Historic Preservation Board – September 2023
Read along below:
Unknown Speaker 0:02
Okay, welcome, everyone. Let’s go ahead and and call the September 7 2023 meeting of the historic preservation commission to order. Can we have the roll, please?
Unknown Speaker 0:13
Chairman lane here, Commissioner Sibley Commissioner Fenster, your Commissioner guy, you
Unknown Speaker 0:21
can shoot your Cobby. Commissioner Barnett. Councilmember Rodriguez. Thank you. All right. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 0:30
Next, we would have the approval from our August 3. Meeting, the approval of the minutes. Do any commissioners have any comments or corrections for those minutes?
Unknown Speaker 0:46
And if none, I’d entertain a motion.
Unknown Speaker 0:50
I’ve got to move. How about a I’ve got there we go. Thank you. So we’ve moved from Commissioner faster seconded by Commissioner Jacoby. All in favor? Any opposed? None. So motions are sorry, the meeting minutes are approved.
Unknown Speaker 1:07
Report from the chair, I don’t have anything in particular to talk about this evening. So I’ll cede my time to HPC staff staff liaison? Well, I have a slew of things on my report. Excellent.
Unknown Speaker 1:23
So first and foremost, the certificate of appropriateness for window replacement at 545 Call your street that you considered and denied at the July 6 meeting was appealed to city council and that appeal hearing was held this Tuesday. So they ended up remanding it back to the commission. So it will be on the October agenda. So October 5, if I’m remembering correctly, they have also directed the commission to consider a certificate of hardship. So I’m working with the applicant to
Unknown Speaker 2:04
get that information to get what we need from her as far as you know,
Unknown Speaker 2:10
getting her to explain how she meets the criteria for that. So that will be coming to you at the October meeting.
Unknown Speaker 2:19
The other thing kind of similar similarly related to that. There was some discussion about the neighboring property at 601 Collier regarding whether or not their windows were original or double panes and had been replaced. So I did some research on that and the file. It was there wasn’t much to find, except there was a certificate of appropriateness issued in 2008, for window replacement at that building at that particular house. It appeared to have been approved administratively because I could not find any discussion of it in the minutes. So
Unknown Speaker 2:57
I could not find there was not a building permit in the file. I could not find anything in our online system. So it could be that window replacement may not have required a permit at that time. I’m not sure I know at some point.
Unknown Speaker 3:12
You know, the IBC didn’t necessarily require require that so that could have been the case. So it’s a bit of a mystery. But
Unknown Speaker 3:21
long story short, it happened 15 years ago, we have different policies and standards at this point. So that is the update on that.
Unknown Speaker 3:30
So next item is the tower compassion survey. Carl McWilliams is starting that we have a purchase order for his services. So he anticipates sometime probably October or November ish, he should have that completed. So once that is completed, we’ll bring it to the commission to review and determine
Unknown Speaker 3:53
if that’s something if landmarking that doing a landmark application for that is something we want to proceed with. His initial thought is that it probably does meet the standards for National Register listing as well.
Unknown Speaker 4:06
So stay tuned on that.
Unknown Speaker 4:10
On the survey plan, kind of at a stone wall with our consultant that we were working with, you know, our general consultant we’re working with or trying to work with to get a proposal so that, you know, we may have to RFP that one after all, but Glenn and I are going to continue talking about that and see if we can’t get some additional information. So we are attempting to proceed with that. So
Unknown Speaker 4:34
the only other thing I have is that the dickens barn and some of the adjacent lands. The dedication agreement is going to city council on September 12. So this next Tuesday, it is on the consent agenda as a resolution so
Unknown Speaker 4:51
Unknown Speaker 4:52
hopefully won’t need to do a presentation but if I do, I’ll be there. So, essentially the dedication will be candid
Unknown Speaker 5:00
shinned on approval and acceptance of the final plat. So we are still working out some details with the final plat for the applicant. But that that is moving forward as well. So
Unknown Speaker 5:12
and that is my update. Did I miss anything? Glen? For Jeremy? All right. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 5:19
I have one quick question for you. And then I’ll open up to commissioners on that appeal.
Unknown Speaker 5:25
I assume that there’s a video of the of that hearing. And would there be draft minutes published prior of the city council’s meeting published prior to our
Unknown Speaker 5:38
Unknown Speaker 5:40
That is a good question. I don’t know about the timing, I would hope that they would be available, but I can’t make any promises.
Unknown Speaker 5:47
i There is there should be a recording of that particular hearing on the city’s YouTube channel. So it should be live now. I mean, available, it should it should be up. It should be up now for streaming. So that would be that is available so you can review the discussion and and such as well. All right. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 6:07
Commissioners, any questions for staff on anything?
Unknown Speaker 6:13
On I’ve got
Unknown Speaker 6:15
Commissioner guy here first, do you have a coffee or?
Unknown Speaker 6:22
All right, sir. That’s my fault.
Unknown Speaker 6:26
Do you have a copy or template for this certificate of hardship of what that would entail? So we have the section of the code, which is 2.5 6.10. I’m sorry, 2.5 6.160, which does have some criteria for certificate heart of hardship. Based on our much like the appeal of the certificate of appropriateness. This is something of uncharted territory for for this commission as well. So we will be following the criteria established within within the historic preservation section of the municipal code.
Unknown Speaker 7:06
Unknown Speaker 7:09
You had I know we’ve asked this question before and you’ve answered it. I just don’t remember the answers on the plat. That has to be approved. Do we have a role in that? Or is that just an administrative part at this point? It’s administrative.
Unknown Speaker 7:28
No, I’m gonna have one more question on the appeal. I know the city’s attorney’s office loves hanging out and HPC once a month would Are they planning on being here for this appeal hearing or not?
Unknown Speaker 7:39
So technically, it’s a remanding and reconsideration rather than an appeal. It’s yeah, I’ll let Jeremy expand on that.
Unknown Speaker 7:48
Yes, good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. So our
Unknown Speaker 7:53
kind of logic, as Jennifer pointed out, is that it’s being remanded for reconsideration and certificate of appropriateness for the board to consider their commission to consider hardship issues and whether or not that might play a role in their decision.
Unknown Speaker 8:07
Assuming it doesn’t,
Unknown Speaker 8:09
we’d also considered a significant hardship at that point. I’m going to work people working with staff and advance on getting the staff report together, assuming everything is pretty straightforward. There’s not really any questions. I’m not planning on being here next month. But if it does appear that we’re gonna have questions, or if the commissioners have any questions after the packets been posted or been published, I can make arrangements to be here. All right. Thank you. Any other Commissioner questions for staff? No. All right. Thank you for that update.
Unknown Speaker 8:41
Oh, okay. Sorry.
Unknown Speaker 8:43
Commissioner Barner. Jeremy, just to clarify, I just want to understand the difference. You said, were instructed to consider hard that you’re going to work on considering hardship. And then also, then there’s a bit of argit How do you distinguish those two?
Unknown Speaker 9:03
So my understanding of the just procedurally speaking, the certificate of appropriateness was decided by the Commission then appealed to city council, and then City Council remanded the issue of the certificate of appropriateness back to the commission. So I think we need to tie the loop about whether or not the commission wants to change its decision based on the city council’s guidance. Assuming the commission denies it again, or maintains its prior decision, we then switch gears and move to a certificate of hardship application that the
Unknown Speaker 9:35
applicant is filing imminently.
Unknown Speaker 9:40
I was there. So
Unknown Speaker 9:42
motion I heard was that they was remanded and that we should consider hardship. My conclusion from that was that the applicant would fill out a certificate of hardship. And that’s how we would consider hardship. I don’t know that we have any hardship.
Unknown Speaker 10:00
guidelines that we can follow other than those in the city code with respect to certificate of hardship. So I was I didn’t understand when you express those as two different things.
Unknown Speaker 10:13
And Commissioner, I do believe we had to close the loop on the certificate of appropriateness still, because that was the issue remanded there was a remand decision from city council, and that was considering this certificate of appropriateness. So we think we need to consider that. I understand your point. And I agree with you that hardship is not a criteria. So I anticipate that the hardship aspect won’t really play in a certificate appropriateness. But assuming the certificate previously denied, again by the Commission, we would then go to certificate of hardship issue. Again, the motion is I heard it was it was remanded not just for reconsideration, but for reconsideration based on hardship. So I don’t think there’s two issues here. I don’t think I don’t think we’re supposed to have any kind of a motion to reconsider. Period.
Unknown Speaker 11:04
Full stop, I think we’re instructed to reconsider based on hardship, full stop.
Unknown Speaker 11:11
And stand what you’re saying, Michigan, I provided my advice to the commission. Okay. Well, we we have the person who made the motions here, or we can go back and listen to it, but I took two pretty good notes. So would you expect that that would all happen on the same evening, it would be just a one after another agenda item sort of scenario? Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 11:36
Unknown Speaker 11:39
Thanks for that information. Let’s see, we will move on to public invited to be heard. All right. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 11:49
All right. I’m sure Jacoby, I’m a little confused on the direction from Council, because it’s coming back to us to reconsider the appropriateness, I don’t see that anything’s changed other than perhaps consideration of financial constraints. So I guess we can we can rubber stamp what we thought before, if, unless, commissioners minds have changed. And to that point, I’d be happy to have any. And all commissioners come to my house and see interior storm windows, I have three different kinds, as I said, and the data says financially, it is much cheaper than replacing windows. And functionally, it is very comparable to double pane windows. So again, I don’t even see how there’s going to be a standing for the applicant on a financial basis. But be that as it may, we will go through the motions. But I’m I’m very happy if any of the commissioners are interested in seeing interior storm windows, I’ll be glad to show them interior storm windows that I made personally very cheaply, some that I bought through a commercial group that installed them for me, and a separate kind of storm window that I made from a kit that I bought at budget home center. So we could have storm windows one on one at my house if you’d like just not all at one time, because that would be a meeting of the historic preservation commission.
Unknown Speaker 13:29
So yeah, I would suggest that all the commissioners go back review whatever information you would like to review prior, obviously review the packet and we’ll walk through the procedures as outlined for us.
Unknown Speaker 13:41
And next meeting
Unknown Speaker 13:43
to the Chair if I may just jump in to add one more thing.
Unknown Speaker 13:47
And follow up on on Jeremy’s comments. It’s important. One thing it’s important to note is the council neither approve, approved nor denied. They neither approved nor denied the appeal. So basically, there was no action,
Unknown Speaker 14:04
positive or negative to taken on the appeal of the certificate of appropriateness. So that remanding so basically that that question is still open. So that’s something that we they directed us to go back and reconsider. So we would need to, as Jeremy said, reconsider this certificate of appropriateness and then move into the certificate of hardship. So
Unknown Speaker 14:25
okay, next, yep.
Unknown Speaker 14:28
Okay, I’ll, I’ll give you the time. But I don’t want to spend all day hashing out whether or not we’re supposed to do this or that because the procedures are outlined for us, and we’re going to get there. So and I don’t know that as a commission, we have any power to change the way the city sets up their processes. So I don’t want to bog this meeting down in that discussion. But again, I’m gonna cede you the time here for coming. And I won’t take long I just wanted I will
Unknown Speaker 15:00
I will I object to the way that the city attorney has presented this. I don’t think it’s accurate. And I and I think we should have some way between now and then of having some read maybe watching this and see what they said. But I don’t think there is any need for us to simply restate what we said before I that I was there. That’s not what happened at the meeting. We were not asked to review our decision on CoA, period. That’s not what happened. What happened was we were asked to review it on the basis of hardship, I have no position with respect to hardship, if I’m going to listen to the facts as they’re presented, if the power if the person person shrink, seeking to do this wants to come before us representative, I listened to it at that time. And I’ll make my decision then. But I just I just want to make sure there’s only i I’m very I want to be very clear that there’s only one item on that can be on the agenda right now. If we don’t want to consider that then the City Council can take up the appeal or they can write back and say, well, we considered on the basis of hardship and we have we don’t agree,
Unknown Speaker 16:21
and that we don’t have to then make any decision other than the fact that we did that.
Unknown Speaker 16:26
Thank you, Commissioner Fenster. Yes, our week, competent to hear a hardship matter.
Unknown Speaker 16:38
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, city attorney. Yes, it’s empowered to the historic preservation commission, out of the certificate of hardship.
Unknown Speaker 16:46
Not certificate appropriateness, but certificate of hardship. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 16:50
All right. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 16:54
Okay. We’ll move on now to public invited to be heard.
Unknown Speaker 17:00
We have a shortlist here. And then if there are others following that, or would like to speak, we can
Unknown Speaker 17:07
come up after this. Please come up as I call you. You’ve got three minutes to speak. Please state your name. Before you begin your comments. First speaker would be Sarah Levinson.
Unknown Speaker 17:39
Unknown Speaker 17:40
I Sarah Levison, I live in the H E booth house in the historic Eastside neighborhood on Emory Street.
