.060. I mean, I see landmarks and districts is not that different, ultimately. But this also says commission counselor owner of the property. And so I think, to me that those should be those should have the same language of who’s allowed to who has the opportunity to bring forth nominations for designation.
Speaker 1 52:15
And perhaps, okay, so perhaps the the, the, I’m trying to think of the unintended consequences, let’s just say, okay, always we can we can say, well, let’s just put in an application for designation of a landmark can be submitted by a registered voter. That particular case was a town owned property, right. And so I don’t want to, I don’t think it’d be appropriate to open up the landmark designation of someone else’s personal home by a citizen or another sort of random citizen, if you will. I think that’s where that could get dangerous.
Speaker 8 52:57
I agree. I think the only example that I know of, that’s a little bit different is there is a and it’s not here in Chicago, there was a historic housing complex that had originally been built as essentially section eight housing, which is not the correct term, but there was a historic community of African American residents who were not the owners. And they did end up succeeding in convincing the owner to have a designation, but I think that we need not that non owners should be able to designate other people’s property, but there should be some sort of mechanism where people can come forward and be like, this property is important to the community for these reasons, even if we’re not the owner, like how, how can we make a designation? So I don’t know if that’s an appeal to us as a commission. I don’t know if that’s an appeal to the council. Just allowing for community ownership of things that they might not legally own.
Speaker 1 54:07
Right. And so I guess my response in thinking about this would be anyone can come here to the commission to city council without coming to us or to the property owner, just as really, the Kanemoto is an example of that. Let’s just say Rick, was a citizen, not on the HBC and came here and said, You know, I’ve got an idea we should we should designate the camo tower. Okay. Right. It came to us. We, as a commission said, that’s a that’s a great idea. Let’s, let’s do that. That feels like a good way to have a filter, but still enable that process. From my perspective, we’re happy to hear anyone else’s.
Speaker 7 54:52
Yeah, that was exactly what we were gonna say. They have that through the HPC and the city council. The boys And I’m glad you reminded me. Yes, the silo was city owned property. They went and asked the owner, the city council of whether they want to designate it. And council said yes. So that’s what started that process.
Unknown Speaker 55:13
Okay. If if we all think that’s adequate, that’s fine.
Unknown Speaker 55:23
Thank you.
Speaker 7 55:34
We added local few of these and again, took out local historic preservation organization. And this is an area I did want to talk about, because we did change the number of folks that needed to be included, signed on for Historic District from 25% to 75%. And I think my feeling was that it’s more effective to be to have that grassroots support from a large majority of the owners, versus 25%. And that mess coming here, basically, to work that out. So and I did hear comments when we were having some of the study sessions with city council that they felt that 25% was way too low. We use 75. I think it was suggested at one point in one of those meetings that 80% would be maybe more appropriate, I think we use 75%. And Jeremy, maybe you remember because it was consistent with was at the conservation overlay that that we had already in the code. So
Speaker 1 56:49
if definitely like to have some comment there, I did notice and I my one comment about some of these was there’s a bunch of numbers kind of floating around. And they don’t seem to be entirely consistent that we might want to button that up a little bit, because there’s we’ve increased it to 75%. But then you can withdraw if you have 30%. Right. Which, if you had 75%, you wouldn’t ever get 30. So, so that seemed a little I was asked want to know about that. And then you can you have to have 75% to create a historic district, but you only need 51% to take the district back down. If you did D designation district.
Speaker 7 57:30
Yeah, there’s something. I think that’s for a landmark. Am I right?
Speaker 1 57:34
Maybe I missed maybe I misread that. But just okay. 25, six ones, 60. I’ll have to look it up again, where I had that. It’s further down the line, the 50%. Yeah, I guess that’s a revocation of? No, yeah. It’s a revocation of an historic district. So in 25, sorry, 2.5 6.160. Which jumps way ahead.
Speaker 7 58:10
Let me get it and then I’ll go up. Talk about your first two questions. Okay.
Speaker 1 58:22
Five 2.561160, revocation of designation. And it says, a petition for revocation of an historic district may be submitted by owners representing a minimum of 51%. But we had 75 grades, so I just worry about 75% of people get it done. But then I, I just the numbers didn’t make sense. So I wanted to talk through
Speaker 7 58:47
it was 75 and 35. Right. Don’t add up to 100.
Speaker 1 58:51
Right. That was my first comment. Commissioner Jacoby, you have a comment?
Speaker 6 58:56
Yes. When I know with the historic Eastside, they were considering Historic District designation. And I was shocked at the 25% number myself. But I would think, and again, we are trying to work through conservation overlay. And just the numbers are so difficult to achieve. With a significant neighborhood, the size of the east side or the west side, maybe going back to 51% minimum for the application if you have only 30%. Opposing and your city will withdraw the application. I think that would guard against any kind of divisive issue. But if you have a majority 51% is probably worth pursuing the application and looking into it. So I would compromise between 25 and 75 and go to 51 personally
Speaker 7 59:55
Well, first let me explain the 7535 So I think Our thinking was, let’s make it a little bit more difficult for folks to not just the 25%. Because if you have 75%, you know, there’s potentially 25% against it. So to get it, withdrawn, we wanted somebody has changed their mind needs to collect 10%. So that was the reason for that. Here, it was such a low amount, we wanted to make it more difficult for somebody to revoke. So we bumped it 51% I think that was our thinking. Now, it would go back to Rick that maybe it should be a different standard. Maybe somebody else has some comments on that.
Speaker 6 1:00:42
One of the torches? I don’t know if you ever had a daughter who sold Girl Scout cookies? Have you ever tried going door to door selling girl scout cookies? You know how many people answered the door? Do you know how hard it would be to get 75% of all owners in a district to sign on even if they agree? If you can get 51%? I think I mean, look at the voting records. What percentage of people vote? I think what if you can get 51% of property owners to be clearly showing that they are motivated towards moving in this direction, I think the application should be pursued. If 30% Say it should not in the city drops it fine. But if you don’t have 30% mobilize saying this isn’t worth looking at, you have a majority saying this is worth looking at I think the application should be considered. So again, I think if I’m talking about a functional, I understand what you’re saying from a theoretic standpoint, but to make this a functional law, I would work for neighborhoods, I think dropping it to 51% would make more sense.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:55
Commissioner Norton?
Speaker 8 1:01:58
Um, yeah, along those lines, something just occurred to me, what is our rate of non residential ownership? So like, how many rental properties do we have in the city where somebody if you did knock on the door, it’s not the owner who could even sign in the neighborhood? And do we? Should we consider that when we’re considering what percentage of the neighborhood needs to sign on for a district? I’m no, I’m not saying renters. I’m saying that there are people who own property, but don’t live here. And so if you knock on the door, you’re not going to get them regardless. And I don’t know what those rates are in Longmont. That’s just something that occurred to me as you were speaking about the owner business of selling girl scout cookies.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:50
I couldn’t tell you, but we wouldn’t answer.
Speaker 3 1:03:00
No, that would have been me in the 80s. So according to our 20, our community profile for the year of 2021, it was estimated that our owner versus renter occupied unit breakdown was 64.1%. Owner Occupied and 35.9% renter occupied. Now that does include that includes both single family as well as multifamily. But just in terms of ownership. That’s exactly and not equally dispersed. That’s just the of our 40,310 housing units. 64% of those are owner occupied. I don’t have anything.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:51
How many are less than 50 years old? I guess. Yeah. The other part?
Speaker 3 1:03:55
Yeah, we don’t have that deep dives. This is just a snapshot.
Speaker 7 1:03:59
What I was just gonna say is we wouldn’t rely on somebody knocking on the door. We notify the owners then per older county record. Yeah. So Yeah.
Speaker 1 1:04:13
Still, I think commissioner, Commissioner, Jacoby’s point is a fair one about just getting even if you are notifying getting somebody to respond to the notification to see the notification in the mail and maybe 75 is, is a overburden some mean, especially based if you just take that average of 64% or something or owner occupied? Maybe a 51%. starter is the right is a better number. I’m kind of leaning that way myself. I’m curious. Getting some head nods. Okay, all right. So I think if we can change that 75 to 51.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:56
That is your recommendation.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:59
I think One will encapsulate that in a formal motion at the end here, but
Speaker 7 1:05:07
is going to add as it does, it’s to create the district, you have to have a significant amount of landmarks. So people have already signed on to some kind of control. So I think you have people that are predisposed to entering a district. But that’s my two cents.
Speaker 1 1:05:31
That’s okay. All right. So that’s our one small change so far.
Speaker 7 1:05:40
Okay, then the 51% for revoking? Is that number. Okay.
Speaker 1 1:05:50
I think that yeah. I mean, I’m not bothered by that anymore. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Okay. I did want to talk about 256070. D, the design guidelines. Okay. So we added this little sentence or two, about consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. But so the way it reads now is that essentially design guidelines are required. And they have to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards. And then additional guidelines, if desired, can be developed by the applicant. It just the whole paragraph reads a little clunky to me. At this point, I think the notion I think I might have been the one that suggested this, but I think just making sure that we get some nod to the Secretary of Interior standards for treatment of historic properties is important to include in a design guideline criteria. But I wonder if there’s a cleaner way to say
Speaker 7 1:07:08
that, maybe remove additional guidelines? Yeah,
Speaker 1 1:07:12
I mean, if you’re gonna if we’re gonna require the guidelines, and they’d have to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards, I don’t know that you need additional guidelines. Right? It just
Speaker 7 1:07:22
seems so could you go further than the secretaries guidelines? I mean, I don’t know what that would look like.
