 We will go ahead and call the March 2nd, 2023 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to order, because I have it, I used it. Can we call the roll please? Commissioner Sibley. Here. Commissioner Fenster. Here. Commissioner Gaiu. Here. Chairman Lane. Here. Commissioner Norton. Here. Commissioner Jacoby. Here. Councilmember Rodriguez. Here. I have a quorum. We'll move on to approval of the February 2nd, 2023 minutes. I know we did have one correction. Is that in the draft that's online or just on them? It is both. The correction is also published. Okay, great. So we had one correction to the note of the approval of the bylaws to include a motion to approve the minutes from commissioner Fenster and seconded by commissioner Jacoby. All those in favor. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Motion passes unanimously. Next we have a report from the chair. And I did want to make one comment that we can probably. Also address in the retreat. I have a motion to approve the minutes from commissioner Fenster and seconded by commissioner Jacoby. All those in favor. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Motion passes unanimously. Next we have report from the chair. In the retreat. But I did have a question come up about this body and how it operates and the kind of relative formality of it. Say compared to other boards that might meet around a table in a conference room somewhere. And I guess I wanted to just remind us all, especially for any new commissioners that we are set up this way because we are a quasi judicial body that has to act on. Applications that come in and take public hearing and it's a it's a more formal situation. And so we are stuck in this sort of environment where it is not as free flowing as maybe a parks and rec board or something like that. But that's in part because of how this commission is actually set up. And if we end up with one of the staff attorneys at the retreat, maybe they could explain that in more detail if necessary. The one other thing I would like to note is that the Longmont downtown development authority is actually hosting next Wednesday at six o'clock at the Longmont Theater, a building better cities. Kind of a little seminar or discussion and they're going to be talking about how to grow downtowns while retaining their character. Since that downtown is in a national historic district, I thought that might be something worth attending. So I probably will be there. And if anyone else is interested, I encourage you to. I think you can RSVP through their website, but I'm sure you can also just show up. I do have a link to the RSVP as well. So I will send that information around I'll send that out next week. Not next week. Gosh, tomorrow. Tomorrow. That is the day I'm looking for. That'd be great. Thank you. All right. Communications from HPC staff liaison. As I noted, I will be sending out that information tomorrow regarding the LDDA. And we'll talk a little bit about their retreat once we get a little farther down. That's the main thing I wanted to discuss as well, but I will be sending a calendar invite for that. We do have a time and a location as well. So I'll cover that a bit more. Otherwise, it was great to see folks at the saving places conference. So I thought it went well in the new location. I know you've been out of pocket for a little bit, but one of the things that we had on your list that was on the higher priority was grant applications for cultural research surveys. And I want to keep that, you know, on the tip. Yeah. And I think Brian at your last meeting said we have gone through an interview process. We're trying to supplement our staff. That is kind of short at the time being. So we found a very good consultant that's kind of local has some good historic preservation and grant writing experience. So we just have to sign a contract. So I think that'll really help bolster us and get some of these things moving. Wonderful. Great. Good to hear. Any other commissioners have a question for staff? No. All right. Thank you. Okay. Next is our public invited to be heard for topics that are not otherwise on our agenda. I am not seeing anyone in the audience. So unless someone comes early through the door in the next five seconds, we're going to go ahead and close the public invited to be heard. And that moves us on to new business, which is the Terry Lake sanitary sewer project. Good evening. So this is kind of a weird one. There's really kind of no other way to put it. So Boulder County planning reached out to staff in the last couple of weeks. Their historic preservation advisory board has basically asked us to weigh in on some buildings at the historic initiative farm up on 66 that could potentially be impacted by the sewer project. So it's a regional sewer project. They are basically exploring either mitigation options for five structures or possibly if we have ideas on any appropriate interpretive options as well. So the challenge is, so this is a really not great map, but so yellow is City of Longmont. The pink is the sewer line. And then the properties in question are basically, so these are kind of the properties in question. So as it stands, the sewer project has been designed to kind of loop behind the farm so they don't necessarily impact the buildings. But there's the challenge also of at some point in the future highway 66 is probably going to be widened, which would impact the structures regardless. So and they also mentioned, you know, having us weigh in on structures that were at a little farther to the East at 99 11 Ute Highway that is in the City of Longmont City limits. However, so I guess the idea is they could potentially reroute the sewer line. They're trying to figure out if basically what if there are options, if there's a dog that'll hunt on what they're looking for. Sorry, my southern just came out. But so basically they're trying to figure out if there's a way to either maybe if we think the 99 11 buildings might be worth pursuing significance on or if they should be pushing harder on the Nishita Farm buildings. There is a cult. We do have a cultural service, a cultural resource survey for the 99 11 that was done by Boulder account that was done at some point. It was a very my thing has come up just one second. Anyway, so there was a cultural cultural resources assessment done for the 99 11 properties and it they weren't really found. The feeling was that they didn't really meet any of the requirements for a national register listing. So really this is mostly a discussion item for you guys. And if you have any feedback that we should be sharing with the if there's feedback that we should be sharing with the county, that's something that we can weigh in after you guys weigh in. I can share that with the county. So there's really kind of they're not asking us to they're not asking us to evaluate. They're basically saying do we think it's significant enough for them to push harder on. And the other challenge is that this sewer project is pretty far into the process. The plans were approved fairly early last year. So it's I think they're trying to I don't know if it's a Hail Mary for them or what but it's very they're they're they're basically trying to figure out what they can do for lack of a better way of putting it. Commissioners have questions for staff. Hit your met. Basically it's within our city's planning area. It's basically within our growth area. It's adjacent to city of Longmont intergovernmental intergovernmental coordination and all of that. So we