Unknown Speaker 17:49
Couple of requests. I did watch with a lot of interest, the HPC meeting of August 3, specifically, because you had the demolition ordinance on the agenda. I was really surprised to see not just the demolition ordinance, but staff bring an entire slew of other ordinance that was very important that the the commission had a huge discussion on that was not on the agenda.
Unknown Speaker 18:21
Anything that you do that’s not on the agenda is bad form for for governmental transparency. So I would recommend that if you’re going to do that, please, Commissioner stopped staff from going through those discussions, because there was no presentation in the packet on this and all these other, you know, discussion points. Were not given proper public notice. So please stop them from doing this again. I would also like to point out that I try to find a staff
Unknown Speaker 18:57
presentation on the new business item eight see, to modify the land development code. There was nothing you have 87 pages what was published on the public records Portal had nothing on Item HC. So I implore you not to take up eight C, because how could any of us comment or read it when there was nothing for us to review? And I don’t know if you guys got something to review.
Unknown Speaker 19:26
A couple of other points.
Unknown Speaker 19:29
I would also like to point out that when you’re considering the demolition ordinance, that you also add another word to historic, that would be cultural. And the reason I’m proposing that is number one, the tower of compassion that you’re going to consider that you’re studying right now may not necessarily be historic, but it certainly is a cultural resource for the city. I can also imagine and you guys don’t read the land grant statement, but it the land grant statement
Unknown Speaker 20:00
The City Council and many other bodies read also calls the attention that we may have ancient artifacts and land and resources that are Native American resources. And so when you say historic, could be prehistory, it could be other cultural resources. But again, if somebody takes down a massive pile of dirt, and you and there is a real cultural resource there,
Unknown Speaker 20:25
nothing in the demolition code would cover a circumstance like that. So I would recommend adding cultural in with historic couple of other comments. One of the other things that I found very disturbing
Unknown Speaker 20:42
in last month’s discussion was, I actually wrap up okay, fine, sorry.
Unknown Speaker 20:49
That the numbers to the requirements to essentially initiate something from historic district or conservation district was raised so unreasonably high that it doesn’t really meet with what the city’s charter says for referendum and initiatives, which is 10% of voters, or what the state constitution says, which is 25%, to do things such as recalling elected officials. One other thing about the demolition ordinance that I don’t understand is, is that a quasi judicial matter? So I that wasn’t clear from what I read. Thank you. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 21:31
Okay, our next speaker is Sharon O’Leary.
Unknown Speaker 21:36
Before you start the clock, could you please talk into the microphone, notice that when I stand next to the microphone, you can kind of hear me but anyone who has hearing problems, if you’re sitting further back, they don’t get the full bountiful beauty of your voice. But more importantly, they don’t get the information. And attorney, you’re that you’re also guilty of that your microphone is like,
Unknown Speaker 22:03
pointing at you, but it still comes out
Unknown Speaker 22:07
or not doing the purpose. It’s designed to do. Okay. I just want to create understanding. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 22:14
First of all, I want to thank you guys for working on the demolition code.
Unknown Speaker 22:19
I just want you to think about three things. As you’re looking at this code, I want you to make sure that it’s appropriate reviews take place with appropriate reasoning, also, that adequate and appropriate notice is given to interested parties, we were left out on that appropriate. And the last thing is appropriately, appropriate penalties are fine. It has to be hurt, hurt the bottom line enough. So people follow the rules. Okay, if it hits them in their pocketbook, they’re going to consider playing by the rules of the game 830 Emery Street was demoed because the home could not support a second floor. Well, not many homes in our historic neighborhood could meet that requirement, or have the existing foundation that could do it. And thus it could be demoed to put on a second floor. I would say that is not a propriate. I also ask that you stay focused, and don’t get distracted by other things staff brings to you during your meeting. That’s why it’s important to make motions, get a second have a full discussion and vote and a winning vote direct staff. And then you guys can stay on the course. As far as last month’s meeting, why the change from 25% to 51%. For historic districts, there’s only a limited number of possible neighborhoods that could even meet that criteria. So not many people are going to apply for it. Do you think downtown would have qualified for a historic district with 51%? No. But with 25%? They did. And we benefit from it. We benefit from grants and monies that are available. Presently, we only have three districts. What are we afraid of mid century architecture? Is it on the horizon? Last I want you to update the designated landmark page. And then again, the architectural survey page still has not been updated. This has been going on for months now. It was what was it an accessibility issue? It’s still not up there. We have three districts that a lot of time, money effort state and local monies is still not up there. And it says contact Jennifer, if you have questions or problem. I’m sorry, I think Jennifer is overburdened already. And it will be very low on her list with if all of a sudden I tell everyone okay, if you want the information contact Jennifer. She doesn’t have the time she’s a busy woman trying to do
Unknown Speaker 25:00
Our job so let’s just see if we can
Unknown Speaker 25:04
move things along and keep our community informed. I greatly appreciate everything you do. I know you got on this board because of an interest, desire or passion. And right now the city boards are all open with vacancies and I think it’s great. I think it’s we the citizens of Longmont not the staff of Longmont. We the citizens of Longmont are the game changers and the guiding light. So again, I appreciate you. Thank you
Unknown Speaker 25:39
got a couple extra seconds because it couldn’t figure out how to get started. All right.
Unknown Speaker 25:46
Anyone else in the audience that would like to please please come forward. State your name.
Unknown Speaker 25:53
Hi, I’m Terry Guna. And I live in the Eastside historic
Unknown Speaker 25:58
neighborhood in Longmont. I’m calling I’m here tonight.
Unknown Speaker 26:04
Because I’ve read through the new codes that you’re you guys are going to be discussing tonight. And the feeling of it when you’re when you’re reading these codes, it’s as if you own the properties people are
Unknown Speaker 26:19
I guess they have your blessing to live there until you decide that they no longer are keeping up with the property maintenance that you are required of them, requiring of them. And as a as a person who has not had a ton of income my whole life and living in a historic home. That it really bothers me the tone of your demolition by neglect, code stuff that you’ve got written there, it’s it is basically, you’re taking over people’s private property or you the potential is there to take over people’s private property. Now, sure, you’ve got all these forms you can fill out, you can go before the board, you can, you can make certain that your neighbors aren’t signing things against you, you can file for hardships, you can do all these things. But my neighbors and I are we’re simple people. And we live in simple homes. And sometimes, these aren’t the things that
Unknown Speaker 27:14
it’s not as if we own our home when you guys are forcing this kind of thing down our throat. And I just I want you to appreciate how it comes across. Because it comes across horribly. It comes across as if we are
Unknown Speaker 27:28
you know, lucky that you’re allowing us to live in our homes up until the point where we just don’t, you know, take care of the paint job or the foundation or whatever it is that you determine, is so important that we keep track of and and place our priorities on. So it’s just as if our priorities, your priorities supersede whatever our priorities are a you know, if you’ve got a designated home, that makes sense to me, you you bought this designated home, but so many are not designated and your code was talking a lot about designated homes without owner consent. So that’s that, to me is a struggle with that. And I struggled with how it’s all worded. So thank you. Thank you for being on the board, though. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 28:15
Anyone else would like to speak?
Unknown Speaker 28:18
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing.
Unknown Speaker 28:25
Thank you for your comments. All right. Let’s see new business review of the demolition code amendments from last
Unknown Speaker 28:34
Unknown Speaker 28:38
Actually, this is not new business.
Unknown Speaker 28:41
Buyer, it is really sort of prior business. Right. But we got through most of the changes. We had a few stops. And I think the commission wanted us to do a little bit more work in a couple of areas. So one has to do with the big one is that penalty. Sorry, I forgot. That’s my
Unknown Speaker 29:03
that’s my bad. I didn’t
Unknown Speaker 29:06
practice a little bit more. You only have 30 seconds.
Unknown Speaker 29:12
One was the big one was penalty for
Unknown Speaker 29:17
that we talked about for a permit moratorium.
Unknown Speaker 29:21
We also provided another option that Jeremy did some research and we can go through that. We did find with our appeal that we had some snafu. We had a snafu in the existing code that we corrected. So that’s something that we’ll talk about tonight that you have not seen on August 3. And then
Unknown Speaker 29:47
Jeremy added some language clarifying what’s a quasi judicial decision of yours and what is not. That was added as well. So we’ll go ahead and run through that. I guess hopefully we have
Unknown Speaker 30:00
I’m a consensus that you would recommend this to the city council. If so, we’re recommending that you approve our first motion, which is adopted proposed ordinance changes as shown, or an option would be with the following changes. So if you have a few small changes, we can certainly outline those, and then incorporate that into the recommendation to city council. Or you could say, We don’t like any of it, we’re not going to recommend approval of it. So if you have any questions,
Unknown Speaker 30:35
I’ll be happy to answer him or we can start the process. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 30:42
Unless there are any broad, general sweeping questions, I’d like to just go through it in big chunks.
Unknown Speaker 30:53
Maybe you know, our first section is, definitions, we’ve got the definition of demolition.
Unknown Speaker 31:02
Some changes to definitions of historic
Unknown Speaker 31:06
Unknown Speaker 31:10
If we could, if Are there any questions or changes or comments on the definition section from any of the commissioners?
Unknown Speaker 31:21
Unknown Speaker 31:35
Mr Chair, what I might add is we actually highlighted the sections that are new now, Commissioner guy who was in here last time, so if you want to walk through them all, that certainly makes sense. But yeah, I was hoping to just run through each section just because yeah, for that reason, and just because I want to make sure that once we say we’re, this is recommended that we’re going to if there’s an approval here tonight, or recommendation of approval that
Unknown Speaker 32:00
everybody remembers what we’re talking about.
Unknown Speaker 32:07
Unknown Speaker 32:09
following the the definition sections, the next chunk that was that had a significant change was just the criteria for designation. A lot of that was word smithing and rearranging, so we’re talking about 2.5 6.050.
Unknown Speaker 32:47
So seeing nothing there. Let’s jump to 2.5 6.070 which does include some changes from last
Unknown Speaker 32:56
Unknown Speaker 33:07
It’s the wheel Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 33:10
To 2.5 6.0070.
Unknown Speaker 33:23
Okay, yeah, I’m just just waiting for God to get it up.
Unknown Speaker 33:28
On the screen for everyone.
Unknown Speaker 33:38
There’s a lot we didn’t change here in the middle, sorry.
Unknown Speaker 33:47
Okay, all right. Commissioner Jacoby,
Unknown Speaker 33:51
thank you. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 33:53
And she took 56070 a five, it still says 75%. Whereas on the next page, it says,
Unknown Speaker 34:05
well, it says 51. And it’s crossed off and says 30%. Now down there for the percent of properties for that’s the petition. It says 51% On the next page for the application requirements. But it says an A five still says 75%. And so that probably should be changed to 51% as well, since that’s referring to the same application unless we decide with comment from folks in town that we lower it further again, but it’s 75 is probably needs to be updated. And then I had another thought about D they yell it out section.
Unknown Speaker 34:51
It says that design guidelines should be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for treatment of historic properties required for all districts.
Unknown Speaker 35:01
And then it says it shall be developed by the applicant and owners of the property within the proposed district with the assistance of staff.
Unknown Speaker 35:10
I don’t know if we want to hold every building within a proposed Historic District, consistent to the Interior standards. Certainly there are buildings in most neighborhoods that become historic districts.
Unknown Speaker 35:27
I was thinking maybe it should say something a little softer, like,
Unknown Speaker 35:32
you know, shall be developed by the applicant and owners using the Secretary of Interior standards of Interior standards, as guidelines are something a little softer, that would be more negotiable. Should some neighborhood pursue Historic District?
Unknown Speaker 35:50
Thanks. I just I can give you the history behind why it says that, because that’s what the Secretary standards are. The interior, those standards are our Bible. That’s what everything is judged against. And so if there were to be a district that adopted standards that weren’t in compliance with the Secretary of Interior standards,
Unknown Speaker 36:16
that would muddy significantly muddle the waters, in terms of any kind of review of this body. Right, that’s a foundational document, right that and if somebody wants to exceed that
Unknown Speaker 36:30
they could, but to erode, that
Unknown Speaker 36:34
Unknown Speaker 36:36
seemingly not wise. That was the, I’m just trying to make this usable document. Again, we have codes that sound high and mighty. And we can talk about the conservation overlay later. But reducing the percentage of people so that we could have applications and making it a little more flexible. Certainly, if we are going to have a house as a City landmark, we can hold to the Secretary of Interior standards. If we are going to make a National Historic District, we hold to the Secretary of Interior standards, if we decide to make a city Historic District, which we’ve never done. If we want to make it approachable and usable. Maybe we should make the requirements a little more flexible. And maybe we could get some buy in and we could actually use this.
Unknown Speaker 37:25
That’s all I was thinking. Okay, thanks.
