 Okay, welcome everyone. Let's go ahead and and call the September 7th 2023 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to order Can we have the role, please? Chairman Lane here commissioner Sibley Commissioner Fenster here Commissioner Gau you Commissioner Jacobi Commissioner Barnard Councilmember Rodriguez Thank you. All right. Thank you Next we would have the approval from our August 3rd meeting the approval of the minutes Do any commissioners have any comments or corrections for those minutes? None I'd entertain a motion I've got a move. How about a I've got there we go. Thank you So we've got moved from Commissioner Fenster seconded by Commissioner Jacobi all in favor Any opposed none so motions are sorry the meeting minutes are approved Report from the chair. I don't have anything in particular to talk about this evening So I'll cede my time to HPC staff liaison Well, I have a slew of things on my report So first and foremost the Certificate of appropriateness for window replacement at 545 Collier Street that You considered and denied at the July 6th meeting Was appealed to City Council and that appeal hearing was held this Tuesday. So they Ended up remanding it back to the Commission. So it will be on the October Agenda so October 5th if I'm remembering correctly They have also directed the Commission to consider a certificate of hardship. So I'm working with the applicant to Get that and from it, you know get what we need from her as far as you know Getting her to explain how she meets the criteria for that. So that will be coming to you at the October meeting The other thing kind of similar similarly related to that There was some discussion about The neighboring property at 601 Collier regarding whether or not their windows were original or double-paying and had been replaced So I did some research on that in the file It was there wasn't much to find except there was a certificate of appropriateness issued in 2008 for window replacement at that building at that particular house It appeared to have been approved administratively because I could not find any discussion of it in the minutes so And I could not find there was not a building permit in the file I did could not find anything in our online system. So it could be that Window replacement may not have required a permit at that time. I'm not sure. I know at some point You know the IBC didn't necessarily require require that so that could have been the case so it's a bit of a mystery but Long story short it happened 15 years ago. We have different policies and standards at this point. So That is the update on that So the next item is The Tower of Compassion Survey Carl McWilliams is starting that we have a purchase order for his services So he anticipates sometime probably October or November ish. He should have that completed So once that is completed, we'll bring it to the Commission to review and determine If that's something if landmarking that doing a landmark application for that is something we want to proceed with His initial thought is that it probably does meet the standards for national register listing as well So stay tuned on that On the survey plan I'm kind of at a stone wall with our consultant that we were working, you know our general consultant We were working with or trying to work with to get a proposal. So That you know, we may have to RFP that went after all but Glenn and I are going to continue talking about that and see if We can't get some additional information. So we are attempting to proceed with that. So The only other thing I have is that the Dickens Barn and some of the adjacent lands the Dedication agreement is going to City Council on September 12th. So this next Tuesday It is on the consent agenda as a resolution. So I don't know Hopefully won't need to do a presentation, but if I do I'll be there So effect essentially the dedication will be conditioned on Approval and acceptance of the final plan. So we are still working out some details with the final plot the applicant But that that is moving forward as well. So and that is my update Okay, I have one quick question and then I'll open up to commissioners on that appeal I Assume that there's a video of the of that hearing and would there be draft minutes published prior of the City Council's meeting published prior to our HPC meeting That is a good question. I don't know about the timing. I would hope that they would be available, but I can't make any promises There is there should be a recording of that particular hearing on the city's YouTube channel Which would be live now? I mean It should be up now for streaming so that would be that is available so you can review the discussion and and such as well All right. Thank you Commissioner is any questions for staff Hold on I've got Commissioner guy here first Wrong Do you have a copy or template for this certificate of hardship of what that would entail So we have the section of the code, which is a two point five six point one zero I'm sorry two point five six point one six zero which does have some criteria for certificate of hardship Based on our much much like the appeal of the certificate of appropriateness This is something of uncharted territory for for this commission as well So we will be following the criteria established within within the sort preservation section of the municipal code Commissioner Barnard You had I know we've asked this question before and you've answered it. I just don't remember the answers on the plat That has to be approved. Do we have a role in that or is that just an administrative? I think it's part at this point. It's administrative I'm gonna have one more question on the appeal. I know the city's attorney's office loves hanging out in HPC Once a month would are they planning on being here for this appeal hearing or not this? So technically it's a remanding and reconsideration rather than an appeal. So it's yeah, I'll let Jeremy expand on that Good evening, mr. Chairman and commissioners. So our Kind of logic as Jennifer pointed out is that it's being remanded for reconsideration of the certificate of appropriateness For the board to consider their commission to consider hardship issues and whether or not that might play a role in their decision Assuming it doesn't We'd also consider the certificate of hardship at that point I'm gonna work people you're working with staff in advance on getting the staff report together assuming everything It's pretty straightforward. There's not really any questions. I'm not planning on being here Next month, but if it does appear that we're gonna have questions Or if the commissioners have any questions after the packets been posted have been published. I can make arrangements to be here All right. Thank you Any other commissioner questions for staff? No, all right. Thank you for that update. Oh Commissioner Barnard Jeremy just to clarify I just want to understand the difference you said We're instructed to Consider a heart that you're gonna work on considering hardship and then also Then there's a bit of argument. How do you distinguish those two? So my understanding of the proceed just procedurally speaking The certificate of appropriateness was decided by the commission then appealed the city council Then city council remanded the issue of the certificate of appropriateness back to the commission So I think we need to tie the loop about whether or not the commission wants to Change its Decision based on the city council's guidance Assuming the commission denies it again or maintains its prior decision We then switch gears and move to certificate of hardship application that the Applicant is filing immediately. I mean I was there so Motion I heard was that they it was remanded We should consider hardship my Conclusion from that was that the applicant would fill out a certificate of hardship and that's how we would consider hardship I don't know that we have any hardship guidelines that we can follow other than those in the city code with respect to certificate of hardship, so I was I didn't understand when you Express those is two different things And Commissioner I do believe we had to close the loop on the certificate of appropriateness still because that was the issue We're mandated it was a remand decision from city council and that was considering the certificate of appropriateness So I think we need to consider that I understand your point and I agree with you that hardship is not a criteria So I anticipate that the hardship aspect won't really play in a certificate of appropriateness But assuming the certificate of appropriateness is denied Again by the commission we would then go to certificate of hardship Again the motion as I heard it was it was remanded Not just for reconsideration, but for reconsideration based on hardship, so I don't think there's two issues here I don't think I don't think We're supposed to have any kind of emotion to reconsider period Full stop I think we're instructed to reconsider based on hardship full stop I understand what you're saying commission. I've provided my advice to the commission Okay, well, we have the person who made the motions here or we can go back and listen to it So would you expect that that would all happen on the same Evening it would be just a one after another agenda item sort of scenario. Yes. Yeah. All right. Thank you Okay Great. Thanks for that information Let's see. We will move on to public invited to be heard All right I'm a little confused on the direction from council because If it's coming back to us to reconsider the appropriateness, I don't see that anything's changed other than perhaps consideration of financial constraints So I guess we can we can rubber stamp what we thought before if unless Commissioners minds have changed and and to that point I'd be happy to have Any and all commissioners come to my house and see interior storm windows I have three different kinds as I said and they the data says financially it is much cheaper than replacing windows and Functionally it is very comparable to double pane windows. So Again, I don't even see how there's going to be a standing for the applicant on a financial basis But be that as it may we will go through the motions But I'm I'm very happy if any of the commissioners are interested in the seeing interior storm windows I'll be glad to show them Interior storm windows that I made personally very cheaply some that I bought through a commercial group that installed them for me and A separate kind of storm window that I made from a kit that I bought at budget home center So we could have storm window one-on-one at my house if you'd like Just not all at one time because that would be a meeting of the Historic Reservation Commission Ah So yeah, I would suggest that all the commissioners go back review whatever information you Would like to review prior obviously review the packet and we'll walk through the procedures as outlined for us And next meeting To the chair if I may just jump in to add one more thing And follow-up on Jeremy's comments. It's important one thing. It's important to note is the the council neither a Approved nor denied they neither approved nor denied the appeal. So basically there was no action Positive or negative to taken on the appeal of the certificate of appropriateness So that remanding is so basically that that question is still open So that's something that we they directed us to go back and we consider so we would need to as Jeremy said Reconsider the certificate of appropriateness and then move into the certificate of hardship. So Okay, thanks Okay, I'll I'll give you the time but I don't want to spend all day hashing out whether or not we're supposed to do this or that because the procedures are Outline for us and we're gonna get there So and I don't know that as a commission we have any Power to change the way the city sets up their Processes so I don't want to bog this meeting down in that discussion, but but again, I'm on the siege of the time here For comment and I won't take long. I just wanted I will I will I object to the way that the city attorney has presented this I don't think it's accurate and I'm and I think we should have some way Between now and then of having some maybe watching this on and see what they said, but I don't think there is any need for us to simply Restate what we said before I that it's I was there. That's not what happened at the meeting We are not asked to review our decision on COA Period that's not what happened What happened was we were asked to review it on the basis of hardship I have no position with respect to hardship if I'm gonna listen to the facts as they're presented if the appell if The person the person's cheating seeking to do this Wants to come before us and present us different. I'll listen to it at that time and I'll make my decision then But I just I just want to make sure there's only I I'm very I want to be very clear That there's only one item on That can be on the agenda right now If we don't want to consider that then the city council can take up The appeal or they we can write them back and say well we consider it on the basis of hardship, but we have we don't agree And that we don't have to then make any decision other than the fact that we did that Thank you Commissioner Fenster Yes, are