don't have jurisdiction over the property in question. The old Nishita farm we don't currently have jurisdiction over that. It's not annexed. We did a pre we did that there was an annexation referral done back in twenty one but that since expired so we don't have anything active for this particular property. Are there any risks that we should be aware? Not that I'm aware of. So when do you have thoughts on this? Well I think they're just trying to widen up their scope of professionals who are looking at this and give them a little bit more. I guess feedback that is it worth rerouting the sewer line. I think they're just looking for some professional recommendations. Yes. I don't know that we have an example where this has come up before. Not that I'm aware of. Great. I'm sure we can ask them for anything in the future. Commissioner to covid. Do you have? Yes. I have a question. Maybe maybe you have an answer. I'm reading waiting through all that paper that you sent, you know, the Eleventh hour paper. The engineers northern engineering said that the buildings are in poor condition and due to the condition of the buildings demolition will would be recommended. The centennial archaeology said the integrity is past where it can no longer support eligibility. But the historic, the county historic preservation advisory board voted three oh to preserve it. It sounds like if I'm reading this correctly and I'm wondering do we have any information on why they felt preservation three oh why they felt it was worth preserving. Most of the data that you sent us suggests otherwise. Sure. So in speaking with Boulder County staff, the preservation context has to do with the Nishita farm, which is one of the examples of Japanese farming communities and Japanese farms after the internment camps were closed. A number of Japanese farmers who came up to northern Colorado, etc. And began, you know, either began or continued farms that they had already had prior to the war. So because it is does still have a number of its buildings intact. And because it does have that historical significance, that was the rationale for for taking another look at it. And then to, you know, from staff's perspective is, and this is definitely significant to this region from a historical standpoint, but from a practical matter. Given a the sewer project, which is actually going to be going behind, you know, the online the current alignment would not necessarily impact the the buildings. I think the sense is because the condition is so poor, they're just going to go ahead there. The plan is to take them down. Boulder County does have a deconstruction ordinance, but it's more of a sustainability oriented ordinance rather than a historic preservation historic saving historic features type ordinance. So they do have an application for review for this deconstruction. And they're basically are asking, you know, they're they're looking for options that couldn't avoid negative impacts to the structures. And if they're, you know, if that's unavoidable, you know, looking for suggestions on what types of interpretive measures would be appropriate. Commissioner Gayle. I would, yeah, so I was going to highlight the fact that yes, this is a Japanese American farm that we don't have very many of those left. So that in and of itself elevates the significance of this property. I mean, it appears to me that they can easily bypass this property. Correct. Correct. And the current alignment seems to show it bypassing this property as well. And, you know, while, yeah, it might not be, you know, in a shape to be on the national register doesn't mean it. It sounds like the county at least at one point was supportive of it being on the county register. And as we know, you know, the difference between additions and restoring something is just money. So, you know, and especially at this period where people are very interested in diversifying preservation, this would probably be a good property to get grants for the restoration of it. So I would hate to see them just take it down because that's the easiest thing for them to do when they can just simply bypass it and mothball it. And actually looking at some maps as well, it looks like effectively I take I take back what I said because this is so this this alignment, this is the farm. This this would be impacted. So basically the question is can we flip this you or have reroute the sewer line so it would not impact it. So I do apologize for miss speaking on that. I mean, from the pictures that they provided, there's still, you know, a lot of original material there it might have been added to and window frames might have been filled in and things like that. But I, you know, from pretty, you know, a goodly amount of photographs here, I would suggest that there are there's still enough there. I've seen a lot less come back to something meaningful. Really, I think the question from the county is, you know, I hate to say for lack of a better way of putting it, they're looking for backup. Well, I mean, if you look at the that Northern Engineering plan, it's their sheet SS one demolition and overall sanitary plan. I mean, if you I mean, it's an enormous scope in terms of how, you know, the area, but it's only a 15 foot sanitary sewer easement that appears to be straddling the property, which would be typical. And it doesn't appear that there any that the structures that they're. Well, okay, so the structures that they're identifying that would be impacted by it are the two on the far south. I mean, one of them is running right through the middle of the. So there's no way to build this plan as as designed without taking that house down. And then what I what I don't know, looking at that drawing is, you know, is there any is that really the edge of the of the highway 66 right away. Right. Because if it is, then the house is sitting half on the right away half on the property line. And if that's the case, you know, I don't it's a little harder to say, well, we got to do everything we can to approve, you know, to keep this building if it's potentially going to get wiped out by C dot at their discretion. Whenever they decide they want success. And that's what I will say. Yeah, so what I'm looking at with the property line, it looks as if from what I can tell on this particular plan on page 23 of the packet on page 23 of. It's probably a little later a little farther along in your in your packet, but it's looks at the property line kind of goes right to the edge of the of the building. So it would be in the easement, but it's not in the right of way. Commissioner, let me just get your mic on. Yep. Mr. Fenster. Yes, has any effort ever been made to preserve the remains of the internment? Yes. Yes. Yeah, was there sure? Was there federal money involved? It should have been you see anything torn down from that period of their original structures and be sad. Just gonna see if I can get this detail plan pulled up a little easier to see. Oh, I think I'm I'm on the age. I'm on the HTML agenda. So that makes it a little different. It's this one. 103. Yes, 103. Okay. Don't look too closely while I'm scrolling. Okay, here we go. Okay. So you can see that little jog in the property line and that's typically the right of way would ultimately come up straight now. That's where the right of way would come out. So for for example, we think would see that would be sort of obligated to move the building if there was a process would be would it be a case of they would have to take a cultural research survey. If it