Unknown Speaker 37:29
I think it might be, at the very least worth the discussion of percentages.
Unknown Speaker 37:35
So maybe if we can focus in on that, just for the moment,
Unknown Speaker 37:39
I’d like to get any opinions from commissioners as to whether 51% is the number, whether it ought to be less, we we’ve obviously knocked it down from 75 to 50. So I think that’s a fair point in terms of whether that’s
Unknown Speaker 38:02
yes, I’m sorry, that that paragraph F is specifically to the design guidelines.
Unknown Speaker 38:08
So maybe they should be the same.
Unknown Speaker 38:12
But the first one is you have to have a petition of 75% of the owners agreeing to the district that f is to those design guidelines that are like you’re saying, going over and above Sharon, please. This.
Unknown Speaker 38:30
Oh, it’s Yep. Do you really can’t just talk in the middle of the meeting because it just interrupts our process.
Unknown Speaker 38:38
Unknown Speaker 38:46
Unknown Speaker 38:48
Job planning director Mulligan, you’ve so you’ve clarified that things that we’ve the 51% is in some refers back to this. The what, regardless of these particular pieces, what I want what I want to focus on, so that we’re not here all night is the percentage of property percentage of owners
Unknown Speaker 39:12
Unknown Speaker 39:14
must consent to the district. So we’re going to start up at 26 5070 introductory paragraph notes 75%. And then it’s repeated in that same section, a five percentage of owners. So I’m Commissioner Jacoby.
Unknown Speaker 39:35
I think my philosophy is pretty clear. I think this code should be made usable, not just look lovely, but not be usable.
Unknown Speaker 39:45
We haven’t I mean, with the code existing the way it is with a 25%. You haven’t had crowds banging down your doors applying. I don’t see why we have to make the hurdle larger.
Unknown Speaker 39:59
I would be happy
Unknown Speaker 40:00
We keep it at 25%. Personally.
Unknown Speaker 40:03
Thank you. Any other commissioners? Here to comment on that? Commissioner guy?
Unknown Speaker 40:09
Yeah, I mean, I understand the 51%. I mean, we live in a democracy. And if we’re not going to have every single thing appealed, you know, I think it’s helpful for us to be able to say that the majority of people that responded are in, you know, a chord with putting, you know, a district, which will have some, you know, requirements, so the people that are within that district, so 51% Makes sense to me. I mean, it is, yeah, we have, we’ve had zero traction on historic districts since they were allowed. But I feel like if we, if we drop it back down to 25, we’re sort of setting ourselves back up for, you know, a lot of appeals. Thank you, Commissioner. Fenster. I agree.
Unknown Speaker 40:56
Can you clarify just exactly which that you agree with? What percentage please just so we’re clear. Firstly, what Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 41:06
Any other Commissioner comments?
Unknown Speaker 41:11
Unknown Speaker 41:18
I’m gonna note that
Unknown Speaker 41:21
and move on.
Unknown Speaker 41:25
So the, the Section D here, that’s highlighted, this has been changed.
Unknown Speaker 41:33
In Can we just get a clarification on what exactly changed from last meeting?
Unknown Speaker 41:41
Sure. So I think there was some confusion of how it read and I think someone specifically wanted to change appearance to integrity of the building. And then we combined a couple of sentences basically. So that it now states design guidelines consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties shall be required for all districts and shall be developed by the applicant and owners of properties within the proposed district.
Unknown Speaker 42:15
So anything underlined was added anything struck out was struck out.
Unknown Speaker 42:21
Okay, thank you. We’ve heard from Commissioner Jacoby any other commissioners have comments specific to this section? Commissioner Barner.
Unknown Speaker 42:31
looking for some guidance on the word integrity?
Unknown Speaker 42:36
I mean, I know what we’re expected to have integrity.
Unknown Speaker 42:41
I know what it means to keep something whole and undivided. Is integrity.
Unknown Speaker 42:47
Those are the dictionary definitions. I found. I’m trying to see what
Unknown Speaker 42:53
this would mean.
Unknown Speaker 42:58
I’m going to just to in order for flow. I’m going to skip over Commissioner guy who and jump to Commissioner Fenster because this was his
Unknown Speaker 43:07
request, and then I’ll come back to you. So Commissioner Fenster, if you
Unknown Speaker 43:13
I believe your your suggestion was to change this to integrity. Yes.
Unknown Speaker 43:20
Can you my on
Unknown Speaker 43:23
Unknown Speaker 43:26
I intended that integrity in this context, refer to architectural integrity, that is design integrity, that is giving credence to periods of architectural design.
Unknown Speaker 43:47
Unknown Speaker 43:49
Unknown Speaker 43:53
Sure, I mean, I can expound upon the integrity issue and that when you have a property designated, generally speaking, that designation speaks to the property’s integrity to either its period of construction, or to its period of significance when which may or may not be architectural. So it may be that something important happened in that place. And so you want to maintain the appearance of that property in accord with the time period of that important
Unknown Speaker 44:23
event. So in his art preservation generally, that’s what we’re talking about when we’re talking about integrity of maintaining that aspect.
Unknown Speaker 44:35
My comment was going to be that generally,
Unknown Speaker 44:41
design guidelines are not something that sort of the general populace does. I think that’s a stretch to ask an applicant and,
Unknown Speaker 44:53
you know, property owners to do that. They should certainly be part of the process, but typically, it’s
Unknown Speaker 45:00
Some sort of professional thing.
Unknown Speaker 45:03
So that’s my comment on that.
Unknown Speaker 45:08
Thank you. Any other comments on this section?
Unknown Speaker 45:14
Okay, well, I’ll come, we’ll come back to everything here in one big swoop, or at least that the items that were up for grabs, but don’t want to go through various pieces. Alright, so if we roll down a little bit,
Unknown Speaker 45:27
F has a highlighted section that just included the 51% of the property owners.
Unknown Speaker 45:36
In regards to draft guidelines, I’m gonna lump that in with the same percentage conversation.
Unknown Speaker 45:47
So are there any other comments on this general section? Before we roll? No. Okay. All right, so then I’m gonna roll all the way down because we don’t have a lot of changes
Unknown Speaker 46:01
for a while here
Unknown Speaker 46:12
okay, we’re going to come all the way down to 2.5612 ad
Unknown Speaker 46:24
it’s page 54 of the packet.
Unknown Speaker 46:45
Unknown Speaker 46:47
Unknown Speaker 47:04
Okay, so the first set of chunks here a, b and c we discussed last
Unknown Speaker 47:12
month, and there have been no changes. There are changes
Unknown Speaker 47:17
to D and E.
Unknown Speaker 47:24
And I believe that it indeed was just clarifying that the appointed person is the chair or the chairs designee from the Commission.
Unknown Speaker 47:39
And then an E.
Unknown Speaker 47:43
Unknown Speaker 47:45
maybe clarify for us what, specifically the E change was?
Unknown Speaker 47:56
I believe this was something suggested by HPC that the wording was perhaps a bit clunky in E. So
Unknown Speaker 48:07
we just tried to clarify it.
Unknown Speaker 48:12
Yeah, so we’ve
Unknown Speaker 48:15
this is, this is the procedure by which
Unknown Speaker 48:20
Unknown Speaker 48:25
Unknown Speaker 48:27
application for demolition
Unknown Speaker 48:31
comes forward to the HPC. If someone says that should be this really should be a historic building. You shouldn’t be able to demo it. It comes in front of the HPC. The HPC says nope, it’s doesn’t qualify, so then the demolition can move forward. That’s correct. Okay. All right. All right. Questions on this general section. I’ve got Commissioner Jacoby. Yes, sorry, but I’d like to just back up a little bit to a two
Unknown Speaker 49:00
Unknown Speaker 49:02
which building areas would be reviewed
Unknown Speaker 49:07
outside the original city subdivision? I would suggest adding buildings older than 75 years, because not all buildings have been part of a cultural resource survey. And we may sneak something out that’s, that’s older and might be significant. It should at least be given a cursory review. So just adding buildings over 75 years old beyond the original city subdivision, I would suggest we throw that in there.
Unknown Speaker 49:35
Not sure I’m entirely clear. What
Unknown Speaker 49:40
basically, is stretching the window another 25 years, so within the 50 to 25. That wouldn’t be quite we qualify. We could do 50 Also, I’m thinking alright, so this is 2023 We can go back look at all buildings demolish after 19 or before 1973. The odds just
Unknown Speaker 50:00
seems to me the odds are low that we would not have on our radar historic building a building that had historic events built in the 70s, or the 60s. But if you go back 75 years, a lot of buildings might qualify simply on the basis of age in the period they were built. And that would just add one more
Unknown Speaker 50:21
stop point to say, hey, let’s just double check this building before we demolish it.
Unknown Speaker 50:28
Which is why I was thinking 75, I realize it’s just adds another layer, we could make it 50. But I think we could save maybe staff and people have been a time if we made it 7575 I think would, would be more practical, we do have 50 sort of scattered throughout the rest of it. 50 To keep it simple.
Unknown Speaker 50:50
We can make it 50 Maybe we should add 50 years then for not delineate between the original city and city boundaries and outside the city any any structure over 50 years. And that’s what it does. So the very first sentence is prevent the loss of structures 50 years or older. So the first the start is if it’s 50 years or older, it be its potential. And then it has to filter through all of these other criteria after that. But if it’s 50 years or older, but isn’t in a cultural resource survey, it might slip out correct, or am I reading this wrong?
Unknown Speaker 51:32
Mean, see what I’m saying?
Unknown Speaker 51:35
Maybe so if we just skip this city’s original city subdivision line and just say any structures over 50?
Unknown Speaker 51:45
Unknown Speaker 51:47
But if it’s over 50, it’s already going to be
Unknown Speaker 51:53
any building over 50, whether it’s in the original city subdivision or it’s outside the city subdivision. There are some buildings. I know there are some homesteads within the city limits outside the original city subdivision. And I’ve seen some look around say, oh, that’s an interesting building, making note of the address. I bet I could pick some that have not been surveyed, that are very significant to the history of our city. And they could be demolished because they are old, some are not in great shape. I think they should be reviewed as well.
Unknown Speaker 52:27
Mr. Chair, the discussion we had along this and and the why you’re pushing us to do a survey plan is that we catch those. So that’s our ultimate goal, that everything that is significant would have a cultural survey.
Unknown Speaker 52:44
Right. And that is correct as well. But until that’s done, maybe we should have the 50 year catch point.
Unknown Speaker 52:55
I mean, I think the survey is very sorely needed. But again, it’s not done yet.
Unknown Speaker 53:01
All right. There any. Yeah. Let me get other commissioners comments on this Commissioner. Fenster, I agree.
Unknown Speaker 53:09
Do you agree with me?
Unknown Speaker 53:13
I agree with the last speaker.
Unknown Speaker 53:18
Any other Commissioner comments about this?
Unknown Speaker 53:26
Commissioner Sibley, I want to do it, too. I do agree, as we’re talking about this, because that’s the whole thing about getting the surveys and everything. That’s great. And I’m hoping that we get those sooner than later. But in the meantime, that 50 years, that’s a really good point. And that would catch a lot of things.
Unknown Speaker 53:47
Does that then start to overstep, though, you know, to what somebody was mentioning earlier with Terry had mentioned about, you know, is that starting to be like, Oh, what’s a giant HOA over the entire city of Longmont. So, so that would be my,
Unknown Speaker 54:05
again, something to discuss. So
Unknown Speaker 54:09
yeah, that that is my concern. Because if we did that, we would basically scrap one and two, and it would just say if it’s 50 years or older,
Unknown Speaker 54:21
it’s eligible, which means anybody demoing any building, that’s 50 years or older in the entire city would then have to get reviewed. And I think there’s a burden not only on potentially us, but moreso on staff reviewing
Unknown Speaker 54:37
an awful lot of
Unknown Speaker 54:41
and I mean, that’s why we’re pushing so hard to get the surveys and get some of these properties identified outside of that. Now. Let me ask a question.
Unknown Speaker 54:54
If Is there any mechanism for staff to currently identify
Unknown Speaker 55:00
A property with any historic significance might have historic significance. You know if I mean, we just did it with the Latin barn. But that wasn’t on a map. And it came up because of a broader
Unknown Speaker 55:18
development plan. But is there any any mechanism in place to catch a one off that might be floating around the city somewhere? It’s his chair.
Unknown Speaker 55:28
The primary tool and mechanism would be the county assessor. Data on when the building was built, if it were a straight up demolition permit. Otherwise, if there’s a development proposal for a property, we will attempt to, you know, like, I came in late in the process for this Leighton property. But I know there was a cultural resource survey that was required for that property. So as it really does kind of become a one off thing as we receive development proposals that could impact potentially historic properties. But status, you know, we have that discretion to ask for a cultural resources survey if we suspect that there’s something significant about that property. But for straight demolitions, it’s a little different, it’s a little harder to do. Because we just don’t have that input. We may not have that information beyond the built date on the assessor’s website.
