 This table. And I'm shamed on me. It's the easiest for us. I've been to over the age of 6. Little kids just can't be more mature. My interests are in delivering my drawing. Going out of the slide. I know! I used to have one. That's for going off. I didn't think it'd go on. That's my goal. I'm very informed. Yeah, you could take responsibility for that, but I think he was a lead. Let's get started then. This is just a joining meeting about historical preservation. I'm going to turn it over to you. Does everybody know everyone here? Should we just go around and ask, is there a means for our review? Yes. All right. Just a second. Okay. I'm Tassie Tettlough. I'm assistant city attorney with the city. And I primarily advise public works planning and development services. And, uh, what else? Great. I'm Austin Gladion. I'm one of your special counsel, particularly hired, so you can assist you guys in this sort of presentation. And we're going to set the date. I'm Glenda Inouigan. I'm the planning director. I'm Jody Marsh, assistant city manager. To Water City Council. And Rodriguez City Council. Much to Water City Council. So far in our agency in SHC. Shakira Yopros City Council. Sandy CDers. City Manager. Good to ask you. Here comes Susan Susie. I'm going to do it at Averson planning. That's what we're going to do right here. Right at your mark or something like that. Council Member Susie Lullamaring? Great. We're just getting started. You have Jill and then you and Mia. Are you just part of the public? It's just part of the public. Oh, you're the member of the board. Oh, thank you. So I'm just going to turn it over to Glenn Van Nen. I'm going to shift it to a tossing. So good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Members of the historic presidential committee who just introduced myself. I work for the city in the city's office. And so I'm sitting in for Eugene tonight. He is in France, like you guys. But tonight we are going to be discussing the topics that are going to be shown on slide two. This is our agenda for tonight. Quickly, we copy some of the background that both members of the historic preservation committee and council members may have heard previous words. I think I'm going to pass them on for a show. And then we're going to move on to larger or substantive issues that you can see in sessions two and three. So the topics that are going to be presented to you tonight are those that are primarily focused on some areas of concern that have been highlighted by our outside council. Austin from Hoffman Parker, as well as our committee members from the historic preservation committee and staff. And so with regard to just a brief, quick history of the project, HBC, our staff members started working on revising the code amendment just taking a look at some areas of concern last year. And Hoffman Parker was onboarded. And what we're going to see tonight is what are the primary areas of concern. And as I mentioned, we've discussed them before. And so the options presented to you today are going to be legally defensible options. They are going to be our recommended course of action as far as what we are going to suggest as far as sort of commencing. So right now, as I mentioned, we've looked at legally defensible options. We did not have a eye out for policy issues, but, you know, we welcome, we absolutely welcome feedback on those policy issues so we can more in and so we can bring our code more in line with those legal concerns that we might bring up in any direction that we were seeking city council tonight. So it's our intention to try and get through some of, most of these topics in a change of direction on where city staff members and city attorney's office in Hoffman Parker can go here. But if we don't hit them all, then, you know, we get more of the welcome, we're more than happy to come back at another date to follow up on some things. With that, I will turn it over to Austin. Thank you, Austin. All right, so we'll start with a brief overview of the legal framework in the U.S. for historic preservation. And you have it at each level of government in the U.S. So it started in 1966 with the passage of the National Preservation Act. And what that did was create the National Register and State Historic Preservation Offices, which are colloquially referred to as SHIBOs. So at the state level, you have these SHIBOs that administer the National Historic Preservation Program. And a lot of what they do is actually in this last point here, it's that Section 106 review, which is to ensure that historic resources are taken into account any time there's federal funding being spent. So I say all of that as a way of background. But before today, what we're going to be talking about is the local level along with the Historic Preservation Code. And this is really where a lot of the work for local historic preservation is done. It's on the local level. So again, taking a step back before we dive into some of the substance tonight. So why have a local historic preservation code generally? Of course, it's to protect historic buildings, to protect historically significant areas in a community. But what you'll also see with most historic preservation codes is let's talk about these two bullet points. These straight from the current code. And they have to do with enhancement of property values. They have to do with the financial gain that can be benefited from historically preserving buildings. More on that later. And actually, if I can get that. This is actually a picture of downtown Longmont. Let me go back here. Oh, whoa! Okay, so we'll start with designation criteria. So when we say designation in the context of historic preservation, what we really mean is how you get into historic preservation, how you get into the historic preservation regulations. It's another word of saying rezoning. In each one of these issues, we'll talk about some of the current language. And then we'll talk about, again, our proposed language. And that's just one alternative. And again, what we're proposing here is based on what we believe is the most legally defensible avenue. There's going to be a whole lot of avenues to go. But our eye was really toward just that legal issue element. So in the current criteria, there's a little bit of a question of how the criteria is actually applied. And you'll see that in underlying language, the and or language. You don't have to get into the nuts and bolts of it. But all that to say is that we propose to clarify this to make it clear that to get into historic preservation, you not only have to have an ease requirement, you also have to have a requirement that the property be historically significant in some manner. And so we go into some specifics on what historical significance actually means. And you have to check at least one of those boxes along with the age requirement to get in, be designated. And we've also clarified that this process will run similar to your current rezoning process. With the exception that instead of planning commission, you have the historic preservation commission hearing the issue first and counsel do the one ultimately deciding on the issue. We've also added some requirements for non-consensual designation. Non-consensual designation is when a property owner isn't bringing the application forward themselves. The property owner isn't the one saying, I want to be a part of the historic preservation district, someone else's. And so in those situations, there's a current percentage of property owners that must be signed on to the application or to be able to be put forward for the application to be accepted. And so what we have proposed is to elevate that percentage slightly. That's it for this one. We'll talk about the HPO and what that means in just a moment. So today, well now you do. But before this process, we didn't have this map. We had a list of designated properties, but we didn't have them mapped. So as a part of this process, our staff has done an excellent job of mapping out all of the historically designated properties as it stands today. So those red dots are the actual properties, what's known as a landmark for historic preservation purposes. And those green, blue, and purple-ish color are your historic districts. Those are national districts. So national districts, that's the point. Yeah. So going back to that federal process under the historic preservation code, the