showed significance, then they would be sort of obligated to move the building back off the right of way line. Am I not talking loud enough for everybody? I was gonna let it go. It just won't get recorded without the microphone. Okay. Is CDOT's involvement actually imminent? Or is this just one of those things like we all anticipate 66 will be widened relatively soon? Exactly. We don't have any plans on the table. It's one of those at some point in the future. It will probably be widened, but we don't have immediate there. I'm not aware of immediate plans to widen it, but you can definitely see that the right of way has been acquired. There is the right of way acquisition or right of way dedications that have that in mind. So it's a long range plan, show for it being widened, but there aren't necessarily funds allocated for it. So it's it, you know, nothing has gone into design or anything. Okay. It's a state highway. Yeah, but the buildings themselves are subject to preservation. It's so the surveys that have been done for these properties, they found that they're locally significant, but not nationally significant. So they would not trigger any necessarily federal protections. It would just it would really be at the county level. On my page 135, I'm and it's showing remaining five structures and, you know, arrows and it looks like building C lump that's closest to the road. It looks like that's what's remaining. I'm not sure that I'm reading this, right? I think that's supposed to remain. These are the structures that are here now. The other properties were there in 97 when Carl did this survey. Okay. I was looking at this and I'm like, I'm reading this. I have to be. This is from Carl McWilliams. He's got a very particular style. This is from his 97 cultural resource survey that showed the property being of, you know, of value. Okay. And then, but all of those other buildings are now gone. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you. I have another question. So sorry. Okay. No, I'm on. Okay. Back in the 90s, Carl did the inventory form and it went to the Shippo's office and it was determined officially eligible. So Centennial has recommended that they no longer think it has integrity, but I don't see a change in the official determination of eligibility. So as far as the state is concerned, I think the State Historic Preservation Office would still identify this as officially eligible for the National Register if that helps Boulder County. This is good information. Okay. And I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing it on the forms that have been given to us. And I'm also not sure why the Shippo would change their previous designation. This is good information. So this is the kind of information that I think will be useful to the county. Okay. I mean, it feels like it has a decent amount of sort of adjacency to the whole Latin barn property that we dealt with, you know, not too long ago, right? It's a property that was valuable at one point. There has an association with someone with a family that was, you know, important in Longmont for one reason or another. It was in much better shape 25 years ago than it is now. But there's a story to tell, right? And I think we're at least in the more enviable situation of not having to make that final determination and split the hairs about whether the buildings themselves are how important they are individually versus the whole and what the appropriate solution is, right? But I think I would certainly support Boulder County in pushing for some recognition on the property, right? There needs to be some value explained there. So this is a case where we don't technically have jurisdiction, but the commission could certainly make a recommendation to Boulder County. I also wanted to bring up, because it felt like in this, in their original ask, is that they were asking us as the Longmont HPC to comment on the other property. So if we look at the option two for the sewer line back earlier in the packet, there was another option that Northern had proposed that went down a property to the west that is, in fact, in the city of Longmont. And I got the impression that the Boulder County Preservation Commission was asking us to comment on that particular property and whether or not it had value. And my reading between the lines, which is just a guess, was if we said, oh gee, that property doesn't have any value, then they could push further to say, why don't you go back to option two and move the line? Now, we don't have any resources. Jennifer, you said you had a cultural resource on that 988. I do. It is. I don't know if we can share with us. Sure. So this is the cultural resource form or inventory form for 9911, which was the Bupre House. And ultimately, they found based on this inventory that, let's see, it's officially not eligible. So it doesn't have, it's not a local landmark. It doesn't meet national register criteria. It could meet local landmark significance. It meets three out of the eight, basically. So the question is, you know, would this be significant enough to warrant essentially sacrificing the Nashida properties or are the Nashida properties more significant? So that's what I'm, that's, you know, taking Steve's interpretation. That's, it's effectively, how are we splitting this baby up? So do we have pictures or any further information about the other property? I've got this particular, I've got the survey pulled up that was completed. And so. See pictures? Sure. If nothing else, maybe we can get a Google map. I drove by it. Yeah. I mean, because obviously, you know, if we're going along the lines of determinations, the Nashida farm has officially been determined eligible and the Bupre farm has been officially determined not eligible. So you would sort of guesstimate that the Nashida is more significant than the Bupre farm. That's the sense I'm getting as well. I would say culturally. Culturally, I think that's true. Architecturally, I think I would say not. So driving past both, or in fact, I just sort of went around and went in. So hopefully no one got mad. But the buildings on the Bupre property are kind of interesting. You know, there's a, there's a pretty cool, yeah, you can see the kind of our agricultural silo building. There's a barn back, but there's a sort of chicken coop thing in the front here. And then there's another barn in the back that's pretty, pretty interesting looking. The house that's on the far left is sort of a brick, you know, pretty basic, but not. I mean, it's still, I'm sure it's older than 50 years old and simple little farmhouse. So from an architectural standpoint, there's probably more material integrity and this property, not the cultural aspects. So now we're in a more complicated. Right. Does the, does the forum indicate, or do you have the official determination of ineligibility and why it was determined to be ineligible? So I have the, what's pulled up here, let me make it a little bigger so that our eyes can see it. So the national register criteria did not meet any of the national register. Well, this is the forum that somebody filled out. So do we have the letter from the Shippo's office saying, here's why it's ineligible? I'm not aware that we do. Because I mean, I could fill this out and say, yeah, I don't think it's eligible, but that's not the official ineligibility. Yeah, I do not. This is what was provided to me by the county and it was this particular assessment. It did not have a, an official Shippo letter. Commissioner Norton, you have a