Loading...
01.04.23 LB Presentation•The city has engaged with community members to co- create a vision for productive, meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. •This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board/commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. •More about this vision and the project’s community engagement process can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/productive- atmospheres Public Participation at Board Meetings The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. •All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. •No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. •Participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods during hearings. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. Public Participation at Board Meetings Raise Hand: Alt Y for PC Option Y for Mac *9 for phone January 4, 2023 Landmarks Board Meeting Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Group Agreements 5 •Everyone has a role to play in keeping the meeting on time and open to sharing of personal views. •Raise hands and one speaker at a time –Let each board member speak when they are ready and without interruption. •Be curious about lived experience other than your own.Host hearings, not prosecutions. •Share the air –step forward with your contribution and step back to make room for others. •Share and listen to understand, rather than to respond (W.A.I.T. –Why am I Talking?) •Be hard on issues and soft on people:disagreement is welcome, disrespect is not. As discussed at the retreat on July 25, 2022 Agenda Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 1.Call to Order -6:00 pm 2.Approval of minutes from the Dec. 7, 2022, meeting –est. 6:10 pm 3.Public Participation for Non-Public Hearing Items –est. 6:15 pm 4.Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending –est. 6:25 pm 5.Public Hearings under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, “Quasi-Judicial Hearings,” B.R.C. 1981: A.1804 Mapleton Ave. –Initiation Hearing –est. 6:30 pm B.825 S. Broadway. –Demolition–est. 7:30 pm C.2119 Mariposa Ave. –Demolition –est. 8:30 pm 6.Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney –est. 9:30 pm 7.Debrief Meeting / Calendar Check 8.Adjournment –est. 10:00 pm *Estimated start times subject to change 6 Agenda Item 5A Public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation pursuant to Section 9-11-3 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 for 1804 Mapleton Ave. (HIS2022-00139). Owner: RBB Investments LLC Applicant: City of Boulder Landmarks Board Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation7 1.Staff presentation; Board may ask questions of staff 2.Owner presentation; Board may ask questions of owner 3.Public hearing opened for public comment; Board may ask questions of the public 4.Public hearing closed; Board discussion and, if appropriate, adoption of resolution to accept the Landmark application Public Hearing Procedure Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation8 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation June 8, 2022 •Landmarks Design Review Committee referred application to Landmarks Board July 6, 2022 •Landmarks Board Hearing; stay- of-demolition placed on application Sept. 7, 2022 •Landmarks Board vote to schedule a hearing to initiate landmark designation or issue demolition permit Oct. 8, 2022 •Applicant withdrew demolition application and ended the stay Oct. 12, 2022 •Landmarks Board voted to postpone the hearing Jan. 4, 2023 •Hearing to initiate landmark designation 9 Landmarks Board Options 1.Do not initiate landmark designation Case is closed; future demolition application would be reviewed by the Historic Preservation program 2.Initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark Landmarks Board Designation Hearing held between 60 and 120 days (between March 5 and May 4, 2023) Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation10 Criteria for Review Section 9-11-3(d), Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts Criteria for Review. Including, but not limited to: (1)There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark or historic district consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1, “Legislative Intent,” and 9-11-2, “City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,” B.R.C. 1981; (2)There are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to complete all of the community outreach and historic analysis necessary for the application; (3)There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation; (4)The buildings or features may need the protections provided through designation; (5)(Not applicable) The potential boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate; (6)In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; or (7)The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.11 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation12 Legend Historic Landmark Potential Local Historic District Building Location Source: maplink+ Building Description North elevation West elevation13 Building Description South elevation East elevation 14 Building History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation c.1929 2017 15 Probable Cause (§9-11-3(d)(1) B.R.C. 1981) Planning & Development Services | Historic PreservationStaff Analysis1.There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1, “Legislative Intent,” and 9-11-2, “City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,” B.R.C. 1981: •The building has architectural significance for its “hipped box” building form popular for vernacular houses at the turn of the 20th century •Notable details include the building form, porch details, original windows, and stone foundation •Constructed more than 130 years ago •The house is significant in the context of the neighborhood character, and for its prominent location flanking the east side of the Jessie Fitzpatrick Park, a city park •Located within the identified potential Whittier Historic District 16 Resources & Support(§9-11-3(d)(2),(3),&(4)B.R.C. 1981) Planning & Development Services | Historic PreservationStaff Analysis2.There are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to complete all of the community outreach and historic analysis necessary for the application •Initiation of landmark designation over owner’s objection requires additional staff resources including outreach and analysis •There are limited staff resources available to process applications for designation of a property without the owner’s input or community support •Diverting resources away from other Board and program priorities is not recommended 3.There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation •Limited community support for preservation 4.The buildings or features may need the protections provided through designation •There is no current application for demolition of the house and garage •If demolition were proposed in the future, historic preservation demolition application review would be required17 Reasonable Balance (§9-11-3(d)(6) & (7) B.R.C. 1981) Planning & Development Services | Historic PreservationStaff Analysis6.In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan •The plan does not speak specifically to landmark designation over an owner’s objection, though in some circumstances this may be appropriate. 