we Component to hear a hardship matter Yes, it's empowered to the Historic Preservation Commission under the certificate of hardship Not certificate appropriateness, but certificate of hardship All right, thank you Okay, we'll move on now to public invited to be heard We have a short list here and if there are others following that that would like to speak we can Come up after this Please come up as I call you you've got three minutes to speak. Please state your name Before you begin your comments first Speaker would be Sarah Levinson Thank you. I Sarah Levinson I live in the H. E. Booth house in the historic east side neighborhood on Emory Street Couple of requests. I did watch with a lot of interest the HPC meeting of August 3rd Specifically because you had the demolition ordinance on the agenda. I was really surprised to see not Just the demolition ordinance, but staff bring an entire slew of other ordinance that was very important that The Commission had a huge discussion on that was not on the agenda Anything that you do that's not on the agenda is bad form for for governmental Transparency so I would recommend that if you're going to do that, please commissioners stop staff Going through those discussions because there was no presentation in the packet on this and all these other you know discussion points Were not given proper public notice. So please stop them from doing this again I would also like to point out that I try to find a staff Presentation on the new business item 8c to modify the land development code There was nothing you have 87 pages. What was published on the? Public records portal had nothing on item 8c. So I employ your not to Take up 8c because how could any of us comment or read it when there was nothing for us to Review and I don't know if you guys got something to review a couple of other points. I Would also like to point out that when you're considering the demolition ordinance that you also add another word to Historic that would be cultural and the reason I'm proposing that is number one The tower of compassion that you're going to consider that you're studying right now may not necessarily be historic But it certainly is a cultural resource for the city I can also imagine and you guys don't read the the land grant statement, but it The land grant statement that City Council and many other bodies read also calls to the attention that we may have Ancient artifacts and land and resources that are Native American resources and so when you say historic Could be prehistory it could be other cultural resources But again if somebody takes down a massive pile of dirt and you and there is a race a cultural resource there Nothing in the demolition code would cover a circumstance like that So I would recommend adding cultural in with historic a couple of other comments one of the other things that I found very disturbing in last month's discussion was Okay, fine, sorry That the numbers to the requirements to essentially Initiate something from Historic district or conservation district was raised so Unreasonably high that it doesn't really meet with what the city's Charter says for referendum and initiatives, which is 10% of voters or What the state constitution says which is 25% to do things such as recalling elected officials One other thing about the demolition ordinance that I don't understand is is that a quasi judicial matter? So I that wasn't clear from what I read. Thank you. Thank you Okay, our next speaker is Sharon O'Leary Could you please talk into the microphone notice that when I stand next to the microphone You can kind of hear me, but anyone who has hearing problems if you're sitting for the back They don't get the full bountiful beauty of your voice, but more importantly, they don't get the information and Attorney you're that you're also guilty of that your microphone is like Pointing at you, but it still comes out Not not doing the purpose. It's designed to do okay. I just want to create understanding. Thank you First of all, I want to thank you guys for working on the demolition code I just want you to think about three things As you're looking at this code I want you to make sure that it's appropriate reviews take place with appropriate reasoning Also that adequate and appropriate notice is given to interested parties We were left out on that Appropriate and the last thing is appropriately Appropriate penalties are fine It has to be hurt Hurt the bottom line enough so people follow the rules. Okay, if it hits them in their pocketbook They're going to consider playing by the rules the game 830 Emery Street was demoed because the home could not support a second floor Well, not many homes in our historic neighborhood could meet that Requirement or have the existing foundation that could do it and thus it could be demoed to put on a second floor I would say that is not appropriate I also ask that you stay focused and don't get distracted by other things staff brings to you during your meeting That's why it's important to make motions Get a second have a full discussion and vote and a winning vote direct staff And then you guys can stay on the course as far as Last month's meeting why the change from 25% to 51% for historic districts There's only a limited number of possible neighborhoods that could even meet that criteria So not many people are going to apply for it Do you think downtown would have qualified for a historic district with 51%? No But with 25% they did and we benefit from it. We benefit from grants and monies that are available Presently we only have three districts. What are we afraid of mid-century architecture? Is it on the horizon? Last I want you to update the designated landmark page and then again the architectural survey page still has not Been updated. This has been going on for months now It was what was it an accessibility issue? It's still not up there We have three districts that a lot of time money effort state and local monies is still not up there and it says Contact Jennifer if you have questions or problem. I'm sorry I think Jennifer is overburdened already and it will be very low on her list with if all of a sudden I tell everyone okay, if you want the information contact Jennifer. She doesn't have the time She's a busy woman trying to do her job. So let's just see if we can Move things along and keep our community Informed I greatly appreciate everything you do. I know you got on this board because of an interest Desire or passion and right now the city boards are all open with vacancies and I think it's great I think it's We the citizens of Longmont Not the staff of Longmont. We the citizens of Longmont are the game changers and the guiding lights So again, I appreciate you Thank you. Yeah a couple extra seconds because I couldn't figure out how to get started. All right Anyone else in the audience that would like to please please come forward state your name Terry goon, and I live in the east side historic Neighborhood in Longmont, and I'm calling. I'm here tonight Because I read through the new codes that you guys are gonna be discussing tonight and the feeling of it when you're when you're reading these codes it's as if you own the properties people are I Guess they have your blessing to live there until you decide that they no longer are keeping up with the property Maintenance that you are required of them requiring of them And as a as a person who's not had a ton of income my whole life and living in a historic home That it really bothers me the tone of your demolition might neglect Codes stuff that you've got written there. It's it is Basically a You're taking over people's private property or you the potential is there to take over people's private property Now sure you've got all these forms. You can fill out. You can go before the board You can you can make certain that your neighbors aren't assigning things against you you can file for hardships You can do all these things well my neighbors and I are we're simple people and we live in simple homes and sometimes these aren't the things that It's not as if we own our home when you guys are forcing this kind of thing down our throat and I just I want you to appreciate how it comes across because it comes across horribly it comes across as if we are You know lucky that you're allowing us to live in our homes up until the point where we just don't you know Take care of the paint job or the foundation or whatever it is that you determine is so important that we keep track of and Place our priorities on so it's this as if our priorities your priorities supersede whatever our priorities are You know if you've got a designated home that makes sense to me You bought this designated home, but so many are not designated and your code was talking a lot about Designated homes without owner consent. So that's that to me is a I struggle with that and I struggle with how it's all worded So, thank you. Thank you for being on the board though. Thank you Anyone else would like to speak? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing For your comments. All right, let's see new business review of the demolition code amendments from last Meeting actually, this is not new business. This is really It is really sort of prior business, right, but we got through most of the changes We had a few stops and I think the Commission want us to do a little bit more work in a couple of areas So one has to do with the big one is the penalty Sorry, I forgot this. That's my bad That's my bad. I didn't should have practiced a little bit more You only had 30 seconds to make that presentation One was the the big one was penalty for That we talked about for a permit moratorium We also Provided another option that Jeremy did some research and we can go through that We did find with our appeal that we had some snafu We had a snafu in the existing code that we corrected. So that's something That we'll talk about tonight that you have not seen on August 3rd and then Jeremy added some language clarifying what's a quasi-judicial decision of yours and what is not That was added as well. So We'll go ahead and run through that. I guess hopefully we have a Consensus that you would recommend this to the city council. If so, we're recommending that you approve our first motion which is adopt the proposed ordinance changes as shown or An option would be with the following changes. So if you have a few small changes we can certainly outline those and then Incorporate that into the recommendation to city council or you could say we don't like any of it We're not going to recommend approval of it So if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them or we can start the process Okay Unless there are any broad general sweeping questions I'd like to just go through it in big chunks Maybe you know our first section is definitions we've got that the definition of demolition Some changes to definitions of a store Properties If we could if are there any questions or changes or Comments on the definition section from any of the commissioners Chair what I might add is we actually highlighted the sections that are new now Commissioner guy who wasn't here last time so if you want to walk through them all that certainly makes sense Yeah, I was hoping to just run through each section just because yeah for that reason and just because I want to make sure that once We say we're this is recommended that we're good if there's an approval here tonight or recommendation of approval that Everybody remembers what we're talking about so Following that the definition section the next chunk that was that had a significant change was just the criteria for designation a Lot of that was word smithing and rearranging So we're talking about 2.56.0 So seeing nothing there. Let's jump to 2.56 point 0 7 0 which does include some changes from last So to 2.56 point 0 7 0 Okay, yeah, I'm just I was just waiting for you to get it up On the screen for everyone There we go. Okay. All right commissioner Jacobi Thank you. Yeah on see two five six oh seven zero a Five it still says 75 percent whereas on the next page It says Well, it says 51 then is crossed off and says 30 percent now percent of properties Well, that's the petition it says 51 percent on the next page for the application requirements But it says an a Five still says 75 percent and so that probably should be changed to 51 percent as well Since that's referring to the same application Unless we decide With comment from folks in town that we lower it further again, but 75 is probably Needs to be updated and then I had another thought about D the yell it out section It says That design guidelines should be consistent with the secretary of interior standards for treatment of historic properties required for all districts And then it says it shall be developed by the applicant and owners of the properties within the proposed district with the assistance of staff I Don't know if we want to hold every building within a proposed historic district consistent to the interior standards Certainly there are outlier buildings in most neighborhoods that become historic districts I Was thinking maybe it should say something a little softer like You know shall be developed by the applicant and owners using the secretary of interior standards Of interior standards