comment. Yes, thank you. So I think it's pretty much just going off of what Commissioner Gaiou said, you know, if we're looking at these official determinations of eligibility, it would make sense that the Nashida property after 25 years would probably only become more significant for a number of reasons. But it would also be reasonable that if the last time the Bopré property was looked at was 25 years ago, our ideas of significance have changed. And so there might be reasons that today the Shippo's office would identify it as significant, whereas it wasn't in the past. But if we, I agree with Commissioner Gaiou for only going by what we currently have, the Nashida property is pretty significant. But I don't think we should be asked to sacrifice one or the other. There's a lot of property out there. Can they not reroute in a way that doesn't have to knock down any buildings? I know, right? I mean, there's so much open space there. Demolition's expensive. Yeah, it is. It has to do with, you know, easement acquisitions and such as well. So, and that's kind of, I feel like we would be in a much better position if this question had been asked of us two years ago, frankly. Yeah. And that's really the challenge we're faced with from a practical standpoint. I mean, when it was determined ineligible maybe 15 or 20 years ago, Longmont and surrounding areas had a lot more farms. Yes. And a lot of them are gone now. They're going every week to see another one gone. And so, you know, this now might be significant because of its integrity as an example of a local farm. And so they might both be officially eligible and significant now. Okay. I would suggest, I know, I mean, it sounds like the Nishita Farm, you know, has been currently, you know, recently assessed. I don't agree with their assessment. Yeah. But the Bopri farm, if this was the last time it's been assessed and we don't actually have an official assessment, then I would suggest that that needs to be currently assessed too. They're suggesting that they're going to choose between these two properties to tear down. Okay. So what I'm hearing is that staff, we should be coordinating with Boulder County, further coordinating with them to get Shippo determinations of eligibility for both of these farm properties before we can make an actual determination. And isn't the Bopri farm in the city of Longmont? It's in the city of Longmont. So I would be working. We do have authority over that. We have authority over the Bopri. And currently the Bopri is not being impacted. Right. So it's really, from our perspective, I think, you know, they're trying to figure out if, you know, we're willing to sacrifice the Bopri versus the Nishita. I don't, it doesn't sound like we're, it sounds like there's enough, thinking that there's enough potential significance for these properties that we would not necessarily be in favor of changing the alignment. That's what I'm hearing. If I'm mishearing, please let me know. Well, I think we would like it changed. Yes. Something else altogether. Yes. Right. Is there, is there an option three that does not somehow negatively impact both potentially valuable properties? Right. You know, right is the sweet spot. But I don't think the Bopri is a sacrificial lamb to offer. Okay. And unless I'm wrong, there's a general feeling of support for the Boulder Preservation Commission in, in pushing back to some degree on this demolition at the Nishita farm as well. Okay. Yeah. Yep. Get you. Just a quick point that is preservation of both agricultural properties. It's one plus one equals three. I think you're adding to the environment in the whole area. And so I think we should encourage them to look at opportunities to reroute the line. I mean, we know that the, the sewer line could be rerouted, but we don't know all the sewer line rerouting options. And so I don't know if they looked at it further, but I mean, I would think we would recommend they try to preserve as they can both properties. I'll talk to our engineers who have been working on this project as well. Do you have enough direction from us? Sounds like it. So I'm going to talk to my direction as I see it. I'm going to first and foremost talk to county staff and let them know that we do think that the Bopri property is potentially has a level of significance to the city of Longmont that we are not willing to basically sacrifice it for the Nishita farm. But that said, we also think the Nishita farm is sufficiently significant that we should be looking at options to try to preserve both of them. Related to that, I can coordinate with our Public Works Natural Resources staff who've been working on the sewer alignment project and talked through that, talked to them as far as where in the process, you know, how feasible, what other options there could potentially be given that we have to historic preservation boards and commissions who are very concerned about this loss of historic farm land farm properties, especially given that one of them is a Japanese American farm. I think that's a pretty accurate summary of what I think we've tried to tell you. Yeah, I'm going to go write that down right now. It's recorded, right? You were talking to the mic so you can go back to it. Before the escape. I might just add that engineering is reviewing that portion of Highway 66. I don't know how far west it goes from Main Street, but I know at least a year ago they were starting to look at preliminary plans that CDOT was bringing forward. So it might not be too far in the distant future. And I don't know if the Beau Prey is impacted by the widening of Highway 66. I think it might be. The roadway itself? Yeah, at least for the length that it's going to be widened. And I'm just not sure how far west it goes from Main Street. Well, we certainly appreciate, I think, being asked to comment as well. You might also communicate that, but we appreciate being made aware and brought into the conversation. I think we have similar goals. And obviously, you're talking about two properties that are adjacent to each other and one in each jurisdiction. So talking with each other is a good thing. All right, thanks. Okay, we'll close that portion of the hearing and move on to prior business. And the first item there is our retreat, which we have somehow miraculously managed to schedule. For April 21st, I'm sorry, April 1st. I read it too quickly. April 1st at 1.30 to 4.30 in the Longmont Public Library. So thank you for getting that. Do we have any further information that we want to discuss about that particular retreat in terms of agenda? That's really our ask. And part of that is the demolition ordinance table that Brian prepared that we provided you. So really, from our perspective, are there specific topics that you would like staff to do some additional research and work on to move forward? Any particular supplemental guest speakers to come in and do any sort of commissioner training on the city's end, et cetera? So if there's specific agenda items that you would like for staff to set up, that was interesting. Glenn, you had a kind of a survey a few months back of us, right? You asked us for some feedback. Right. I listed all the different items that we talked about for amending the code, and we kind of did a more interactive, what's your top three priorities there? We could certainly redo that if you think it'd be helpful. This has really been great. This has helped me out quite a bit. And also, our city attorney, we do have a new city attorney that's representing our department. So