Unknown Speaker 56:29
I think this was a concern raised early about how much can you can control and and designated property, which is what we’re doing under this paragraph. So we felt there should be some guidelines. Now, we do have surveys that are outside the original city town site, so but that doesn’t mean we have everyone and every buildings getting older every day. So
Unknown Speaker 56:59
that’s just a little bit of background, but there was concern about just saying everything 50 years old, falls into this snip.
Unknown Speaker 57:12
Commissioner go? Yeah, I mean, I, I mean, my primary push would be for obviously, for us to survey the complete city. So that we know that is the that is the purpose of that. So that that we don’t have to have these discussions. Because
Unknown Speaker 57:28
to require, you know, review of every building that was built after 1973, that’s what we’re talking about, is going to be, you know, just a ridiculous burden on staff and took our time to probably not very helpful. In general, you know, you’re going to pick up one or two, in a year, maybe, but it’s going to drowned with everything else. So
Unknown Speaker 57:55
personally, I, I’m fine with the way it’s written, I think we’ll catch enough stuff and staff is, you know, aware enough that they are looking for us. They’re sort of our eyes and ears behind the scenes. And I mean, even when we do review stuff, people still demolish things. So, unfortunately. So I think this is, this is probably a good, medium effort.
Unknown Speaker 58:20
Thank you, Commissioner Fenster.
Unknown Speaker 58:23
Unknown Speaker 58:28
we know that doing that would be a
Unknown Speaker 58:33
good talk, when it’s ready, go do duly know that, that it would be a significant additional burden. In other words, to put a fence around the 50 years,
Unknown Speaker 58:47
just a preliminary fence around 50 years so that they are looked at a little more sharply
Unknown Speaker 58:55
so that we have the opportunity to pick out significant structures.
Unknown Speaker 59:01
I don’t think this is a huge imposition, and probably a good step in the direction of future preservation.
Unknown Speaker 59:14
All right, thank you.
Unknown Speaker 59:17
Okay, we’ll loop back unless anybody has anything more to comment about that.
Unknown Speaker 59:24
Unknown Speaker 59:27
on to we’re gonna run all the way back down to the appeals section. So that’s 2.56210 that is page 58. The first chunk of this there’s not a lot of change, but there is Section D has been altered since last month.
Unknown Speaker 59:55
Getting my exercise my
Unknown Speaker 59:59
Unknown Speaker 1:00:01
Unknown Speaker 1:00:05
we had an appeal last month as you’re aware of, and we rewrote the whole land development code in 2018. And as you see, we reference back to the process for appeals. Back to chapter 15 of the land development code. What was missed is kind of a key thing is an appeal is not a public hearing. So it doesn’t require the same notice requirements. But the section in the old 2.56, this section actually says, you will do a notice per any other public hearing that has to do that comes before the historic preservation. So even though we’re saying the criteria is the same with the planning commission, the process is different. So that’s why we made this change to be consistent with the process as well
Unknown Speaker 1:00:58
as the criteria.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:00
Okay, thank you. Are there any questions comments? Commissioner Barner? Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:06
Unknown Speaker 1:01:08
this whole issue of the Appeals and the procedures is all in the
Unknown Speaker 1:01:16
references? Is that all also covered in your memo? Which was next item on the agenda?
Unknown Speaker 1:01:25
Unknown Speaker 1:01:28
Jeremy’s it’s different.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:33
Yes, the memo concerning quasi judicial bylaw changes, concerns quasi judicial matters. It doesn’t concern the appeal process itself.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:48
I guess I’m
Unknown Speaker 1:01:50
Unknown Speaker 1:01:53
I’m not I’m not sure. I’m comfortable with the idea of taking away a notice of this. I mean, just in the interest of the public, it still has to conform to the rules of the of what, what goes on at a during an appeal. We haven’t changed at I am. That’s a number three, and four.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:22
So I don’t see what’s hot what the harm is, in publishing the information that there’s going to be an appeal of this. And based on also the fact that there were several people who were that appeal who were very interested in what was happening, and maybe maybe they found out because of the notice, I don’t know.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:46
I don’t I don’t I don’t see why we should be burdened to take away in public notice.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:57
Can you? Is there a particular explanation for that
Unknown Speaker 1:03:03
piece? Well, I think what we’re doing here is we’re we’re tying in HPC to a very similar process planning commission. So
Unknown Speaker 1:03:13
and still, it is not a public hearing. So somebody could receive a notice and they’d want to speak on the appeal, they wouldn’t be allowed.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:22
So it’s kind of a redundant process that I guess it’s no particular reason.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:29
Plus, why do we differentiate the two now? So so this, this, this is exactly how the Planning Commission’s wording is read.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:45
Any other comments or questions on this section?
Unknown Speaker 1:03:53
Let’s jump into the maintenance requirements, which is just the next page 256220? I think.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:03
So these are the two
Unknown Speaker 1:04:06
components that essentially represent the demolition by neglect
Unknown Speaker 1:04:11
portion of the ordinance.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:16
Unknown Speaker 1:04:18
it does in B, it is specific to a historically designated property. Correct, right. So unless it’s a landmark property, this doesn’t apply. And the only thing that would apply is the
Unknown Speaker 1:04:36
lat the International Property Maintenance code, which is a generic code that applies to all buildings in the city. That’s great.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:46
Any Commissioner comments and questions about this piece?
Unknown Speaker 1:04:53
Okay, the next would be enforcement and penalties. This was a big discussion about
Unknown Speaker 1:05:00
Last time, so
Unknown Speaker 1:05:02
I, if you would, if you could explain a little bit more about the alternative and whether the alternative is meant to be included in the code, or whether that’s an alternative that we as a commission are deciding between two pieces that would, one would be removed and the other, put it in place.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:25
So, commissioners, I propose the alternative to C and D, which was presented last time. So under C and D with that monetary moratorium, which we discussed in length, you know, concerning penalizing the new property owners and things of that nature. So I went back and kind of looked at some other jurisdictions. So Loveland and Westminster both have
Unknown Speaker 1:05:48
the one year moratorium in their code sections for historic preservation. So it’s pretty much consistent with what staff has proposed previously, was that one year requirement or one year, ban on all building permits, Denver and Colorado Springs have the option of restoring So rather than have a moratorium in place, instead, the Commission will make a decision on how you fix the problem you created. So if you, you know, took out some old windows and put in new vinyl windows that didn’t match the structure. The commission could order that, Hey, you gotta go back and place the windows the extent possible or find comparable Windows put in that place, not the vinyl ones you chose.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:29
The harshest would be of course, demolition, if you decide to demolish a historic structure.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:35
Under this code provision, you can say, Hey, you gotta build a back very similar to how it used to be.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:41
It’s a different adventure, in terms of enforcement mechanism. From my perspective, you know, under existing enforcement powers, we do have the power to enforce compliance.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:52
That was the section we move down there previously. So if you look at subsection E, there’s enforcement power enforcement actions available to city in the code, we shall have the power to enforce compliance to the court system. That’s a pretty onerous bar in terms of city resources of taking someone to court to enforce a historic preservation commission ordinance violation. Whereas the new alternative D kind of spells it out earlier on that HPC isn’t to get involved and advise you what you should do to fixture
Unknown Speaker 1:07:28
unpermitted, change your property.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:37
Questions, Mr. Commissioner Fenster, y’all I, excuse me, I questioned the viability of the see alternative.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:50
I’m not sure that any administrative body or non judicial body would have the power to
Unknown Speaker 1:08:01
order the replacement of a torn down structure as opposed to imposing fines and penalties. But replacing the building.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:12
I doubt that there’s authority to do that. I would take that out.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:21
Thank you. Other comments and questions about the section?
Unknown Speaker 1:08:28
Unknown Speaker 1:08:30
I’m not sure it has to be an either or actually, I kind of like see, but I agree with you that it sounds difficult to enforce.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:41
But perhaps that could be discussed at the time of the infraction with the developer. And maybe they would prefer to rebuild whatever they they inappropriately tore out and get out of that investment, rather than wait a year. It doesn’t have to be an either, or we could just throw that in there as another option, another tool in our toolbox. I think the only component of that that would perhaps not be true is that it does say the commission would order that. So you couldn’t say that you couldn’t say that it orders someone to do it.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:18
You would only it would have to be some sort of optional.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:21
Right? Well, maybe I could change the wording. So that is an option. Right, an alternative option.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:29
And that’s something we did talk about a little bit. I think there was a point brought up last week about or last month, sorry about, you know, if someone inherent were to purchase a property that had the moratorium, would they be stuck and is that bad for the neighborhood? And option could be the physical reconstruction of a historic building.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:50
But that’s not the same thing as ordering it. Right. So Right.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:58
All right. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:00
She’s stating it as an option. I think that’s very good.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:05
Okay, thank you Commissioner Varner. I like
Unknown Speaker 1:10:11
Dee Dee. I don’t like the alternative at all. I don’t like I don’t think
Unknown Speaker 1:10:19
commission historic preservation commission should have in its power. I’m not sure it’s even legal to order somebody to do something to order the reconstruction and not even sure how that
Unknown Speaker 1:10:35
that would happen. We, we have a hearing we order somebody to reconstruct it, and then we staff would go in and review it, to see that it was being done in the same manner, or the buildings department or I mean, just it’s, I mean, aside from the fact that I think it’d be impossible in force, I think it’s a really bad idea for to give us the power to order people to reconstruct
Unknown Speaker 1:11:03
Unknown Speaker 1:11:06
Mr. Chairman, if I may add briefly, I did gloss over the fact that D was also amended. So under subsection D slightly above, so in addition the moratoriums which are imposed. The commission has the authority now to shorten or eliminate the moratoriums. If the commission finds the impact, the moratorium would unduly impact the district neighborhood or neighborhood Ng, or neighboring property owners. And the owner of the property receives approval for a COA to mitigate or replace the alteration of demolition. So it does the new subsection D. And the first alternative does guessing that remedial power
Unknown Speaker 1:11:45
to the Commission as well, so So d could stand on its own and the alternative just be simply removed and it would allow for that possibility. I have no pride and ownership to the alternative. I’m just presenting options.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:00
Okay, thank you for that clarification.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:04
Okay, any other comments, questions?
Unknown Speaker 1:12:11
Unknown Speaker 1:12:14
Just get you’re just trying to you’re gotta get back to where it was. All right. Commissioner bark.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:20
Unknown Speaker 1:12:22
I see this word. No. What do we considered received? D right.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:29
I’ve never heard the word dish. smallish.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:33
Unknown Speaker 1:12:38
Demolition demolishment. I don’t think is a word
Unknown Speaker 1:12:46
or demolitions maybe.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:52
Well, this motion that would be the act of demolishing, demolishing,
Unknown Speaker 1:12:58
and you’re talking about something which,
Unknown Speaker 1:13:01
Unknown Speaker 1:13:04
Okay, I think we can just make it clean. Turn that the demolition, and it’s consistent with everything else. And that’s, that’s clean and easy. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:15
So then let’s jump
Unknown Speaker 1:13:17
to the last section here, which is, I believe what was added to
Unknown Speaker 1:13:23
Unknown Speaker 1:13:27
Unknown Speaker 1:13:34
Yes, Mr. Chairman, following our discussion last month, there was a lot of discussion concerning quasi judicial matters. This is just pulled directly from our land development code. We apply quasi judicial matters evenly among city council, land developers, and the Planning and Zoning Commission
Unknown Speaker 1:13:51
will discuss quasi judicial matters and concerning the bylaw change the next agenda item, but this just is the exact language modified for HPC versus planning and zoning. So in its entirety, it’s just copy and paste. Okay. All right. Thank you. Let’s see questions about this section. Commissioner Barnard.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:12
Just have two questions. One is,
Unknown Speaker 1:14:16
it’s seems to me that we’re talking about a lot of things. And I guess, because we’re making legislative recommendations.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:27
We don’t act in a quasi judicial manner to do that. But does that mean
Unknown Speaker 1:14:33
you know, should we consider whether or not whatever we decide here should be discussed should be exposed to the to the public, and we should get some input? The city council, the city council, consider when we give them the recommendation that we’ve actually listened to anybody other than ourselves to do this? I don’t know. I would think they would. I would, I would favor whatever we decide generally here.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:00
That’s my general comment that we expose it, get feedback on it, and then consider whether we want to change the tentative draft that we’ve built. That’s one thing. Second thing is I think we have two issues here. Two general issues. First issue is the issue of demolition, spent a lot of time on demolition. And we’re actually working ourselves down to where I think we have a pretty good draft.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:27
We spent the second issue is this issue of
Unknown Speaker 1:15:32
how we act as a body. I really think that’s a separate issue, which deserves a separate set of discussions. And I think the staff has proposed starting that discussion in the memo that they gave us
Unknown Speaker 1:15:45
by adopting section. And so I don’t think any part of two, five 6.2 Foro or any place elsewhere, something like that exists in here should be part of our recommendation to the city on demolition issues. I think that should be a separate discussion, and divided from issue on demolition.