Speaker 1 1:07:27
I mean, somebody could you could you could, you could act more like an HOA and start worrying. Like we don’t worry about color. Really. Right. You could add, but the minimum standard, you have to have guidelines, the minimum standard is Secretary of Interior. Meeting, no more need be said. At that point is maybe my unless, so it says I honestly think we could just strike the additional. So strike additional and strike if desired by owners within the district guidelines shall be developed by the applicant and owners of properties within the proposed district. You can keep all of that it’s just the additional the reference to additional guidelines, if desired, I think is muddy. Okay. Let’s see, Commissioner. Mr. Fenster, your own next, Mr. Bester. Oh,
Speaker 4 1:08:33
I just had indeed the first line. I suggest that we strike appearance and inserted integrity or appearance, I think, might not be worth it, and I would substitute integrity.
Speaker 1 1:09:08
Okay, thank you. That doesn’t seem everybody’s kind of on board there. Okay. Commissioner Sibley?
Speaker 9 1:09:16
Yeah, I don’t know, maybe this is already covered. But for the additional guidelines. I can’t think of any in particular, but I know in some places you might have something that is just particular to a neighborhood. I’m certain builder. I don’t know. It could be some weird little brackets that somebody made or something like that. Um, maybe those things would be covered by the Secretary of Interior standards, but I could kind of see that. Maybe in a neighborhood or in a district or something. There could be some odd little quirky things that should be protected. that’s local.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:58
Like the neighborhood, we’re all behind. was Israel not?
Speaker 1 1:10:01
Just like that? Yes, yes, very much. Thank you, though I don’t I don’t know that you that wouldn’t be covered under guidelines. Right. It’s just the guidelines have to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards, you develop them in this way. Right. feels to me like just
Speaker 7 1:10:25
say, Mr. Chairman, if it was something, in addition, it should still be covered by the Secretary of Interior standards
Speaker 1 1:10:32
act. And that’s really what I guess I’m trying to make sure is that we don’t somehow bypass the Secretary of Interior standards by creating some other because because it allows some other process, you know, this, this is our Bible, if you will, we ought to make sure. That’s the foundational document.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:55
Good. We’re all on board with that.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:58
Good. Consensus by had no thank you. Okay.
Speaker 1 1:11:17
And then under f, you have a 70, you have 75% that would then go back to 51. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:24
All right. We’ll pick that up.
Speaker 7 1:11:37
Okay, this section actually got incorporated in the end. So that’s why this was deleted. And again, 256 150. Oh, okay. So tell me what page? I don’t know. PAGE 20?
Unknown Speaker 1:12:04
What’s the section
Speaker 7 1:12:07
was formerly 2.5 6.150 enforcement of compliance, and it’s stricken because we moved it?
Unknown Speaker 1:12:27
So my website load hardship. Yes. You must be looking at the clean version. Right? Oh,
Unknown Speaker 1:12:43
you’re exactly where we are. Yeah.
Speaker 7 1:12:48
Deleting, deleting the previous one. And then we talked about revocation of a destination, and you’re good with 51%? Here. Okay. Some reference changes.
Speaker 2 1:13:14
Just curious. Why is Why is certain enforcement of compliance being deleted? Or is it being put someplace else being put someplace else? Okay. Where’s that? At the end? All the way down
Unknown Speaker 1:13:28
all the way at the end, where we have enforcement,
Unknown Speaker 1:13:30
is it just cut and paste?
Unknown Speaker 1:13:35
No, no. about it. When we get there. When we get there, we’ll talk
Unknown Speaker 1:13:43
about when we get Promise.
Speaker 7 1:13:47
Okay, now we get to the meat of the matter here, which is review of permits for demolition and moving have on designated structures 50 years of age or older. So we put the 50 years back in place. We kind of took out the section about if it’s a dangerous building, as designated by the fire chief are building official. That’s an exception and we move that to another part. It’s still here. So we included 50 years old within the original city subdivision and the structure. And then we put some additional standards in two, which is that historic property definition and that includes outside of the original city sub subdivision. Any structure identified in an architectural or cultural resource survey, district nomination or adopted preservation plan and considered eligible for designation as a local landmark or listing on state or federal registers or determined to be contributing re source with a national or state register or local historic district. And I think for the most part that was the language that you saw, well, no, in April, we had something much different. And we threw that out. And then here’s three and four isn’t necessary because we put an exception here that structures that are 50 years of age or older, are exempt from review under this code section. If the structure has been determined to present a dangerous condition by the fire chief, or chief building official. The structure or portion of the structure purpose proposed for demolition is not structurally sound, despite evidence of the owners efforts to properly maintain it is oh, and then we eliminated or no, we added the additional structure, a portion of the structure being demolished cannot be rehabilitated, or reused on site to provide any reasonable use of the property. And one more,
Unknown Speaker 1:16:10
Commissioner Fenster Yeah, why
Speaker 4 1:16:12
isn’t why isn’t number two’s soon by number one.
Speaker 7 1:16:22
There could be other reasons. It’s a dangerous structure. Not just structurally.
Speaker 1 1:16:30
It could be dangerous, but not having been condemned formally. Oh, I think that’s what to capture. Yeah, I appreciate that. I personally like the language and number two, and then feel like this is really maybe some of the meat of the you said, that’s the meat of this. It’s what the big focus of what we’re really trying to do is dial in what specifically clearly is considered on the ordinance.
Speaker 7 1:17:09
Now, we talk about changes to the process, if you remember, it was first a council member and the liaison would look at any demolition permit, and decide whether it meets any of these standards. If it didn’t, then they would make that decision. If it did, they would bring it forward to HPC. I think everybody universally was concerned with liaison and a council member. So the change we made is that that is the chair of the HPC or your designee and the liaison that would look at that permit request and determine whether it meets that standard for review by the Commission.
Speaker 1 1:17:58
And lest anyone think this is a power grab by the chair in C and D. I would like that chair or their designee to be followed through all throughout just so that it’s okay if that’s not what’s anyway objects.
Speaker 8 1:18:21
Rather than being concerned, it was a power grab, I was concerned that we might be putting too much work on the chair who I feel like might already put more work into these meetings than some of us.
Speaker 1 1:18:36
Well, that’s also it gives the opportunity for the chair or the designee. So in other words, it’s a representative from the HPC, which is the point right, so the whole point is that the HPC is by ordinance made up of technical, you know, has a minimum amount of technical people on it, right. So they really do have a better understanding of this, then, you know, an average layperson out there, whatever their experience might be. And so that’s why it matters to have an HPC member and the and the staff liaison involved in the process versus burdening a council person who isn’t involved in that process. So
Speaker 7 1:19:20
I’m not sure who else I would be, you know, because we thought about that. So No guts, no glory.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:36
You were at well okay. All right. All right, thanks. In paragraph D, we just lay out how you make that decision. I don’t know if there’s any questions in there, if the historic preservation commission determines that there is no reason to believe that the structure may be eligible, you can basically tell the building official issue the permit.
Speaker 7 1:20:16
Yeah, here’s where the council finds there is reasonable cause to believe the structure is eligible. There’s some opportunities for the city manager, or their designee to negotiate with the owner to help them reach a reason to save it, basically.
Speaker 1 1:20:40
See, I’ve got a couple of commissioners Commissioner Barnett first here.
Speaker 2 1:20:46
Glen, up, Todd, looking at E. First word that hits me as determines. Yes. And that’s not clear how that determination we made. I mean, because we’re pretty specific, other parts of the code on how we make determinations. And then secondly, when you go further down, the rest of the paragraph says if the historic preservation commission determines the structure again, and we have to we the commission would reach a determination under some process, which is not clear. And then that, then then a hearing is set after we make a determination. Under some process, it’s just, I mean, it could be just take a vote, we don’t listen to any comments or anything. And then we could have an edifice without the artist consent that we had set a hearing. I mean, it’s just, it doesn’t seem like this is really worked out clearly. My mind,
Speaker 7 1:21:52
let me go up a paragraph. And here, it states, a public hearing shall be set before the historic preservation in accordance with the public hearing standards. So that determination is made in a public hearing. It’s one paragraph up D. So this is the liaison and chair says, yes, we need a hearing, we set a hearing for the full board for the full commission.
Speaker 2 1:22:40
So we the hearing takes place in D, if it’s necessary. So then what is he doing? Is that they’re what? I’m just not seeing because I’m reading this quickly, or there’s something different in E that’s going on.
Speaker 5 1:22:57
Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, burners point, I do believe you point out an excellent kind of miss statement. I think we should say if the historic preservation commission determines that the structure is not eligible for designation as a landmark without the consent, then we’re done. Because under Section D, the criteria we’re considering is whether or not it’s eligible for designation without consent. So if you determine it’s not eligible as a landmark without the owner’s consent, the permit shall be issued. If the commission determines that it is then it goes to the City Council Review Process listed in E. So I think that’s an excellent point. I think that was just a misstatement in our
Speaker 2 1:23:41
code. So I just some point we’ll see the revised language sounds like it’s okay. Sounds like it’s clear but
Unknown Speaker 1:24:01
Okay, moving on, okay. I think so.