state was the one to administer this process and create those districts through the federal regulations rather than the local regulations. Those shaded areas, the green, blue, and purple. Okay. So we just talked about the actual criteria, how you're eligible to get in. But we want to talk a little bit about the actual mechanics of the process. So as I just stated previously, there was no mapping exercise associated with designation. It was just a list of parcels. Staff's done a great job of mapping those parcels. And what we're proposing to do is actually create a new district which would be an historic preservation overlay district, or HPO. And the reason we're choosing to go about it this way, it's certainly not the only way to do it. We think it alleviates some of the notice concerns and some of the concerns around how historic preservation can act a little bit differently than your typical zoning mechanisms, even though most property owners probably don't have an excellent idea of that distinction. If they're looking for what regulations apply to their property, they're probably going to go to the zoning map, look at their zoning district, and then look at the regulations for that zoning district. That seems to make the most sense for most folks. What they wouldn't see is if they were designated in that process. We're proposing to change that, integrate the historic preservation regulations into the current LBC year-line development code. And with that would be this district. There would be in your list of overlay districts. That means it's super imposed on the base zoning district. We're not doing any rezoning. It's a mapping exercises of what you saw on that previous slide. It would come into the zoning map. So what you saw on that previous slide would come into the zoning map. There would be designated as a historic preservation overlay district. Any future designation would also be considered a part of that HPO. I think that's all I want to say about that. And again, we can come back to any of this. I know I'm kind of zooming through all of this, but we really want to have a lot of time to talk with you guys today and discuss the general parameters of these big issues. So we have this slide here just to show you how it could work in practice if we created this historic preservation overlay. And it would look just like your carrier lake overlay. It would be super imposed on the zoning map. And you would see it on the zoning map. So it would show up here, which is like a historic area. You'd be able to see whether you're not. You have historic preservation regulations attached to your property. Okay, the red line doesn't show up very well. Is the red line good? Yeah, that's the LVBA. Where is the area you're talking about? So it's not actually mapped yet. I just show you this slide to show that this is how it would be mapped. It would be on the zoning map. It would show up as a district in the legend. Just under that carrier lake overlay, you could see an HPO historic preservation overlay. And once you go through that mapping exercise, this is where you'd see it. So today you don't. I don't see the carrier lake overlay either. Which actually, it's not. It's on the north end of the map. It's on the north end of the map. So that was a confusing way to say that we're proposing to integrate this work preservation regulations into your land development code. You'd be able to see on the zoning map whether or not you're in that historic preservation overlay. So all in one place. It's your base zoning district in those standards. You'd see any overlay by you as well in those standards. And now I'll turn it over to Gillette. And we'll talk about some of the implications of this designation process. Right. Yeah, and I think this is probably the bulk of what the Historic Preservation Commission wants to discuss. But as Austin mentioned, as we tighten up the criteria and we require that HPO in order to enforce historic preservation requirements, we have some conflicts with the way we've been doing it since close to the beginning of the time. And the first one is really has to do with demolitions. We have a criteria basically that has to be 50 years old. And it has to meet one of a couple of different criteria. And then if somebody comes in to do either a partial or a full demolition of their structure, a member of staff sits down with a council member and reviews that application and decides whether it's approved or not approved. Probably should fall under the purview of the HBC to some degree. But that's not the way it's set up now. The other conflict is they're not designated properties. So as Austin and Tossi mentioned, we want a legally defensible code. And that would mean we'd go through the process of the historic preservation overwrite to put it in place and then the demolition regulations would apply. There is some conflicts, well I won't say flexibility yet, but there's other ways to look at that. One way is in order to, and I think the HPC would say, there's some beautiful buildings that haven't been designated, certainly could be, if the landowner would agree to it and then there could be a level of preservation involved. So staff could make a concerted effort to identify those buildings and reach out to the landowner and compel them, maybe that's too strong of a word, but provide carrots to hopefully get them to either designated as a landmark or come in as a district. There may be another way that if you look at the scale of legal defensibility with the HBO being at the highest end, what I just described would probably be really close because you're not forcing anybody to do anything, you're just giving them carrots to come in, would be if we did a code amendment and we tightened up the criteria and we said, okay if you're 75 years old and you meet these criteria and you're within the original town site of Longmont, potentially we could then control demolitions to a certain end there. We have to do a whole lot more work, but there is, on that scale, there are some opportunities. Creation of new districts and landmarks, I think Austin mentioned it, it's really what we're doing now except now we're calling it a zoning process. HPC is reviewing it, they're making a recommendation City Council's adopting an ordinance and in this case staff would then put it on the map so somebody would know that their property is designated. And all those red dots you saw on the map before, they would automatically become HBO districts because we've gone through that process, they've been notified so we can all immediately incorporate them into the ordinance. So it's really no different than what we're doing other than we're calling it a zoning process and we're doing a notification and we're putting it on the map. We've talked about new design guidelines and staff brought that forward and council approved a budget to adopt design guidelines. As we've designated it now, that would only apply to the HBO areas. But we know that, like the historic Eastside neighborhood, it has some concerns about incompatible structures or architecture. There would be another way, again, following kind of the same scale for reviewing demolitions where staff could reach out and hopefully compel somebody to join a district or join a landmark. Or we can adopt an overall section in our code, perhaps, like the industrial design guidelines that we presented to you last week. These are conceptual design guidelines that apply to every industrial building. It would be the same way here, perhaps, within the original town site or whatever that criteria is. A little bit off the scale of legal accountability but in the realm of possibilities. So there are some possibilities for that. Non-conceptual designations, it's kind of a loose process right now. Basically, staff can meet with HPC and decide maybe we should designate this property. You make a recommendation to City Council and then City Council decides whether we go through a formal process to do that. I think what we're talking about now, which I think would be the better way, is we follow that process and we require some additional levels, whether I think we're saying if it's a district, there should be 50% of the people within that district that agree we should designate this as a historic district. So in one way, the other 50% are coming along, maybe not picking and streaming, but we don't have to get