he may really be happy to come and talk about quasi-judicial proceedings. You guys, I think they do it for all boards and commissions or they point you at a recording. The city attorney comes to Planning Commission and gives a really good presentation. I think their attorney would probably, I think I've asked them, can we do that with this commission as well? Because you have a lot of the same responsibilities. So we'll definitely try and get somebody there to do that. I think that'd be really valuable for that reason and for the discussion about demolition ordinance so that we can talk through that. And then honestly, if we're really going to talk more about potential plans and overlays and whatnot, having that asset there to provide bumpers would be really valuable. Other comments from commissioners about, the ones that I recall would be cultural surveys. Besides the demolition ordinance, surveys, preservation plan, and then discussion about some kind of overlay district of sort. So if there are other items that are, we can go back to those meeting minutes. I don't remember if that was a November or December meeting. It felt like it was last year. Was it last year? I don't remember. All right. We'll find it. Sorry, I lost you there. Oh, there you are. One more. I'm still green. There we go. The other thing I suggested we consider, and we don't necessarily have to, but could we do something with the certificate of merit as a more effective tool for preservation in our community? I realize we can't use state taxes, but maybe we could use, we could waive permit fees if people would agree to having exterior modifications reviewed by our committee, for example. So, just adding that. Landmark light. I'm sorry? Landmark light. Yeah, there you go. Landmark light. Exactly. They wouldn't get the brass plaque. They wouldn't get that. Yeah. So maybe adding that to the list. And that came up during a discussion about a property that was being asked to landmark, and we had a kind of a split board decision. So that's part of where that came from. Commissioner Barnard. Yes. First of all, my apologies for having a crazy day. But I thought, should I be late? Just not show or whatever. I'm taking my chances. No worries. We got your corrections in the minutes. So thank you. And thank you, Maria, for accepting them gently. I was at the meeting in Boulder, a three-day meeting. And I want to thank the staff and the city council for making funds available for us to register for that. One of the things that came up in conversations with people with the various, and also in listening to the various programs, were that there are a lot of state programs available. And some of which they said, well, is Lama taking advantage of the, and I'm really the new kid on the block. So I really don't know. Maybe for the retreat, since that's what we're talking about now, other comments I can make during commissioner comments. Yes. Right now, perhaps in the retreat we could get some, go over some of, have a topic on what programs, something that doesn't really lend itself to the few minutes we have here with staff, but maybe kind of an overview of what programs are available, what programs we take advantage of, such as the facade program, which the person who I spoke to said she didn't think that Lama was participating in that. I said, well, I really don't, I don't know. I mean, I went to a, I went to a panel session on facade programs, and they seem to be good programs, but no, I didn't. So I would be interested if, you know, if we could have a kind of a layout of what's available to us, what we're taking advantage of, what we choose not to, and why, because these are all state funded activities. So, I don't know, would he, would be interested if the staff has any comments on that, if they think that's too big a thing, it should be a separate deal or whatever, or leave it like that and go with it. Good question. And then on the question, I wasn't here, so I don't know if we heard our monthly presentation on the east side historic district. We did not. We did not, okay. So I'd go back to something going over the minutes, something that commissioner Jacobi said was that, well, this has come up and it's come up and nothing seems to move on it. So I think what I'd like to hear in the retreat is go over, what is it that we need to be doing? What can we be doing as a commission? Is this purely in the hands of staff? And we just have to sit here and wait, or can the commission be having hearings or neighborhood meetings or whatever to kind of get off of square one on this, because I go back to the minutes from when I first came on, I read some of the old minutes, and every single month we hear the same exact thing and nothing seems to happen. So are there reasons why nothing's happening? Is it waiting for a bigger project? Is that part of our, can that be part of our whole discussion? I think I came in on which is discussion on the historic preservation overlays and landmark light or whatever. So I don't know. I don't know if that lends itself. It seems to me it would lend itself to a retreat discussion. So thank you. Any other discussion about the retreat itself if there's items? And I assume this comparison of demolition ordinance is really for us to take home and sort of soak in unless there's any, I mean, it's a decent amount of information on this one piece of paper. Yeah, I will mention that this is also Brian's last month. So we're losing a lot as you can see in this one table. He's making good on his threats to retire. Yeah. If you'd made your retreat on the 31st, I would have roped him into coming and explaining this table, but. Right. Well, and it may be for anyone who's really the commissioners here might be worthwhile taking a few minutes to see if it's accessible online at least take a look at any of the language in these various cities ordinances. If we really want to take a little time, earmark time during the retreat to sharpen. What I'd like to see is us get some pretty sharp detail on progress of where we want to go with this demolition ordinance during this retreat so that that can be something that can get taken care of. In a shorter period of time. If we didn't have time to look at all of them, which would you suggest? By way of comparison, I guess. Even if you just took one or two and just took it, you know, yeah, you know, I don't I don't know enough about any of them to know who's got a better main than others. Would it be helpful if I put together a basically a list of links to their ordinances and sent it to you in advance? That would be amazing. Got that on my task list. So I will probably in the next week or so then put together, you know, a link a link list and send it to the commission members. So you guys say folks can review these ordinances and see what. Yeah. Sorry. When we were researching preservation plans, I know I think it was Lafayette stood out. Correct. So I haven't looked in detail at their ordinance, but maybe they're tied pretty closely. So I would maybe suggest that. Yeah, that's a good point. Yeah, we did have I think Lafayette Boulder and I don't know if it was Loveland or another community, but Louisville. Thank you. I got the L right. Oh, that's not a 5050 shot. Those three were were good. And yes, we did like the Lafayette's plan. Mr. Mark. Yeah, I know I had them on it. Okay. The other thing we talked about as a possible retreat item was this discussion. And I of the. Some type of for sure. I'm trying to remember the exact title of it, but where we had had