Speaker 7 1:24:22
So, paragraph 200 just sets the procedures for the public hearing.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:36
Feels changes
Speaker 7 1:24:49
are we our jumping to 2.56 teaching? Oh,
Unknown Speaker 1:24:54
I can’t hear you. Five, six.
Speaker 7 1:24:57
I’m sorry. My mic off. 2.5 6.220 Which is
Speaker 2 1:25:03
okay, we went for it and we stopped before then 2.5 6.210. And look at paragraph D. Appeal previous settings to the city council. I have now read quickly 15 Point O two point o four Oh dot k. And I have to say, first of all, it cannot be read when you’re looking at what it applies to at the Planning and Zoning Commission, you can’t read that without understanding the previous paragraphs, because they talk about the Planning and Zoning Commission operating on a quasi judicial capacity or in a legislative capacity. So it’s it’s talking about two different ways that the Planning and Zoning Commission can act. None of that applies to us. And and so when you’re talking about appeals from it, it’s a very it’s a fairly complex process, which I don’t think is necessary. I don’t see why we can’t stay here. What the appeal process is, because our our process for reaching decisions is is I don’t maybe 180 degrees different for how the pond Planning and Zoning Commission reaches and the conditions under which we reach decisions are different from the conditions and law under which they reach condition decisions. So I don’t think we should have our appeals. I don’t think the reference to 15.0 2.0401k should be I think that should be taken out. Because I don’t see why it’s necessary.
Speaker 1 1:27:16
Like to get a city attorney’s opinion on this, I do think that we do, in fact act both as a quasi quasi judicial body, and, and otherwise here because we, we when we are basically anything that’s not a certificate of appropriateness is one type of action. And certificates of appropriateness are a quasi judicial review. That’s why we have the standard in place. So yeah. Sorry.
Speaker 2 1:27:58
Now that I’ve learned how to do it, yeah. All right. I, I understand that sometimes, it appears that we that we could be operating in a quasi judicial manner. But the fact is, the law says nothing about in the HPC code says nothing about acting in a quasi judicial manner. And I would compare that to the code for the Planning and Zoning Commission, which specifically states that it’s acting in a quasi judicial manner, it is not a question of interpretation. It says it in a quasi judicial manner shall do this, in a quasi judicial matter shall do that. So when it appears that the long run city code when when it’s telling the body to act in a quasi judicial matter, it states it does not state it anywhere in the HPC code. Now, second thing is, well, are we acting in a quasi judicial manner? And the answer that I’ve given to Glenn in previous correspondences, quasi judicial means that the decisions that are appealed can only be appealed on the basis of whether or not we exceeded our authority or whether he did something wrong. Whereas an and, you know, I have to read this a lot closer, I’m still not comfortable with the fact that the appellant to the Windows decision isn’t going to be able to present additional evidence or that other people can apply and talk about it. So but but just without getting into that, just generally speaking, I don’t think we act in a quasi judicial manner. I think we, we are, we are, we are commissioned of the government that, that acts and and we make we make decisions and those decisions can be appealable quasi judicial means you’re you’re, you’re you’re you’re acting almost as a court. And so that if you want to appeal the decisions de novo, you have to go into court have a court of competent, competent jurisdiction in order to do it. That’s not what we do. We just make decisions and the city council reviews it. Now, what we’re having a difference of opinion here is that it appears to the city attorney’s view is that we can only the City Council does not have is not going to be looking at can only decide that very simple issue of did we exceed our authority? Or do we act in a manner inappropriate or something like that? And is it going to be taking any evidence contrary? If that’s the case? I’m confused because I don’t read the law the same way. Okay.
Speaker 1 1:30:59
Commissioner fencer, if you have a you want to comment on this particular issue, because I want to I want to go to the city attorney, but I’ll give you the floor here first.
Speaker 4 1:31:06
Yeah, I think our process is legislative, and not judicial. And legit. A legislative process may encompass a determination that is not appealable or only partially appealable or fully appealable. But it’s legislative nonetheless. And I view what we do as legislative in nature.
Speaker 1 1:31:39
Okay, thanks. So city turn, please, clear this up.
Speaker 5 1:31:44
I’ll do my best, Mr. Chairman. So respectfully, to commissioners, Fenster and Barnett, that the city attorney’s office opinion is that HPC does act as final decision maker in a quasi judicial factory, quasi judicial matter for three different circumstances. It’s one the denial of an appeal, Application for economic incentive under 256 90. The determination of a certificate of appropriateness under 2561 30. Then also the determination certificate of hardship and or 256 160. For those three specific applications, the historic preservation commission is the final decision making body meaning that if a certificate of appropriateness is granted, it never goes before City Council unless appealed. Similarly, if a certificate of appropriateness is denied, and never goes to city council unless appealed, that’s what makes it a decision making body. But those three criteria their objective criteria that the historic preservation commission is applying. It’s not a subjective legislative standards already determined by code. So the historic preservation commission is deciding whether or not those criteria are met for those three applications. Compare that to designation of a landmark or district. There it is a legislative action, historic preservation commission is looking at criteria making a recommendation to city council. So those are not quasi judicial, those are legislative actions.
Speaker 1 1:33:11
That wouldn’t make sense if that if that is clarified for the planning commission. But it’s not expressly stated in this ordinance. Does it make sense to expressly stated in this ordinance since we’re making these changes?
Speaker 5 1:33:27
We can consider it looking at the Planning and Zoning Commission. The land development code as a concerned Planning and Zoning Commission we actually don’t define in our code. You know, when planning zoning act of the quasi quasi judicial faction specifically, we just say they act in a quasi judicial capacity when it is the decision maker on a development application period. We don’t define the development applications. So we could add a code section into 256 saying that a historic preservation commission acts in a quasi judicial capacity. When does the decision maker and development on an application period? We were done then add a legislative one saying that historic preservation acts recommend the body for those legislative actions by the city council requiring ordinance for approval is what Planning and Zoning Commission has. So we can include that if if the commission would like that clarification.
Unknown Speaker 1:34:24
Okay. So Commissioner Fenster.
Speaker 4 1:34:28
Yeah, my concern with that interpretation is that it would affect the rights and I should add obligations before the city council. In other words, if the determination by this commission were legislative in nature, the rights of the of an appellate appellant afterward, and the powers of the city council would be different than if it were adjudicated. And I make that distinction based on my knowledge of the parallels in federal legislation and Federal Constitution, just as matters of principle. There is a difference and the difference a light when you are on appeal before the city council. So my suggestion is that that subject be looked at, again, because it could affect the rights and obligations of the parties when they go to the city council.
Speaker 5 1:35:43
And Commissioner, Fenster, to your point, the land development code, the appeal section of the city council is based on a deck action or declaratory action in state court. So our land development code under 1502. Oh, 40k is actually directly following a declaratory action under Rule 106 for state court. So we’re using the due process standards, which is why we’re looking at quasi judicial due process standards. We’re looking at our appeal process from HPC to city council once a final decision. So I think we’ve already addressed that point, but I understand your point. Commissioner
Unknown Speaker 1:36:23
Thank you. Commissioner Barnett.
Speaker 2 1:36:28
Yes. Just as she did take a look at my last it again. Sorry, sir machine works. Its own well 15.0 2.30 Let me find Okay. Told her.
Speaker 2 1:37:01
pologize German got away from talking about the reference to quasi judicial.
Speaker 2 1:37:20
Okay, so it’s 15.02 dot O, three o review bodies. And it’s a, b and c, mainly B and C. and B. It says the Planning and Zoning Commission decision making parenthesis quasi judicial closed parenthesis, the P and Z meeting Planning and Zoning Commission. accent. And it refers to its original its its rigid where it originates chapter 2.32 acts in a quasi judicial capacity. When it is the decision maker on a development application. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines whether the application meets the requirement. And like a court basis, its decision on the evidence that is in the contained in the record of the public hearing, and then review and then review actions then it talks about what it acts as a legislative body, and then appeal actions when it performs appeals based on a quasi judicial capacity. And then it has all kinds it has another whole nother paragraph. I don’t need to read here. I just my point is it’s extremely detail as to what it’s acting in a legislative or quasi judicial capacity. And I don’t I don’t think we don’t I’m not sure we need all that we might need all of it. But I think we definitely need to have an agenda item to discuss all of that. I don’t think we should do this on the fly. This is a big deal. And it’s something I’ve raised with staff, and that’s going to happen, it’s going to happen later on the agenda except that happened now. Whether or not we’re acting in a quasi judicial capacity. I think we should we should see the opinion, not just hear it, of the city attorney, and then have a chance to review it, and then come back with our own views of whether or not we agree with that. But I don’t I very difficult to operate on Well, this is what I think this is what I believe, but I want what I hear what I see a written opinion stating that we’re doing that, then I’ll get I can review it and come back to the to the commission. But But I don’t think we should make a quick on the fly change. Other than I still don’t think we should subject ourselves to all of this page after page of conditions and review conditions of 15.04 Okay, which is what this requires here. For all for all. I don’t understand why we need I don’t understand why we need to have our review consistent with the Planning and Zoning Commission review.