full consent. But again, it's up to the City Council to agree. Removal of designations. This is something also in the code for somebody competition staff and I believe it does go to HPC and it could be for economic reasons. It could be that a portion of the structure is burnt. It could be for a number of reasons. They want to remove that designation and what I think we're going to propose is typing up those standards when somebody can remove themselves from a landmark or their district designation. And one of the reasons we have talked about is if there's a good reason for attainable and affordable housing. So I'll kick it back to Austin who's been asked to look in some of these areas. Thanks, Ron. That's a good segue into this conversation. We know it's a really big one. And so I guess I'll say at the forefront it feels that you guys just don't have the necessary information tonight. We're happy to come back with more options. We're happy to come back with a separate presentation just on this issue to explore how we can balance the affordable and attainable housing goals with the historic preservation goals. Like I said at the outset, I think part of what's embedded in historic preservation is the preservation of land and as a part of that, you typically get benefits economically. It typically means you have higher land values that you're in a historically designated district. Your price of land just got higher. And so I think that's something just fair to say and I think most historic preservation folks would agree on that part. Maybe not. I'd like to hear their thoughts. But all of that to say, these goals I think can absolutely be balanced. We're throwing a couple of options out there tonight just for discussion purposes. This is by no means all of the options out there. Really, we want to hear from all of you how best to strike this balance. How this balance would be best strike for the city. So this is just for discussion purposes and we can come back to this, but we've shown some examples there on the slide just for discussion purposes. Before we get there, I think we can go ahead and finish up the rest of the talk on the procedures related to historic preservation and at the end we'll come back to all of these topics and discuss whatever you all would like to discuss. So the certificate of appropriateness process is something you need to historic preservation and what it does is a process that is required for historically designated structures before that structure or that designated property does typically any sort of exterior work. So it's another procedural step that you have to follow at your designated property and the reason for that is to ensure that the exterior change isn't aligned with the character of the historic district or landmark. So right now there's one process for certificate of appropriateness and a separate process for demolitions and I think Linda did a great job with describing the current demolition process. What we're proposing is to separate the certificate of appropriateness process out into two processes one major and one minor the major would absorb the demolition permit and so you would be required to get a major certificate of appropriateness if you were seeking a demolition of a designated structure that would require HBC hearings and city council hearings and the minor certificate of appropriateness would be a streamlined process for more minor alterations to your designated property and we can get into some examples of what that looks like but it would be very fleshed out I think last time I incorrectly stated you could just replace a window with a minor certificate of appropriateness but that's actually not true even as we've discussed it it would have to be the replacement of a window either with a historic replica or a window that has no historic value so one that's hard to replace in the last 10 years saying it's just an example of how that's more fleshed out so it's very specific criteria that allows you to get a streamlined certificate of appropriateness so you can get that work done to your historic structure and then maintenance requirements this is something we heard quite a bit about when we first started this conversation with historic preservation I was not even a part of it but we read all the drafts from historic preservation and there was some concern that some properties might do something about demolition by neglect meaning you would let your property become so dilapidated that it would be then eligible for permit for demolition and so we've gone through this or gone about this in a couple of different ways we're proposing to instead add maintenance requirements that would act as your baseline so all designated properties would have to be maintained in a similar manner to which when the property was initially designated as your CA, the certificate of appropriateness to ensure that properties that were intentionally neglected wouldn't be eligible for that demolition they wouldn't be eligible to obtain that CA and instead they would be forced to maintain their property to habitable standards as it was before so that's the maintenance requirements and this is the last thing I'll say and I've been talking a lot and then we'll kind of go through and focus on whatever you all would like to talk about this was another issue raised by Historic Preservation Commission some time ago right now on the left you have the Injective and Equitable Relief Available for Violations of the Historic Preservation Code again we're trying to align this with the L of U.C. so what we've done is brought in the enforcement violations that are currently available under the Land Development Code and then added to that would be specific to Historic Preservation and those are the intel folks who are really trying to cheat the designation process or cheat the certificate of appropriateness process by assessing penalties in the way of not allowing building permits for a certain time period if that property owner did some alteration or demolished their property without getting that correct approval then they wouldn't be eligible for that building permit for some period of time so essentially delaying their construction those are just options that have been decided it's been decided we're just excited to talk about these issues with all of you and it's kind of easier to talk about them when you have some sort of proposal so all that to say we're happy to hear all of your thoughts questions, comments these are the main slides or main issues we discussed today just in the way of background I have a question about the HPO I said at several points that was really going to apply to that original one mile square of the Oval Town is their process to have additional areas of the city added or not their own HPO great question so let me clarify, it will act just like any other overlay district so no matter where you are in the city you meet the criteria for designation and you go about the approval process to be counsel approved after an HPC hearing is eligible to be designated in the HPO so we use the town, the original town site as kind of an example as those properties that are probably most likely to be designated but not to say that there is others we just have a quick follow up on that so would the HPO include in essence the original town site as a whole or you're talking about only the property that have gone through the designation process great so all of the properties that have already been designated locally you could just grant through an ordinance approved by the town council no additional process you could just bring them into this ordinance and map them on the zoning map any future designation would have to go through the designation process we talked about they would have to meet the criteria and be approved by it so it's your time to HPO we'll bring the landmark not necessarily so it could be a landmark or it could be a district it's really more of a mapping and zoning exercise than it is a substantive change but you're right we don't have any district we don't have any local districts today I would also like to gently add in your nice overlay of the federal state local a lot of the state register stuff that's been left out we don't have any specific property that's not that's no separate on the state register but we want to make sure that we were capturing all of that so that's information that's