1 2 3 4 6 9 10 2. Roll Call 11  HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION  Minutes September 5, 2024  5 1.N Meeting Called to Order  7 The September 5, 2024 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by 8 Chairman Steve Lane at 6:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 350 Kimbark Street.  12 Present were Commissioners Steve Lane, Susanne Sibley, Herb Fenster, Dawn Terrick, Holly 13 Norton, Rick Jacobi, Doug Barnert and Council Representative Mayor Joan Peck. Also present 14 were Principal Planner Jennifer Hewett-Apperson and recording secretary Maria Yost.  15 17 20 21 Motion 24 25 Vote 27 29  16 3. Approval of the August 1, 2024 Meeting Minutes  18 Commissioner Barnert had clarifications toj page 3, lines 28-34. The conference he was referring 19 to was in Boulder and the girl's camp is located in Steamboat Springs. Corrections will be made. 22 Commissioner Jacobi moved approval of the August 1, 2024 meeting minutes with changes as  23 discussed. Commissioner Norton seconded the motion. 26 Minutes approved unanimously with corrections 7-0.  28 4. Report from the Chairperson  30 Chairman Lane forwarded the article to the Commissioners that was published in the Boulder 31 Weekly on August 27th about the Tower ofCompassion. Hei thought it was a very well done article 32 and thanked everyone for their efforts in the landmarking of the Tower. They will also be doing 33 an article on the TinkerMill and have asked him to comment on behalfo oft the Commission. 35 He informed the Commission that he was asked by the State of Colorado to serve on the State 36 Review Board starting in January. Thel board does reviews ofs state and federal nominations to the 37 National Register. He intends to accept the invitation to serve on this board. He wanted to thank 38 anyone that referred him to this board and will keep the Commission updated going forward.  34  39 40 5. 41 43 44 45 46  Communications from HPC: StaffLiaison  42 Jennifer spoke to the Commission about the following:  Administrative Reviews: There are: no new administrative Certificates of Appropriateness: for review this month. A new application for potential residential tax credits was received  today, and this item will be brought before the board for review.    Historic Preservation Commission September 5, 2024 Minutes Page 2 of17  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 29 31 meeting time. 32 33 Motion 35 seconded the motion. 36 Vote 37 Motion passes unanimously 7-0. 38  Tower of Compassion: Public hearing for the landmark designation is. going to be held at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, September 10th. This will be under the second HPC meeting start time: Council Chambers are again available for the Commission's normal meeting start time at 5pm. Ift the Commission decides to keep the start time at 6pm, October 3rd HPC meeting: Jennifer will be attending the Colorado Planning Association Conference in Loveland that week. If the Commission has agenda items for next month, she suggested tol keep the October meeting at 6pm to allow her travel time from Loveland. New Public Information Officer: Rogelio Mares. Ift the Commissioners receive any press Beauprez Farm: There is an application for consideration for an amendment to the existing annexation concept plan. If the historic farm buildings on the property are eligible for landmarking status and are annexed into the City, they would want to coordinate this with the County. She is in communication with Kristin Cote who is thej project manager for that property. There have been discussions with the applicant about the farm buildings, and there have been modifications to the sewer line project on the property. There was a pre- application meeting held for this property and it is in the early stages of review with development review staff. She also mentioned that the City's building permit folks have been contacting her if there is any question on whether a property might need historic  reading public hearing items on their agenda.  they will need to amend their bylaws to reflect this.  inquiries, please direct those to Rogelio.  review for exterior ori interior projects.  27 Chairman Lane askedifai formal motion is needed for the October 3rd, meeting start time. Hej polled 30 Jennifer advised that a formal motion is needed, and then take up the question of the permanent  28 the Commission, and all were in agreement for ai meeting start time at 6pm.  34 Commission Jacobi moved that the October meeting be held at 6pm. Commissioner Norton  39 Chairman Lane asked the Commission and Jennifer ifa 5pm or 6pm meeting start time would be 40 preferred going forward. Everyone was in agreement to keep the start time at 5pm for the regular 43 Note: Starting in November, the meeting start time will default back to 5pm. No amendment to the 44 Bylaws is needed. The Bylaws state that the Commission meets on the first Thursday of each  41 meetings. 42  45 month at 5pm.  2    Historic Preservation Commission September 5, 2024 Minutes Page30 of17 1 6. 2 4 6 8 9 7. 10 11 12 13 14 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  Public invited to be heard - for topics other than public hearings  3 Chairman Lane opened the public invited tol be heard.  5 No one wished to speak.  7 Chairman Lane closed the public invited to be heard.  