as guidelines or something a little softer that would be more negotiable Should some neighborhood pursue a historic district I Just I can give you the history behind why it says that because that's what the secretary of standards Are the interior those standards are our Bible. That's what everything is judged against and so if There were to be a district that adopted standards that weren't in compliance with the secretary of interior standards that Would muddle significantly muddle the waters in terms of any kind of review of this body Right, that's a foundational document right and if somebody wants to exceed that They could but but to erode that would be Seemingly not wise That was the I'm just trying to make this usable document again We have codes that sound high and mighty and we can talk about the conservation overlay later but reducing the percentage of people so that we could have applications and Making it a little more flexible Certainly if we are gonna have a house as a city landmark We can hold to the secretary of interior standards if we are gonna make a national historic district We hold to the secretary of interior standards if we decide to make a city historic district, which we've never done If we want to make it approachable and usable Maybe we should make the the requirements a little more flexible and maybe we could get some buy-in and we could actually use this That's all I was thinking. Okay. Thanks. I Think it might be at the very least worth the discussion of percentages So maybe if we can focus in on that just for the moment I'd like to get any opinions from commissioners as to Whether 51% is the number whether it ought to be less We we've obviously knocked it down from 75 to 50. So I think that's a fair point in terms of whether that's Yes, I'm sorry that that paragraph F is specifically to the design guidelines So maybe they should be the same But the first one is you have to have a petition of 75% of the owners agreeing to the district that F is to those design guidelines that are Like you're saying going over and above Sharon, please. Yes Well, it's yeah, do you really can't just talk in the middle of meeting because it just it interrupts our process So it's Okay, so planning director you've so you've clarified that things that We've the 51% is in some refers back to this D What what I mean regardless of these particular pieces what I want to when I want to focus on so that we're not here all night is the percentage of property percentage of owners that Must consent to the district. So we're going to start up at 26 5 0 7 0 introductory paragraph note 75% and then it's repeated in that same section a 5 percentage of owners so I'm Commissioner Jacobi I Think My philosophy is pretty clear. I think this code should be made usable not just look lovely, but not be usable We haven't I mean with the code existing the way it is with a 25% You haven't had crowds banging down your doors applying. I don't see why we have to make the hurdle larger I would be happy to keep it at 25% personally Okay, thank you. Any other commissioners? Care to comment on that commissioner guy you Yeah, I mean I understand the 51% of me We live in a democracy and if we're not going to have every single thing appealed You know, I think it's helpful for us to be able to say that the majority of people that responded are in You know accord with putting you know at a district which will have some You know requirements are the people that were within that district So 51% makes sense to me. I mean it is yeah, we have we've had zero traction on historic districts since They were allowed, but I feel like if we if we drop it back down to 25 We're sort of setting ourselves back up for you know a lot of appeals Thank You Commissioner Fenster. I agree Can you clarify just exactly which that you agree with what percentage please just so we're clear 51 thank you Any other commissioner comments? Okay? I'm gonna note that and move on so the Section D here that's highlighted this has been changed And can we just get a clarification on what exactly changed from last meeting Sure, so I think there was some confusion of how it read and I think someone specifically wanted to Change appearance to integrity of the building And then we combined a couple of sentences basically So that it now states design guidelines consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties Shall be required for all districts and shall be developed by the applicant And owners of properties within the proposed district So anything underlined was added anything struck out was struck out Okay, thank you. We've heard from Commissioner Jacobi any other commissioners have comments specific to this section commissioner Barnard Looking for some guidance on the word integrity I mean, I know what it but we're expected to have integrity I know what it means to keep something whole and undivided is integrity Those are the dictionary definitions. I found I'm trying to see what This would mean I'm going to just to in order for flow I'm going to skip over Commissioner Gaiu and jump to Commissioner Fenster because this was his Request and I'll come back to you. So Commissioner Fenster if you I Believe your your suggestion was to change this to integrity Yes Can you my on Okay I intended that integrity in this context refer to Architectural integrity that is design integrity that is giving credence to periods of architectural design Thank you Commissioner Gaiu Sure, I mean I can expound upon the integrity issue and that when you have a property designated generally speaking That designation speaks to the property's integrity to either its period of construction Or to its period of significance when which may or may not be Architectural so it may be that something important happened in that place And so you want to maintain the appearance of that property in accord with the time period of that important event so In this art preservation generally that's what we're talking about when we're talking about integrity of maintaining that aspect My comment was going to be that Generally design guidelines are not something that sort of the general populace does I think that's a stretch to ask an applicant and You know property owners to do that they should certainly be part of the process, but typically it's That's my comment on that. Thank you any other comments on this section Okay, we're all come we'll come back to everything here the one big swoop at least that the items that were up for grabs But I want to go through various pieces. All right, so if we roll down a little bit F has a highlighted section that just included the 51% of the property owners In regards to draft guidelines, I'm going to lump that in with the same percentage Conversation so are there any other comments on this general section? Before we roll. No, okay All right, so then I'm going to roll all the way down because we don't have a lot of changes For a while here Okay, we're going to come all the way down to 2.56 180 it's page 54 of the packet 256 180 age 54 so the first set of chunks here a b and c we discussed last Month and there have been no changes There are changes to D and E I believe that in D. It was just clarifying that the Appointed person is the chair or the chair's designee from the commission and then in E can you Maybe clarify for us what specifically the E change was I believe this was something suggested by HPC that the wording was perhaps a bit clunky in E so We just tried to clarify it Yeah, so we've This is this is the procedure by which a This application for demolition comes forward to the HPC if someone says that should be This really should be a historic building you shouldn't be able to demo it it comes in front of the HPC the HPC says Nope, it's it doesn't qualify. So then the demolition can move forward. That's right. Okay. All right. All right Questions on this general section. I've got commissioner Jacobi Yes, I'm sorry, but I'd like to just back up a little bit to a to Which building areas would be reviewed Outside the original city subdivision I would suggest adding buildings older than 75 years Because not all buildings have been part of a cultural resource survey and we may sneak something out that's That's older and might be significant. It should at least be given a cursory review So just adding buildings over 75 years old beyond the original city subdivision. I would suggest we throw that in there I'm not sure I'm entirely clear but Basically Extretching the window another 25 years. So within the 50 to 25 that wouldn't be We could do it. We could do 50 also. I'm thinking all right. So this is 2023 we could go back look at all buildings demolished after 19 or before 1973 The odds it just seems to me the odds are low that we would not have on our radar historic building a building that had historic events Built in the 70s or the 60s But if you go back 75 years a lot of buildings might qualify simply on the basis of age in the period They were built and that would just add one more Stop point to say hey, let's just double check this building before we demolish it Which is why I was thinking 75. I realize it just adds another layer. We could make it 50 but I I think we could save Maybe staff and people a bit of time if we made it 75 75 I think would would Be more practical We do have 50 sort of scattered throughout the rest of this We could do 50 to keep it simple. I'm We can make it 50 maybe we should add 50 years then for and not delineate between the original city and City boundaries and outside the city any Any structure over 50 years and that's what it does so the very first sentence is Prevent the loss of structures 50 years or older So the first the start is if it's 50 years or older it be its potential and then it has to filter through all of these other criteria after that But if it's 50 years or older, but it isn't in a cultural resource survey It might slip out correct or am I reading this wrong? Yeah, I think it's what you mean see what I'm saying Maybe we so if we just skip this city's original city subdivision line and just say any structures over 50 okay, but If it's over 50, it's already going to be Any building over 50 whether it's in the original city subdivision or it's outside the city subdivision There are some buildings I know there are some homesteads within the city limits outside the original city subdivision And I've seen some and I look around so that's an interesting building making note of the address I bet I could pick some that have not been surveyed that are very significant to the history of our city and They could be demolished because they are old some are not in great shape. I think they should be reviewed as well Mr. Chair The discussion we had along this and in the why you're pushing us to do a survey plan is that we catch those So that's our ultimate goal that everything that is significant would have a cultural survey Right, and that is correct as well, but until that's done Maybe we should have the 50 year Catch point. I mean, I think the survey is is very sorely needed, but again, it's not done yet Okay, all right. There any yeah, let me get other commissioners comments on this commissioner of fenster. I agree to who you agree with me or I Agree with the last speaker Any other commissioner comments about this simply I'm gonna do it, too. I do agree as we're talking about this because that's The whole thing about you know getting the surveys and everything that's great And I'm hoping that we get those sooner than later, but in the meantime that 50 years. That's a really good point And that would catch a lot of things Does that then start to overstep though, you know to what Somebody was mentioning earlier what Terry had mentioned about, you know, is that starting to be like oh? It's a giant HOA over the entire city of Longmont. So So that would be my Again something to discuss. Yeah, that that is my concern Because if we did that we would basically scrap One and two and it would just say if it's 50 years old or It's eligible, which means anybody demoing any building that's 50 years old or in the entire city Would then have to get reviewed and I think there's a burden Not only on potentially us, but more so on staff reviewing an awful lot of Yeah, and I I mean that's why we're pushing so hard to get these surveys and get some of these properties identified outside of that now I Let me ask a question if Is there any mechanism for staff to currently identify a property With any historic that might have its historic significance, you know if I mean we just did it with the Latin barn That wasn't on a map and it it came up because of a broader Development plan, but is there any any mechanism in place to catch a one-off that might be floating around the city somewhere to the chair The primary tool and mechanism would be the county assessor data on when the building Was built if it were a it's a straight-up demolition permit Otherwise, there's a development proposal for a property. We will attempt to You know like I came in late in the process for this latent property But I know there was a cultural resource survey that was required for that property So as it really does kind of become a one-off thing as we receive development proposals that could impact potentially historic properties But status, you