a presentation of different cities and we liked the Louisville one was. And when I raised this couple of meetings ago, the observation of staff was well, they now have somebody that's coming on soon and they'll be people will have staff time to talk about that. Is there any, is there any point in talking about that at the retreat? Do you see in something like that, or just an outline of what we might talk about to recommend to the staff to be included in something? Are you talking about something that would be potentially handed out to potential, I mean, to homeowners or something like that? I'm trying to think of what the name of it was, but it was a story, maybe it was a historical brochure. I'd have to go back into the minutes and look and see. Staff know what I'm talking about. I think it's what we just mentioned there. They have a preservation plan. It could have been Louisville. I can't remember, but we did show you as here's a great example of what that could look like. I'm guessing maybe that was it. It was multi-colored. Yeah. I mean, we have had discussions in the past over time about outreach to the community. And I think when Karen was here, she did a little bit of that early on and we did have a few people that came in and I think we might have had one landmark request and a couple of certificates of appropriateness of folks who decided to do a little work because they learned about the fact that they could get some tax breaks and so on. And so we have talked in the past about this commission doing a little more outreach. And as if I don't know if it's still there, but at one point there was a small amount of budget that was kind of allocated towards the commission, some thousands, nothing giant, but enough to spend on a little mailer in particular, in our historic neighborhoods, for example, just to kind of give people a little bit more, maybe their new homeowners or what have you, it's been a while. Just, hey, you can come in here and you can get some money if you want to make an improvement to your property, you can have application fees waived and you potentially could get some tax credit and it might be worth it, some of that. That might be where that's coming from or I might have, or maybe not. Would it be a possibility to get one of the media, one of the newspapers, for example, to put together an article about what we do that would perform that function? I would think that one of the newspapers would be interested in doing that and it would give us something to hand out later. Yeah, I think that's not a bad suggestion. I'm sure between the call and the leader, somebody might be willing to make a little focus, maybe as part of preservation month. Yeah. So I guess what I would suggest is, I think we can go back to that earlier meeting in terms of the hierarchy of items that we want to discuss if it would be possible for you to, when you send that link out, a proposed agenda that we can, because we won't have a meeting between now and then. So if we can get a proposed agenda out with a week or two perfectly beforehand just to kind of vet the information that we want to cover. Yeah. Yeah, because I have eight items. Yeah. So, yeah, right. It's going to have to be, going to have to prioritize that priority. Yeah, we do have three hours allotted for this. Right. No. A three-day tour. Good luck getting everyone together for three days. All right. So I think that'd be good. We can bullet point them out and maybe have you take a look and say, because you've mentioned it's priority for you to talk about demolitions. We get city attorneys probably a priority. Yeah. We can do some outreach to the state as well and put together, you know, maybe a couple of different agendas for you to look at. Right. I mean, my thought is, if there's a decent amount of time on this ordinance and we get real direction there and we have some broader topics that we just identify as wanting to cover in our meetings that we could, you know, we don't have to solve everything at this retreat. We're just trying to plan out some thoughts. And so then we can include, you know, one of those items on a, at a hearing. I mean, we have one item today, you know, as we have smaller, you know, if we have a meeting that has a ton of items, then maybe we don't get to it. But if we have a meeting that either doesn't have any public hearing or we have one small item, then we take one of those components from the retreat and we start talking about it and, you know, a little more detail during one of our meetings. Any other comments or discussion on the retreat? All right, great. Thanks. And then last on the agenda was Dickens-Barn Preservation Plan update. Anything? Yes. So I was hoping to have an agreement for all of you to look at this evening, but it is currently in the applicant's corporate people's hands, so they're reviewing it currently. So we have been working with the city attorney's office to essentially put together a dedication agreement that would function as a preservation plan, you know, a step one in a preservation plan. So we have, the applicant is dedicating a pretty good chunk of the property that includes the barn to the city. And the way it's going to be handled is so we'll record the final plat. So we currently have a site plan and final plat under review. We're waiting on a recent middle of that. And so hopefully by the April meeting we'll have basically a draft agenda that's ready for everyone to sign for this commission to take a look at before it goes to, I think council will have the ultimate signatory authority on it. Basically for this commission to give it its blessings. We've talked quite a bit about the plan for the barn but at this point the developer is planning to dedicate the land of the barn to the city as well as a one-time cash contribution of $70,000 to basically do some stabilization work on the barn as well. So once we have the barn in our under city ownership then we can move forward and determine if it's something that we want to go through the landmark process, et cetera. Figure out how we want to deal with it from there and really do some more detailed preservation work and preservation planning for it. Great. That's exciting. Yeah. Any questions or comments on that one? Oh, yeah. Okay. Commissioner Barnard. Yes. Do anything? No, I'm on it. Okay. Where does it go? During the, maybe you guys never should have paid for me to go to Boulder. But there were a couple of presentations including an absolutely magnificent keynote on the concept of preserving the history of the land, preserving the history of the buildings. That it's not just the building itself but how do you, and I'm screaming Dickensborn, Dickensborn. I've heard this conversation, what's happening with, so I was glad to see it on the agenda but I guess my question is, we know that this is not just a building that's being preserved, that there's some historical significance to that building, things that happened there. And at one point there was some discussion that the, whether one of the buildings would have panels or something which described why this was a historically significant place. Is that still in the mix? So that was, that was a discussion that took place early in the planning process for this property that was assuming that the barn would be demolished and not dedicated to the city. They were talking about well, we can do some interpretive murals or panels on the building. Now that we're getting the barn, we can actually do something that involves the barn as opposed to a 7-Eleven