Public Hearing  A. 844 Baker Street - Consideration of request to demolish a structure more than 50  years old located within the Original Town plat  Action Requested: Decision  15 Staff Presentation  17 Jennifer spoke to the Commission about the following:  The house at 844 Baker Street is a 753 square foot vernacular hipped roof wood frame Ap pre-application meeting with members of the Development Review Committee to discuss the proposed demolition and subdivision ofproperty for 2 single-family homes was Staff recommended that the applicant be proactive and go through the demolition review process ahead ofpursuing the minor subdivision plat for the property to determine whether the demolition would bej permitted before going through any formal application processes. The Cultural Resources Survey on file from 2002 notes that the property has a high level ofa architectural integrity as defined by the National Park Service, though that integrity has been diminished by the use of vinyl siding over the original wood siding and the demolition The applicant states that there are condition issues with the existing home that make preservation and reuse costly and impractical. Most notably there are apparent foundation issues that are significant, substandard plumbing and electrical systems that do not meet current building codes, and the house size and layout is impractical for modern needs. The existing house is situated in the center of the 11,500 sf lot, which would preclude preserving the house ifthe property were tol be subdivided into two legally conforming lots in the residential single family zoning district. (R-SF Zoning: 5,000 sfmin. lot size) The applicant has provided photo documentation included in this packet showing both the exterior and interior of the existing conditions oft the house at 844 Baker Street.  building that was built in 1904.  held on. June 12, 2024.  oft the garage and hen house.  3    Historic Preservation Commission September 5,2024) Minutes Page 4 of17  1 2 3 4  Jennifer and Chairman Lane did an initial review oft this proposal earlier this summer and determined that it would be advisable to bring this to the full Commission for review and  consideration.  5 Note: Jennifernoted that therei is a supplemental report to the original that was emailed to members 6 of the commission as well as handed out in hard copy form. The report includes cost estimates 7 from an engineer and appraisal information. This information wasi received from the applicant after 10 The supplemental documentation presented to the Commission and to staff does indicate that the 11 cost of needed repairs could approach the value and purchase price of the property. The structure 12 is not habitable and there are significant electrical, plumbing, and foundation issues. 14 Criteria for Designation of Landmarks with the Owner's consent (Longmont Municipal 17 A. The council may designate a landmark with the consent of the owner ifiti is at least fifty years 18 old, oris determined to have exceptional historic value, and meets one or more oft the criteria listed  8 thej packet had been posted for this meeting.  9  13 16  15 Code 2.56.050.A)  19 below: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 45  1. The Landmark or Historic District has character, interest, or value as part of the development, or the cultural, artistic, social, ethnic, economic, political, technological or institutional heritage, ofLongmont, Boulder County, Weld County, the state of Colorado, 3. Itisi identified with aj person or person who significantly contributed to the development of the cultural, artistic, social, ethnic, economic, political, technological or institutional heritage ofLongmont, Boulder County, Weld County, the State of Colorado or the United 5. It is identified as the work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has 6. Ite embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that 7. For an application with owner's consent, its unique location or singular physical characteristics represent an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood,  ort the United States.  2. Itincludes the site ofa significant historic event.  States.  4. Itp portrays a historic era characterized by a distinctive architectural style.  influenced the development ofLongmont. represent a significant architectural innovation. community, or the City ofLongmont. 8. The site is geographically or regionally important.  40 Criteria Review for Designation of Landmarks without the Owner's Consent (Longmont 43 C. Designation of a property without the consent of the owner requires the satisfaction of the  41 Municipal Code 2.56.050.C) 44 following criteria:  4    Historic Preservation Commission September 5, 2024 Minutes Page 5of17  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 18 21 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  1. A petition, signed by 100 registered Longmont voters stating that the petitioners believe the landmark has such extraordinary historic significance that the council should designate 2. The proposed landmark meets one or more of the designation criteria in subsection A of 3. The council finds that the proposed landmark has extraordinary historic significance. 4. Iti is not shown that the condition of any structure proposed as a landmark, as assessed by al licensed professional engineer (PE) prevents the owner from reasonably preserving it. 5. Iti is not shown that designation oft the proposed landmark would create a hardship, under 6. Promotion ofthe public interests identified in section 2.56.010by designating thel landmark outweighs any resulting diminution of the market value oft the proposed landmark.  it as a landmark without the consent of the owner.  Section 2.56.050.  the criteria ofs section 2.56.150.  14 Questions for HPC:  16 Ist there reasonable cause tol believe 844 Baker Street may be eligible for designation as a landmark 17 without owner's consent? (Section 2.56.180 oft the Longmont Municipal Code) 19 Does this meet that threshold which would then preclude demolition at this time? The project 22 The Cultural Resources Survey indicated the significance of this property is that it is part ofthe 23 neighborhood, with the challenge being that it's not technically part of a designated district. 25 Does 844 Baker Street meet the criteria for designation without the owner's consent?  20 would then be referred through al landmark designation process.  1.N Meets one or more designation criteria in Subsection A? 2. Has "extraordinary historic significance"?  Four (4) designation criteria met.  Staffi is not oft the opinion that this criterion is satisfied.  Significance is as part oflarger neighborhood, rather than as an individual structure. Supplemental documentation presented that cost of needed repairs approaches Part of Original Town Plat and represents early history ofLongmont. Not part oft the Historic Eastside National Register District or a local district. Demolition would facilitate construction of two single-family homes and add to  3. Does condition prevent owner from "reasonably preserving" structure?  