Speaker 1 1:40:23
Commissioner once again, I’d like to get back to the city during but okay, okay. Do you want me to give you first?
Speaker 8 1:40:32
Um, I believe that this discussion is outside the purview of our responsibilities as a historic preservation commission. I think that what you have issues with are rules and procedures and codes that have been developed with the council with other committees, and commissions and boards and with the lawyers, and essentially should be settled in terms of how we are moving forward. If we have if you have concerns of how City Council and the lawyers have written code outside of the historic preservation commission bylaws, I suggest you take those up at city council meetings and that we focus on the business of this commission in this meeting.
Speaker 1 1:41:33
City Attorney want to just give us a maybe a hopefully a summary of why we need to have this section referenced in here. I feel like it would be a big open question to not have that
Speaker 5 1:41:52
resolved there. From our perspective, Mr. Chairman, when I say I’m in the city attorney’s office is this is just another step as part of the Administrative Review process. So in general, the historic preservation commission is the decision maker. And those three applications identified the appellant and the certain persons agreed that does find better code, I don’t have to pull it from me can appeal to city council at that point, the city council decision and acting as the city makes the final decision on that appeal process. And then if someone wants to challenge it goes to court of competent jurisdiction, which is normally Colorado Supreme Court rule 106 action filed in the District Court. That’s the process we file just to establish the administrative record. And so the city attorney’s office position is that in those three applications where HPC is a decision maker, it’s a quasi judicial matter. We appeal to city council, they can go to the court system, if they disagree with it. We feel that that city council step is an important step just to establish the final administrative record.
Speaker 1 1:42:57
So personally, I am in favor if we have a lack of clarity in how that process is supposed to go, or what that just, you know, a lack of clarity about what that process is we ought to fix that. Right. We ought to we ought to add something to make sure that it’s clear. Beyond any question that that’s the process. But beyond that, I’m not sure I’m super interested in with all due respect to lengthy conversation about that legal determination, because I really don’t have any idea about a man not an attorney at all, and no no basis in that discussion. So I have to rely on the attorney stood to explain the process. I guess it’s okay.
Speaker 5 1:43:53
And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, just one additional point, I do believe the commissioner has brought up an excellent point of noting that in the land development code, we specifically identified Planning and Zoning as a quasi judicial decision making body and it does appear that’s an oversight in 256. So I think that might be an excellent addition and just to specifically adopt the same language, you’re using the planet, the land development code. So we’d identify HPC as a decision maker body accident, quasi judicial fashion, and I will work with planning staff to come up with an addition just reflect that.
Unknown Speaker 1:44:27
Okay, thank you, Commissioner Barton.
Speaker 2 1:44:31
Commissioner Norton, just to respond to what you’re saying? We are, we are and I am anticipating and in conversations with staff, that we’re going to be asked to vote on a change in our procedures. Not that the city council will vote on it. But we’re going to ask be asked to limit who can speak at public meetings if those people are in the in the A public invited to be heard section. And that we we were going to be asked to limit that. If that subject is a subject that could be part of a public hearing, that that decision has already been reached by the Planning and Zoning Commission to limit people and the city council at both put set limits or in the public waiting to be voted to be heard second, I don’t support that. And then, and I don’t and I’ve had communications with the staff about it. And the this this is that’s where this whole issue comes up of, well, are we quasi judicial or not? And, and so if we are, then anything that could be part of a public hearing going forward, we’re not going to be able to listen to public comments during the public invited be heard section. Because that would be an ex parte communication. Now, I, I was I was one of the reasons I was invited to be on this board, I assume. And this commission is not because I’m a lawyer, but because I spent 45 years writing laws, and working with legislators and dealing with these issues of ex parte communication. What’s my job as a deputy commissioner, of the of the State Board of insurance of Texas, we deal these issues all the time. And this coalition is the one who is responsible for determining what its rules are going to be for operation. And then the Command Council approves those, but Council doesn’t, is not going to tell us well. I mean, they could but in the past, they haven’t said, Well, this is this is how you should operate him. This is how you should hear this is how you that they want us to make those recommendations. So I I think it’s, I guess I would say it’s totally within our power, in my opinion, to have these discussions, and this is the time to do it. While this stuff is on the table.
Speaker 1 1:47:12
See Commissioner Norton, and then I’d like to get back to the code.
Speaker 8 1:47:17
Code. Okay, um, let’s focus on what is on our agenda that could be brought up under a different agenda item. And I would prefer for us not to wring our hands and get into lengthy discussions about what we might be asked to do. And wait until city council or staff actually does ask us to change our policies. Otherwise, this is a lengthy conversation that is useless to getting the business before us done. So I would really prefer that we focus on the 64 pages of amendments that we’ve been asking staff and that they have kindly done and get this done. And then hopefully, maybe we can all make it home for dinner before dark.
Speaker 1 1:48:11
With that in mind, let’s get back to 256220, which is the maintenance requirements and only a paragraph or two left.
Speaker 7 1:48:26
Okay, this is the new section that was originally termed as demolition by neglect. Jeremy, I think created so much better language, which was negligent deterioration. And I think that was primarily the change in this new section 2.56 2.20. I can read through that if you’d like or if anybody has any issues with what we’ve got here.
Speaker 1 1:49:02
Yeah, I think it’s fine. If we, there’s anybody have a question or comment, clarification on this particular aspect? No. Okay. Again, this is probably another big piece of what we’re trying to accomplish here. So it seems like that’s okay. And then we go to enforcement and penalty.
Speaker 7 1:49:24
Yeah. And maybe I’ll turn it over to Jeremy because he certainly understands this section more than I. But this is where that one paragraph ended up.
Speaker 5 1:49:35
So Commissioner, apologies for not speaking in the microphone. Commissioners, we propose changing it from a punishable offense under Chapter 1.12, which is our general offense section, two administrated civil penalty under Chapter 2.56. And the main reason for that is for a 1.12. General offense action, we’d have to request that our city prosecutor go to municipal court and to go through the court system to actually impose a fine against the homeowner violating code section versus administrative civil penalty, we already use that procedure for nuisances within the city. Certain other construction code violations along with the land development code. And what that is, it’s a notice of violation issued by our code enforcement officer or the planning director, which can then be appealed and handled informally within the city without involving the court system. There’s still a court option, the very end. But as opposed to 1.12, where we go straight to court under 2.56, we can handle it administratively and informally within the city before the homeowner received a notice of violation goes to the court system. It’s just a change we’re making to a couple of different sections proposing to make to a couple different sections to make a little less onerous on the homeowner who might receive a violation.
Speaker 1 1:50:54
And I know there was some discussion about financial penalties, I noticed those were not here. And I don’t, I’m just curious if that did we have something in there that we took out or we just never added it in? There, we had that whole matrix from other communities that had various fines of 50 to $5,000. It was sort of all over the map. But that didn’t show up here.
Speaker 5 1:51:33
So under the general penalty, which is 1.12, the fine is up to $500 to train but the courts, but instead, our proposal is to go with the administrative civil penalty, which is under 297, I think I would say in 2.94. Apologies. So that under 2.97, the civil penalty for the first offense is $100. Second Offense is $200. Third is $500. And for second, and third offences are within 12 consecutive months. So under the General section of the correct, that’s our general administrative civil penalty. So the standard we’re asking we’re proposing to adopt versus the 1.12, which says the judge will define it up to $500. Here, we’re making it $100 For the first offense than 200 than 500. And again, that’s handled administratively first. And so if someone comes forward and says, Hey, I wasn’t intentionally neglecting my maintenance, city staff can handle that informally without involving the court system first.
Speaker 1 1:52:43
So the meat of the true penalty from the preservation standpoint is are the is the moratorium on them? permits?
Speaker 7 1:52:53
That’s the only thing I would add is second offenses if they don’t do anything. So it’s, it can be a cumulative fee, much greater than $500. But you’re right. I mean, the other thing we added was no permits for a period of time. Right. It’s coming up.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:15
Okay, Commissioner fencer.
Speaker 4 1:53:17
All right. Yes, I’m looking at subparagraph. Two. Confess I don’t understand it says will result to that may result to C 230. C two, will result not may result but will result in a two year moratorium? Sure, you want to do that. On all building permits for the structure. All building permits for the structure. There’s no discretion allowed in there for either side. And we’re we’re dealing with historic preservation. A two year moratorium may under some circumstances, the contract everything everybody’s interest to your moratorium means to your moratorium.
Speaker 7 1:54:21
This is for moving or demolishing a designated structure. But it’s kind of a serious offense. It’s not just removing a porch.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:33
I understand that.
Speaker 7 1:54:38
That certainly be happy to discuss with other commissioners. Mr. Barr.
Speaker 2 1:54:47
I was just looking briefly, but maybe you can tell me his concept of will will result. It’s not a legal term that I’m really familiar with the Um, I’ve I’ve, it’s, it appears that it’s, it’s a mandated result here. So usually, you say something shall occur, like a one year moratorium on all building permits for subject property shall occur if alterations to the designated property are taken without an approved certificate. I mean, shall is the is the usual term of art and I’m familiar with will result in is kind of just I’ve never seen it in law, maybe maybe I can know if what I didn’t know is does it appear anywhere else in HPC code? I don’t know the answer that and I don’t have my search functions available right now. But I would rather see this as a declarative statement than whether or not it’s it’s a, it’s something that we should do. That’s that that comes back to Commissioner Foster’s point. But I don’t I’m not comfortable with either one of those paragraphs, the way they’re stated. I’m not expressing an opinion on whether whether it’s a good idea that, that it’s mandated. I’m just saying it’s not. I’d like to see it rewritten.