know, we have that discretion to ask for a cultural resources survey if we suspect that there's Something significant about that property But for straight demolitions, it's a little different. It's a little harder to do Because we just don't have that in front. We may not have that information beyond, you know the Built date on the assessor's website. I Think this was a concern raised early about How much can you can control an undesignated property? Which is what we're doing under this paragraph. So we felt there should be some guidelines now We do have surveys that are outside the original city town site. So But that doesn't mean we have everyone Every building's getting older every day. So That's just a little bit of background, but there was concern about just saying everything 50 years old falls into this net Commissioner guy Yeah, I mean I I mean my primary push would be for obviously for us to survey the complete city So that we know that is the that is the purpose of that so that then we don't have to have these discussions because to require You know review of every building that was built after 1973 that's what we're talking about is gonna be You know just a ridiculous burden on staff and and to for our time to probably not very helpful in general You know, you're gonna pick up one or two in a year. Maybe but it's gonna drown with everything else. So Personally, I I'm fine with the way it's written I think we'll catch enough stuff and staff is you know aware enough that they are looking for us They're sort of our eyes and ears behind the scenes and I mean, even when we do review stuff people still demolish things. So unfortunately So I think this this is probably a good medium effort Thank you Commissioner Fenster Do Do do we know that That it would be a significant additional burden In other words to put a fence around the 50 years Just a preliminary fence around 50 years so that they are looked at a little more sharply So that we have the opportunity to pick out significant structures I don't think this is a huge imposition and Probably a good step in The direction of future preservation All right. Thank you Okay, we'll loop back unless anybody has anything more to comment about that Let's roll On to we're gonna run all the way back down to the appeals section So that's two point five six two one zero. That is page 58 First chunk of this there's not a lot of change, but there is a section D Has been altered since last month getting my exercise Index finger Okay, so We had an appeal last month as you're aware of And we rewrote the whole land development code in 2018 and as you see we reference back to the process for appeals Back to chapter 15 of the land development code What was missed is kind of a key thing is an appeal is not a public hearing so it doesn't require the same notice requirements, but the Section in the old two point five six this section actually says You will do a notice per any other public hearing that has to do that comes before the historic preservation So even though we're saying the criteria is the same with the planning commission the process is different So that's why we made this change to be consistent with the process as well as the criteria Okay, thank you. Are there any questions comments commissioner Barnard, you know This whole issue of the appeals and the procedures is all and the References is that all also covered in your memo? Which was the next item on the agenda? Perhaps no Jeremy's that's different Yes, the memo concerning quasi-judicial By-law change just concerns quasi-judicial matters. It doesn't concern the appeal process itself. Yes, I'm not I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of taking away a notice of this Just in the interest of the public this it still has to conform to the rules of The that of what what goes on at a during an appeal we haven't changed that I am that's in number three and four So I don't see in what's harm what the harm is in publishing the information that there's going to be an appeal And and and based on also the fact that there are several people who were at that Appeal who were very interested in what was happening and maybe maybe they found out because of the notice I don't know I don't I don't see why we Should be burdened to take away a public notice Can you at what is there a particular explanation for that piece well, I think What we're doing here is we're we're tying HPC to a very similar process planning Commission, so and Still it is not a public hearing so somebody could receive a notice and they'd want to speak on the appeal they wouldn't be allowed So it's it's kind of a redundant process that I guess it's no particular reason Plus why do we differentiate the two now? So this this this is exactly how the planning Commission's wording is read Any other comments Questions on this section. Let's jump then to the maintenance requirements was just the next page two five six Two two zero I think so these are the two Components that essentially represent the demolition by neglect Portion of the ordinance So It does in B It is specific to a historically designated property, correct, right? So Unless it's a landmark property this doesn't apply and the only thing that would apply is the land the International property maintenance code, which is a generic code that applies to all buildings in the city. That's great Any commissioner comments and questions about this piece? Okay, then next would be enforcement and penalties. This was a big discussion last time so I If you would if you could explain a little bit more about the alternative and whether the alternative is meant to be Included in the code or whether that's an alternative that we as a commission are deciding between two pieces that would One would be removed in the other put it in its place so Commissioners I Proposed the alternative to C&D which was presented last time So under C&D with that more terror moratorium, which we discuss in length, you know concerning penalizing the new property owners and things of that nature So I went back and kind of looked at some other jurisdictions. So loveland and Westminster both have The one-year moratorium in their code sections for their historic preservation So it's pretty much consistent with what staff has proposed previously was that one-year requirement or one-year ban on all building permits Denver and Colorado Springs have the option of restoring so rather than have a moratorium in place Instead the commission will make a decision on how you fix the problem you created So if you you know took out some old windows and put in new vinyl windows that didn't match the structure The commission could order that hey you got to go back and place the windows the extent possible or find Comparable windows to put in that place not the vinyl ones you chose The harshest would be of course demolition if you decided to demolish a historic structure Under this code provision you can say hey you got a build-up back very similar to how it used to be It's a different adventure in terms of enforcement mechanism from my perspective You know under our existing enforcement powers. We do have the power to enforce compliance That was the section we moved down there previously. So if you look at subsection e Mission enforcement power enforcement actions available the city in the code. We shall have the power to enforce compliance through the court system that's a pretty onerous bar in terms of city resources of taking someone to court to enforce a historic preservation commission ordinance violation Whereas the new alternative D kind of spells it out earlier on that HPC is gonna get involved and advise you what you should do to fix your Unpermitted change your property Questions miss commissioner Fenster Yeah, I Excuse me. I question the viability of the Sea alternative I'm not sure That any administrative body or non-judicial body Would have the power to Order the replacement of a torn down structure as opposed to imposing fines of penalties But replacing the building I Doubt that there is authority to do that. I would take that out Thank you. Other comments and questions about this section I'm not sure it has to be in either or actually I Kind of like see but I agree with you that it sounds difficult to enforce But Perhaps that could be discussed at the time of the infraction with the developer and maybe they would prefer to rebuild whatever they They inappropriately tore out and get out of that investment rather than wait a year It doesn't have to be in either or we could just throw that in there as another option another two in our toolbox. I think the only component of that that would Perhaps not be true is that it does say the commission would order that so you couldn't say that you couldn't say that it Orders you someone to do it You would only it would have to be some sort of optional Right, maybe we could change it. Yeah the wording so that is an option right an alternative option And that and that's something we did talk about a little bit I think there was a point brought up last week about or last month sorry about You know if someone inherit, you know were to purchase a property that had the moratorium Would they be stuck and it's that bad for the neighborhood and an option could be the physical reconstruction of historic building But that's not the same thing is ordering it, right so There you go, I was stating it as an option. I think that's very good Okay, thank you commissioner Barnard. I like D I don't like the alternative at all. I don't like I don't think Commission the stored preservation commission should have in its power. I'm not sure it's even legal to order somebody to do something Order the reconstruction and not even sure how that we that would happen we'd we'd have a hearing we'd order somebody to reconstruct it and then Staff would go in and review it to see that it was being done in the same manner The buildings department or I mean just it's I mean aside from the fact that I think it'd be impossible in force I think it's a really bad idea For to give us the power to order people To reconstruct Building Mr. Chairman if I may add briefly I did gloss over the fact that D was also amended So under subsection D slightly above so in addition the moratoriums which are imposed the commission has the authority now to Shorten or eliminate the moratoriums if the commission finds the impact the moratorium would unduly impact the district neighborhood or neighborhood Or neighboring property owners and the owner of the property receives approval for a COA to mitigate or replace the alteration or demolition So it does the new Subsection D and the first alternative does get some of that remedial power To the commission as well so so D could stand on its own and the alternative just be simply removed and it would allow for that possibility I Have no pride in ownership to the alternative Okay, thank you for that clarification Okay, any other Comments questions All right Commissioner Barnett Sorry, yes, I Swerd No, what do we consider routine D, right? I've never heard the word dish Dismolish Demolishment demolish demolishment. I don't think is a word or demolition is maybe Well, the dismalishment would be the act of the small dismalishing demolishing And you're talking about something which Okay, I think if we could just make it clean turn that to demolition and it's consistent with everything else and that's Let's clean it easy. Okay So then let's jump to the last section here, which is I believe what was added to Clarify procedural steps Yes, mr. Chairman following our discussion last month. There was a lot of Discussion concerning quasi judicial matters. This is just pulled directly from our land development code We apply quasi judicial matters Evenly among city council land development and the Planning and Zoning Commission What we'll discuss quasi judicial matters and concern the by-law change in the next agenda item But this just is the exact language modified for HBC versus planning and zoning. Okay, so the in its entirety. It's just copy and paste copy. Okay. All right. Thank you Let's see questions about this section Commissioner Barnett Yeah, just well have two questions one is It's it seems to me That we're talking about a lot of things and I guess because we're making legislative recommendations We don't act in a quasi judicial manner to do that, but does that mean You know, should we consider whether or not whatever we decide here should be discussed should be exposed to The to the public and we should get some input Does the city count will the city council consider? When we give them the recommendation that we've actually listened to anybody other than ourselves to do this I don't know. I would think they would and I would I would favor whatever we decide generally here That's my general comment that we expose it get feedback on it and then consider whether we want to change the Tentative draft that we've that's one second thing is I think we have two issues here two general issues First issue is the issue of demolition We spent a lot of time on demolition and we're actually working ourselves down to where I think we have a pretty good draft We spend the second issue is this issue of How we act as a body, I really think that's a separate issue which deserves