4. Would designation create hardship?  value of property.  5. Promotion of public interests outweighs any resulting diminution ofmarket value.  housing supply.  42 Criteriai met: Int terms ofthe Criteria met for designation oflandmarks without the owner'sconsent, 43 staff is of the opinion that 4 criteria have been met. The property represents early history of 44 Longmont, is identified as the cultural social economic heritage of the City and is part of the  5    Historic Preservation Commission September 5, 2024 Minutes Page 60 of17  1 Original Town plat. The house is 50 years or older and is an example off frame vernacular building 4 Criteria not met: The house is not part ofthel Historic Eastsidel National Register District or al local 5 district or is not the location of a significant event. It is not identified with a person who 6 significantly contributed to the development of the City, or identified with a master builder or  2 style that was popular in the early 20th century.  3  7 architect whose work was an influence in the City.  8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 23 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 37 39 42 45  9 Ouestions and Challenges  1. Is there ai need for more housing in Longmont and is there available land?  2. Increasing density within established neighborhoods is a strategy identified within Envision Longmont for increasing the City's housing supply, and this property could accommodate two single-family housing units and be in compliance with the Land 3. Does the need for additional housing outweigh the public benefits of preserving thel house  Development Code. at 844 Baker Street?  19 Public Hearing Notice and Posting  21 Thej property was posted with aj public hearing sign and ai notice was provided in the newspaper as  22 required by 2.56.200. 24 Commission Options  26 The following options are presented for consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission:  1. Approve demolition of 844 Baker Street; as a landmark without the owner's consent;  2. Doi not approve the demolition request and refer thej property to the process for designation  3. Defer action on the: request based on the need for additional information.  33 Staff Recommendation 36 additional information. 38 Commission Questions  35 Staff recommends that the Commission consider option 3: defer action based on the need for  40 Commissioner Jacobi asked if other options would be considered and then brought back to the 43 Jennifer said if they deferred action, this would come back before the Commission at a later 46 Applicants in Attendance: Scott and Marcia Golden, Property Owners, 844 Baker Street  41 Commission ift they deferred action.  44 meeting to review additional information from the applicant.  6    Historic Preservation Commission September 5,2 2024 Minutes Page7of17  1 Scott Golden, 23583 Conrad Street, Johnstown  2  3 Scott said he and his wife acquired the property from a relative who was put into a long term care 4 facility, and they purchased the property in order to provide him with sufficient funds to pay his 5 medical bills and tol have something tol live on. They in essence overpaid for the property and paid 6 $200,000 knowing that the condition of the house was not livable. The house is a one bedroom, 7 one bath and there are: major plumbing issues. The house has not been maintained for the past 20 8 years while hel lived there, and he wasi not able to care for the property. In addition, the foundation 11 Scott said his initial attempt to figure out what the cost of repairs would be was rebuffed by a 12 couple of different foundation companies who just basically said it was not worth repairing and 13 they didn't want to bid on it. He got an engineer to look at the house and what it would actually 14 take to repair the foundation. Scott is handling the property management for his family. He also 15 has some experience with electrical and plumbing issues and noted that both are substandard and 16 that there would be extensive work in order to make the house livable at this point. The house is 17 not rentable and not sellable to anyone that hei is aware ofwho would want to spend al lotofmoney 18 toi repair it, and then it would bel beyond the value for the area. Onj page 12 ofthe appraisal, it states 19 that it's not viable to do the repairs. He said his only option to get out oft this was to subdivide the  9 ofthe property is stacked red rock stone and is collapsing.  10  20 property and provide two houses for people in the City, and that is his goal.  21 23 26 28  22 Commission Discussion  24 Chairman Lane asked ift there was a way tol keep the home and still get two lots, ift this would be  25 something the owner would consider.  27 Scott said ifit was economically viablel he would considerit it.  29 Commissioner Jacobi noted that in his application there are photos oft two module homes he would 30 want to put on the site. He asked how much the modular pre-planned homes would cost in 33 Scott said the price of one modular home would cost around $174,000 and possibly more now. 35 Commissioner Jacobi pointed out that in the supplemental report that was provided to the 36 Commission, the cost estimates of repairs to the home show a total of about $194,000. He asked 37 if he had looked at potentially moving the house slightly on the lot. Instead of repairing the 38 foundation, his immediate thought was to build a full basement next door to increase the square 39 footage and move the house over onto the new foundation. This may be comparable to building a 40 new modular home and would also preserve the architectural integrity and the character of the 41 home rather than putting modular homes on the lot which would not fit into the historic nature of 42 the neighborhood. He mentioned that Pals Moving company has moved something for him in the  31 comparison to the: repairs that the house needs.  32 34  43 neighborhood and they've moved other facilities.  