with some murals on it. So I think, I think we have, I think we have an opportunity ultimately to do some pretty interesting things here and because there is a pretty substantial portion of the land that's going to be dedicated to the city as well, part of it for a greenway. This would be basically called greenway land. So it's not greenway per se, it's property that would go with it. So basically working with our open lands public and natural resources open space parks folks to figure out what box we can put this in so it meets everyone's program, programmatic needs, et cetera. It is rather close to a regional trail. So there is great opportunities to kind of educate folks of why this barn is there. So good thoughts. We definitely have some unique opportunities. This is definitely a very unique opportunity and I was happy to be able, it was great to be able to work with the applicant and make this happen. So once the barn is in our possession then we can really kind of move forward and figure out exactly what to do with it, what grants to pursue, et cetera. Great. Commissioner Guide. So is this, I'm sorry I think it's been a while since I've, is this the property that is on Highway 119? Correct. Okay, so but we are losing quite a few other buildings. We are losing a few other buildings. I mean the suggestion I would make is that those need to be documented and the interpretation, whether it's panels or QR code or however you want to do it, that still needs to be interpreted because a barn sitting by itself is not, it's not the story, it's not the full picture of why, there's a reason why that barn was there and the barn doesn't necessarily tell that story just by itself. So yeah, so I mean the family was there and they had a house and they did, they farmed or they ranched whatever they did so they had these outbuildings that are associated with their home and with their property and with the land as a larger feature. So that's probably what I would suggest we would be interpreting, would be the actual, you know, the farm life that the barn was part of and that's what we have. It seems that that would be part of the barn rather than some panels on the 7-Eleven though. Right, no, yeah I would say, I would suggest like along the Greenway you would have maybe as, you know, two or three however many you wanted to have, but that would tell the story of that farm, not just the nice barn. Great. Commissioner Jacoby. Yeah, I'd like to echo that that the barn standing by itself is maybe a little less interesting than if we could include some information about the neighboring farm that came with it driving by, you know, I drive, we all drive by that place all the time, right, going out to the I-25. Some of the sheds look like they're in rehabilitatable, if that's a word, state or in reasonable state and some are totally trashed. The structural assessments we have are from the original developer who really wanted to tear everything down and I wonder if we could look at some of those, again from the city standpoint, if it's going to be on city land and see if any of them can be preserved and it might give it a bit more context to the barn. And the second thing I wanted to say was, yeah, you know, I'd love to see, especially if it's going to be right on the Greenway and that the bike path is going there, I've written up a history of Mary Dickens that I submitted to the newspaper that I promptly ignored for last year's historic preservation month. I could give you that if you'd like to look at it because that would be interesting to put on a panel. And another point that I think might be interesting for an educational panel, that property is at the intersection of the Homestead Act, which brought a lot of people out to the area before the city was even formed and suffrage and women's rights up until just about that time women could not own property. So it kind of brings up a number of factors of history that are kind of interesting and that could be put on a panel too. So just throw that out there. Great, thanks. So with regard to the other buildings that are on the property, those would stay on the property that's to be developed. I need to double check on the plot but I'll have this for you in the next meeting. It's really the only barn that would be, or the only barn, the only building that would be dedicated to the city would be the barn. They've really kind of adjusted some of their lot lines and dedications and such to make sure that the barn is outside of their development envelope, which it was not prior to, you know, which originally they weren't planning to do at all. Mr. Gargoyle? Yeah, so I mean I think probably what Rick was talking about is maybe, you know, they would let you move some of those smaller buildings onto your property so that again, so that I mean they wouldn't be in the original position but they would, you know, allow for a little more context to the barn. Yeah, so I actually was have gone on the property and into the barns and the buildings and I would say the barn is the least sketchy structural. They have them all. There are some sheds and some chicken coops and they're in various states but I'll go back and take a look at the historical surveys and such and the photographs but I know there were a couple that were in pretty rough shape. The house is not in terrible shape but I know it's also been altered pretty heavily so that it's not really close to its original form. So definitely have some challenges but that's something, you know, we can look at it. I mean, I know we've gotten a lot more out of the developers than we thought we were going to get out of them so I think that's something we need to keep in mind. Great. Any other comments or questions about this particular item? No? Okay. Then we'll move on to the last, which are comments from any of the HPC commissioners. General comments. Commissioner Jacoby. The risk of making this meeting longer. We were talking about outreach and you probably all know I live in a city designated home and I live in the historic district and I went to a neighbor's house the other day about a month ago and after our last discussion, our last meeting was kind of interesting because they have all new double pane windows and I thought about it and I had actually installed it themselves. I don't think, I'll bet they didn't come before the commission. This was about, oh, maybe 20 years ago that they installed the windows. The same owners sold the house about a year and a half ago but just before they did that they installed a swamp cooler and they put it on the roof and it was a designated house as well, which is interesting. Also, last week, I was emptying cleaning out files and I was looking at a file of paperwork on my house and I received a letter, August 2018, from Karen Bryant, the senior planner, historic preservation planner and it was sent to Dear Property Owner. Your property is listed on this city in the long months to register for local landmarks and it goes through and it explains to the owners of the house what they've got, we should be reaching out to everybody in these districts but we should be especially reaching out to the owners of these houses because I don't think that the modifications made to this house that I was discussing was done with any malice. I think they didn't think that they had to come before the board. Okay, this letter says examples of exterior alterations requiring certificate of appropriateness include painting, window or door replacement, roof replacement, siding