Speaker 5 1:56:19
Mr. Chairman, I believe to that point, kind of looking at our code, generally speaking, we use will and shale interchangeably, it’s common vernacular, at various points we use will furnish, will use instead of shall use or shall furnish, I think it’s just a matter of word choice at that point, you know, looking at our code section, common vernacular will and shall are very similar words, is identical meaning in this case,
Speaker 1 1:56:46
from, from my perspective, I’d be more. Again, I want to get to the meat of it. Before we worry about the detail. So this is in the big picture. This is what we asked for that there’s some very clear, significant penalty for violations of this code. If somebody takes down a significant chunk of their historic property without an approved certificate, they will have a penalty if somebody demolishes the property, they will. Number two, I believe our intention was if somebody demolish the building on a piece of ground, they were not able to pull a permit to do anything else on that particular now vacant piece of ground for two years, which is the it’s meant to be a heavy hammer to represent the, you know, the cost of what was taken from that property. So I’m I’m like to be sure that as a commission, we’re good with the the actual penalties noted here. Yeah, so Commissioner Jacoby,
Speaker 6 1:58:02
I’m a little concerned with the way housing prices are spiraling so fast, that even this might appear as a slap on the wrist. You know, I think they get a penalty, or it’s $100 for a penalty, but they did tear the place down, but they get $100 penalty, because that was their first violation. They have to wait two years and they can build some mega mansion. No one can one thought I had was here. And the other problem with that is, in the meantime, the neighborhood has to deal with a semi destructed rubble in their neighborhood for two years because no one can build on it. So one thought is instead of saying result in a two year moratorium on building permits for the structure, I would say result in two year more two year or more, maybe a longer moratorium on all burn building permits for the demolishing owner of this structure. Not only at this site, but other sites for this owner, but not necessarily the structure if he sells it and someone decides to rebuild something appropriate sooner. Because otherwise the neighborhood is faced with Justice demolish buildings sitting in their neighborhood. And I think the the individual who owns it who’s demolishing it knows perfectly well what they’re doing. I would make it a bigger penalty for them a longer term at all sites if they own other properties, because this might be somebody who’s doing other developments too. So I would make it for the developer, the owner of the decent, what I say the owner of the structure, who caused the demolishment have this structure or something similar, rather than the structure itself. And I would make it longer because I think The way housing prices are going, this might not be enough of a deterrent.
Speaker 1 2:00:06
You’re gonna respond to whether that’s is that something that’s even plausible? I mean, is that legal?
Unknown Speaker 2:00:20
Yeah, adhere to what? somewhere else?
Speaker 5 2:00:24
That would? Mr. Chairman, it’s definitely it’s certainly an interesting idea that I think we’re require additional research to make sure it’s constitutionally allowed. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:36
Let’s see Commissioner Fenster.
Speaker 4 2:00:39
Yes. The last phrase, paragraph number two, it says, For the structure and for the property, do you really need structure there? Could you strike out the term structure for the property? And I assume this applies to the at the time owner. And what if the property is sold? is a two year moratorium apply? If the property is sold?
Speaker 7 2:01:17
It applies to the property. And I think that’s what was concerning about what Commissioner, Kobe was saying, I think we don’t want to reward somebody who has torn down a house sells it, and then do owner can pull a permit. That’s why we intended it to be that property.
Speaker 4 2:01:38
But aren’t there some circumstances where new ownership would be beneficial to the city? Because the new owner would seek a permit to restore or to do something that is appropriate to the neighborhood? Why limit the property as distinct from the owner?
Speaker 7 2:02:06
I guess that’s the first part of the question is I don’t know that we can follow the owner to another piece of property and input the penalty on that property?
Speaker 4 2:02:16
No, no, but my point is, forget about the owner he’s got. So we’re talking about the property? What if a new owner comes along and wants to do something which we all agree is very beneficial for the property? The limitation that is put on here is a limitation on the property. Right? And when what you really mean, I think it’s the limit the owner, not the property.
Speaker 7 2:02:46
So if the owner goes away, then there is no violation on the property is what you’re saying. We should
Unknown Speaker 2:02:53
look at the property a new
Speaker 1 2:02:57
I can understand the perspective. But I think the point of this is to make the penalty harsh enough that someone that it would be a deterrent. I understand that. If that were to happen, then there may be and somebody I just think that’s a that’s a pretty far What if down the line, we’re really trying to say, don’t do this, because you will, you will encourage yourself, you’re then looking at the only way out is simply to sell to someone who’d be willing to take on that burden and do something with it. I mean, that’s a that’s a that’s a very narrow band, I would think. Okay, sure. Let’s see. Commissioner Jacoby,
Speaker 6 2:03:48
just thinking about unintended consequences. What if a builder and his brother decided, hey, let’s take this place out. The one guy gets his $100 penalty. He says okay, and he sells it to his brother for a nice tidy sum. It’s a new owner he decides to build maybe, you know, just I can see problems with limiting it to the builder. I also see problems with leaving of property demolished and and penalizing a neighborhood. I would question if we could increase the monetary fees in this instance. More to make it more of a penalty or deterrent in addition to the two years. I mean, I think there has to be some I think the two years does have a financial consequence that will be a significant deterrent. I would think given the way real estate is going now I’m not sure that’s enough. So I would think about making the monetary penalty higher if possible.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:53
Commissioner Sibley
Speaker 9 2:04:56
Yeah, I feel like we’ve kind of bypassed but I was gonna come hands on. But I’m somebody had asked about the permits for the structure, whether that was needed, along with the property permits. And I just wanted to point out that you don’t have to tear down the whole building to meet a new permit. So if you just tore off the back third, that could conceivably be empty or whatever. So anyways, that was the only point I wanted to make not to discredit any of the others.
Speaker 1 2:05:30
Okay, so we this is our last piece. It’d be really nice to if we could get to some consensus about what let’s maybe parse this out. We have we have alterations to a property without a certificate. And if that happens, there’s a one year moratorium on the permits on the property. Is that still? Do we have consensus or not consensus on that particular point? Just that one, if there’s a violation regarding alterations, just we need at some point we need to give staff direction. Okay, Commissioner Jacoby,
Speaker 6 2:06:19
this is alterations and not demolitions. I take it. If you have a designated property or the owner and you decide fine, you know, HPC doesn’t like this, I’m gonna make the alteration anyway. And they don’t get a building permit for another year, but they’ve made their alteration they might not want any other changes on their home. Maybe that should be included in whatever section that was for fines, progressive fines.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:52
Mr. Fenster,
Speaker 4 2:06:54
I want to suggest that we reconsider the phrase will result in a two year moratorium on all building permits for the structure and the property. Because that phrase set of phrases paraphrases doesn’t identify an owner. It identifies the property. And I don’t think we have all thought through all of the consequences of putting a two year moratorium on both the structure and the property. And I think that needs some further thought.
Speaker 1 2:07:43
To go back to this, I mean, a lot of this was based on that survey that I think Brian did way back of the 10 different communities in the area, and they’re associated with, you know, penalties and fees. You recall what I’m talking about? I
Speaker 7 2:08:02
do okay. I don’t think this was a part of that. I think this is actually language that came out of our first draft that included the historic preservation preservation overlay that are our hired attorneys. Okay, together. I can find that table and pull it up.
Speaker 1 2:08:27
No, that’s fine. I was just trying to go back and see what other jurisdictions are. Just to compare, again to other jurisdictions, if we’re generally consistent with other jurisdictions, maybe there’s value in that.
Speaker 7 2:08:44
Correct. And this did come from other jurisdictions, it wasn’t just created for Longmont, so very similar language and other codes.
Speaker 1 2:08:53
And I guess, to just to point out, we certainly want to get it right. But at the same time, we have essentially nothing in place now, which is sort of the point of trying to push this. So I’m not suggesting that we have to that we absolutely have to all agree today, or it’s over but I do want to get to a point where we give staff direction and we move this thing forward. Okay, so you should Commissioner Barner.
Speaker 2 2:09:23
I’m trying to understand why staff put see where they did in the appeal section. I mean, the appeal section has says when you can appeal and when you can’t some some decisions are final, others can be appealed. And then we go to a violation of 2.56. So what exactly how does that how does that
Speaker 1 2:09:55
occur? It’s not in the appeal section. It’s in its in its own section. Okay, appeals So our appeals are 256210 My Pages got, and this is 2562. No, it says 24243, I think is what the intention is. So now
Speaker 2 2:10:14
it’s not. It’s 2.6 point 243 horsemen a penalty, right? Write its own section. Okay. So it’s no person shall violate violations. So first of all, you’re not allowed to violate. Right? Allowed to violate the section. That’s
Unknown Speaker 2:10:35
right. requirements of this.