held by the state easy enough for us to do to the slide with not that one but the one before that so you said we don't have any districts right now but on that map you've got three areas that say they are districts are they or aren't they and what's the because I don't think we really define what a district is there's a second piece of there's a second usage of the word district that includes me and I think it was what you were getting at but really are those three bright colored ones districts or not districts okay they're designated under the state regulations so those are state districts and the and the local overlay district that you are proposing is not continuous in any way but rather it's a little square drawn around every single dot on the map because I don't think you said that right yes only the landmarks would get HBO immediately that would be up to going through the process for any future districts okay except just to clarify that so we do have three national register districts those would be continuous blocks in the list right so it would no they would have to go through the designation process in the local ordinance so could we recommend doing very similar to what the state does and that if something is listed at the national state level that we follow what we listed as a city so that we don't have to do a separate process you can automatically do it you have to go through your designation process but that's part of the benefit of the HBO is that if you wanted to map these exact state blocks to state districts you could use the HBO to do that and get those exact lines the same and bring them into your local ordinance you have to have hearings that have to be in those period and what status does that give to the homes that are in a state district but are not along the landmark and therefore not in the proposed overlay district because the residents of those homes will have different opinions on whether they want to be in the overlay district or not and what are their rights and not constraints maybe that's you guys probably already know that except that I don't know whether the overlay district would cause a change in that well the main advantage is through grants and tax credits and tax credits right so if somebody wanted to upgrade their facade they potentially could get tax credits and grants through the state so it's primarily a current system to maintain it and the city as well has we allow building permits to be reduced and those fees to be reduced for a landmark or for a change to a landmark so going back to incorporating these so there is a very long process and a really large amount of review that goes into a national registered district at the state when we go through that entire process when I say we automatically make it a state registered district as well and say hey the review board keeper in washington we should be national registered we recommend that you come on the city register and then they are there's not additional hearings if we can do that at the local level I would recommend that because I think that would save a lot of staff time and other times instead of we do a hearing instead of what we do I just want to make clarify you said you have to go through a hearing process but you're saying you have to go through a hearing process based on what the new code not I mean the city council could adopt whatever it wants so that this idea seems to be a more efficient and appropriate way to do it they could just adopt that and then future changes would have to go through a hearing process and then the new city code would have to go through let me just go with regard to our city code one of the recommendations that we're making is to bring this historic preservation into our land development code and our land development code currently does have public hearing process in place and so certain applications require public hearing in those and then others don't that can be handled administratively by our director and so in this instance local hearings we would have to make sure that their exception is written into the land development code to allow for that so currently as it's written city council decision correct this could all be part of a massive piece of work which includes a one time fixed to the land development code for this one time changeover process and that doesn't mean that it should be fixed at all time I want to go back to the internal slide because you said and I was expecting you got to the end so you could come back to that are you coming back later day or I just think you come back to it now absolutely I love to I just think as far as it's interesting or you'd like to discuss it but want to make sure it's your own I think this was a very good deal right and I'd be interested in what your thoughts were yeah I can talk about these just for a couple of minutes just to explain what these options are again this is just a couple of options but you could do things that support attainable housing like allow ADUs without additional approval so basically saying even though you're designated property we're not going to enforce the design standards or any additional standards on the development of an EDU and so it'd be an exception to the general rule essentially that new construction in a designated district would typically require a different process but you could bring that out and have it as an exception you could also allow for the conversion if you took a step earlier of a designated property outside oh no you can finish answering in like if I just was giving you a like so you could allow for the conversion of a property into something a little bit more dense like some sort of flex if certain standards are meant to preserve the exterior of the structure so if you're just working at the interior and changing the density and going from a single family dwelling use to something of higher density could allow for some procedural streamline essentially for those types of conversions and then this would be obviously a lot a lot more on the side of attainable and affordable housing but you could allow a complete off-grant from historic preservation properties that are designated if that property owner enters into a development agreement and agrees to for instance de-restrict the new construction for affordable and attainable housing those are some options I've seen in other communities but there's quite a lot more out there but it gives you a flavor of how you can go about it so these bullet points about ADUs refers to apply very easily in certain cases and are very difficult to apply in other cases so if you've got a yard and you can build an ADU in your backyard and you can't see it from the front there shouldn't be any issues with putting an ADU back there because it doesn't change the character of the neighborhood but a second story on a garage over a garage can be an ADU and a base with entrance can be an ADU or a duplex conversion I don't know how you tell those two apart and again adding a second story over part of the part of the building if you call it an ADU is that a bit it's there's some examples of this you know in the historic west side where they've added a second story on the back half of the building and completely changed the look of the house how what are you thinking in terms of how that would be applied I'm a big component of increasing density but you can make a mess well I think the future design guidelines would help ease it I think that would go a long ways and in some cases they could be so specific that it'd be something even done in a static level and not necessarily bring in HVC so full point number three we already had pushback on this from the historical east side that a new building regardless of its historical attainable housing does not preserve the integrity of the neighborhood so I would like to put the section on the second bullet point that says that it aims to preserve the exterior structure something similar in the third bullet point that the exterior structure must I don't know reflect the historical value of the neighborhood otherwise we will destroy the district right so I think that's important and to Marsh's point on the first bullet point if we just put that in the code in the ADU the addition of an ADU per our code now doesn't have any kind of I guess requirements for what that looks like but I do think in a historical district regardless it still