a separate set of discussions And I think the staff has proposed starting that discussion in the memo that they gave us By adopting section and I so I don't think any part of two five six point two four oh or Any place else where something like that exists in here? Should be part of our recommendation to the city on demolition issues. I think that should be a separate discussion and Divided from issue on demolition. This is the entire Municipal code section that deals with the stored preservation Commission, right? So if this if that piece were going to be anywhere It would be here. This isn't just a demolition ordinance. Is that correct? Correct. This is the entirety the historic preservation Commission until the big picture idea of moving into land development code, which Big picture idea at this point, right? Any other commissioner comments on this? If not, then I'm what I'd like to circle back through So If we were to make a recommendation to staff and it sounded like we that might be possible and we Could but with a few minor changes what I have Down just to kind of keep track of all this stuff is the percentages that were in two five six 070 and that there were three noted two at 75 one at 51 There's I Don't know if there's a hundred percent consensus around 51 But that seemed to be the leading Horse and there were some other notions about lowering it the The next piece I've got All this Was in that same section we discussed integrity and character and I made a note to myself that perhaps that could just that section D of 25607 oh same section Could simply be reworded to instead of to say managing the integrity and architectural character Could just say managing the architectural character and integrity So that it's clear that we're talking about architectural integrity The next one I have on my list is 256 180 Which jumps quite a ways down and that I guess really is the notion of whether we're doing 50 if we're whether we're gonna keep this provision as 50 years anything within the subdivision and outside of the original city subdivision 50 years plus those extra criteria, so we talked about that and then Discussed until we get down all the way back down to 256 to fourth. This says 2430, which doesn't seem right to 30 I think That was with the alternative so striking the alternative paragraph so those are the those are the kind of substantive points apart from some broader discussions That and so before we get to the very last piece I would like to see if we can't If there's if there's any if there any further comments from commissioners about those those really those three points the percentage Really it's two points the percentages and the the 50 year filter Filter commissioner Jacoby Just getting back to that 50 year filter. We made a circular argument I started by saying 75 years so we could filter out some of that So we would make less work out of it Then we said let's make it 50 to be more consistent then we said everything before 1973 now That doesn't make any sense and it kind of came the idea But I could go back to saying 75 or 80 years or a hundred years But set a guideline that's a little more stringent than what we do For the original city boundaries just as a catch-all until we get the surveys done How many years have we been talking about doing surveys? for the neighborhoods We've been talking about that for a while. We've been talking about this demolition ordinance for a while We're finally here, but yes, you're I mean so my point is Until we have the surveys done Maybe we should you can set the bar higher make it 80 years 75 I don't care. It is inconsistent with the 50 that we've done before But I think there should be something another catch-all in there Okay, I'd like to get commissioner comments about that specific notion Commissioner Sibley yeah, I'm When things come up for Demolition, right somebody applies for a permit for whatever And if it's not in Districts or something that's been surveyed before or whatever You guys had mentioned that yes, it you know, there may be notes in the assessors stuff blah blah blah How is the public notified on those kinds of things or what kinds of notifications are there and the reason I'm asking is Let's say somebody wants to demolish some house somewhere and it's you know outside of that 50-year thing So we don't have to worry about that However, maybe it's not architecturally significant, but something happened that maybe is worth preserving How would those things be caught and I'm kind of You know, there was a number of years ago when there was that house and I don't remember the entire story But the boy that was murdered and And that house then became You know on the red it got on the register So how do you catch those kinds of things because I guess that That would be like if I was gonna try to pick years or something I think that would be part of my decision, you know to try to catch those things, so How do you determine how do you determine what can get torn down? It's um It today it is an issue right and our goal is to actually get that Documentation I think on the other side the concern is You're an owner and you have no idea that hey, I'm my plans for my property. I can't do So if we found something that was significant There would be a notification at least to the property owner that hey, there's some special rules and that was Really why we made this change basically it was about property rights primarily We have a lot of surveys. We don't have every property surveyed. I'm not sure how we caught the Zlatan barn I think we may have had a pretty good inkling of its significance when it came through So we were able to bring it forward to the HBC It's a it's a risk, but to basically put a requirement on everything that's 50 or 70 Because there potentially might be An important event there that that's where at least from a legal standpoint there was concerns Then I guess now I have to leave where's that thought I Yeah, I guess you know You're probably gonna lose things, you know, no matter what and so I guess really maybe the thing is is you know How do we get the public to say hey, you know If you think something might be important, how do we get them to be active and we've got people in certain neighborhoods, but Anyways, I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with that, but I think I understand that the problem but part of it Anyways, I mean the best answer is it's significant. It becomes a landmark. Yeah, and we have a number of ways of doing that either the owner or Somebody brings in a petition Who is not the owner Mr. Barnett, yes, I'm trying like I could for Commissioner Jacobi to explain Clear clear where where the word changes would be that he's talking about with him 75 year Where that would appear in this? 51 versus 75 the idea that if it's 75 years Let me transfer the mic over for his response And if you'd like me to tell you I can give you yes So it's section 256 180. It's page 54 and it would take it would take a little wordsmithing Because the heading is review of permits for demolition for moving of structures 50 years in age and older So it we've basically set that bar at 50 and then added all these other filters in there That would be under a to Right you're talking about a to but we would have to pull 50 from everything and then add it back in Right because we've we the the heading is structures 50 years and older and that you so you can't have a subheading For structures that are 70 you'd have to rework some of the some of the language right to just talk about structures and then say in the City subdivision 50 years outside the city subdivision so you could change the first line the purpose of this section to prevent the loss of older structures that may have historical architectural significance take the 50 out and then Within the original city subdivision any structure 50 years or older I suppose you could put it in there and Then outside the original city subdivision any structure identified in an architectural cultural survey Or over Pick the year Years 50, you know what ends up happening though. I think with what you're suggesting is that that number two Just says outside the original city subdivision any structure 75 or 80 or 100 years old and all the other stuff goes away Because you could have something that that had the history behind it some historic Well, that's not old enough yet to necessarily meet the criteria But maybe some event occurred there and so it's it came up on a cultural resource survey Right, but it might not be that old yet So in that way, it might be caught separately Okay, does that at least answer your question commissioner part great commissioner guy Yeah, all right. Thank you. I did not give you the opportunity to do that on the record. I Would also like to I personally I'm fine with the 50 so I'll just put that out there But I also I would like to consider The public comment about this section that it does expand to cultural resources and not just historic which is very limited You of what's important to our our city right Any other commissioner comments there? I I Really understand what you're saying but the my fear is that we end up with some 75 year Whatever it is doesn't matter what it is everything else gets scraped and the next time that this gets all fixed is Who knows when down the road and so as much as I understand and Where you're coming from and I personally I would probably be fine with the way we've written it But that's just me as one commissioner Okay, so I don't know that we have absolute consensus on that particular piece Either I do we we do have consensus on striking the alteration out of that Enforcement and penalties is there any are there any commissioners that feel that that's a bad idea or that we can just leave D and strike the alternative Jive jump to two five six That two four three it's a page 61 Mr.. Barnard, I just want to support what we get there to what you're saying The comment that was made about adding the word cultural and that would be in 256 Dot 180 paragraph a at the word cultural after the word Common cultural or Architectural I think it's in there though right now it says that may have historical or architectural Okay Okay So Okay, right throughout is that so staff is that clear? Yep, okay All right, thank you commission to clarify that I missed I was looking at the cultural search survey and thought we had it in there, okay? so I'm just going to comment on the two five six two four oh the very last piece that was added with decision-making capacities It's it's my sense that a That this is the process that we have We had an omission in the HPC Code that made it unclear that that's the process that we have adding this back in Makes you know clarifies something that we've we we have identified that is Was missing and I don't know that this commission is really charged with trying to determine what the right procedures for Decision-making bodies should be so as much as I appreciate where Your concern Commissioner Barnard over this component I would be in favor of including it in now and getting it in and getting it corrected Because I don't know that this commission is going to change that whole process specific to this commission and and and Citywide or that that or at least that this is an appropriate place if it were if it happened elsewhere And it got changed across the board, then that's a whole nother Process and discussion. That's just my feeling the other comments on that No Commissioner guy you my comment is it's kind of a it's a little sideways in that in the past a number a small number of commissioners have gone and spoken with people that have been in front of the commission about Their project that was in front of the commission which obviously is ex parte and So I just want to be clear that that is not something that we are supposed to or allowed to do Yes, commissioner. So that goes back to I'm trying to think what Saturday I was with you all I think women in April April Fool's Day for the retreat when we talk about quasi-ditual ex parte communications Regardless if the commission decides to go forward with this addition or not our guidance is the same that when you're acting a quasi-ditual quasi-ditual fashion Which is certificate of appropriateness certificate of hardship and this Economic incentive application. Those are three quasi-ditual matters and the commissions My advice is always to avoid any ex parte communications Which would include Discussions with the applicant until such time that the History Preservation Commission has made their ruling and it's final. Yeah, we were I mean I Mean this is past staff, but we were actually asked by the staff to do that So I just want everybody to be clear that that's that's not something that should be happening And again the remedy for that is disclosure or recusal If it's limited contact So I think the example was if someone came up to you and said hey how do I make my application more persuasive and You provide some generalized comments before you realize it's a quasi-ditual matter disclosure is fine If you feel a substantial contact so they might influence your ability be impartial then recusal is required But it's up to each commissioner to make that decision for themselves But so how I'll be there a follow-up We do it once