44  7    Historic Preservation Commission September 5,2 2024) Minutes Page 8 of17  1 Scott said he has not looked into that and has just recently thought about it as a possibility. The 2 biggest challenge is he is not sure that the structure of the building itself would survive such a 3 move. The structural engineer that looked at thel house did not look at that as aj possibility. 5 Commissioner Norton asked Jennifer if the Commission was to do a forced designation, if the 6 property owner would then be eligible for residential tax credits for the work done to the home. 8 Jennifer said typically if a property is designated, it is eligible for tax credits. The mechanism for 11 Scott said he is quite sure that he can get financing for the new project, but not sure he would be 12 able to get the financing unless hel had additional help from the City in order to move the house. 14 Commissioner Jacobi referred to the supplemental report ofcost estimates for repairs to thel home. 15 Thel benefits ofhistoric designation ofthel home would include waiving the $7,800 for Citypermits 16 and taxes oni materials can also be waived. The window replacement estimate was $8,400a and there 17 are much cheaper alternatives if the windows are structurally sound. He said it might be 18 economically feasible to move the house and preserve the home for the neighborhood. The 19 vernacular style of the home is very characteristic of the time. He thinks pursuing historic 20 designation may save significantly in some of the expenses and is something to look at before 23 Scott commented that he would definitely have to look into it. The appraisal indicated that the 24 siding on the house is actually rotting at this point which would make it even more difficult to 25 accomplish saving the house. He is not opposed to looking at these suggestions as aj possibility.  4 7 10 13  9 designation should not have any impact on eligibility.  21 deciding to scrape and restart.  22  26 28 30 32  27 Public Hearing  29 Chairman Lane opened the public hearing.  31 Sarah Levison, The Booth House, Emery Street, Historic Eastside Neighborhood 33 Sarah lives in the historic Booth House which is the second home that the quarterback ofthe 1908 34 Championship high school football team lived in. Her home was built in 1907 and they also had 35 foundation issues. She said her house is still standing with a couple of cracks in the wall, and they 36 didn'thave the foundation sitting on two corners oft the house. The engineer said it was sO solidly 37 built, and houses were in that day and age. There was no problem with the structural part of her 38 house even with the foundation issues. Shet thinks the foumdmionisucisaminor: thing even though 41 Sarah wanted to remind the Commission about what's on the City's website about historic  39 its seems major. 40 42 preservation. 43  44 What is Historic Preservation? 46 significance."  45 "To preserve, conserve and protect buildings, objects, landscapes or other artifacts of historical  8    Historic) Preservation Commission September 5, 2024 Minutes Page 9 of17  1 Whyi is Historic Preservation important?  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  Benefits for the Community - It benefits the community including contributing to Longmont's: sense ofplace and helps to convey the past to the future and tells Longmont's Benefits for the Environment - With demolition it is more sustainable to recycle the built environment and therefore reduce what wej put in the landfill, and it conserves resources. Benefits for the Economy - Preservation of historic properties can help to stimulate the local economy, createj jobs and enhance tourism. Colorado Preservation Inc. has a study on  story.  the economic benefits of Historic Preservation.  11 Sarah pointed out that the manufactured homes that would be placed on the lot, would be 12 manufactured somewhere else and the economic benefit would be somewhere else in some other 13 city. She thinks there is a false narrative that's been created that the choice is to demolish the house 14 and get two brand new homes that have nothing to do with the character of the neighborhood. She 15 said as staff has pointed out, it's basically the entrance to the neighborhood. To have the 16 manufactured homes as the entrance to the neighborhood would start diminishing the value and 19 Sarah referred to the book "Taming the Teardown Trend" by James Lindberg published by the 20 National Trust for historic places. She thinks this is the exact criteria and the beginning of a tear 21 down trend and the small properties next door then become the next target. She asked that the 22 Commission not consider the supplemental information because it was not available to the public 23 online ori in al hard copy. There was no time for the public to participate in that conversation. She 24 doesn'tagree with the demolition of the home and the argument that it's inconvenient because of 25 thel location, and that it's too small. She feels that we are promoting small houses in the City. The 26 house at 762 sq ft is only 300 sq ft less that what the 1000 sq ft replacements are. Sarah asked the 27 Commission to not allow the demolition on the property, not to consider the additional information 28 that was submitted late, and also to allow the members of the public to rebut the comments by the  17 thel historic properties that are adjacent.  18  29 applicant at a later time.  30 32  31 Sharon O'Leary, 534 Emery Street, Co-Chair Historic Eastside Neighborhood  33 Sharon said historic neighborhoods are lost one home at a time. The City of Longmont thought 34 that preservation was sO important that in 1971 they formed the Historic Preservation Commission 35 toj preserve and conserve: for the citizens ofLongmont and future generations. The Commissioners 36 were selected from a pool of people who applied to sit on this Commission. She said this is not a 37 book club and not a social club, but a Commission that is expected to bet thoughtful ini making hard 40 The house at 844 Baker sits in Longmont's oldest neighborhood, the Historic Eastside 41 Neighborhood, in which a section of it has National designation as well as Local designation 42 throughout the neighborhood. Thel home may have some problems given its age, and there's nota 43 home in the neighborhood that does not have structural foundation problems. She asked if this is 44 going to be the bedrock for demolishing future homes. She thinks these problems can be remedied 45 and possibly with the designation could receive assistance through the preservation program. 