Speaker 2 2:10:40
I mean, it’s a very strange sentence, no person shall violate this. I mean, I don’t I don’t recall ever seeing that. In any law that a statement, no person shall violate. And either farm so this chapter. I think that’s, we say, these are the requirements in the in the chapter. And then we say, This is what happens if you violate them. We don’t make a statement. No person shall violate them. I think that’s kind of a I don’t know, I don’t even know where that falls within the concept of law. Okay, that’s number one. Number two. Okay, I understand. This is what says this is a violation. And this is what happens when you violate, and then the next thing if a person is found to have violated, I don’t know how that finding occurs. This, maybe I’m maybe I’ve missed them. But how, who finds that this HBC find that the city council find that there’s a court determined that somebody goes into court and says, Hey, Your Honor, this person violated, I want you to find that this person violated that. Is that adequate? Or does the court is the court gonna say? Well, no, you have to first seek out your administrative remedies to do that. Well, if so, what are the administrative remedies that are going to result in a finding that additional penalties shall apply. And then I come back to what I said, if if, if we’re going to do this, then I’d like it to be declarative, as opposed to contractually stated which is, will result in is did a little bit of research occurs in contracts where there’s cause and effect where if you violate the contract, this will result in the following penalties. If you violate the law, this will result in so it’s the only place will result appears in HPC, is under certificates of hardship. There’s no other section that I found in the search of the code that that appears, words will result appearing in HPC code that appears somewhere else. So those are the two things I’d like to I’d like to see a eliminated. And I’d like to see, see rewritten so that it’s clear how the finding occurs. And then it’d be made in a declarative manner as opposed to contractual
Unknown Speaker 2:13:33
city returning. Can you respond to that, please?
Speaker 5 2:13:35
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just to address a couple of those points. So the unlawful portion, and subsection A is actually a quote is nearly identical from our land development code. So under Section 1509, oh 30 titled violations, the paragraph starts off, it’s unlawful for any person to violate any provision as development code. So that’s where that section came from. It’s just consistency, the rest of our code sections. I know, in our nuisances section, under Section 904. We also use similar language saying it’s unlawful to violate any provision of 9.04 of our code. Full stop in concerning the second point of what it means to violate any provision of chapter 2.6 2.56. Our interpretation, again, meaning the city attorney’s office is that means violations looking at be there’ll be an administrative civil penalty. So the administrative civil penalty determines whether or not a violation has occurred. So if the administrative civil penalty process we determine a violation occurs, in addition to what’s in 2.97 C also applies is how we’re interpreting it.
Speaker 1 2:14:46
Okay, thank you. So I guess I want to I want to come back again to this what I would like to get out of this that if anyone has another thought about this Specifically, the penalties for one and two and what we ought to, I guess I would like to not spend too much more time on language and be specific to content. So content alterations and and what those penalties ought to be. Are we satisfied with what’s noted here in terms of the moratorium? We’ve got some comments. Otherwise, other any other thoughts about content specific to the penalties regarding these violations? Commissioner Fenster?
Speaker 4 2:15:42
Well, I was going to address the head note. There’s nothing in this subsection about enforcement. So the use of the term enforcement in the head note, probably not appropriate. It is my view, based on my experience, having nothing to do with architecture, but 60 years of practicing law, that this subsection needs to be rewritten. Subsection A is unnecessary. Subsection B needs to be rewritten. We’ve talked about the paragraphs one and two under Subsection C, that needs to be rewritten. I’ll, I’ll stop there. But based on my experience, this final provision need to rewrite
Speaker 1 2:16:48
Commissioner Fenster, I’m sorry, Commissioner Barner. Miss. We’re playing tennis and I feel like I’m a potential at the moment.
Speaker 2 2:17:00
I specifically with respect to your request. Thank you. So for substance, I want to follow on to something that Commissioner Fenster said, and that is whether or not we’re putting an undue burden on the real estate, as opposed to the person. For instance, somebody goes in and violates does something bad. We’ll get into what he does, whatever does falls under the subsection C? And he says, Okay, that’s it. I’m moving to Johnstown. And I’m selling the property to Doug Barnard. Okay, Doug Barnard hadn’t done anything bad. He’s now got a property. Why should I? Why should that new Why should the new person have the burden that of the bad deed caused by the previous owner? I don’t. I will see the first of all, I don’t think that’s due process. And it’s property encumbrance, that there’s a lien on the property, it has to be dealt with. It’s what the here is we’re not there’s not a lien on the property that somebody somebody did something, and that they did it wrong. And so they just walk away from the property. And now the property is still encumbered by an action, any any provision of 256. Not not any. But any of these, all these provisions, deliberate, deliberate or negligent deterioration. And so he says, Okay, I give up, I can’t comply, and he walks away. Now meanwhile, he’s walking away and the person who buys the property has it with this oath with this the with this provision on it, which I think is onerous. So no, now, I’m not saying city are couldn’t enact something, which says specifically this, and then it would be a specific penalty that property carries with it like a lien, but I don’t think the city should do that. That’s what we’re being asked. That’s a US substantive substantively. What did I think of this? So making? Substantive comment?
Unknown Speaker 2:19:25
Thank you. Commissioner Jacoby.
Speaker 6 2:19:29
I think your points well taken, Doug, but I do see problems again, with the Jones construction company, Bob and Lou. And they’ve got the system figured out Bob buys a property, they plan to work on it. They tear it down, up, you know, he can’t build on it. He sells it to Lou, then the Jones construction company completes that what they wanted to do, it’d be very difficult legally, I think, to enforce that on industry. The jewels, maybe it’s not going to be so obvious that they’re in the same company. But you could get around that I think I, I agree that we don’t want I believe the property, no destroyed or you know, an eyesore for a long period of time that’s hurting lots of people. In addition to the property owner, I do think that the fines should be stiffer somehow. And I’m not sure what that is.
Unknown Speaker 2:20:29
Okay, Commissioner Norton.
Speaker 8 2:20:32
Thank you. So bouncing around other areas of the Longmont Municipal Code. These penalties as late as they are do seem to be in line with other areas. I mean, to you know, the our staffs point, you know, the $500, and some of these other things are drawn from other portions of the municipal code. But one thing I’m seeing that might give us more flexibility on a case by case basis is that in a lot of these other sections, I am seeing the city attorney may also seek an appropriate remedy for damages or, you know, language that the city attorney can take it further than just the administrative action. And so maybe adding that kind of language would allow us if there’s something egregious would allow the city to do additional penalties for people who are just like so outside. I don’t know they bulldoze the Callahan house to put up a Voodoo Donuts. I don’t know, you know, would that would that help us kind of navigate this want for a greater penalty, but also having issues with you know, what that actually looks like, legally, constitutionally equitably?
Unknown Speaker 2:22:09
Thank you. Commissioner Barnett, did you have more comment?
Speaker 2 2:22:11
Yes. The first, issue Jacoby’s common. I think that’s a valid concern. But I think it’s addressed in the code. Because what even even if I, even if I, if my suggestion that we cure this problem of something on the property, which then the new owner would have to be happy, people responsible for, not responsible for have to have to deal with this two year moratorium or one year merger. Even if we if we did that, and the new owner came in, he doesn’t automatically get to start doing anything, he still has to apply to us for permission to do these things. And if we are, you know, if we think that the first of all, we think that he’s doing it in a proper way, we’ll approve it. We think we’re doing it in an in a proper way. Will will disapprove and if he goes ahead and does it. Again, if that company B, who is a friend of Company A does that, then they once again, they’re they’re going to be subject to enforcement, by the various methods of enforcement. With respect to Commissioner Norton’s comment, I think D is I think deed accomplishes what you were talking about. Because it says that the city can pretty much do anything that it wants to in order to injunctive appropriate equitable leave or any court whatever it can, it can slap the hammer down pretty heavily if it if the city wants to do that.
Speaker 1 2:24:00
No, thank you. That’s a good point. And the so let me ask a question of staff. Not sure who, with respect to this. These moratoriums, I guess maybe more particularly well, either of them. Is there a way to cleanly clarify, like let’s just say an example of somebody does tear something down the neighborhood’s got a demolished house, the property owner sells somebody is actually willing to buy the property. And they come in with a plan to say, Look, I know this happened. This is a tragedy. I’m trying to fix it. I have a plan to rebuild the old house. Right. And I want to get I want to absolutely reconstruct in a historic manner the the damaged property. But now I got a two year moratorium, is there a way to get that waived? So is there a process to handle that under that circumstance? Or if not, is there a way to tweak the language that’s in here to keep that door open for for a possibility? Similar to it?
Speaker 7 2:25:22
Well, Jeremy, and I were talking, I don’t know if if you want an appeal process in here, and who would that be to? So who would they come tell their story to? That would waive it or reduce it?
Speaker 1 2:25:38
To me, it would have to be here like it would it would have to be something like that, like somebody took over the property and said, This is a tragedy. We’re going to rebuild this or we’re going to do something it’s historically appropriate in its place. And we think that’s a viable fix given the I’m not convinced that I like it. I’m just suggesting it to have the conversation to see if it’s even plausible.
Speaker 7 2:26:03
And only for the moratorium, right. Jeremy?
Speaker 5 2:26:09
So, Mr. Chairman, I’m thinking of something like the moratoriums under Subsection C, maybe reviewed by the historic preservation commission full stop, and then we’ll have to create a process for reviewing that. But is that what you’re kind of imagining?