once something's on the agenda noticed. I mean it is We have the opportunity to go to the property to visually I mean I generally think that's something we ought to be doing and so if we are Going to the property to look and we obviously can't be you know We can't just force we're not we're not permitted to be inside unless we're invited to be inside But we are going to the property in order to understand better the property So where's the line if if some you know if there's a component that clearly would be better Observed from an interior and we're permitted to go inside. Are we able to just say look I? Appreciate this opportunity. I would like to see it, but you can't talk to me is that how to right? I mean is how do you handle that because there's You have to be there sometimes. Yep. No I completely understand. I think site visits was One area of major discussion back in April site visits do get difficult A neighbor comes out and talks to you while you're in the driveway or the homeowner comes out and talks to you in the driveway say, hey I can't be I don't want to be influenced. I don't want to have any improper communication I'm just taking a look just to better evaluate and make it a better decision And I think your your point mr. Chairman, you know if the homeowner is willing to invite you, you know I think it's fine to say hey can I Look inside to get a better view. I can't talk to you, but I just wanted to get a better view Um, I think that's fine, but I would still Prefer that staff did that included in a staff report I'd prefer it was staff doing it as opposed to a commissioner So if it came to the commission's attention that you know, we really need to see from the inside I'd prefer that the applicant provides the pictures of the staff or staff somehow arranges for Photographs or video that way it's on the record. Everyone's seeing that there's no X-part a communication concerns Okay, thanks for the clarification commissioner Barnard. Uh, yes, I um in with respect to D free It says the commission must not consider X-part a communications and it says any member of the commission showed disclose any Any involvement expert and fully describe it so On the one hand it says that it can't be considered And in the next paragraph it says well, it can be disclosed So that's contrary to being considered if it's disclosed then it you know, it's for the purpose of Consideration that's number one. I don't think that paragraph. I think that paragraph needs to be reworking I don't care if it was popped in from the land development And planning zoning commission. I mean they might have gotten it wrong. There's no reason why we should get it wrong all right, secondly Um Sorry lost it. Oh, yeah, the idea of if we do have that conversation and We disclose it Then we're just informed by council that we can either recuse ourselves or Disclose it and there's no guidance for that I mean if I if I don't recuse myself Can the commission force me to recuse myself? Uh, we know this issue of recusal has come up nationally With no guidance for it. It's very difficult to have any kind of enforcement So I I don't think I don't I don't I'd be interested if staff I don't really want to get in a long discussion on this I I think this paragraph needs to be rewritten a little bit. And so I'm not prepared. I don't think we should Decide on this to sit. I don't think we should decide on this today I don't think we should decide on the whole section today, but specifically I think this paragraph has given us In in complete advice on how to act City attorney, could you respond to just clarifying what what that At least the very first question So the very first question, you know my The way I'm reading it is the commission must not consider expatriate communication. That's the rule The exception is if somehow you came across an inadvertent expatriate communication, you shall disclose it I don't think those two points are contrary to each other. It's saying don't do it If it happens, you have to disclose it It's how I'm reading it. And I think that's how it should be read Chairman that's not what it says. Okay, it doesn't say don't do it It says the commission may not consider it. It doesn't say a commissioner may not do this to do what Mr. Terrell is suggesting We have to it would have to be a specific admonition in law Telling a commissioner that you may not a commissioner may not have any expatriate communication Okay, uh commissioner to go be Can we substitute for must not consider just say should avoid the commission should avoid expatriate communication? That would Maybe that would clarify it enough for you dug and maybe that would because you still would have to recoup It doesn't deal with the recusal issue, but it would maybe clarify things Commissioner Barnum. Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with the should not. I believe the goal of this is to is Based on everything I've heard and read Is to the this to make it very clear that we're not supposed to or should not allowed to engage in any expatriate communication And if somehow or other we do we disclose that And then the commission can do with it as it was as it wishes, but I don't think it should be a An a What the commission must not do? If you want to make a statement that the commission must not consider expatriate communication That should be a separate paragraph then as far as actions of the commissioner and what the commissioner Um should you know shall not or may not do whatever depends what preference you The idea that it's mandated that a commissioner not have an expatriate communication If they do that, they're not going to go to jail. They just have to disclose it Okay, uh commissioner fester Yeah, uh, I think that needs to be I don't I don't think it's enough To say that the commission should not consider expatriate communications I think that should recite that the The commission shall not engage in expatriate communications So I think that part of that phrase or sentence Should be reworded to that extent Because the way it's worded now it almost invites expatriate communications so And then having said that the commission Must not engage in expatriate communications. The next sentence would properly follow. I think So is your suggestion to just revise the first sentence to say commissioners shall not engage in expatriate communication. Yes, sir Okay I would have no problem with that and I am of the mind said that I would very much like to vote on this tonight And move it forward Chairman yes Yes, we're beating a dead horse but trying to get the horse in proper shape so it can race um The uh, the second sentence says any member of the commission Voting on an application shall publicly disclose their involvement in any parks forte So basically if I say okay, I don't want to vote on this application So I'm not going to vote on it. So I'll go have an expatriate communication And I'll sit with the person and I'll work with them and I'll you know You could have two commissioners go and do that still wouldn't be a meeting They could have that discussion and they just agree they wouldn't vote on it Because the only condition here for an expatriate communication is if you're voting on an application Okay, I mean, I'm not sure I find I mean at that scene you're right That's a loophole, but I don't know how we're gonna I don't know that we need to write the language to to try and prevent that I think everyone who's on this commission's generally good and you know, they're well intended So the I guess I don't I don't personally have a fear of the words voting on an application They're not needed any member of the commission shall publicly disclose their involvement in expatriate communication period So the commission commissioners shall not engage in expatriate communication Any member of the commission Shall publicly disclose their involvement. I mean, can we please? Yeah, okay. Go ahead. Uh, let's see Commissioner Gail so What this is saying is if you want to participate in the discussion Of the application But not vote on it Then you have to disclose Your expatriate communication if you'd like to recuse yourself You don't have to disclose anything. You can just step out of the room and not participate So there's there's kind of three positions you can take you cannot have the expatriate and vote and discuss You can have the expatriate Disclose it discuss but not vote Or you can recuse and take yourself out of the situation altogether Which is why it needs to be rewritten because that's no that's exactly what it's saying Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. That that this is not an open discussion. Okay. Thank you Uh, commissioner fenster has the floor. Yeah, I think uh I think that needs to be reworded uh I think I think uh It should recite That the commission shall not engage in expatriate communications and then the next sentence Should uh recite that any member of the commission Shall publicly disclose any involvement in expatriate communication and shall recuse I don't think you can engage in an expatriate communication and not recuse I think that's man. I would disagree with that actually. Yeah, I think I think you could have a what what amounts to Because we've unknowing unwittingly done it And it did not adversely affect the The outcome or the procedure. It was a minor I think I think you have to give some um Allowance for commissioners to acknowledge a minor um Minor pass Noon cure out Lex So if it's a minimal communication I'm not sure it even needs to be disclosed, but I'm talking about communications of substance where I think the commissioners should recuse Okay Okay, I'm going to call vote for a vote on this. We have um We have essentially if we we've got One two three four five six items That would potentially be um changed The first one would be the percentages in two five six zero seven oh Second would be that word smithing of managing architectural character integrity in the same The third would be the 50 year designation and whether that should any of that language should change The fourth would be this uh notion of uh adding cultural significance to architectural And I don't have the code set written down, but I'm hoping staff has And then if there's any changes proposed to the language of this last section in D three And I would prefer to get a motion on the floor and um and work through it tonight Uh, did you count five one two three four? Oh, I'm sorry. There was one small change about um changing the demolishment to demolition. Sorry. That was the other one Okay, all right. That was I when my went ran down my list. That's what I was writing as I went I remember there being a discussion about the language we changed regarding appeal Have we got have we decided? whether to go with that or to not I remember commissioner barnard was concerned about Taking out the public notice. Oh, right. Thank you for reminding me of that. I somehow lost track of that okay seven potential All right commissioner gaio So do we need to make seven separate motions? No one motion that would include whatever proposed changes Can we break it into non controversial and controversial so that we're not here all night? Picking at the one thing that people care about That we can we can try to have that discussion prior to making a motion. I suppose if we uh I think we have we have two The word smithing is no one questions. We have so three of those are just word smithing So then we have the percentage 51 Something other Is there any Issue with that? Yeah, okay Maybe we can take a straw poll on each of those ones and then we can figure out which ones we can just All right. Thank you. Thank you for that. Uh, let's just go down We'll we'll skip the if we can just skip the mic because it's going to take forever just from this end percentage 51 Okay, 51 so 51 is the percentage that would be put in in 2.56 070 there are two places where that occurs and that would align with the 51 in paragraph f or whatever that was okay the next uh component was the 2 5 6 180 Which has to do with whether or not we ought to Have a blanket 50 year and outside the subdivision have a filter or whether we ought to Make it 50 years within the original subdivision and some greater number of years outside the original subdivision period and then Just so everybody understands that would trigger paragraph b which is a liaison and Some member of the council reviews a permit application to see if there's Historical significance So we'll go the other way Thank you. Okay. Okay. I would probably keep it the way it is As written, okay. All right, so Um It appears as written is our straw Okay Then um, I have lost track or exactly where that uh, no never I found it again. Okay the uh appeal in 2 5 6 2 10 D 1 Did note an appeal hearing given according to this chapter excluding the requirement to publish in a newspaper of general circulation So if that were to be stricken Does that What does that do process wise? um From an appeal does it change anything or not Do you read the legal ads Asking that's basically what it's saying is we don't publish in the paper We can do it quicker because the newspaper has a lead time um That's what it means from a business standpoint Is it published somewhere? Is it published on the web or some? Yeah, so we post