46 Longmont cannot be in the business ofs saving only grand homes, but also the humble beginnings  38 decisions surrounding preservation. She hopes they are up for the job.  39  9    Historic Preservation Commission September 5,2 2024 Minutes Page 10of17  1 and demolition should be the last option on the table. Preservation benefits the community, the 4 Sharon said the Commission needs to make the decision that honors the role they were given and 5 request aj postponement to look at other options. She asked why the City didn'tcondemn thel home 6 ifstaffs said it was unlivable. She said staff also talked about the home being unlivable due to the 7 size, but what is it being compared to, a tiny house or a grand mansion. She asked if anyone has 8 thought about adding an ADU to address housing problems as another option. She said if the 9 Commission is allowing demolition by neglect as their new yard stick, then they are not in the 10 preservation business. She said historic neighborhoods can also be saved onel home at a time. She 11 asked the Commission to do their preservation job and obtaini morei information, and also thej public 12 did not have access to the supplemental information. She thinks the Commission needs to do the 13 right thing and keep the public in thej process. She appreciates their time being on this Commission 16 Dr. Dido Clark, 534 Baker Street, Co-Chair of the Historic Eastside Neighborhood  2 environment and the economy.  3  14 and asked the Commissioners to please step up.  15 18 21 24  17 (She was not present, Jennifer read her letter for the record)  19 September 9, 2024 20 To whom it may concern.  22 I was dismayed to see the sign for a proposed demolition permit for 844 Baker Street, for a 25 Ican see no good reason for demolishing this property. It is a unique, irreplaceable house with a 26 unique history. For well over a century, this house has been a part of our historic neighborhood, 29 While it may or may not be "contributing" in a strict sense (I can no longer tell because I can no 30 longer find the Historic Eastside surveys on the City ofLongmont website), this house certainly 33 The new owner's application for demolition shows a complete lack of any sensibility or 34 understanding of the neighborhood that we are SO proud of, as well as a total lack of creative 37 Idon'twant to feel likeIlivei in a time capsule, but nor do I want to see our neighborhood literally 40 Could these new owners/developers consider moving the existing building onto new foundations 43 The cost of moving could be offset by purchasing a complete house/ADU kit (that include full  23 beautiful historic home just down the road from me.  27 which contains a National historic district.  28  31 contributes to our lived experience as Historic Eastside neighbors.  32  35 thinking. 36 39 42 45  38 disappear, one house at a time.  41 (ifindeed it actually needs new: foundations)? 44 kitchens, bathrooms, lighting, floors, etc).  10    Historic Preservation Commission September 5,2024 Minutes Page 11 of17  1 These can be bought online for relatively little. There are dozens ofc companies to choose from for 2 these already-built homes, many of which would fit in perfectly in size and style into our  3 neighborhood. 4 5 Thank you, 6 8 534 Baker Street 9 Longmont CO 80501 11 Brian Clarke, 825 Baker Street  7 Dr. Dido Clark (a co-chair of the Historic Eastside Neighborhood Association)  10 12  13 Brian said he lives across the street and has lived there for 43 years. He likes the idea ofl keeping 14 the house and moving it, and maybe add to the house and put a basement under it. He said the 15 problem with putting twol houses on thel loti is the intersection in front of thel house, and iti is across 16 from Grandpa's Pawn Shop. He said there have been cars hit there at least 5 or 6 times that he 17 knows of. There is parking for Grandpa'sl Pawn and people park ont that side ofthe street. Het thinks 18 ifthere are more cars at 844 Baker, there will be no place to park. He doesn't want to see people 19 drifting down the street parking and taking up all of! his parking spots. His next door neighbor has 20 logs in front ofh his property, and ifs someone tries to park ini front ofhis house they can'topen their 23 Brian used to work for a house mover in Minnesota in the 70's, and they moved 3-story houses.  21 car door on the passenger side.  22 25 27 29  24 He said moving the house is definitely a doable thing and is in favor ofthat.  26 Chairman Lane closed the public hearing. 28 Commission Discussion  30 Commissioner Fenster doesn'tt think the work that has been done to consider all the alternatives is 31 as yet complete, and he would recommend that the Commission defer action. He said they should 32 ask staff to make recommendations on what further work can be done either in terms of 33 preservation or moving the house, or any other alternatives. He thinks passing finally on this 36 Commissioner Jacobi thinks that some interesting points were made. All thel houses on the Eastside 37 have some foundation problems and many of them have structural problems. He mentioned that 38 there was a house at 830 Emery Street built in the 1800's that was demolished about 2 or 3 years 39 ago because they wanted a bigger house, and the foundation wasn't good enough. That was the 40 excuse for demolition. There was another house that was proposed that was congruous for the 41 neighborhood and thei neighborhood complained. The: zoning says al house has to be compatible in 42 al neighborhood, and the design was changed. He is not sure that twoi modular homes on the lot are 43 going to stand up to zoning tol be compatible with their neighborhood. Hei referred to the photos of 44 thei modular homes in the packet. Hei thinks that the neighbors would bei in arms ifthe two modular 45 homes were] put on thel lot and there would be quite ai few complaints. Thel homes might be cheaper,  34 subject would be premature at this time.  35  46 but he doesn't think they are ai reasonable alternative.  