has to fit in with the historical value of the neighborhood otherwise it could be a barn I mean no I mean the look of the barn could be technically with well let me say that it could just be something very different than what was there before so design over the I think they would so I'm here as an HBC Commissioner we're a really advocate for affordable housing and I think the first one and the last one are terrible ideas in this context you know I think especially because right now what you're proposing is that the HDO is just landmark properties which I don't know I don't know where is enough but if we're talking about you have a landmark property then you should go in front of the HBC if you want to alter that property it doesn't mean you can't do anything to you you should go through you should go through the HBC it's the whole point of having a sort of preservation condition because it's not just residential design guidelines it's a whole bunch of other criteria that's set up by the Secretary of the Interior there's a reason why there are professionals on your HBC because it's more complicated and then allowing you know the few other properties that we have landmark out to not be a landmark just to provide housing it just seems like we're there are other ways to push back pretty hard on that I would also really like us to avoid any like language or messaging that somehow is to our preservation and affordable housing or more density or regional resources and I think that as a community we can find ways to meet both without sacrificing the sort of preservation and so on and I think that's a point like we would love your guys' expertise on finessing some either processes or standards that goes there also say that what you're proposing as part of the overlay is this HBO feels like is a good way of cleaning up what we have now and bringing in the language code so it's all in one place but it's also pretty much a lateral move in terms of protecting neighborhoods and I would like to see you count on understanding at least from what we have heard and you've probably heard some of it from the east side as well is that a lot of the concern and I know there's one commissioner who's not here who sent me a long email expressing his concern so I'm partly looking for a commissioner to cover as well is a concern about the small scale original town-side neighborhoods and the size and scale of those and there are properties that might be worthy of a designation but aren't designated if they're eligible for just being demolished or greater density and height and at some point do you want to protect the neighborhoods the smaller original town-side neighborhoods in terms of their scale being hit in a way that's a little broader than just identifying what we already have and saying this we're only in this HBO if you're already laying one that's not going to be enough it's not like I know the public has come to our meetings just for whatever so maybe for me a clarification of what a historic district is versus if you're saying it's only certain homes within an area rather than the whole area this is where I'm a little confused when you go back to that red, blue and nope one more there so each of those dots is a designated district but is it one home? typically so how can one home be a district? so it would be in a district as a part of the zoning map and so it's more known than anything so I think the confusing part is that calling it the historic preservation district and then you have the historic districts within that so the historic preservation overlaid district could be one individual property like all of those red dots would be as proposed a part of the historic preservation overlaid district even though none are a historic district unto themselves although you do have groupings of them that you can probably make a neighborhood out of very close to I guess my frustration and this might go to your point in a way is that they have a neighborhood and they have historic designation like the three that are grouped they're in the green but the homes around them do not have any historic designation will they be able to build an ABU to the specifications of a developer or to the specifications of the CA or whatever that's where I'm a bit confused because if we're preserving historic neighborhoods then that's where I'm a little confused the district should be perhaps the neighborhood just to follow up on the Marist point your legend over there refers to those dots as historic landmarks not historic districts which is correct okay and then the district is everything blue for instance is the downtown historic district that's not where it's from I know but that's what exists on this state level so we're in the state right now okay so the red dots are individual houses or buildings that we in La Oman have said this individual house is also where it comes from these, the pink block, the blue block the green block we said it because of the state doesn't we said it with the shelves this is higher local designation so the pink block, the blue block and the green block are buildings and houses that are related to each other and so they're on the national state register as a group that doesn't mean that every single building in those blocks is on the national state register but it means that that area has been identified as having a historic relationship that is important because it was deemed a district and a bunch of the buildings and houses within it are listed not everything is because we have to have home order consent and not everybody within a district wants to be on a national register so those are the things that I was recommending to kind to keep everything a little tidy that as a city we might want to go ahead and also automatically put into our local designations that we have today and Glen this goes to the question that I asked you and you only answered the first half because I was really asking about the houses that are within a national district but are not like designated as landmarks and what constraints are they under even though they never have applied just because they're in that national district I don't think there's any constraints on that planning zone here in regular planning but not for the historic just for the zone that they're in downtown you're just missing out on tax credits and grants basically so on certain expenses to maintain the property which is what I would say one of the things you mentioned was a 50% buy-in to be the district you're suggesting that the city council could just do it but then isn't that no ma'am so what I'm suggesting is that those individual blogs have already been through the whole public process where people have had the ability to opt in on them so and then it's gone through the national review board that's a state board and then gone through the approval process from Washington and so I would think that all those public aspects have been met and so only the ones that were even if they're within the blog only the home owners who had agreed to be part of the national or state district would then automatically be wouldn't I'm not a proponent of forceful I forget where it's situated of the forceful I would absolutely do that and then I would suggest too at the very beginning when you were talking about current how to be designated versus proposed it seemed like you were making it harder to be designated and I don't think that's what we wanted in the case of non-consensual designations which is almost always every district and so if you go back to the blogs I've not ever agreed to that but for consensual I don't want to make it harder I want to make it easier I want to throw in more currency which that process is almost like a direct carryover the process of consensual designation is pretty much a carryover but the non-consensual process is much more difficult but to be clear almost always a district so if you made somewhere over here you almost always have some property owners that do not want to be part of that district forcing it into the non-consensual process does that make sense I don't, I mean what would the it makes sense because we require 50% so if just one says no then you're forced into that other process the non-consensual process but that's to make it into a district but not to designate your home being redistricting happens all the time to homeowners but to designate a home that