Unknown Speaker 1:16:20
This is the entire Municipal Code section that deals with historic preservation commission? Right? So if if this if that piece, we’re going to be anywhere, it would be here, this isn’t just a demolition ordinance. Is that correct? Correct. This is the entirety of the historic preservation commission. Until the big picture idea of moving into land development code which big picture idea at this point? Right.
Unknown Speaker 1:16:52
Any other Commissioner comments on this? If not, then I’m what I’d like to circle back through.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:05
Unknown Speaker 1:17:06
if we were
Unknown Speaker 1:17:12
to make a recommendation
Unknown Speaker 1:17:15
to staff, and it sounded like we that might be possible. And we could, but with a few minor changes, what I have down just to kind of keep track of all this stuff, is the percentages that were in 256070.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:37
And that there were three noted to it 75, one at 51.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:45
Unknown Speaker 1:17:48
I don’t know if there’s 100% consensus around 51. But that seemed to be the leading horse. And there were some other notions about lowering it.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:59
Unknown Speaker 1:18:01
the next piece, I’ve got to
Unknown Speaker 1:18:05
try to keep track of all this
Unknown Speaker 1:18:11
it’s there’s a lot of code here. I’m trying to run back through it all.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:28
was in that same section, we discussed integrity and character and I made a note to myself that perhaps that could just that Section D of 25607 whole same section
Unknown Speaker 1:18:42
could simply be reworded to, instead of to say managing the integrity and architectural character could just say managing the architectural character and integrity so that it’s clear that we’re talking about architectural integrity
Unknown Speaker 1:19:02
the next one I have on my list
Unknown Speaker 1:19:07
is to 561 ad which jumps quite a ways down
Unknown Speaker 1:19:20
and that I guess really is the notion of whether we’re doing 50 If we’re whether we’re going to keep this provision as
Unknown Speaker 1:19:31
50 years anything within the subdivision and outside of the original city subdivision 50 years plus those extra criteria. So we talked about that
Unknown Speaker 1:19:47
Unknown Speaker 1:19:51
Unknown Speaker 1:19:58
don’t know we had a
Unknown Speaker 1:20:00
lot of change
Unknown Speaker 1:20:03
discussed until we get down all the way back down to 25624.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:10
This is 2430, which doesn’t seem right
Unknown Speaker 1:20:14
Unknown Speaker 1:20:16
three zero, I think
Unknown Speaker 1:20:18
that was with the alternative. So striking the alternative.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:24
Unknown Speaker 1:20:27
So those are the those are the kind of substantive points apart from some broader discussions.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:37
That And so before we get to the very last piece, I would like to see if we can’t,
Unknown Speaker 1:20:43
if there’s if there’s any, if there any further comments from commissioners about those, those really those three points, the percentage,
Unknown Speaker 1:20:53
really, it’s two points, the percentages and the 50 year.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:00
Unknown Speaker 1:21:03
Commissioner Jacoby, just getting back to that 50 year filter, we made a circular argument I started by saying 75 years. So we could filter out some of that. So we would make less work out of it. And we said let’s make it 50 To be more consistent than we said everything before 1973. Now that doesn’t make any sense. And it kind of can be idea. But it could go back to saying 75 or 80 years or 100 years, but set a guideline that’s a little more stringent than what we do
Unknown Speaker 1:21:35
for the original city boundaries, just as a catch all until we get the surveys done. How many years have we been talking about doing surveys? For the neighborhood’s? We’ve been talking about that for a while we’ve been talking about this demolition ordinance for a while we’re finally here with a survey. But yes, you’re I mean, so my point is, until we have the surveys done, maybe we should you can set the bar higher, make it 80 years 75. I don’t care. It is inconsistent with the 50 that we’ve done before. But I think there should be something another catch all.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:11
Okay, I’d like to get Commissioner comments about that specific notion.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:16
Commissioner Sibley? Yeah. Um, when things come up for demolition, alright, somebody applies for a permit for whatever. Um, and if it’s not in districts, or something that’s been surveyed before, whatever. You guys had mentioned that, yes, it you know, there might be notes in the assessor’s stuff, blah, blah, blah. How is the public notified on those kinds of things are what kinds of notifications are there? And the reason I’m asking is, let’s say somebody wants to demolish some house somewhere, and it’s, you know, outside of that 50 year thing, so we don’t have to worry about that. However, maybe it’s not architecturally significant, but something happened that maybe is worth preserving. How would those things be caught? And I’m kind of, you know, there was a number of years ago when there was that house, and I don’t remember the entire story, but the boy that was murdered, and the law in that house then became, you know, on the right, got on the register. So how do you catch those kinds of things? Because I guess that
Unknown Speaker 1:23:27
that would be like, if I was going to try to pick yours or something, I think that would be part of my decision, you know, to try to catch those things. So how do you determine how do you determine what can get torn down? Guys?
Unknown Speaker 1:23:48
Unknown Speaker 1:23:49
it today, it is an issue. Right? And our goal is to actually get that documentation. I think, on the other side, the concern is, you’re an owner, and you have no idea that, hey, I’m my plans for my property I can’t do. So if we found something that was significant. There would be a notification, at least to the property owner, that, hey, there are some special rules. And that was really why we made this change. Basically, it was about property rights, primarily. We have a lot of surveys, we don’t have every property surveyed. I’m not sure how we caught this Latin barn.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:34
I think we may have had a pretty good inkling of its significance when it came through. So we were able to bring it forward to the HBC.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:45
It’s a it’s a risk, but to basically put a requirement on everything that’s 50 or 70. Because there potentially might be
Unknown Speaker 1:24:56
an important event there that that’s where
Unknown Speaker 1:25:00
At least from a legal standpoint, there was concerns
Unknown Speaker 1:25:09
Unknown Speaker 1:25:12
Nope, I turned myself off too fast.
Unknown Speaker 1:25:17
Then I guess.
Unknown Speaker 1:25:20
Now I have to like, where’s that thought? Um
Unknown Speaker 1:25:26
yeah, I guess, you know, you’re probably gonna lose things, you know, no matter what. And so I guess really, maybe the thing is, is, you know, how do we get the public to say, hey, you know, if you think something might be important, how do we get them to be active and we’ve got people in certain neighborhoods, but
Unknown Speaker 1:25:47
anyways, I’m not exactly sure where I’m going with that. But I think I understand the problem, but are part of it anyways, I mean, the best answer is, it’s significant, it becomes a landmark. And we have a number of ways of doing that either the owner or somebody brings in a petition, you know, who is not the owner. So
Unknown Speaker 1:26:09
Unknown Speaker 1:26:12
Mr. Fenster. Did you have a question? No.
Unknown Speaker 1:26:16
I’m sure Barner Yes, I’m trying. Like, if I could for Commissioner Jacoby to explain clear clear where the word changes would be that he’s talking about where the 50 or 75 years
Unknown Speaker 1:26:33
where that would appear. And this
Unknown Speaker 1:26:37
51 versus 75? Or the idea that if it’s 75 years old?
Unknown Speaker 1:26:44
Let me transfer the mic over for his response.
Unknown Speaker 1:26:49
Unknown Speaker 1:26:52
And if you’d like me to tell you, I can. Yes. So it’s section 256180, it’s page 54. And it would take would take a little wordsmithing. Because the heading is review of permits for demolition for moving of structures, 50 years of age and older. So it we’ve basically set that bar at 50 and then added all these other filters in there.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:21
That would be under a two, right, you’re talking about a two but we would have to pull 50 from everything and then add it back in. Right. Because we’ve we’ve the heading is structures 50 years and older and that you can’t have a subheading. For him structures that are 70, you’d have to rework some of the some of the language, right to just talk about structures and then say, in the city subdivision 50 years outside the city subdivision so you could change the first time the purpose of this section is to prevent the loss of older structures that may have historical architectural significance, take the 50 out. And then
Unknown Speaker 1:28:05
within the original city subdivision, any structure
Unknown Speaker 1:28:10
50 years or older, I suppose you could throw that in there. And then outside the original city subdivision any structure identified in an architectural cultural survey that added data data data, or over 50 year old years. You know what ends up happening though? I think what you’re suggesting is that that number two just says outside the original cities, subdivision any structure is 75 or 80 or 100 years old, and all the other stuff goes away.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:42
Because you could have something that that had history behind it. It’s some historic, well, it’s not old enough yet to necessarily meet the criteria, but maybe some event occurred there. And so it’s came up on a cultural resource survey. Right, but it might not be that old yet. So in that way, it might be caught separately.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:05
Okay. Does that at least answer your question? Commissioner Bart, great Commissioner. Guy.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:17
All right, thank you. I did not give you the opportunity to do that on the record.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:22
I would also like to, I mean, personally, I’m fine with the 50. So I’ll just put that out there.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:30
But I also I would like to consider the public comment about the section that it does expand to cultural resources and not just historic, which is very limited view of what’s important to our our city.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:51
Unknown Speaker 1:29:55
Any other Commissioner comments there? Aye. Aye.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:00
I really understand what you’re saying.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:03
But the My fear is that we end up with some 75 year
Unknown Speaker 1:30:11
whatever it is, doesn’t matter what it is everything else gets scraped. And the next time that this gets all fixed is
Unknown Speaker 1:30:19
who knows when down the road. And so
Unknown Speaker 1:30:24
as much as I understand and where you’re coming from, and personally, I would probably be fine with the way we’ve written it. But that’s just me as one Commissioner.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:36
Okay, so I don’t know that we have absolute consensus on that particular piece.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:42
either. I do we do have consensus on striking the alteration out of that.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:52
Enforcement and penalties. Is there any are there any commissioners that feel that that’s a bad idea, or that we can just leave D and strike the alternative?
Unknown Speaker 1:31:02
Jive jumped to 256243 to page 61.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:12
Mr. Bonner, I just want to support what we get there, to what you’re saying. The comment that was made about adding the word cultural, and that would be in 250 6.180, paragraph a, add the word cultural after the word common cultural, or architectural? I think it’s in there though, right. Now it says that may have historical architectures.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:40
Later where we talk about, okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:44
Unknown Speaker 1:31:46
Unknown Speaker 1:31:47
Okay. Right. Throughout, is it so staff? Is that clear? Yep. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:53
All right. Thank you, Commissioner, to Claire, for clarifying that I missed. I was looking at the cultural cert survey and thought we had it in there.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:06
Unknown Speaker 1:32:09
Unknown Speaker 1:32:13
I’m just going to comment on the 256240. The very last piece that was added with decision making capacities.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:23
It’s my sense that
Unknown Speaker 1:32:26
a, this is the process that we have.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:31
We had an omission in the HPC code that made it unclear that that’s the process that we have adding this back in.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:43
makes, you know, clarify something that we we have identified that is
Unknown Speaker 1:32:52
was missing. And I don’t know that this commission is really charged with trying to determine what the right procedures for decision making bodies should be. So as much as I appreciate where you’re concerned, Commissioner Barner over this component, I would be in favor of including it in now and getting it in and getting it corrected.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:20
Because I don’t know that this commission is going to change that whole process.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:26
Specifically this commission and and and city wide or that that or at least that this is an appropriate place. If it were if it happened elsewhere, and it got changed across the board. And that’s a whole nother process and discussion. That’s just my feeling.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:47
there any other comments on that?
Unknown Speaker 1:33:50
Unknown Speaker 1:33:52
Commissioner got you. My comment is it’s kind of a it’s a little sideways in that in the past.
Unknown Speaker 1:34:02
A number of small number of Commissioners have gone and spoken with people that have been in front of the commission about their project that was in front of the Commission, which obviously is ex parte. And so I just want to be clear that that is not something that we are supposed to or allowed to do.
Unknown Speaker 1:34:28
Yes, Commissioner. So that goes back to I’m trying to think what Saturday I was with you all, I think women in April,
Unknown Speaker 1:34:36
April Fool’s Day for the retreat. When we talked about quasi judicial ex parte communications, regardless of if the Commission decides to go forward with this addition or not. Our guidance is the same that when it you’re acting equality to do quasi judicial fashion, which is certificate appropriateness, certificate of hardship, and this economic incentive application. Those are
Unknown Speaker 1:35:00
requires additional matters. And the Commission’s my advice is always to avoid any ex parte communications, which would include discussions with the applicant until such time that the historic preservation commission has made their ruling. It’s final. Yeah, we were I mean, I mean, this is past staff, but we were actually asked by the staff to do that. So I just want everybody to be clear that that’s, that’s not something that should be happening. And again, the remedy for that is disclosure or recusal if it’s limited contact. So I think the example was if someone came up to you and said, Hey, how do I make my application more persuasive? And you provide some generalized comments before you realize it’s a quasi judicial matter, disclosure is fine. If you feel a substantial context, so that might influence your ability to be impartial, then recusal is required. But it’s up to each commissioner to make that decision for themselves. But to help, I’ll be there.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:58
A follow up?