um There's a notice sign that gets physical sign that gets posted on the property in question um And then of course we do post on our website the agenda The public hearings get posted later, so Okay, I post them when maria tells me it's time Okay, so we'll we'll do another straw poll whether or not we're in favor of striking that provision or keeping it in And we'll start back over here Yes I'm also has written Okay, fair enough Okay, that's right. That's that's okay. That's okay. Um, all right, so now we are down to the um The last section two five six two four oh We've been discussing this paragraph d Three about ex parte communication. Yeah But commissioner barnard, I didn't know when to bring this up and I don't know if it should Put to a different to a different time for discussion but during the uh appeal yesterday yesterday tuesday Question came up Whether or not the property owner said well, maybe I'll just You know if I can't afford it. I'll just Asked to be removed as a historic landmark And the discussion was held as to well, how would you go about that and nobody really had any answer staff didn't have an answer And the uh council didn't know for sure um, how you do that And I don't know if that's something that Since we're talking about Landmarking things whether we should take that deal with that do we have it's in 2.6 2.5 6.16 0 revocation of designation So we actually have it in there. I'm sorry. Yeah, and and to the chair that we did make that point to the commit to the council We I was looking for the specific code reference, but it basically defers back to the designation So they did get that information. Okay Thank you. What is that 2.5 6 2.5 6 1 6 0. It's page 53 revocation. Okay talking about in homeowner Voking it's his own it's own his or her own designation this is reservation revocation of a historic district talking about I have a Dick you have an historic home. Okay, you decide you don't want to have a historic home anymore How do you do it? That's Gonna all the property owners have to agree with you in the district. No, that's that's there's two different things This is covering both Okay, so I'm looking for it. Yeah just revocation of a designation and so the designation refers to both The landmark designation or historic design designation So this is covering if I understand it correctly and city attorney looks like you want to respond or please do Clarify. Yeah, no, exactly that first sentence A petition for revocation of a designation. Maybe it's made by the commission Council or the owner of the property or owners of the property The second sentence deals with the historic district So rather than have a revocation section for district and property is just the same paragraph There's there is a process for both Maybe chairman. I don't want to jump in without being recognized. All right. Thank you commission brought it Oh, I thought I know you did have me on but I was from previous times. Okay um, I'm All right, it just seems to be it seems to be that a is dealing with two completely different things and it's the kind of a jumble as to Which one applies to which because a one two three and four are supposed to be subcategories of a but a is has two different things one is when you want to revoke the historic district and the other one is when a somebody wants to just get out of being a historic property and then Oh, I don't think it breeds Okay, um commissioner gaio So what it's saying is that I mean the the procedure is the same Whether it's for an individual property Or a historic district procedures the same. It's just if it's an individual property The revocation can be either us the commission the city council or the owners of the property But if it's a historic district then 51 of the People who own property in that district have to agree to put the revocation forward But once you get past that second sentence Everything else is the same whether it's an individual property Or a historic district. That's why it's lumped together because it's the same thing Thank you, uh commissioner jacobi This brings up the issue that I mentioned how to forget how many meetings ago Maybe we should consider consequences for revocation of a designation Uh an owner of a home could apply for designation They can save literally thousands of dollars on permits and taxes with Improvements and then they can decide they want further improvements that aren't approved and say up here's your plaque back with no consequence And I I think that maybe We don't necessarily again, it's private property. We don't want to handcuff them necessarily In one way or the other in this current House this woman bought this house two years ago And she knew it was historically designated. She could have read the restrictions on this You know, I think you could say she has a difficult argument But if she decide it's her home if she pursues this You know, should there be some kind of consequence for that? It's too late for her, but I think it's something we should consider in the future Thank you Okay, uh, I'm going to jump I mean, I think we have I think the revocation code language Basically handles that process is from my perspective on that Um, so let's jump back to that 2.56240 the very last piece that Uh notion about ex parte communication so if if there's If we need to wordsmith it or whether we Uh, if you if you want a wordsmith it, I'd like something very specific To be proposed By a commissioner not lifted open up. So, uh, let's see. I'm going to go I went so I think that 2.40 paragraph d item three needs reworking and I don't know how I could possibly draft something I'd be if you want to delegate it to work with the staff on it But you know that you could delegate it to me and somebody else and we can work with staff and come up with something That will accomplish the goals I think we all agree what we want to try to accomplish number one We want to accomplish the fact that they're that their ex parte commission communications are not something that we look upon Lightly and we we we don't think they should be done. It's not legal easy So we don't think they should be done. I think that if somebody does it that they should disclose it and then the issue of recusal I think is Shouldn't even be discussed. That's that comes down to what council said earlier Uh, it's really a question of whether it was incidental or substantial and you're not going to be able to draft that That's that's uh, unless you want to say incidental or substantial, but then you're gonna what's what and what's the other thing I think you just say you shouldn't be done and It uh And that you disclose your see you could disclose it if you did it Okay You know, I think the wording is not perfect, but I think it communicates the point enough and to move forward. I'm good I'm happy to keep it as written I I generally feel the same way Um, I will ask a question of staff after this poll just to for clarity. However Again, I think it's fine as written. I mean there could probably be a slight addition between the difference between a You know disclosing and then recusing That would be up to the only addition I think that paragraph needs to be rewritten Okay Yeah, the only thing that I really had to add and it was already talked about was um That you may recuse yourself. I don't know that you have to I'm Other than that I I'm fine like yeah a little bit of wordsmithing. I guess is it Okay okay, so That's the only thing that is even remotely up in the air at this point Is there I'm I would really prefer not to push this off until next month. So Is there any mechanism that we have that to suggest that You know commissioner barn has suggested that perhaps, you know, we could dedicate or assign A council person to work with staff to get the language To where they were happy with it. I don't know if that's if we can make that part of a motion It feels a little muddy But I would like to ask if that's a possibility I guess the risk would be Is does it become substantial enough that we feel everybody ought to see it um And I I think I counted four folks that like it has written I I guess So maybe just call the question I understand I was counting as well, but I also want to put the question out there formally I don't I'm not really with the mechanism for that. I don't know how we we do that I would I'd be concerned about One commissioner or two commissioners and a staff member taking Authorship and possibly changing what that says um, I will reiterate that again, this is just from the land development code. I understand that People don't like that it what it says, but it's it's consistent with what it says for planning and zoning Uh, and the last point is just that we're still just recommending body for these code changes. So if City council decides they want to rework that section We can rework it and then redo it with planning and zoning as well Right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I would like to call for a motion Is there anyone if there's anyone here that would like to make it? I would entertain it commissioner got you I'll motion that we change The 75 to the 51 percent in Section 2.56.070 Uh, and that we uh, leave A slight word smithing on changing architectural character to or the character integrity to architectural character and integrity You know what I'm saying Strike the the alternative from section that you know, which section it is and And then we are adding cultural to historic and architectural Significance and I believe we are leaving everything else Okay, I have a motion Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. So we have a motion from commissioner gaio and a second from commissioner sibley. Is there any further discussion? No, I will then uh, call for a vote all in favor Ask for a roll call roll. Sure. We can do a roll call vote. So, uh, commissioner sibley Yes, commissioner fenster Opposed commissioner gaio Yes Commissioner fenster I'm sorry. Gosh. It's getting late commissioner jacobi. Mr. fensters over there Yes, approved. Okay, commissioner barnett. Okay, and as a chair, I vote yes So the motion passes four to two All right. Thank you all for your participation and All the discussions and for staff For walking us through all this Okay We do have a couple of other agenda items The next one was a discussion of quasi judicial decisions and commission bylaws And I can multitask commissioners. So while I'm pulling it up, I will also talk about the proposed bylaw change The proposed bylaw change represented presented by staff and the city attorney's office is present consistency among its quasi judicial boards For the city of longmont The planning and zoning commission has adopted a bylaw change Um, very similar informed to what is proposed here And this is exactly what city council has adopted for their rules of procedure And it goes back to the quasi judicial hearings. So the concern is that Uh, during public invited be heard segments of commission meetings. Anyone can speak on any topic Um, unfortunately that opens up the possibility that someone might come and speak on quasi judicial matters Here it doesn't present a fair hearing if that happens because public can't hear the comments made by the applicant Perhaps the applicant doesn't hear the comment made by the member of the public So to ensure due process the city attorney's office and staff is recommending this bylaw change Which gives the chair discretion To direct a speaker to terminate all remarks and upcoming matters where the commission may hold a quasi judicial hearing Uh, if that happens the speaker should be instructed That they can attend the public hearing on the matter or they can submit written materials to city staff for inclusion in the record Uh, this is again consistent with planning and zoning commission Along with city council And it goes back to principle of due process and fairness for both members of the public along with the applicant Great. Thank you. Are there questions for city attorney Questions or comments? Sure. Yeah See commissioner guy I could you expound a little bit on Um, how you're defining I think upcoming So it really comes down to once we know it's coming up on the radar Uh, and that really triggers when an application has been filed That's really the defining moment is once the application has been filed. That's when the quasi judicial restrictions should go in place And so that's we know that like how's the chair going to know that to be able to stop somebody talking about? It's traditionally been a communication by the liaison or planning director as kind of a Hey wave wave our hands start winking something like that a cue Um, it's a little bit different where we're talking planning and zoning where we have a planning Map that shows active developments going on Versus here. We don't have that same kind of process in place. So it comes down to the liaison staff kind of Waving the chairman. Hey, mr. Chairman quasi judicial matter that actually happened At our last planning and zoning commission, I believe glenn pointed out we were getting into a realm of quasi judicial matters and We kind of addressed I I do know the city attorney also notifies city council um, I think when we get an application for quasi judicial and um We can certainly do that with you as well When we know