Speaker 1 2:26:29
Just Just see if it’s true, that based on the way this reads now that it would be just absolute with no real appeal? And we can envision a scenario that where that may be harmful to neighborhoods to subsequent property owners not really getting us? The intent here is to is to to discourage it, but we’re at to happen. Is there a way to we were we ensure that we’re not handcuffing ourselves, the neighborhood and so on? So yes, if there’s a appeal process to the commission. Maybe that’s maybe that’s enough of an opening to satisfy those concerns, while still making it onerous enough to discourage it in the first place. Mr. Fenster,
Speaker 4 2:27:31
my suggestion is that we get rid of the moratorium. There’s no useful purpose that is served by a moratorium embedded in this particular language. Not at all. It’s not going to save anybody any time. It’s, it’s going to potentially protract time. It’s not going to cure any problem. It accomplishes absolutely nothing.
Speaker 7 2:28:05
I disagree. But it does affect the value of the property. Right.
Speaker 1 2:28:12
Right, which is the point I would disagree wholeheartedly. I think the whole point of the moratorium is to make it so that you wouldn’t, we don’t have any otherwise a demand. If we don’t have the moratorium in here. Then our penalty for demolishing historic property is $100. That’s not That’s not what our goal is. has been from the beginning. So yeah, I respectfully don’t, yeah, I couldn’t support that. Just, it would be. Okay. So what I’d like to do, I think I’m going to give the Florida Commissioner Barner here in a second. And then given the sort of spinning that we’re doing, I’d like to just close this out with some direction to staff to consider. Obviously, we spent a lot of time on this. I think everything else is fairly clear. Coming back with some some possible changes next time around to this section in particular, that addresses some of these concerns and perhaps buttons up tightens up some language. Commissioner Bart? Yeah.
Speaker 2 2:29:22
So I just was curious whether or not the other city codes that you looked at, use the concept of a moratorium.
Speaker 7 2:29:33
This is not a unique approach. I can’t tell you what cities we looked at because it was done by outside counsel.
Unknown Speaker 2:29:43
So there’s no documents of any kind that we could look at.
Unknown Speaker 2:29:47
We could probably find it. Yeah,
Speaker 2 2:29:49
the reason I asked this, I just did a search of the Longmont city code and there’s only moratoriums only used for in one case in the medical other recreational marijuana provisions that, you know, they had a moratorium on certain things for a certain amount of time. But it’s never it’s not used any word isn’t doesn’t come up in the city code at all. So we’d be really breaking new ground by establishing penalties like this now, is $100. Fine, appropriate? I don’t think so I think we, you know, we could establish some kind of penalty, which would be much more severe money penalty of some type. And I think that’s I be supportive of something like that. And I don’t care how big the number is, the whole idea is for it to be dispositive that stops people from doing bad things.
Speaker 1 2:30:51
So I think the the the language on the moratorium is coming from other historic preservation ordinances from other communities. So that’s where that’s, I believe, that’s where that’s coming. Okay. But, again, in light of the time we’re spending on this, unless anyone on the commission has an objection, what I would like to do is to give staff the direction to make the minor changes that we’ve made up until this point, to have another look at this particular section with the feedback that we’ve been given. And come back for hopefully, one more revision next month that we can talk about, and hopefully we get some firm direction that we can then move to counsel, is there anything else from staffs perspective, do you need from us at this point? Is that an adequate amount of direction? As best as we can? Well,
Speaker 7 2:31:43
I’m a little unclear on this last section. But Jeremy is shaking his head. Yes. So I don’t want to rewrite the complete thing and still have a spinning around because we have we want more penalties, less penalties when there’s some distance amongst you.
Speaker 1 2:32:04
That’s Yes, i Yes, you’re correct. I think it is my goal to put this to a vote of the commission. I think it’s not, it’s too muddy right now. So we need to come one more pass. Next month, I’d like to have this close enough that if we tweak one thing or another, like we did with the upper sections, fine. And we can make a vote to send it on to council. Okay, next month.
Speaker 7 2:32:35
I think we’re crystal clear up until this. So if we just spend time on this last paragraph, it’d be worth
Speaker 1 2:32:45
and perhaps it would be worth a little research back into the some history, history of how we got here, just to have some markers of you know, again, again, if this is if this particular language is used in Boulder County or Boulder, or wherever, you know, three or four local communities, then that may give commissioners a better sense of what we’re doing and why. All right, thank you. With that, I will close this portion of the agenda. I appreciate everyone’s comments and patients. The next thing we have on the agenda is a discussion of quasi judicial decisions and commission bylaws. Now I feel like we covered that. I’m not sure I want to take that horse out and beat it again. So I’m gonna I’m gonna, I’m gonna move that we unless there’s anything about let me ask this city attorney, do you have any specific ground you would like to cover regarding that? Because I imagine that’s partially while you’re here.
Speaker 5 2:33:55
Mr. Chairman, my suggestion was going to be that we at the Commission entertain a motion to postpone this item to next month’s agenda. And staff and the city attorney’s office can then vote for specific language for the commission to consider as opposed to broad conceptual ideas at this point.
Speaker 1 2:34:11
That sounds perfect. I so move. Series of seconds. Maria. Right. Anybody who you want on there? Okay. Fair enough. We have a motion and a and a second. So as we have discussion here.
Speaker 2 2:34:28
I would ask that when that comes back to us, that if there’s if the city attorney has an opinion on something, that we see it in writing.
Speaker 1 2:34:43
That’s fair, and I think that’s what the city attorney is suggesting that we’re there. We’re coming back with some clarification language. Or what
Speaker 2 2:34:50
I heard was that the city attorney is gonna come back with a recommendation. But what I want to see is what the basis of that recommendation is, is his opinion. You want to see that opinion? Writing?
Speaker 5 2:35:05
Especially, Mr. Chairman, under our charter, their city attorney is the Legal Adviser for the city and its Commission’s I would not be comfortable putting a legal opinion in writing, given that these are public hearings were not an executive session. And moreover, it’s the city attorney’s office is the Legal Adviser for the commission. I wouldn’t want to the commission is certainly entitled to discuss the language but I would feel uncomfortable the commission questioning legal interpretation as outside his jurisdiction scope.
Speaker 2 2:35:38
So I’m not German, I can just say now that I don’t have something i don’t i don’t understand what the city attorney just said. Basically, I I’ve, my my experiences that we want something in the city attorney to explain in writing, why they’re what the basis is, for their recommendation. I think we’re entitled, I think that that’s why we have the city attorney as our counsel, if the city attorney can give us in writing, what the basis is for a recommendation that I think we should have done within that country. And then we come back to what we’ve talked about in previous meetings. Do do we do we should we have our own counsel? Or can we use the city council, I’ve always been of the opinion that the city attorney can act as our counsel. And if this attorney can act as our counsel, we’re entitled to a written opinion on the basis for the recommendations that they’re making the changes in the code.
Speaker 5 2:36:46
Mr. Chairman, if I could be recognized for one more moment. To clarify my statement, certainly will prepare a communication to the Commission explaining why we’re proposing these changes. However, I’m not going to the city attorney’s office will be given legal opinion concerning due process violations. First protections, we’re not going to be have a discussion about what it means to have due process and permanent protections. So we’ll provide an opinion saying that we believe this complies with the First Amendment. This ensures due process protections required by the Constitution. We’re not going to get into that element, but we’ll certainly explain why we think a change is appropriate. So if that addresses the concerns, and I will ensure there’s communication with our proposed language.
Speaker 1 2:37:33
Okay, thank you. I’m going to assume that that’s going to be adequate, and we’ll deal with it next month if somehow it is not. Okay. So we have a motion and a second to push the item eight be to next month’s meeting with further information from the city attorney. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. All right. Thank you. So we’ll have that for next month as well. All right. We do not have any prior business. But we do have the minutes from the July 6 meeting that we need to approve. And I do want to get a vote on this. Tonight, given the timing. So are there any comments or or corrections from commissioners? See, Commissioner Barnard?
Speaker 2 2:38:28
Yes, I would like to know. My experience with meetings and minutes is if something is discovered to be incorrect. In fact, that was not known when the meeting occurred, but is known by the time the approval of the minutes are asked for that the minutes are amended. And it’s specifically stated that, since that time, the following information is has been received or is known to have occurred or whatever. I’m specifically referring to Commissioner Jacoby’s comments that that is discovered something that you didn’t know or thought was not the case. When the original when the minute went during the meeting. So I’d be I would be I would hope that we could amend the minutes to Well, I guess first thing you need is I would move that we approve the minutes and ask for a second and then ask to speak on it.
Unknown Speaker 2:39:42
Because we need a motion on the floor before we can amend that. So make the motion so I would move that we approve the minutes.
Speaker 1 2:39:50
Okay, we have all right. We have a motion from Commissioner Barnard and a second from Commissioner Norton on the minutes and now we’ll open it up for discussion.
Speaker 2 2:39:57
I would I would just I move that the minutes be amended. And I’d ask Commissioner Jacoby to state what I’ve been saying in clear language, what, what something it’s a state that the single pane versus double pane and figure out the wording of that. I don’t know if we have to figure out all the wording of it right now. We could work with Maria on that going forward, but at least get the idea into the minutes.