Unknown Speaker 1:36:02
We do it once. Once something’s on the agenda noticed. I mean, it is
Unknown Speaker 1:36:08
we have the opportunity to go to the property to visually I mean, I generally think that’s something we ought to be doing. And so if we are
Unknown Speaker 1:36:18
going to the property to look, and we obviously can’t be, you know, we can’t just force we’re not we’re not permitted to be inside unless we’re invited to be inside. But we are going to the property in order to understand better the property. So where’s the line? If if some, you know if there’s a component that clearly would be better observed from an interior and we’re permitted to go inside? Are we able to just say, look, I appreciate this opportunity. I would like to see it but you can’t talk to me is that, how do you write they just how do you handle that? Because there’s, you have to be there sometimes. Yep. Completely understand. I think site visits was one area of major discussion back in April, the site visits do get difficult. A neighbor comes out and talks to you while you’re in the driveway, or the homeowner comes out and talks to you in the driveway, you’d say, Hey, I can’t be I don’t want to be influenced. I don’t want have any improper communication. I’m just taking a look just to better evaluate to make it a better decision. And I think your your point, Mr. Chairman, you know, if the homeowner is willing to invite you, you know, I think it’s fine to say Hey, can I look inside to get a better view? I can’t talk to you, but I just wanted to get a better view.
Unknown Speaker 1:37:29
I think that’s fine. But I would still prefer that staff did that including a staff report. I’d prefer a staff doing as opposed to a commissioner. So if it came to the Commission’s attention that you know, we really need to see from the inside. I’d prefer that the applicant provides the pictures that the staff or staff somehow arranges for photographs or video that way it’s on the record. Everyone’s seen it. There’s no ex parte communication concerns.
Unknown Speaker 1:37:57
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Commissioner Barner. Yes, I
Unknown Speaker 1:38:04
in with respect to
Unknown Speaker 1:38:08
Unknown Speaker 1:38:15
Unknown Speaker 1:38:18
it says the Commission must not consider ex parte communications and it says any member of the commission shall disclose any.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:30
Any involvement expert and fully describe it. So
Unknown Speaker 1:38:35
on the one hand, it says that it can’t be considered. As next paragraph it says, well, it can be disclosed. So that’s contrary to being considered if it’s disclosed. And, you know, it’s for the purpose of consideration. That’s number one. I don’t think that paragraph I think that paragraph needs reworking. I don’t care if it was popped in from the land development and planning Zoning Commission. I mean, they might have gotten it wrong, and there’s no reason why we should get it wrong. All right. Secondly
Unknown Speaker 1:39:10
was a second.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:17
Unknown Speaker 1:39:21
Oh, yeah, the idea of if we do have that conversation, and we disclose it, then we’re just informed by counsel, that we can either recuse ourselves or disclose it and there’s no guidance for that. I mean, if I if I don’t recuse myself, can the commission forced me to create recuse myself? We know this issue of recusal has come up nationally.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:52
With no guidance for it. It’s very difficult to have any kind of enforcement. So I don’t think I don’t
Unknown Speaker 1:40:00
I’d be interested if staff and don’t really want to get into long discussion on this. I think this paragraph needs to be rewritten a little bit. And so I’m not prepared. I don’t think we should decide on this to say, I don’t think we should decide on this today.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:15
I don’t think we should decide on the whole section today. But specifically, I think this paragraph has given us
Unknown Speaker 1:40:22
in, in complete advice on how to act.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:28
City Attorney, could you respond to just clarifying what was that? For at least the very first question. So the very first question, you know, my, the way I’m reading it is the Commission must not consider ex parte communication. That’s the rule. The exceptions if somehow you came across inadvertent ex parte communication, you shall disclose it. I don’t think those two points are contrary to each other. It’s saying don’t do it. If it happens, you have to disclose it. It’s how I’m reading it. And I think that’s how it should be read. Chairman, that’s not what it says, Okay. Doesn’t say don’t do it. It says the commission may not consider it. It doesn’t say a commissioner may not do this.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:10
To do what
Unknown Speaker 1:41:13
Mr. Terrell is suggesting. We have to we’d have to be a specific admonition in law, telling the commissioner that you may not commissioner may not have any ex parte communication.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:30
Commissioner Jacoby, can we substitute for must not consider just say should avoid the commission should avoid ex parte communication.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:42
That would maybe that would clarify it enough for you, Doug, and maybe that would, because you still would have to recuse. It doesn’t deal with recusal issue, but it would maybe clarify things.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:57
Mr. Garner? Yeah, I’m uncomfortable with the should not I believe the goal of this is to is based on everything I’ve heard in red, is to this just make it very clear that we’re not supposed to or should not allowed to engage in any ex parte communication. And if somehow or other we do we disclose that. And then the Commission can do with it as it as it wishes, but I don’t think it should be a
Unknown Speaker 1:42:25
Unknown Speaker 1:42:27
What the Commission must not do.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:33
If you want to make a statement that the Commission must not consider ex parte communication, but that should be a separate paragraph, then as far as actions of the commissioner, and what the commissioner should shall not do or may not do whatever depends what preference you the idea that it’s mandated that a commissioner not have an ex parte communication.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:56
If they do that they’re not going to go to jail. They just have to disclose that.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:04
Unknown Speaker 1:43:06
Yeah, I think that needs to be.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:11
I think that needs to be rewarded.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:15
Unknown Speaker 1:43:18
I don’t think it’s enough to say that the commission should not consider ex parte communications. I think that should recite that the the commission shall not engage in ex parte communications. So I think that part of that phrase or sentence
Unknown Speaker 1:43:37
should be reworded to that extent.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:40
Because the way it’s worded now, it almost invites as ex parte communications. So
Unknown Speaker 1:43:48
and then having said that, the Commission
Unknown Speaker 1:43:53
must not engaged in ex parte communications. The next sentence would properly follow I think.
Unknown Speaker 1:44:02
So is your suggestion to just revise the first sentence to say, commissioners shall not engage in ex parte communication? Yes, sir.
Unknown Speaker 1:44:12
Unknown Speaker 1:44:13
I would have no problem with that. And I am of the mindset that I would very much like to vote on this tonight and move it forward.
Unknown Speaker 1:44:25
Chairman, Chairman, yes, yes, beating a dead horse, but trying to get the horse in proper shape, so it can raise
Unknown Speaker 1:44:35
the the second sentence says any member of the commission, voting on an application shall publicly disclose their involvement in any parks party. So basically, if I say, Okay, I don’t want to vote on this application. So I’m not going to vote on it. So I’ll go have an ex parte communication. And I’ll sit with a person and I’ll work with them and now, you could have two commissioners go and do that. It wouldn’t be a meeting
Unknown Speaker 1:45:00
If they could have that discussion, and they just agree they wouldn’t vote on it. Because the only condition here for an ex parte communication is if you’re voting on an obligation.
Unknown Speaker 1:45:10
Okay. I mean, I’m not sure I’ve fired me at that. See, you’re right. That’s a loophole. But I don’t know how we’re going to I don’t know that we need to rewrite the language to try and prevent that. I think everyone who’s on this Commission’s generally good and you know, they’re well intended. So that, I guess I don’t, I don’t personally have it. We just read the words voting on an application
Unknown Speaker 1:45:35
Unknown Speaker 1:45:40
Any member of the commission shall publish
Unknown Speaker 1:45:44
ex parte communication.
Unknown Speaker 1:45:46
So the commission commissioners shall not engage in ex parte communication.
Unknown Speaker 1:45:51
Any member of the commission
Unknown Speaker 1:45:54
shall publicly disclose their involvement. I mean, can we please Okay, go ahead. Let’s see, oh,
Unknown Speaker 1:46:00
Commissioner guy. So what this is saying is if you want to participate in the discussion of the application, but not vote on it, then you have to disclose your ex parte communication. If you’d like to recuse yourself. You don’t have to disclose anything, you can just step out of the room and not participate.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:27
So there’s there’s kind of three positions you can take. You can not have the ex parte and vote and discuss. You can have the ex parte disclose it, discuss but not vote, or you can recuse and take yourself out of the situation altogether.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:46
Which is why it needs to be rewritten, because that’s exactly what it’s saying. Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on. That’s not this is not an open discussion. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Fenster has the floor. Yeah, I think
Unknown Speaker 1:47:00
I think that needs to be rewarded.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:04
Unknown Speaker 1:47:05
Unknown Speaker 1:47:07
it should recite, that the commission shall not engage in ex parte communications. And then the next sentence should recite that any member of the commission shall publicly disclose any involvement in ex parte communication, and shall recuse.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:28
I don’t think he can engage in an ex parte communication and not recuse. I think that’s my, I would disagree with that. Actually. I think I think you could have what what amounts to because we’ve unknowingly unwittingly done it.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:43
And it did not adversely affect the the outcome or the procedure. It was a minor. I think you have to give some
Unknown Speaker 1:47:55
allowance for commissioners to acknowledge a minor.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:00
Well, minor pass is known cure lacks.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:06
So if it’s a minimal communication,
Unknown Speaker 1:48:10
I’m not sure it even needs to be disclosed. But I’m talking about communications of substance, where I think the commissioners should recuse.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:21
Unknown Speaker 1:48:23
Okay. I’m gonna call a vote for a vote on this. We have
Unknown Speaker 1:48:29
we have a essentially,
Unknown Speaker 1:48:34
if we, we’ve got
Unknown Speaker 1:48:38
123456 items that would potentially be
Unknown Speaker 1:48:45
changed. The first one would be the percentages, and 256070.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:52
Second, would be that word smithing, of managing architectural character integrity and the same.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:59
The third would be the 50 year designation and whether that should any of that language should change.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:06
The fourth would be this notion of adding cultural significance to architectural and I don’t have the code SEC written down but I’m hoping staff has and then if there’s a changes proposed to the language of this last section in D.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:28
Unknown Speaker 1:49:30
and I would prefer to get a motion on the floor and
Unknown Speaker 1:49:36
and work through it. Tonight.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:43
Did you count 512340 I’m sorry. There was one small change about changing that demolishment to demolition. Sorry, that was the other one.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:56
Okay, all right. That was when my went ran down my list. That’s
Unknown Speaker 1:50:00
I was writing as I went.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:04
I remember there being a discussion about the language we changed regarding appeal, and we got hit, we decided whether to go with that or to not I remember, Commissioner Barnard was concerned about taking out the public notice. Oh, right. Thank you for reminding me that I somehow lost track of that.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:31
Unknown Speaker 1:50:35
All right, Commissioner guy. So do we need to make seven separate motions? No one motion that would include whatever proposed changes?
Unknown Speaker 1:50:50
Can we break it into non controversial and controversial so that we’re not here all night?
Unknown Speaker 1:50:57
Picking at the one thing that people care about that we can we can try to have that discussion prior to making a motion, I suppose if we,
Unknown Speaker 1:51:07
I think we have. We have
Unknown Speaker 1:51:11
to the word smithing is no one questions we have. So three of those are just word smithing. So then we have the percentage 51.
Unknown Speaker 1:51:23
Something other? Can we just take straw polls?
Unknown Speaker 1:51:28
Unknown Speaker 1:51:36
Maybe we can take a straw poll on each of those ones. And then we can figure out which ones we can discuss. Thank you. Thank you for that up, let’s just go down, we’ll skip the if we can just skip the mic, because it’s going to take forever, just from this end percentage. I’m good with 51 C 151.
Unknown Speaker 1:51:55
Okay, 51. So 51 is the percentage that would be put in and 2.56070. There are two places where that occurs. And that would align with the 51 in paragraph F for whatever that was. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:52:12
The next component was the
Unknown Speaker 1:52:18
2561 ad, which has to do with whether or not we ought to have a blanket 50 year and outside the subdivision have a filter or whether we ought to
Unknown Speaker 1:52:31
make it 50 years within the original subdivision and some greater number of years outside the original subdivision, period. And then that just so everybody understands, that would trigger paragraph B, which is a liaison and some member of the Council reviews a permit application to see if there’s
Unknown Speaker 1:52:56
Unknown Speaker 1:52:58
So we’ll go the other way.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:04
Unknown Speaker 1:53:08
Okay, I would probably keep it the way it is. As written as written. No good as written. Okay. All right. So
Unknown Speaker 1:53:21
it appears as written is our straw. Okay. Then
Unknown Speaker 1:53:28
I’ve lost track of exactly where that note never found it again. Okay, the
Unknown Speaker 1:53:34
appeal in 256 to 10. D, one did note and appeal hearing given according to this chapter, excluding the requirement to publish in a newspaper of general circulation.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:49
So if that were to be stricken?
Unknown Speaker 1:53:53
Unknown Speaker 1:53:57
what does that do process wise?