elevates what needs to be done to that home to the point where you really have to try to property value versus there is some effect with the planning and zoning changing the zoning rules but the district sounds like maybe I'm wrong you have, you create that district over there and your home is being special for that district and the HPC is mostly out of that if it was a local district you would be in it anything would come to you within that district now what a lot of cities do is they do a real detailed survey and they say this is a contributing structure this is an important landmark potentially but this is non-contributing and it's already been changed over a period of time so you have more latitude to do things with that non-contributing and you would look much more carefully at then I would go back to this non-consensual critical point I think two important questions I will just owe that I am probably the least familiar with historic preservation the challenges so as I'm sitting here I'm trying to understand what are the problems we are trying to solve because that's not real explicit to you not to me so I think I've heard legal defensibility is a problem we are trying to solve that we need demolition approval process and responsibilities we define so it's not a council member in the chair affordable, additional affordable affordable housing is a problem for the city we need to solve whether we do it here or not but what you're suggesting is that this may present the possibility in terms of solution we don't have maintenance requirements as problems are there war problems you don't have to answer that now but it will be helpful when maybe I need a tutorial session on here are the other problems we need to solve we need to find solutions creating new districts and landmarks applying new designation guidelines tighter non consensual designation process with whatever that percentage is removal of designations potentially as a solution and the creation of maintenance requirements what I don't know still I saw reference to goals I didn't see a goal statement balancing goals I don't know what they are I didn't see a goal statement it is a goal I don't know if enforcement is a problem or a solution in this case so it would be helpful to know if it's a problem or a solution in what's that balance I'm not certain I have to be really helpful for somebody to kind of lay out if these are the options if these are the solutions here are the new problems we can anticipate because we're hearing some reference to that we've got to be prepared to identify and have solutions, strategies or options so it would be helpful for me as a neophyte not to counsel but the historic preservation to have some of those details I don't know I'll yield to Shakita if there are other questions as another neophyte in the room that's right I totally agree with everything that you're asking some of the same notes of what you took down back to what you were saying it makes a lot of sense it makes a lot of sense referencing the problems that we don't see it makes sense to go ahead if that area that national area has already been designated as a historic district why couldn't we just transition those automatically approve those areas or those landmarks I think I want to make sure that I have a clear understanding as to the local the HPOs the overlay ones in the areas that we see them dispersed so once they decide okay so they're the HPOs what happens if we then want to have a district over there so what happens then and back to Marcia saying asking about the neighborhoods if you have five in one area that's not part of the national what if that area come to you all and say we want to be a district part of the national district so that because they want the entire neighborhood to be that historical district you know have that characteristic so I guess that's one of my concerns including with Tim was saying as well I was just wondering because there were some areas that had more than one or two in them and then so what happens then moving forward and then you also mentioned the land code right so what does that look like when everything is switched over with the land development code what are some of those challenges as well well it would be a whole new set of regulations that would be in addition to all the other regulations in land development code here in the designated property that means there's these requirements as far as demolition going through historic preservation to get a certificate of appropriateness all those rules then kick in but those are rules that exist and if you want to meet them and click right there are already as well we're going to do another section this is all about this is just what you were saying well back to the idea of goals obviously you turn to this slide so these are the goals and I think there's 8 that you currently list sorry I don't know who you is this is me so these read like goals protect the historic character of the city I don't think anyone would disagree with that one the enhancement of property values let's just stop with the enhancement of property values I get complaints about things the city does regularly that say I don't want you to do this because it's going to decrease my property values and what I say to them is you know changes in city policy or for the greater good of the city and your investment in your property is just that an investment and it's not the job of the city to protect your property values that the people are going to argue with me about that also I don't necessarily have property values that don't really stay in the freezer it's mugs and they have they don't we don't have any way of advancing or decreasing property values and again this was taken from the current code these aren't things that are changing yeah we should fix it yeah I don't know if some of those third preservation measures want to speak to maybe some of the counter arguments that there could be for these purposes also I think I've found based on my experience with the districts this probably stems from the fact that many times what we've designed is more districts in the third preservation codes were in response to disinvestment in other neighborhoods and this work preservation was used as ordinances that weren't used were used as a help halt in the STEM neighborhood decline but a lot of that decline had to do with inappropriate convergence of homes to what would be a structure that I personally had a house that I undid some damage to in that regard so it goes back to a lot of the historic purposes the fact that our zoning codes didn't always respect that older neighborhoods had developed at a different time and were functionally illegal under more suburban zoning codes so that's really where the property value comes in it's really in the historic perspective of historic preservation if that makes any sense but it really comes back to the fact that these were neighborhoods that weren't applying at one point and they were trying to protect properties from being demolished so that's just context that's a good context and it means that we should reword that because it's not to preserve the property values it's to enable the homeowner to preserve the historic character of their own property which they may not wouldn't be able to afford to do if there were not special for checks but that is a scary phrase it's common in fact zoning too it's often preamble in zoning it's there to protect property values but it makes me cringe a little bit too we should fix it everywhere I think the second part the stabilization of the historic neighborhoods that's the important part that's what we're hearing so in a worst case scenario under the current proposal you can imagine anything that's not a red dot could get theoretically raised with whatever structure built without any preview of the historic preservation even being aware of it it would all be regulated by the language to go home so that I think I mean on behalf of at least myself and what I've heard and one other commissioner I don't think that's not what we were seeking when we started this process we were seeking some level of protection for these neighborhoods as a whole that doesn't elevate to the standard of a landmark we're not asking for every home in this neighborhood to have to meet these landmark criteria where they have to just where they those folks are opting to put further