11    Historic Preservation Commission September 5,2 2024 Minutes Page 12of17  1 Commissioner Barnert agreed that there have been some good points made. His biggest concern 2 is the main argument that the proponent has made which is the financial argument, and he might 3 bei right. This morning, he put a call into staff to ask how he can make these decisions without all 4 the data. Jennifer emailed a supplemental document with cost estimates to the Commissioners that 5 she had just received this afternoon. Commissioner Barnert said he had other things planned this 6 afternoon and was not able to read through the document, and he feelsi it is largely the basis for the 7 Commission's decision. He said the issues have to be up to the owner, and he doesn't think it is 8 the Commission's job to go out and do development work and make decisions about the 11 Commissioner Norton said her understanding is that they are not being asked to make a decision 12 on whether demolishing this property is appropriate, and that they are being asked to make a 13 decision on whether they should designate against the owner's wishes. She asked Jennifer if that 16 Jennifer explained that ift the property rises to the threshold for designation the answer is yes and 17 no demolition. If the property does not meet the threshold and criteria for designation then the 20 Commissioner Norton questioned how this property contributes to the Eastside district. She said 21 officially it does not, but as they work on the survey plan for the City it will address some ofthese 22 types of questions. Based on the significance of the house, she thinks that they need to seriously 23 consider that it does meet extraordinary circumstances as part ofthis district whether it's official 24 or not. She is heartened by what shei is hearing from the property owners in that it sounds like they 25 came to staffit forap pre-approval conversation that there's the opportunity for more discussion. She 26 agrees with Commissioner Barnert that there was not enough time to review the supplemental 27 document they received today, and it wasn't appropriate that the public did not get a chance to 28 review thisi information. She askedi ifit would be appropriate for thej property owners toi investigate 29 some oft the larger issues and other options that the Commission has suggested, and possibly with 30 help from staff. There are potential paths forward, and she would like to see this deferred to al later 33 Jennifer said staff can definitely provide guidance to the applicant based on what has been heard 34 from the Commission. There are constraints in terms of what staff can do from an appropriateness 35 standpoint, but she can work with the applicant to put together a plan moving forward. Her 36 understanding is that the Commission would like more information on the feasibility of moving 37 the structure overifit can bei moved without being destroyed, what the financial cost ofthat would 38 be, and potentially expanding the living space. She said 750 sq ft is small by modern standards and 39 is doable, but from a marketing standpoint it presents challenges. At the same time, there is a 42 Mayor Peck said ift the Commissioners decide to defer this, she would hope that staff would look 43 into the possibility of what monetary tax credits would be available if this was designated as a 44 historic property. She asked if the property was put into the historic district if this could this 45 possibly help with tax credits. Also, if the home was historically designated would there be any  9 foundation. 10  14 is correct. 15  18 demolition can proceed.  19  31 date. 32  40 market there. 41  12    Historic Preservation Commission September 5, 2024 Minutes Page 13of17  1 dollars tol help with any oft the decisions that the owners make as far as moving the property or any 4 Commissioner Jacobi said the point that Commissioner Barnert made that the economics are 5 important he does agree with, but on the other hand they also need to consider their role as 6 Commissioners. As Sharon O'Leary mentioned, theirre rolei is toj promote preservation ofhomes and 7 the economics is a part of that but not all of that. He thinks that there are SO many intangible 8 benefits with historic preservation. There is an economic benefit especially ifyou look at the price 9 ofhomes per sq fti int the Eastside Neighborhood. Hel believes people want smaller homes and want 10 to live in that neighborhood and they also appreciate the character oft the neighborhood. He said 11 you may get more rent for ai renovated home than for a modular home, which is not built to last 12 and tends to fall apart and may need more maintenance. He thinks that's all part of the economic 13 equation. He said they need to consider their role toj promote preservation as well as the practical 16 Commissioner Terrick said she agrees with Commission Jacobi and wanted to echo a couple of 17 his comments. She thinks they are looking at two things, the subjective idea of preservation and 18 the more objective idea ofthe financial aspects. She agrees with some ofthe speakers that it's very 19 important that they can'tjust demolish a structure because it's been neglected, orit's inconvenient 20 or not large enough. She thinks it is true, if you lose one house you're losing part of that whole 21 neighborhood and that district, and their role is to protect properties. Ini regard to the financial and 22 economic aspects, she still has a lot of questions and looking at the repair estimates she would 23 recommend that they defer any voting now. She mentioned that she recently bought a home in 24 Longmont and it's a small home that had major foundation, electrical and plumbing problems. 