Unknown Speaker 1:54:02
From an appeal, does it change anything or not?
Unknown Speaker 1:54:08
Do you read the legal ads? I’m just asking. That’s basically what it’s saying is we don’t publish in the paper. We can do it quicker because the newspaper has a lead time.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:21
That’s what it means from a business standpoint. Is it published somewhere is it published on the web or some we post this site right
Unknown Speaker 1:54:31
yeah, so we post there’s a notice sign that gets fit physical sign that gets posted on the property in question.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:41
And then of course, we do post on our website the agendas and such I believe the public hearings get posted
Unknown Speaker 1:54:48
sooner or later, so
Unknown Speaker 1:54:52
okay, I post them when Maria tells me it’s time.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:57
Okay, so we’ll we’ll do another straw poll weather
Unknown Speaker 1:55:00
Not we’re in favor of striking that provision or keeping it in. And we’ll start back over here. I think I’m good with this one as written.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:10
Unknown Speaker 1:55:13
I’m also as written.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:16
Okay, fair enough.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:20
Unknown Speaker 1:55:23
That’s right. That’s, that’s okay. That’s okay. All right. So now we are down to the
Unknown Speaker 1:55:31
last section 2562400. We’ve been discussing this paragraph D. Three about ex parte communication.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:42
Commissioner Barner. I didn’t know when to bring this up. And I don’t know if it should just be put to a different to a different time for discussion. But during the appeal, yesterday, yesterday, Tuesday, question came up, whether or not the property owner said, Well, maybe I’ll just
Unknown Speaker 1:56:04
you know, if I can’t afford it, I’ll just ask to be removed as a historic landmark. And the discussion was held as well. How would you go about that? And nobody really had any answer. Staff didn’t have an answer. And the counselor didn’t know for sure.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:22
How you do that. And I don’t know if that’s something that since we’re talking about landmarking, things whether we should take that would deal with that do we have? It’s in 2.6 2.5 6.160, revocation of designation, so we actually have it in there, I’m sorry. And to the chair that we did make that point to the commit to the council. We brought a I was looking for this specific code reference, but it basically refers back to the designation so they did get that information. Okay. Thank you. What is that? 2.56 1.56160? It’s page 53. Revocation okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:06
What we’re talking about in homeowner, woking, it’s his own its own his or her own designation. This is reservation, revocation of historic district.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:20
Talking about I have a ticket, you have an historic home, you decide you don’t want habit store calm anymore.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:28
How do you do?
Unknown Speaker 1:57:31
Written petition? That’s got all the property owners have to agree with you in the ditch? No, that’s, that’s there’s two different things this is covering both. Okay, so looking for it. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:45
Just revocation of a designation. So the designation refers to both
Unknown Speaker 1:57:51
the landmark designation or historic does designation. So this is covering if I understand it correctly, and city attorney looks like you want to respond or please do clarify. Yeah, no, exactly that first sentence. A petition for revocation of a designation may be submitted by the Commission Council or the owner of the property or owners of the property. The second sentence deals with the historic district. So rather than have a revocation section for district and property, it’s just the same paragraph. There’s there’s a process for both.
Unknown Speaker 1:58:27
Maybe Chairman, I don’t want to jump in without being recognized. Thank you, Commissioner Brunner.
Unknown Speaker 1:58:35
Oh, I thought I didn’t have enough. But I was from previous times. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:58:41
Unknown Speaker 1:58:49
Unknown Speaker 1:58:52
All right. It just seems to be it seems to be the A is dealing with two completely different things. And it’s the kind of a jumble as to
Unknown Speaker 1:59:01
which one applies to which, because a 123 and four are supposed to be subcategories of a but a is has two different things. One is when you want to revoke the historic district, and the other one is when somebody wants to just get out of being a historic property. And then
Unknown Speaker 1:59:25
I don’t think it breeds
Unknown Speaker 1:59:31
Commissioner guy. So what it’s saying is that I mean, the the procedure is the same. Whether it’s for an individual property, or historic district procedure is the same. It’s just if it’s an individual property, the revocation can be either us, the Commission, the city council, or the owners of the property. But if it’s a historic district, and 51% of the people who own property in that district,
Unknown Speaker 2:00:00
I have to agree to put the revocation forward. But once you get past that second sentence, everything else is the same whether it’s an individual property or historic district. That’s why it’s lumped together because it’s the same thing.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:17
Thank you, Commissioner Jacoby.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:21
This brings up the issue that I mentioned how to forget how many meetings ago maybe we should consider consequences for relocation of a designation.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:30
An owner of a home could apply for designation, they can save literally 1000s of dollars on permits and taxes with improvements. And then they can decide they want further improvements that aren’t approved and say up. Here’s your plaque back with no consequence. And I think that maybe we don’t necessarily, again, it’s private property. We don’t want to handcuff them necessarily, in one way or the other in this current house. This woman bought this house two years ago, and she knew it was historically designated. She could have read the restrictions on this. You know, I think you could say she has a difficult argument, but if she decides it’s her home, if she pursues this, you know, should there be some kind of consequence for that? It’s too late for her, but I think it’s something we should consider in the future.
Unknown Speaker 2:01:25
Unknown Speaker 2:01:26
Okay. I’m going to jump. I mean, I think we have I think the revocation code language, basically handles that processes from my perspective on that.
Unknown Speaker 2:01:40
So let’s jump back to that 2.56240. The very last piece, that
Unknown Speaker 2:01:45
notion about ex parte communication. So
Unknown Speaker 2:01:50
Unknown Speaker 2:01:52
if there’s, if we need to wordsmith it, or whether we, if you want to wordsmith it, I’d like something very specific to be proposed by a commissioner not lifted open up. So let’s see, I’m gonna go, I went, so
Unknown Speaker 2:02:13
tufaro, paragraph D, item three, needs reworking, and I don’t know how
Unknown Speaker 2:02:24
I can possibly draft something I’d be if you want to delegate it to work with the staff on it.
Unknown Speaker 2:02:32
You know, that you could delegate it to me and somebody else, and we can work with the staff and come up with something that will accomplish the goals. I think we all agree what we want to try to accomplish. Number one, we want to accomplish the fact that they’re that their ex parte commission communications are not something that we look upon, like lightly, and we we don’t think they should be done. It’s not legalese. So we don’t think they should be done. I think that if somebody does it, that they should disclose it. And then the issue of recusal, I think, is shouldn’t even be discussed. That’s that comes down to what counsel said earlier. It’s really a question of whether it was incidental or substantial. And you’re not going to be able to draft that. That’s that’s a mess. You want to say incidental or substantial. But then you’re going to what’s what what’s the other things? I think you just say you shouldn’t be done and it and that you disclose your speaking just disclose it if he did it. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:39
For sure, Jacoby.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:41
We make it official there. Get that? Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:44
Since we’re discussing members,
Unknown Speaker 2:03:47
you know, I think the wording is not perfect, but I think it communicates the point enough and to move forward. I’m good and I’m happy to keep it as written.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:59
I genuinely feel the same way. I will ask a question of staff after this poll just for clarity, however.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:11
Again, I think it’s fine as written. I mean, there could probably be a slight addition between the difference between a you know, disclosing and then recusing.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:23
That would be up to the audition. I would
Unknown Speaker 2:04:26
Unknown Speaker 2:04:28
I think that paragraph needs to be rewritten.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:33
Unknown Speaker 2:04:36
Unknown Speaker 2:04:44
Yeah, the only thing that I really had to add and it was already talked about was that you may recuse yourself. I don’t know that you have to. Um,
Unknown Speaker 2:04:55
other than that, my I’m fine. I don’t have a big problem with this. I
Unknown Speaker 2:05:00
A little bit of wordsmithing, I guess, is it. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:05:04
Unknown Speaker 2:05:06
that’s the only thing that is even remotely up in the air at this point.
Unknown Speaker 2:05:12
Is there I would really prefer not to push this off until next month. So is there any mechanism that we have to suggest that, you know, Commissioner Barnes suggested that perhaps, you know, we could dedicate or assign
Unknown Speaker 2:05:31
a council person to work with staff to get the language to where they were happy with it. I don’t know if that’s if we can make that part of a motion. It feels a little muddy. But I would like to ask if that’s a possibility?
Unknown Speaker 2:05:49
Unknown Speaker 2:05:51
I guess the risk would be
Unknown Speaker 2:05:55
is does it become substantial enough that we feel everybody out to see it?
Unknown Speaker 2:06:01
And I think I counted for folks that like it as written, I guess. So maybe? Just call the question. I understand. I was counting as well. But I also want to put the question out there formally.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:18
I don’t know if Jeremy has.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:20
I don’t know that really what the mechanism for that. I don’t know, how did we we do that I’d be concerned about one Commissioner malt or two commissioners and a staff member taking authorship and possibly changing what that says. I will reiterate that, again, this is just from a land development code. I understand that. People don’t like that what it says but it’s, it’s consistent with what it says for planning and zoning. And the last point is just that we’re still just recommending body for these code changes. So if City Council decides they want to rework that section,
Unknown Speaker 2:06:54
we can rework it and then redo it with planning and zoning as well. Right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I would like to call for a motion. Is there anyone, if there’s anyone here that would like to make it would entertain it?
Unknown Speaker 2:07:10
Commissioner got you. I’ll motion that we
Unknown Speaker 2:07:19
change the 75% to the 51% in Section
Unknown Speaker 2:07:29
2.5 6.00. And that we leave that’s as written so that’s fine. So what else? Slight wordsmithing on changing architectural character to or the character integrity to architectural character and integrity. You know, what I’m saying?
Unknown Speaker 2:07:52
Strike the, the alternative from section that you know which section it is, and
Unknown Speaker 2:08:03
and then we are adding cultural to historic and architectural significance. And I believe we are leaving everything else as written. Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Unknown Speaker 2:08:24
I’ll second. Okay. So we have a motion from Commissioner guy and a second from Commissioner Sibley. Is there any further discussion?
Unknown Speaker 2:08:33
No, I will. Then call for a vote. All in favor.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:40
Ask for a roll call roll. Sure. We can do a roll call vote. So
Unknown Speaker 2:08:45
Unknown Speaker 2:08:47
Yes. Commissioner Fenster. Opposed, Commissioner guy?
Unknown Speaker 2:08:54
Unknown Speaker 2:08:56
Commissioner Fenster. I’m sorry, gosh, it’s getting late. Commissioner. Commissioner Jacoby. Mr. Francois over there?
Unknown Speaker 2:09:05
Yes, approved. Okay, Commissioner bar. Okay. And as a chair, I vote yes. So the motion passes four to two.
Unknown Speaker 2:09:16
All right, thank you all for your participation and
Unknown Speaker 2:09:22
all the discussions and for staff for walking us through all this.
Unknown Speaker 2:09:28
Unknown Speaker 2:09:32
We do have a couple of other agenda items.
Unknown Speaker 2:09:37
The next one was a discussion of quasi judicial decisions and commission bylaws.
Unknown Speaker 2:09:52
Unknown Speaker 2:09:59
Unknown Speaker 2:10:04
I can multitask commissioners. So while I’m pulling it up, I will also talk about the proposed bylaw change.
Unknown Speaker 2:10:11
The proposed bylaw change representative presented by staff and the city attorney’s office is present consistency among its quasi judicial boards for the city of Longmont. The Planning and Zoning Commission has adopted a bylaw change,
Unknown Speaker 2:10:24
very similar informed what is proposed here.
Unknown Speaker 2:10:28
And this is exactly what city council’s adopted for their rules of procedure. It goes back to the quasi judicial hearings. So the concern is that during public invited, we heard segments of commission meetings, anyone can speak on any topic.
Unknown Speaker 2:10:43
Unfortunately, that opens up the possibility that someone might come and speak on quality matters.
Unknown Speaker 2:10:49
Here, it doesn’t present a fair hearing that happens because public can’t hear the comments made by the applicant. Perhaps the applicant isn’t here, the company but a member of the public. So to ensure due process, the city attorney’s office and staff is recommending this bylaw change, which gives the chair discretion to direct a speaker to terminate all remarks and upcoming matters where the commission may hold a quasi judicial hearing.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:11
If that happens, the speaker’s be instructed that they can attend the public hearing on the matter, or they can submit written materials and city staff for inclusion in the record.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:20
This is again consistent with Planning and Zoning Commission, along with city council. And it goes back the principle of due process and fairness for both members of the public along with the applicant.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:35
Great, thank you. Are there questions for city attorney?
Unknown Speaker 2:11:43
Questions or comments? Sure.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:45
Unknown Speaker 2:11:48
I could you expound a little bit on how you’re defining, I think upcoming matters.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:59
So it really comes down to once we know it’s coming up on the radar. And that really triggers when an application has been filed. That’s really the defining moment is once the application then filed, that’s when the quasi judicial restriction should go in place. So that’s we know that like how’s the chair gonna know that to be able to stop somebody talking about it’s traditionally been a communication by the liaison or planning director is kind of a a wave, wave your hands start winking, something like that a cue.