restrictions on themselves for their own benefit because they love the house because they love historic preservation because they want to get tax credits they're opting for higher restrictions they want to get another a lesser but still more than now tier that protects the neighborhood as a whole which was my question about the district versus your individual gods and that third bullet point you're asking for do you have absolutely no ADUs in the historic designated homes that third bullet point doesn't work those designated homes right now go back to the one that you were on the goals yeah goodness crackers there you go they would not be able to increase the economic and financial benefits of having an ADU on their home and they my fear is that unless that is the outset of one of the things that they need to know before they go into the process chances are they may not want to go into the process or once they're in and find out they cannot put an ADU under their home they may want to come back out of it the same could I maybe respond to you? yes please I think the concern that I heard was that you could do it automatically so there's the currently something like that requires HPC to do that and the question is what and there are several bright lines which none between I think the Tim's point they're not clear bright lines but there are certain things that only require staff and then they could be done certain things would require city council which means the city council could be input from the HPC could be done but the bullet points that you had shown were that some things could be done automatically without HPC involving without city council and I think those those are where we need much longer in the sky where we get a clear set of where the bright lines are I would say under scenario where the industry was literally only the landmarks we were only going to provide this to the landmarks then I would say we absolutely have to have but then I would object if we're talking about neighborhoods then I think it goes back to just letting the HPC be reviewers we had an example of this a couple of years ago where somebody came in and they wanted to put an AQ over their garage and it was a historic structure and they wanted to blow it to smithereens and we said no and we said this is what you ought to do you ought to basically told them we had a sort of architect for somebody that knows this and come back with a different plan and they did and we approved because then it was approved so we kind of guided the process and the homeowner got an AQ but the neighborhood got a more appropriate structure okay thank you for clarifying I totally misunderstood what you had said because these landmarks are already protected but the neighborhood isn't we asked a whole lot of just public conversations and then so to clarify for me again does the overlight protect the neighborhood not as proposed not as proposed so the overlay all it does is I think it was said well it's a lateral move it's a lateral move to bring your historic preservation regulations into your land development code which means it needs to walk and act like a zoning district and so that's a lot of what that discussion is just those red dots being essentially just mapped but those districts which again is a state process they haven't gone through any local process will remain the same under the state regulations but they are currently not touched by local regulation and I would just say conjecture would be that if you were to try to bring in an entire neighborhood section with a bunch of properties that are not historic landmarks but almost immediately to my mind require a non-consensual designation process and I think part of the conversation is where we want to set that bench 50% or higher may be possibly dependent because I would say that separate from what I'm sure HPC has heard from PENA I've had meetings with those representatives as well and they are looking at a much more neighborhood based concept with specific design standards I think that's kind of disconnect here is a little bit that area is shown up here as well it's the lighter pink that surrounds as we see little dots in the other neighborhoods just north of my you see stuff below the 3rd avenue there as we see the green west side the historic district exceeds the original town's site for instance and into multiple different neighborhoods born as orchard and start west side but don't we already kind of have a non-consensual zone in that one mile original block like everybody within that block will want to do something not that block but that square, thank you have to come into HPC but then the rest of the city is kind of left in this not even a great current demolition code is written if you're in the original town site you're supposed to come to HPC for demolition you're taking that out right now in your proposal so we're losing some team I think we're losing more than we're being I think you're right as far as the demolition process goes does the state slash federal consortium that defines the blue the pink and the green do any monitoring or enforcement at all or do they just give grants if you're in that area there are designation is our only there's no enforcement you could put your house on the national registry today and you could put those at tomorrow however you would not get all of those wonderful grants okay I thought that would happen it changes if you wanted to go in for a federal grant so even today I was dealing with private homes and the Marshall fire that are looking for health funds and so we are having to report that historic preservation issues to ensure that those aren't being funded so that's where things get stupid is if you want federal money and you're in a historic home you have all those the state management but you can't hold those at home unless the city local is the question that Steve's asked and I think we're all interested in that when you talk about moving that out of the city and what's the place I think we'd like to it sounds like from what we heard tonight that there is definitely a desire to for that blue square maybe just those properties is what I'm hearing that the HBC wants to hear if those properties are proposed for demolition even if they're not designated is that am I getting that right I'm sorry that's what I'm saying but we wanted to expand that into other parts of not the entire city because I live just outside of that blue square and it's an old neighborhood it's not officially a historic it's not designated yet but we're seeing weird demolitions and weird pop tops and things that will get out of hand really quickly so I think we have our marching orders as far as that goes I guess I would just say there are some legal issues that are brought to our attention with that process and that's why that process is ultimately changed but I think knowing that that is the policy direction that you want to see we can propose something that hopefully gets proposed but I just want to know so real quick the proposal for not a potential is 50% is that the proposal I know that council's conversation in our executive session was slightly different but I think we are holding it to a slightly higher standard but I remember from our conversation we were talking about something a little bit 60 and above I think so the federal and state are 51% for a third district but again that doesn't mean individual homes like they opt out they opt out it could be slightly different so I mean that's something we want to hear for sure tonight what number people seem to be most comfortable with so can I make a request now have you heard policy direction tonight or you've got way better listening could you summarize the policy direction and get it back to us I'd like to know what you heard and what direction you think you're taking I'm not sure I have heard it I don't think we have either I think I just want to say that's what we're here for tonight we want to hear those conversations if it's a higher percentage than 50% we'd love to talk about that and we wanted to make sure obviously the whole agency council had the opportunity to exchange ideas rather than do this and separate meetings continue on so I think this is kind of our first in road into the folks who are the professionals doing the work at HPC helping in the process what I've heard I'm sorry what I've heard is we're not all clear on the