25 They were able to save the home, and they have put on an addition and were very careful that the 26 addition matched the exterior. They found someone to do the work for a reasonable cost. She has 27 questions about how the cost plays out the comparison between preserving and building two new 28 homes and would like morei information on that. Ini regard to thei idea ofp publici interest and creating 29 morel housing, it would bei replacing ones small house with two small houses. With one extra house, 30 she doesn't think that would be providing al lot more housing, and that is a questionable argument 33 Commissioner Sibley agrees with Commissioner Terrick about replacing the house with two 34 houses. She thinks there are many things to consider, one of them being the parking situation if 35 two houses were put on the lot. She thanked the owner for presenting this to the Commission and 36 thanked everyone for coming to the meeting in support oftheir neighborhood. She feels that there 37 were several interesting ideas that were mentioned, and hopefully the discussion about tax credits 40 Chairman Lane reviewed the supplemental packet that was provided to the Commission for the 41 meeting. He noted that this packet will be available as public record. He thinks they should take a 42 closer look at the repair estimates because they could be less than the cost of another home and 43 possibly give an opportunity to put an addition on the existing home or a basement. He said 44 preservation is absolutely important and houses are. lost one at a time, but therei is al housing issue, 45 and we gain houses one at a time. The lot can bel legally split, and the owner has a right to do that. 46 Ift there's a way to make that work and also add a house into the pool, it would be a win for the  2 other benefits that might be available.  3  14 side oft the bottom line.  15  31 as well. 32  38 and moving the house or adding on to thel house are possibilities.  39  13    Historic Preservation Commission September 5, 2024 Minutes Page 14 of17  1 owner and the community. The home could be preserved as part oft the neighborhood fabric, and 4 Chairman Lane said the board as a whole are supportive oftrying to find a way to keep thel house. 5 Itv would be preferable not to engage in aj process that forces anyone down aj path and they would 6 rather work collectively to get something done that everyone is happy with. He asked for the 7 applicant to do an investigation into possibly moving the house and having that as the approach, 8 and then work with stafft to see what benefits economically there could be with tax credits. He said 9 very often these homes are built very well above ground, whereas the foundations are not as well 10 built. He encouraged the owner to come back to the Commission with a different proposal ifhe 11 decides to move the house. He thanked the owners for their time and said he appreciates this  2 possibly for less cost when they factori in some tax credits.  3  12 coming to the Commission to start the process.  13 14 Motion  15 COMMISSIONER JACOBI MOVED TO DEFER ACTION ON THE REQUEST BASED  16 ONTHE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 17 COMMISSIONER NORTON SECONDED THE MOTION.  18 19 Vote 21 22 8. 23 24 25 27 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  20 MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 7-0.  New Business  A. Draft Historic Survey Plan  26 Jennifer spoke to the Commission about the following: 29 him to the October meeting to discuss the draft.  28 Josh Olhava, the consultant with Ayres Associates was not able to attend this meeting. She will invite  31 Draft Historic Survey Plan  Content versus formatting in this draft Areas ofl Interest Identified:  Bohn Farm, Brown's Old Apple Farm, The Cannery East, Hilltop Village, Kiteley Neighborhood, Longmont Estates, Loomiller Subdivision, Old North, Original Townsite,  Southmoor Neighborhood Recommended Strategies:  Prioritize surveys ofBohn Farm & Cannery East  Evaluate appropriateness of expanding current National Register Historic Districts Consider neighborhood guidelines and Conservation Overlay districts where appropriate  14    Historic Preservation Commission September 5,2 2024 Minutes Page 15of17  1 Jennifer asked the Commission ifthere were other areas they would want to have more discussion 2 about, ori if they have any specific edits, comments or redlines to the draft survey plan. 4 Chairman Lane asked if they could have maps in the plan. Jennifer said there will be maps and 7 Commissioner Barnert wants to congratulate Josh with the Ayres team for hearing the things that 8 were said by the Commission at the March retreat meeting. He enjoyed reading the draft and is 9 looking forward to reading it as it's filled out. He thinks the outline and the approach is good and 10 the way it lays out all the pieces. He said it was very educational for him and he looks forward to 13 Chairman Lane appreciated the Action Matrix at the end ofthe draft and thej prioritization. Beyond 14 the matrix, he would like to see discussion among the Commission on whether or not they agree 15 that these priorities are appropriate in order to act on them, and then determine the next steps. 16 Other things to consider are what would be an appropriate timeline, and what's an expected 17 financial need whether it be something that's a request to Council to be put in a budget or ifit 18 would need a grant. He thinks the draft is a great start and it is great to see the progress. 