send you an email. Hey Just so you know where you have an application on Whatever it is Okay, commissioner fenster Uh, neither of those paragraphs makes any sense to me And Unless they were substantially changed I'd vote against them I don't I don't understand their purpose And whatever is their purpose it's mixed up particularly in the second paragraph Commissioner bonner Yeah, I think uh, this whole thing is overkill I don't think it's uh, and I think it's unclear and it puts burdens on us Especially in the issue of upcoming matters Yeah, and I don't uh, you know, I think that's a fairly Lucy goosey term It doesn't have any place in bylaws um If you want to make Uh, I understand I understand the issue of expatriate communication and during For things that are set for hearing or that we have determined will be set for hearing If we haven't made a determination Based on the recommendations of staff that something is going to be subject to a hearing I mean it could be anything and I just don't I don't want that burden of So I don't I If it's not if the language is not changed I would vote against it Any other questions or comments? From my perspective as the chair I mean I found this a little maybe over much for the hpc Just because we get so so little comment And typically If we have a public hearing I would make the point That anyone coming up In the beginning for public invited to be heard would only be something that's not On the agenda now. I understand that somebody well, for example, we had we had um We had a whole pile of people probably five or six or maybe avian eight came in and asked To talk about the bone farm Now that wasn't anything that ended up on our Agenda because it's not under our jurisdiction But if we had eight people show up about some Potential development in a historic on a historic property or something like that Are we really gonna Somehow tell them I mean so this this provision would basically say you don't have the right to speak now You need to come back during the You know when it ends up on the agenda Is it that's right? Correct. Yeah And it's my understanding that this was requested by a commissioner. I might be mistaken I believe it was a commissioner. I don't recall which of you may have requested this but I don't I think we I think there was some May there's a question about discussion about I think there was a discussion about the fact that this was happening in other In the planning commission and in the city council and so It was offered to discuss it here. I don't love it either. I probably wouldn't Just You know again Are we are we being asked to vote on this to include in the bar laws or is this just an I mean it is a It's a business. Let's see. It's just a new business P so do we have Is this an actionable thing we're really going to call for a vote or is this just a piece of information for consideration I I think everything in here is a true statement that should apply Regardless whether or not it's adopted in the bylaws If someone makes a comment concerning a quasi judicial matter if the chair feels comfortable Instructing say and bring that back to public hearing. It's not direct time. It does as bylaw. That's fine If the chair feels comfortable and the commission feels comfortable just knowing that Experts communications are you know knows even during public invited to be heard I I then I leave this to your the commission's discretion to adopt it or not Okay, right Thank you Let's see commissioner Barnard. Yeah, so I would move that we Utilize option three and that we reject the amendment to the 2023 bylaws Okay, there is a motion on the floor I second it. Okay, so we have a motion On the floor to Not to include the proposed amendment in the bylaws seconded by commissioner jacobi No, no Motion to reject the amendment to the bylaws by commissioner Barnard second Yeah, all right. So, okay. So that's thought that's what I said, but I'm getting tired Yes, the motion was by commissioner Barnard second by jacobi Any discussion? Okay, well, then I guess I'll call for a vote all and All those in favor of The motion They say hi Any opposed To opposed Okay So that motion carried four to two as well So we're not including it You just you made your motion passed By four to two. Okay. There are no changes about okay. So then I So moving on to the item three so what I'm going to ask so there was a point made during the The public invited to be heard about the fact that this wasn't there was no nothing in the packet. So Can we ask what I mean, is there information that we Why was there nothing in the packet? I guess is the simple way to ask that We put this on On the request of commissioner jacobi. So I'm not really sure Whether I think what you would say is if after his explanation Yes staff should do something that would be a motion But I don't really know what okay, it's going to be So this was really just put out there at the as we requested just for the discussion Right to have here, right. Okay. Okay, and I know that we've been pushing this off and off and off. So I will give The commissioner jacobi the floor here to explain Um Well, as you all know the historical site has been trying to deal with the conservation overlay and pursuing this Uh, the current code was written in 1997. It was not revised in 2018 So for 26 years it's been on the books and has not been used And I believe the main reason it has not been used is not because there is not interest, but it it is Is functionally unable to be used easily because of the expense What the the code is written if you read through the whole thing the conservation overlay code says basically you have to have a cohesive community or a neighborhood And then the neighborhood group leader has to write for an application Uh, and they write an application and send it in and then it is treated as rezoning Rezoning is usually done by developers who have money who are trying to change things Whereas conservation is usually done by neighbors who don't have resources So even though it follows the same procedure, it is inherently different Several of the the uh code the problems with the rezoning code one is it requires That we notify not every but only everybody in the neighborhood But everyone a thousand's feet in every direction around the neighborhood Well, if you're not making a change you shouldn't have to notify everybody outside of the neighborhood If you're going to make restrictions and the conservation overlay. Yes, the neighborhood needs to know And currently with the way the rules are written the planning director can waive That requirement and reduce the expense We the neighborhood still has to have mailers to every household In the neighborhood explaining that we are going to do this and what it is and that's a significant expense Uh, currently, uh, the neighborhood group leaders association uh does have funds and The east side neighborhood did apply for those funds for the mailers And we have money to do that now to send I believe two letters out to every household in the neighborhood But then there was the initial planning meeting And at the planning meeting it turns out that there is a fee for doing this the fee for the neighborhood would be $2,250 I think was the estimate and it's based on the size of the neighborhood Um The planning director does not have authority to waive that fee right now And so what I am simply asking is that we make a recommendation while we're putting these code changes in That the planning director has the authority to waive that fee So that neighborhoods could pursue a conservation overlay if they decide to currently his national historic districts Uh have some economic benefits, but there are no restrictions on what you do within them Okay, the historic east side has a four and a half block five block historic district But the neighborhood itself is much larger than that And again, there's no restrictions on what is done there and we would like to restore restrictions that were in place until the 2018 code was rewritten at that time the city promised that they would get to it if we could just get this new code passed we'll get to that sometime Well, that's been five years and it hasn't happened yet and Again, we don't have the neighborhood does not have the financial wherewithal to make the change It's been suggested we go to city council to make To see if they will provide direction to planning so that we can waive the fee And the neighborhood is actually pursuing that right now So hopefully you'll be hearing soon at some point about that But not every neighborhood has the energy or the organization to do that that the historic east side has And i'm thinking specifically of the historic west side neighborhood, which is much larger and the fee would be larger and I think the code needs to be tweaked a little bit to be usable. So that's why I made the motion Last time that we recommend to modify the city code To allow the planning director to be able to waive the application fee for a conservation overlay For applications from city designated neighborhood groups And if we can just vote on that quickly tonight, I would love it. It doesn't seem that controversial But if we want a discussion, we can table it another day I don't think there's any reason to table it I want to put it on the agenda so that there was an opportunity to discuss it as an agenda item instead of during HBC comments, so we I made the motion Would someone like to Hold on hold on hold on That was you just described your motion from last time I would like to open the floor to any other commissioners that have a question about this If no one does then then we can go there So any commissioners that would have a question or comment about The clarification, okay I did not recognize the chair did not recognize the motion just so that we can be real clear about this So would you please if hold on All right Commissioner guy who has a comment. Thank you. I'll put the motion forward as stated by commissioner jacoby Okay, we have a motion can I second it? Yes. All right There you go All right, we have a motion and a second All in favor Any opposed None, okay. Thank you that passes unanimously. All right. I know everybody wants to get out of here Okay So my understanding would be that we've just directed staff to propose a change in the code to allow for Basically to include the Neighborhood associations as an element that can be Qualified for waivers. Do you have any questions as to what direction you need? Because I'm assuming that what you would then do is bring back a little revision to us just to Comment upon or Typically what we do is is we just discuss it with city council. Okay before we do additional work. Okay Um, so how we do that. I'm not quite sure yet, but We'll figure that out sometimes The lay is on would bring that forward And see if there is enough interest from all the council to do that So we will figure that out Okay, and then what we need is direction from city council. Right. Okay. Okay. All right Thanks. So if you could just keep us informed in the staff reports as to That status one more thing to add to your list Um, okay comments from hbc commissioners Anybody have anything else they'd like to add this evening? Commissioner Barnard Yes First I want to thank the city of long mod for paying the registration for my trip to la junta for the savings places conference Saving places conference. Um, I just want to report to the Commissioners that it was a fantastic conference Um, it was the equivalent of a full statewide conference and people from all over there that great panels Great presentations and I I've got to tell you that I thought I knew something about the state But I really learned a lot about what just what the importance of the southeast section of colorado was and why it was So critical being the jointer of two railroads and how the town grew and grew and grew And then it fell and fell and fell and fell and how the main message I got out of it was When the town was down We all got together and said, how do we get back up again? And the answer was historical Historical significance So they went around and they found all these historical significant things and they applied for grants And they got lots of money and they were able to build the town up and now it's you know It's a lot of meetings there a lot of people coming there and so It is it's a valid. It was a validation of the work of historical preservation That it's not just something that we Do and it's nice and you get labels and all that it actually can have a significant impact on the development of your community Great. Thank you Any other comments? Seeing none Comments from city council representative And thank you chair lane One thing that was not mentioned earlier in the meeting about some of the things that happened at city council was that a motion was passed that The conservation overlay be brought back before city council and it was conditioned on HBC making a recommendation before it comes to city council So just to let you know, I'm sure that'll come to your agenda at some point And we're waiting on your recommendation before we take up the issue again Otherwise, thank you all for the work you do Thank you With that I would entertain a motion to adjourn All in favor We are adjourned. Thank you