replacement, room or deck additions and porch enclosures. Well, I can tell you I have painted my house different colors without coming to the board. I know many of my neighbors have. If this is something we truly want to be in control of I'm also sure we really care about what color they paint the house as long as they maintain it. But if we want that, we need to get this letter out to them. I've also replaced the roof on my house. Had hail damage, contacted my insurance. I didn't think to come here. I put the same kind of roof on. Maybe we should modify this and not say we need to know about painting. Maybe we only need to know about roof replacement replaced with different materials, for example. But if they're just going to renovate the roof, we don't need to have to go through the whole dog and pony show. But I think we should send a letter like this out to all designated homes at least every couple of years. This is dated August 2018. And so because it's really an honor system we have for maintaining these homes after we designate them. But clearly I've seen some violations just locally. I'll bet there's a lot more out there. So I can tell you one thing with regards to roof replacement. What's supposed to happen is if someone pulls a building permit for a property that's flagged as a historic landmark, it's supposed to get sent to me for review. And at that point, if it's something that, for example, they're doing like with like, it's one of those taking a look and saying, okay, well this either needs to go to the commission or staff can sign off on it. And that gets also to our code discussions as we've looked at our code updates because painting is not in the code anywhere. I've never worked in a place that, I do know that there are historic districts and commissions that regulate paint color and regulate painting types. But it's, they're few and far between. They're definitely few and far between. So that's something as we do our code update and looking at major versus minor COAs and what can staff approve versus what requires commission approval. That's something moving forward. We definitely need to have, from the staff perspective, it would be really useful to have some good guidance on that. Hold on, yep, let's see. I've got, yes, Commissioner Gaiu next first. So I think part of the issue is that your friend may be in the historic district but that's a national register district and we do not have purview over that. Purr home is also city? Okay, well then yes, they should have come. But I think a lot of times, there's this idea which I actually agree with which if it's on the national register, it should probably be on the low register too. But that's what you know. So we have those and then only, the only time we would have purview is if they came to us and they wanted to know it attacks credit essentially. So yeah, it's hard. Commissioner Fenster. Isn't there, aren't there any protocols in terms of turnover of these properties when you take ownership that informs the new owner that there are limitations and that certain changes in the property would be subject to approval. I'm not aware of that, but it's going to be very difficult to impose such limitations if the owner never knew that they existed. I believe we do the designation by ordinance and we do record the ordinance, I believe to the property. So, but does somebody read it in their title search? Well, do the real estate brokers know that they're supposed to inform the new buyers? Honestly, the real estate brokers usually use it as a marketing tool, like own this landmark. Well, but there's a downside. Yeah. I mean, it shows up on a title. Yeah, it should. Yeah, it should. Okay. I think the point is, like this board isn't really in the, at least it hasn't been since I've been on here, with a desire to see every paint color and roof change and so on. That has been, the idea has been that those sort of minor changes would be, really we rely on staff to be that first filter to say, okay, this is pretty basic. We don't need to worry about this. We can handle it. But the point is, you know, educated and understands this, you know, world here, right? So they're the filter to say, okay, wait a minute, this is enough of a change that warrants coming before the board. You know, but not, like we don't want to be looking at paint color and making people go through that either. Right. If they're going asphalt shingles to asphalt shingles, that's one thing. But if they're going asphalt shingles to metal roof, absolutely they would be getting sent to the commission for that. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Other, oopsie, I've got somebody up here. Mr. Barnert. Yes. One of the things that came up during the conference was that in the end of August, there's a meeting in La Junta. And I was wondering if the city had any funds available for people who want to register for that. I'm planning to go. I've made my hotel reservation. It's a, for those of you who don't know, La Junta is a fairly significant city historically, including what I didn't know. I had a nice conversation with one of the city managers there that one of the hotels there was in the Green Book. So it's, and there's going to be a tour of that hotel with the whole presentation of how it was used as a Green Book hotel. And there's evidently, that's just one of many things in La Junta that are architecturally significant. Ben Sports there. That was a Santa Fe trail. Ben Sports. So, like I said, I have made my hotel reservation, but I didn't register yet. I didn't know if the funds are available for that. We'll look. Yeah, we'll look into it. Any other commissioners? Comments? Okay. How about our city council representative? Thank you, Chair Lane. First of all, as always, thank you for your work and your service to the city. I did want to update you that the mayor has started a new thing with city council where once per month we've been meeting earlier than the normal city council time to specifically discuss boards and commissions because it's become apparent that unless you're the liaison, you generally do not know what the other boards and commissions are doing. And so our first one was a couple of weeks ago and as it concerns this commission, first I explain to the quasi-judicial nature of it and so there's not a lot of special projects compared to, say, some boards that don't have that same responsibility. But I did talk about the monthly updates that you've been getting about the east side historic, or I don't know if it's just the east side, but the historic overlay district concept and that there is a desire by the commission to have another meeting with city council on the subject but I know that some of that is determinative of what staff and where they're at, what their staff's at on the process along with consultants and legal. And so the council is made aware and we will be having another update later this month and so it'll be before your retreat so I'm sure that we'll probably be able to do a better update after the retreat happens so likely in April I'll be able to give that information to the council but they are aware of it and that's still something the commission can speak with council upon. So thank you. Great, thank you councilman. We appreciate that communication. All right. That brings us to adjournment unless anyone has anything else burning a fire. I see nothing. We have a motion to adjourn from Commissioner Jacoby and seconded by Commissioner Guy who all in favor. We are adjourned. Thank you all for your time.