definitions it's hard to make a policy like I didn't understand the district versus the landmarks and I didn't get what that meant so for me this is more of a clarification of our policy now and the discussion of where do we want to go with it so should you do I just wanted to say that you know comfortable waters to answer some of your questions and kind of move everyone together with regard to what the problem is that we're trying to solve there are multiple there are probably multiple more problems that are hidden hearing the committee we're coming to the realization that there are a lot of little poppals that we can get stuck into so demolition yes looking at the process of demolition currently we propose a major certificate of appropriateness as far as affordable attainable housing you know so it's a very large problem with probably a larger solution and I'm not sure that we can solve that today with regard to how it relates to historic preservation but what we'd like to do is you know I can assist Glen in putting together some of the quote-unquote concerns of an area that we have you know maybe not as clearly highlighted tonight but we can do that to summarize those and then go through and like Austin provided today gives a proposed solution so you know whether it's 50 50, 51% whether it's 60% you know we can kind of point those out and maybe some of the issues with it for example you know wanting to bring in automatically bring in some of those national registers like the blue into our local into our local historic bring in historically locally historic what we do one of the things that we need to look into is whether or not there's state sanctions that require that we need to go still go through the public process even though they went through it at the federal level and so there are little nuances like that that we would need to look into and so you know there are unfortunately a lot of questions that are still lingering but you know this is every single question comes with additional you know information every single little thing that we hear I mean there's more problems we're more concerned you know areas of concern but opportunities there you go and so what we'd like to do is the way that our code is currently written it's not as clear as it should be the definitions aren't as clear as it should be sometimes you know some of the criteria with the 50 year old you know it's something that we can maybe add a little bit more flexibility add a little bit more just give ourselves a little a little bit more flexibility what to do how to do it especially if portable a table comes into play and so you know what we can work on is I mean together that statement about summarization of policy goals quote-unquote maybe what we've discussed today but I think it's going to be more areas of concern not necessarily policy issues that we've heard the areas of concern where we can from there go to some of the policy directions that staff is looking for we do have some ideas as to propose language for the code amendments is that something that you'd like to see as well I would especially I and the rest of you please chime in especially when you're talking about looking at the neighborhood the structure and the history of the neighborhood some some code language on that so that they would have to go for any kind of development within that neighborhood have it okay rather than just have the because it is not a landmark building but to preserve the neighborhood that needs to go before the story so possibly have it to some of the newer design guidelines that Glenn mentioned yes on every thank you Joan I think that what has happened here is that there seems to have been an effort to put everything in the same category and what I think your analysis should be categorization by use case so something about the current code now is it treats demolition differently than it treats everything else and that is working so you don't want to undo that but it seems like you have three use cases or three categories of buildings the buildings that are eligible for this demolition you have buildings that can be modified versus have to go through a process just to be modified and then you have buildings that don't have any special designation at all and I don't think it's appropriate to put those together because you're going to miss an alert or you're going to drive everybody crazy with having reviews so whether you want to expand the must review on demolition square or not that's an appropriate square and demolition is the only use case in it on the other hand if you want to do the overlay district whether the overlay district includes the national districts as well as the historic landmarks to try to put them in one thing well again you need to go and look at what the use cases are if I am in the less sighted historic district and I want to build an ADU when I'm not in a historic landmark do we care enough about the character of the neighborhood that we're going to review the ADU application so Hannah for example would say yes absolutely after review that a lot of the homeowners would say no if I wanted that kind of review I would have applied to be a historic landmark so I think there's some use case analysis that needs to still be done before this goes to code but I agree with that but to your point of the west side I think it was human yeah that ADUs and pop ups are occurring that are not in line with the historic value of the neighbors so we do need to define that because the district that we are looking at to look at to have the ADUs go to the historic preservation commission first or is it just a neighborhood um that's a big ask it's a big ask for the district it's a big ask for the neighborhood so I don't know how you write code for that to be quite honest that's your job I think what you're talking to is not that uncommon where a lot of cities have designed deadlines for individual home and ADU review that actually don't have anything to do with the preservation or city council but there are specific design deadlines that are required in their time of building from it or prior so I think that is perhaps a gap in some of our regulations that we do want to fill I think that this conversation at least in my mind is helping me think through how we might do that more broadly in addition to the historic specific I do think those types of alterations and new homes are occurring in other neighborhoods where people might like to see um some additional copy of the design right to talk about repeating whatever the size and materials for the pitches those kinds of things yeah I think some of the broad design deadlines and again my neighborhood in Hong Kong is very different from the historic east side so like those two wouldn't be you know you wouldn't use the same design deadlines but I think you could certainly use similar elements by neighborhood which is a big lift but it's not uncommon I think we've all some of us work in other cities that have had that experience so when a whole wants to put on an ADU does planning and zoning know then if we go through this process that this home is in a historic overlay district you would know that so that you would know different standards here different design standards where they are rather than the original town side yes absolutely okay we have nothing else we have a meeting in 16 minutes thank you just just a closing summary what should we expect from you before well I think what we're going to come back with is a little bit more specific language in this setting or we could certainly this is ideal to have both of us here it's hard to coordinate but I think it would be ideal that we come with more specific guidelines of what we're trying to solve I think it's very helpful to have city council in the HPC here because otherwise we're each guessing a little bit yeah I think it makes more difference I think this is actually easier for us to focus on those things so that's good I wouldn't go so far I think you're getting a lot of ideas in the right I'd ask what is timeline for the instructor next we will look at your calendars that will guide our timeline I'd like to put Harold needs to put on the agenda for eight years so you know I really like this because as council the residents come up about historic preservation issues on their neighborhood or their house I don't know so this has been great we have some ideas