Speaker 1 2:40:29
Okay. I’ll give you the floor in a second here. But I’d like to ask just a question. Are we 100% sure that that I think your sentence is referring to or your comments referring to the public hearing. And the the testimony given by Mr. Karl Schultz. And the first sentence of that says that God lives across the street and they have an equally old home with double pane windows. Are we sure that that’s what he said? I am sure. Okay. It was in the transcript. It was in the restroom. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I just wanted to double check that before we spend any time talking about it. All right. Commissioner Jacoby.
Speaker 6 2:41:11
Getting to Mr. Barnes point? Yes, I know that the home that Kyle is in is historically designated as across the street from the applicants house, which is also designated, he did say that he had double pane windows, which, again, I know the neighborhood pretty well, I was surprised that and I went back and looked. And he does have double pane windows in the kitchen addition that was added on to his house. And there are he original single pane windows and the rest of the house. And I think that should be reflected in the minutes. Because the way he presented it was that this is not an uncommon, or precedent. And I think the precedent stands that we try to maintain the windows and historical windows, if they’re repairable.
Speaker 1 2:42:10
Okay, so we have a request to amend that portion of the minutes to note that the there is a discrepancy between the I don’t even know if this is really something we can do. But there’s this discrepancy, potential discrepancy between the public testimony and what the commission understands to be the fact it’s fair to make a note of that, I suppose. And in the meeting, i don’t know i don’t i Oh, this is great. So can we get some advice, please? I don’t.
Speaker 5 2:42:48
I’ve never experienced a board seeking to amend their minutes. My understanding the minutes is that as a reflection of what occurred at that meeting, that something’s wrong in the minutes. The minutes are what the minutes are, we can note that maybe the recording secretary made an error. But to supplement the minutes with additional facts that were discovered after the administrative record in the public hearing was close, it caused me just discomfort. I can’t give any foreign firm legal guidance, apart from the fact that it causes me discomfort. The minutes are what the minutes are.
Speaker 1 2:43:23
Okay, thank you. And we have established that the recording secretary did in fact double check this and get this correct. So Commissioner Norton
Speaker 8 2:43:34
could first of all, we have a motion that didn’t include an amendment, so that needs to be voted on as point of order? But can we vote to accept these and then can we make a recommendation to staff to take that additional information to council in the in the meeting? In whatever hearing that you all in the packet that you are preparing for counsel for the appeal? Could we make that recommendation to get this new information into the record?
Speaker 5 2:44:11
Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton’s point I believe that is the appropriate course of action given that under the appeal process to city council, city council’s discretion to augment the record. So staff can propose an augmentation to the record to note Commissioner Jacoby’s point. So I think that would be the appropriate course of action versus amending the minutes and I appreciate the commissioners suggestion. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:44:39
Make a recommendation.
Speaker 1 2:44:42
I do have one more comment here. But yeah, that’s that’s my intent to get to thank you for that. That helps a lot. Commercial,
Speaker 2 2:44:49
just a question of since the point of order was raised. I just want to the motion to approve the minutes is made. It was second that. And then at that point, any amendments can be considered if amendments are proposed. They’re voted on first. And then the If adopted, then the motion is voted as asked, you asked for a vote, as amended. So I think that’s the right order that we’re doing things. And I don’t think there’s a issue here with order. My reason for raising this at all was that at the beginning of the meeting, we were told that nothing could be added to the record. And that it was only going to be that we couldn’t even come and testify. Which item? I’m not sure I agree with. But that’s what was said by the city attorney. So if the city attorney is now saying that we could either make a make an observation, that would we would ask the city council to consider as part of the, during their hearing, or something to that effect? That’s fine. That’s my motion to amend the minutes that I would make wouldn’t be necessary. But I just want to be clear why I was even thinking of amending the Minister to do this.
Speaker 1 2:46:11
Okay, so we have a motion, and a second to approve the minutes. We have no formal amendments at this point. So unless there are any amendments, I would call for a vote on the approval of the minutes. Okay, yeah.
Speaker 2 2:46:37
Before I vote, I want to know, if it’s, if the city staff is telling us that that if we make some comment or observation that that will be included, somehow, in what I think you said, augmented comment to the city council. If it isn’t, then I want to amend the minutes.
Speaker 1 2:47:04
So what I heard was that, that we ought not to amend the minutes that we ought to, unless there’s a need a correction needed here, then we would approve the minutes. And then, you know, I can have it. As part of we have comments from HPC. Commissioners, we can your you can provide your comments at that time, and that that those can be directed to staff with respect to that augmenting?
Speaker 2 2:47:39
I mean, I appreciate the with the city attorney has told us, but I think my experience with minutes is that you can footnote them, you can add information, especially if you know that the minutes or not are expressing something which is not accurate. And and since this is going to be the this is going to be the piece of of the record, then if it’s not going to be accurate than we then I think we should do that, that that needs a motion to do that. I’m willing to make that motion. But I don’t need I think we need to go through that. If the city attorney can say that they can augment the record by something we might state later, which indicates that that the statement wasn’t true. And I’m not getting a clear signal that this concept of augmentation is going to be something that city staff is willing to do. And if they’re not, then I want to amend the motion. Okay.
Speaker 1 2:48:34
Staff, can you confirm that comments made directly specific to augmenting the record with regard to last month’s hearing can be considered outside of this amendment outside of the approval of minutes.
Speaker 5 2:48:51
Under the appeal process, again to city council. There can be requests to augment the record with a new evidence. And that’s at City Council’s discretion to consider it. So to clarify, if a request to augment with additional evidence is made to city staff, they can request that city council consider it but we can’t ensure that city council will consider it because other discretion. My position the city attorney’s office position is the administrative record has already closed. So we shouldn’t be supplementing the past meeting. If there’s additional evidence that we’d like to have City Council consider if historic preservation commission would like to ask that staff augment or make a request to augment with additional evidence to city council that that can be appropriate.
Speaker 1 2:49:39
So my so what I’m saying here is, this is the record, this is what the person said, we can’t fix we’re not going to change that because it would be inappropriate. It’s not the same thing as I said something and it didn’t get recorded correctly and needs to be corrected. So I am going to call for a vote on the approval of the minutes. Um, and we’ll move into the last phase after that. So all those in favor of approving the ruling to get the date again, July 6 meeting minutes of the historic preservation commission, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. The minutes are approved. And we will move into comments from HPC commissioners and I’m just going to make this easy and go down the line here. Just so that this is orderly and I remember who’s spoken to us and so Commissioner Sibley, do you have anything you’d like to add?
Speaker 1 2:50:43
Alright, so now, Mr. Fenster, any further comments? Okay. Mr. Norton? Sure. Sorry, I’m wrong.
Speaker 8 2:50:55
That’s fine. I make a motion that we recommend that staff brings the information that Commissioner Jacoby observed about Mr. shuts his house at 601. Call your street to to counsel to augment the appeal file that you are creating.
Speaker 1 2:51:26
Okay, I have an emotion in a second. I don’t want to say that all over again. All those in favor? please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. One opposed? Okay. Commissioner Fenster. Opposed. You have direction. All right. Commissioner Jacoby comments.
Speaker 6 2:51:48
Yes, I don’t want to hold up everybody’s dinner. But at the last meeting, I was going to make a motion. We didn’t complete the motion we were, we were going to bring it forward to this meeting. And it’s not on the agenda. So I would like to make a motion tonight. And we can hopefully have at second and have a brief discussion. If it’s a long discussion, I’m happy to table it and bring it to the next meeting. But then it should be on the agenda. So I would like to make a motion that we recommend to modify the city code to allow the planning director to be able to waive the application fee for a conservation overlay for city designated neighborhood groups. That’s the motion. The background again, since 1997, we can’t have the discussion until we have a second so.
Speaker 1 2:52:41
Okay, we have a motion in a second. This is probably out of order, given the the comments, but I’m just not going over it. Okay, so we have a motion and second to consider this. My comment would be I’d like to actually have this on the agenda, so that we can really actually talk about it. And it can be published in the agenda, because this is a big enough thing to not just sort of swipe sweep out the door. At the last minute, that would be my personal preference. Any other comments?
Speaker 2 2:53:27
I move that this discussion be postponed to the next meeting?
Speaker 1 2:53:32
Okay, second. Okay. motion in a second. So we’ve got a motion and a second to actually get this on the agenda for next month’s meeting, and then have the discussion then. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, I’ll call for vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. Okay, so let’s please get that on the I think that shouldn’t be a huge
Unknown Speaker 2:54:00
time. Was Was their direction last month? We
Speaker 1 2:54:03
we did have it? Yeah, we did. Actually, it’s actually in the minutes that we have I suggested that it get put on the agenda. It’s in there. If you read the end of the minutes. Yeah. So Mr. Jacoby made a motion to modify the city code as he just described. It’s right at the very end, I suggested we get put on the agenda. And we had a little further discussion about it. So it’s on there. Let’s get it on the agenda next week. Next month. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Barr, any further comments? No. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:54:43
Okay. You didn’t do it. I move we adjourn.
Speaker 1 2:54:47
Okay. No, no, we cannot do that. We are not. Sorry. That is actually out of order. Okay, seeing no comment further comments from the HPC. Commissioners we have comment from RC The council representative
Unknown Speaker 2:55:03
okay now Commissioner Jacoby
Unknown Speaker 2:55:09
I move we adjourn
Speaker 1 2:55:11
all those in favor Aye we are adjourned thank you
Transcribed by https://otter.ai