20 Jennifer said in terms of next steps, ift the Commission has input on high priority areas they see, 21 that would be great information for her to provide to. Josh. They can send her an email or provide 22 ai markup to send to her. She suggested she could also set something up in a system the City uses 23 called SharePoint where the Commissioners can provide comments on the same document and use 24 that as a master copy. She has noted Chairman Lane's priorities including the Commission's 27 Chairman Lane said a question he has is with the potential expansion of the National Register 28 District what are the boundaries that would be suggested, and also an explanation as to why. He 29 mentioned that the Downtown Register District is relatively new, but another question might be 30 why the boundaries of the Westside and Eastside were made exactly where they are. He thinks if 33 Commissioner Jacobi said reading through the draft it discussed extending the Westside Historic 34 District into the Brown's Farm section. The draft didn'tt talk about the Eastside, and he referred to 35 his book that shows a lot of history and a lot of significant homes throughout the whole square 36 mile ofthe Eastside. He thinks thei neighborhood might appreciate expansion ofthel historic district 37 and it might be feasible, but it also might preempt inappropriate thoughts about development in 38 the neighborhood. He feels they should look at the Eastside as well as the Westside as part ofthe 41 Commissioner Barnert is wondering why they stopped at 5th Avenue when thel Downtown Historic 42 District was designated. Ifhis assertion is correct, hel believes that's where the development ofthe 43 town was at the time. Besides the Eastside, he thinks it's time to relook at the Downtown area and 44 what would bet the advantages to expanding it to Long's Peak Avenue or to gth Avenue.  3 6  5 graphics in the plan.  11 more drafts. 12  19  25 priorities, timelines, funding sources, and estimated costs.  26  31 that question can be answered it might be potentially useful.  32  39 survey plan. 40  45  15    Historic Preservation Commission September 5,2 2024 Minutes Page 16of17  1 Jennifer said the Downtown District is the most recent district within the past five years. Given 2 how newi it is, shei is not sure ifit's appropriate to look at expanding the boundaries. She believes 3 it has to do with concentration of the historic buildings, and that is a question she could ask 6 Commissioner Norton appreciates that Josh listened to what was suggested by the Commission at 7 the March retreat meeting, and it's reflected in this draft. In the Matrix and in each of the 8 recommendations for the individual neighborhoods it talks about neighborhood design guidelines 9 and standards. She would like to seel better guidance for folks who might want to subdivide or add 10 an addition on their property. She asked what the next steps would be and ifit would take a full 13 Jennifer said that would be part of a separate process and currently there is not a budget for that. 14 The City isi inl budget season now, and there are some hard decisions tol bei made as they arel looking 15 at projections and considering some ofthe property tax legislation, and special session information 16 that will be coming out from the State. The Commission will need to do a prioritization to 17 determine whati it will taket to develop guidelines and in what order. They also would: need to: figure 18 out the public involvement and public outreach for developing guidelines. She said there is some 19 language in the Land Development Codei int terms ofr residential compatibility standards. Shei needs 20 to have a discussion with the building folks on how they are evaluating standards because typically 21 planning staff doesn't look at single-family infill projects unless there is an ADU involved. She 22 said realistically the Commission will be determining what is the road map and what the priorities 25 Commissioner Norton said at their meetings the Commission talks about the fact that there are 26 grant opportunities especially for a Certified Local Government (CLG) and funding through the 27 State Historic Fund (SHF). There is a calendar for application submittals and once they start 28 identifying what the neighborhood needs are, they need to be thinking about the calendar ahead of 29 time and also how the Commission can help Jennifer with the grant applications. She thinks they 30 need to start tapping into to some ofthese grant programs SO that the onus isn'tcompletely on the 33 Commissioner Barnert wanted to point out page 29 of the draft report where it talks about the 34 Original Townsite and that the areas within the boundaries were not reviewed by this study. This 35 paragraph leaves a lot oft things open that they really need to decide on what they would liketo see 36 or get some recommendation as tol how this can be analyzed and presented. It says as a future step 37 this review would help determine the applicability of these standards and processes when 38 considering future design or preservation guidelines for neighborhoods. He said there'sareal ball 39 ofwax in that paragraph because he feels that is exactly what the Commission is supposed to be 42 Chairman Lane thinks thati int thel big picture this document is about how to obtain moreinformation 43 about the properties within the City that haven't been surveyed to date. It is the foundation that 44 they need tol have in order to move to a step where they can engage aj preservation plan as al bigger 45 picture. At that time the preservation plan would be where the public gets engaged to participate 46 and they would start putting together al bigger visionary document about preservation in Longmont.  4 Kimberlee with the Longmont Downtown Development Authority (LDDA).  5  11 survey of each of the neighborhoods.  12  23 are. 24  31 City ofLongmont toj pay for these surveys.  32  40 doing and he would like to know the answers, but they won'tbei in the: study.  41  16    Historic Preservation Commission September 5,2 20241 Minutes Page 17of17  Jennifer agreed and noted that the preservation plan would also tie into Envision Longmont and 2 general comprehensive planning updates to ensure that they' re all working together.  3 5 8 10 12 14 16 18 21 22 23 24 25 28 30 31 32  4 9. Prior Business  6 Jennifer and Chairman Lane welcomed Commissioner Terrick to the Commission. They are  7 looking forward to her contributions. 9 10. Comments from HPC Commission 11 No comments from the Commissioners.  13 11. Comments from City Council Representative 15 No comments from Council Representative Mayor Peck.  17 12. Adjournment  19 Commissioner Jacobi moved adjournment of the meeting. Commissioner Norton seconded  20 the motion. No one was opposed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.  -  26 HPC CMipenaunVaeChiperen  SVE  27 my/jh 09/05/24  29 The video oft this meeting can bej found at psnngonbcecom/@cnolongmon  17