Unknown Speaker 2:12:32
It’s a little bit different. We’re talking Planning and Zoning where we have a planning map that shows that the developments going on versus here, we don’t have that same kind of process in place. So it comes down to the liaison staff, kind of waving the chairman. Hey, Mr. Chairman, quasi judicial matter that actually happened.
Unknown Speaker 2:12:50
In our last Planning and Zoning Commission, I believe Glenn pointed out we were getting into a realm of quasi judicial matters, and we kind of addressed it from a mistaken
Unknown Speaker 2:13:04
I, I do know the city attorney also notifies City Council. I think when we get an application for quasi judicial, and
Unknown Speaker 2:13:14
we can certainly do that with you as well. When we know send you an email, Hey, just so you know, where you have an application on, whatever it is.
Unknown Speaker 2:13:30
Okay, Commissioner, Fenster,
Unknown Speaker 2:13:32
neither of those paragraphs makes any sense to me. And let’s say we’re substantially changed. I’d vote against them. Because I don’t I don’t understand their purpose. And whatever is their purpose that’s mixed up particularly in the second paragraph.
Unknown Speaker 2:13:55
Commission, Commissioner Barner. I think this whole thing is overkill.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:01
I don’t think it’s, I think it’s unclear and puts burdens on us, especially in the issue of upcoming matters.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:11
And I don’t you know, I think that’s a fairly
Unknown Speaker 2:14:16
loosey goosey term doesn’t have any place in bylaws.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:22
If you want to make I understand I understand the issue of ex parte communication. And during for things that are set for hearing or that we have determined will be set for hearing, if we haven’t made a determination based on the recommendations of staff that something is going to be subject to hearing. I mean, it could be anything, and I just don’t I don’t want that burden of of that. So.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:52
If it’s not if the language has not changed, I would vote against it.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:58
Any other questions are coming
Unknown Speaker 2:15:00
Unknown Speaker 2:15:05
from my perspective as the Chair,
Unknown Speaker 2:15:09
I mean, I found this a little, maybe over much for the HPC.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:17
Just because we get so, so little comment.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:22
And typically, if we have a public hearing, I would make the point that anyone coming up in the beginning for public invited to be heard would only be something that’s not on the agenda. And I understand that somebody? Well, for example, we had we had,
Unknown Speaker 2:15:43
we had a whole pile of people, probably five or six, or maybe even eight came in and asked to talk about the bone farm. Now, that wasn’t anything that ended up on our agenda, because it’s not under our jurisdiction.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:02
But if we had a people show up about some potential development, in historic on our historic property or something like that,
Unknown Speaker 2:16:14
are we really going to somehow tell them? I mean, so this this provision would basically say you don’t have the right to speak now? You need to come back during the
Unknown Speaker 2:16:29
when it ends up on the agenda? That’s right, correct. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:35
It’s my understanding that this was requested by a commissioner, I might be mistaken.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:40
I believe it was a commission. I don’t recall which of you may have requested this, but I think we I think there was some
Unknown Speaker 2:16:48
question about discussion about I think there was a discussion about the fact that this was happening in other in the planning commission and in the city council. And so
Unknown Speaker 2:17:01
it was offered to discuss it here. I don’t love it, either. I probably wouldn’t.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:09
Just, you know, again, are we are we being asked to vote on this to include in the bylaws or is this just an I mean, it is a it’s a business? Let’s say it’s just a new business?
Unknown Speaker 2:17:21
piece. So do we have
Unknown Speaker 2:17:24
resist an actionable thing where we’re really going to call for a vote or is this just a piece of information for consideration? I think everything in here is a true statement that should apply. Regardless whether or not it’s adopted in the bylaws. If someone makes a comment concerning a quasi judicial matter if the chair feels comfortable
Unknown Speaker 2:17:43
instructing same prenup with back to public hearing South direct time without says By law, that’s fine.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:50
If the chair feels comfortable and the Commission feels comfortable just knowing that experts communications or knows even during public invited to be heard. I then I leave this to the commissioners discretion to adopt it or not. Okay. All right. Thank you. Let’s see Commissioner Barner. Yes, I would move that we utilize option three and that we reject the amendment to the 2023 bylaws.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:18
Okay, there is a motion on the floor
Unknown Speaker 2:18:26
I second. Okay. So we have a motion
Unknown Speaker 2:18:30
on the floor to
Unknown Speaker 2:18:33
not to include the proposed amendment in the bylaws seconded by Commissioner Jacoby.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:41
Unknown Speaker 2:18:43
Motion to reject the amendment to the bylaws by Commissioner Barnard second
Unknown Speaker 2:18:50
Okay, so that’s that that’s what he said. I’m getting tired.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:55
You Yes. The motion was by Commissioner Barnet second budget, Coby.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:00
Unknown Speaker 2:19:05
Okay, well, then I guess I’ll call for a vote all in. All those in favor of the motion? please say aye. Aye.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:17
Unknown Speaker 2:19:19
to opposed? Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:22
So that motion carried forward to two as well.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:27
So we’re not including it. You just you made your motion passed by four to two.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:38
Okay, there are no changes about Okay. So then I.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:45
So moving on to the item three. So what I’m going to ask so there was a point made during the public invited to be heard about the fact that this wasn’t there was no nothing in the packet. So can we ask what I mean? Is there information
Unknown Speaker 2:20:00
addition that we, why was there nothing in the packet, I guess is the simple way to ask that. We put this on, on the request of Commissioner Jacoby, so I’m not really sure. Whether I think what you would say is if after his explanation, yes, staff should do something, that would be a motion, but I don’t really know what. Okay, it’s gonna be. So this was really just put out there at the as we requested just for the discussion, right? To have here. Right. Okay. Okay. And I know that we’ve been pushing this off and off and off. So
Unknown Speaker 2:20:37
I will give you Commissioner Jacoby the floor here to explain.
Unknown Speaker 2:20:45
Unknown Speaker 2:20:46
Well, as you all know, the historic east side has been trying to deal with the conservation overlay and pursuing this. The current code was written in 1997. It was not revised in 2018. So for 26 years, it’s been on the books and has not been used. And I believe the main reason it has not been used is not because there is not interest, but it is
Unknown Speaker 2:21:12
functionally unable to be used easily because of the expense.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:18
What the code is written, if you read through the whole thing that conservation overlay code says basically, you have to have a cohesive community or a neighborhood. And then the neighborhood group leader has to write for an application, and they write an application and send it in, and then it is treated as rezoning. rezoning is usually done by developers who have money who are trying to change things. Whereas conservation is usually done by neighbors who don’t have resources. So even though it follows the same procedure, it is inherently different.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:56
Several of the the code the problems with the rezoning code. One is it requires that we notify not everybody, only everybody in the neighborhood, but everyone 1000 feet in every direction around the neighborhood. Well, if you’re not making a change, you shouldn’t have to notify everybody outside of the neighborhood. If you’re gonna make restrictions in the conservation overlay, yes, the neighborhood needs to know. And currently with the way the rules are written, the planning director can waive that requirement and reduce the expense. We the neighborhood still has to have mailers to every household, in the neighborhood, explaining that we are going to do this and what it is. And that’s a significant expense. Currently, the neighborhood group leaders Association does have funds. And the Eastside neighborhood did apply for those funds for the mailers. And we have money to do that now to send, I believe, to letters out to every household in the neighborhood. But then there was the initial planning meeting. And at the planning meeting, it turns out that there is a fee for doing this, the fee for the neighborhood would be $2,250, I think was the estimate. And it’s based on the size of the neighborhood.
Unknown Speaker 2:23:27
The planning director does not have authority to waive that fee right now. And so what I am simply asking is that we make a recommendation while we’re putting these code changes in that the planning director has the authority to waive that fee, so that neighborhoods could pursue a conservation overlay if they decide to, currently his National Historic Districts have some economic benefits, but there are no restrictions on what you do within them. Okay. The historic east side has a four and a half block five block Historic District. But the neighborhood itself is much larger than that. And again, there’s no restrictions on what is done there. And we would like to restore restrictions that were in place until the 2018 code was rewritten. At that time, the city promised that they would get to it if we could just get this new code passed. We’ll get to that sometime. Well, that’s been five years and it hasn’t happened yet. And, again, we don’t have the neighborhood does not have the financial wherewithal to make the change. It’s been suggested we go to city council to make it to see if they will provide direction to planning so that we can waive the fee. And the neighborhood is actually pursuing that right now. So hopefully, you’ll be hearing soon at some point about that. But not every neighborhood has the energy or the organization to do that that historic Eastside has, and I’m thinking specifically of the hill
Unknown Speaker 2:25:00
Historic West Side neighborhood, which is much larger, and the fee would be larger. And I think the code needs to be tweaked a little bit to be usable. So that’s why I made the motion. Last time that we recommend to modify the city code to allow the planning director to be able to waive the application fee for conservation overlay for applications from city designated neighborhood groups. And if we can just vote on that quickly tonight, I would love it. It doesn’t seem that controversial. But if we want a discussion, we can table it another day. But I don’t think there’s any reason to table it. I wanted to read it on the agenda so that there was an opportunity to discuss it as an agenda item instead of during HPC comments. So I made the motion.
Unknown Speaker 2:25:49
No, hold on, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. That was you just described your motion from last time. I would like to open the floor to any other commissioners that have questioned about this. If no one does, then then we can go there. So any commissioners that would have a question or comment about
Unknown Speaker 2:26:08
for clarification, okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:26:13
Recognizing that I did not record the chair did not recognize the motion just so that we can be real clear about this.
Unknown Speaker 2:26:21
So would you please if hold on we
Unknown Speaker 2:26:26
Commissioner guy who has a comment. Thank you. I’ll put the motion forward as stated by Commissioner Jacoby. Okay. Get this rolling. Okay. We have a motion. Can I second? Yes. All right. There you go. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. Okay, thank you. That passes unanimously. All right.
Unknown Speaker 2:26:55
I know everybody wants to get out of here. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:27:00
So my understanding would be that we’ve just directed staff to propose a change in the code to allow for, basically to include the
Unknown Speaker 2:27:12
neighborhood associations as an element that can be
Unknown Speaker 2:27:17
qualify for waivers. Do you have any questions as to what direction you need? Because I’m assuming that what you would then do is bring back a little revision to us just to
Unknown Speaker 2:27:29
comment upon or
Unknown Speaker 2:27:31
typically what we do is we does discuss it with city council. Okay, before we do additional work, okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:27:39
So how we do that? I’m not quite sure yet, but
Unknown Speaker 2:27:43
we’ll figure that out. Sometimes, the liaison would bring that forward and see if there is enough interest from all a council to do that.
Unknown Speaker 2:27:54
So we will figure that out.
Unknown Speaker 2:27:59
Okay, and then what we need is direction from City Council. Right. Okay. Okay. All right. Thanks. Well, if you could just keep us informed in the staff reports as to that status. One more thing to add to your list.
Unknown Speaker 2:28:15
Okay, comments from HPC. Commissioners. Anybody have anything else they’d like to add this evening?
Unknown Speaker 2:28:23
Commissioner Barnard. Yes. First, I want to thank the city of Loma for paying the registration or my trip to La Junta for the savings places conference, saving places conference. I just want to report to the to the commissioners that it was a fantastic conference was the equivalent of a full statewide conference and people from all over there that great panels, great presentations, and I got to tell you that I thought I knew something about the state. But I really learned a lot about what just what the importance of the southeast section of Colorado was and why it was so critical, being the Joinder of two railroads and how the town grew and grew, grew. And then it fell and fell and fell and fell and how the main message I got out of it was when the town was down. They all got together and said how do we get back up again? And the answer was historical, historical significance. So they went around and they found all these historical significant things. And they applied for grants, and they got lots of money. And they were able to build a town up and now you know, it’s a lot of meetings there. A lot of people coming there. And so it is it’s a valid that was a validation of the work of historical preservation. That it’s not just something that we do and it’s nice and you get labels and all that it actually can have a significant impact on the
Unknown Speaker 2:30:00
element of your community.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:02
Unknown Speaker 2:30:04
Any other comments?
Unknown Speaker 2:30:07
Seeing none, comments from city council representative?
Unknown Speaker 2:30:15
Thank you Chair lane. One thing that was not mentioned earlier in the meeting about some of the things that happened at city council was that a motion was passed that the conservation overlay be brought back before city council, and it was conditioned on HPC making a recommendation before it comes to city council. So just to let you know, I’m sure that’ll come to your agenda at some point, and we’re waiting on your recommendation before we take up the issue again.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:43
Otherwise, thank you all for the work you do. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:47
With that, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:52
All in favor, aye. We are adjourned. Thank you
Transcribed by https://otter.ai