7.The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest •Staff considers that as the demolition application is withdrawn, initiation of landmark designation over the owner’s objection is not appropriate at this time. 18 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Landmarks Board NOT initiate landmark designation for the property at 1804 Mapleton Ave. for the following reasons: •Although the house has historic and architectural significance, initiation of landmark designation would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic and architectural heritage •There is no current demolition threat to the house and garage Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation19 Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation20 Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Public Participation Applicant Response Board Deliberation **approx. 30 minutes scheduled for board deliberation** Should the Landmarks Board initiate landmark designation over the owner’s objection? If yes, vote to initiate designation; Landmarks Board hearing held within 60-120 days, followed by CC review If no, vote to not initiate designation; process ends Board Deliberation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation21 Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Do Not Initiate Landmark Designation I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated January 4, 2023, as the findings of the Board and not initiate the process for landmark designation, finding that it does not meet the criteria for such initiation pursuant to Section 9-11-3 “Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts” of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and in balance is not consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. 22 Alternate Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Initiate Landmark Designation I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the resolution (Attachment A) to initiate the process for landmark designation, finding that it meets the criteria for such initiation pursuant to Section 9-11-3 “Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts” of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and in balance is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. 23 Agenda Item 5B Public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish a building constructed in 1971 at 825 S. Broadway St.(HIS2022- 00246), a non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981. Owner: Mock Property Management Applicant: Scott Schigur and Stephen Sparn, Sopher Sparn Architects, LLC Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation24 1.All speaking are sworn in 2.Board members note any ex parte contacts 3.Staff presentation; Board may ask questions of staff 4.Applicant presentation; Board may ask questions of applicant 5.Public hearing opened for public comment; the Board may ask questions 6.Applicant response 7.Public hearing closed; Board discussion 8.A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. Motions must state findings, conclusions, and recommendation 9.A record of the hearing is available Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation25 Purpose for Review 1.Prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance. 2.Provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives for the building. 9-11-23 (a), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation26 Criteria for Review The Landmarks Board “shall consider and base its decision upon any of the following criteria”: 1.The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981; 2.The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area; 3.The reasonable condition of the building; and 4.The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) …, the board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. 9-11-23 (f), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation27 Landmarks Board Options 1.Approve the Demolition Request a)Approval valid for 180 days (June 5, 2023) 2.Place a Stay-of-Demolition on the Application a)Provide time to consider alternatives to demolition b)Stay would expire May 14, 2023. 3.Initiate Landmark Designation a)Schedule an initiation hearing Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation28 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Oct. 6, 2022 Application Submitted Oct. 19, 2022 Staff referred the application to the LDRC, who referred it to the Landmarks Board. Jan. 4, 2023 Landmarks Board Hearing 29 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Legend Building Location Source: maplink+30 Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation East elevation (facing S. Broadway) 31 Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation North elevation 32 Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation West elevation 33 Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation South elevation 34 Building History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Security Bank of Boulder, 825 S. Broadway, 1972.South elevation, 2022. 35 Criteria for Review Criterion 1: The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark outlined in 9-11-1 and 9-11-2 Criterion 2: The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood Criteria 3 and 4: The reasonable condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation36 Historic Significance Date of Construction 1971 Elaboration: The tax assessor, permits, and construction photographs record the date of construction as 1971. 01 Association with Persons or Events None identified02 Distinction in Development of the Community South Boulder, Modern Architecture Elaboration: This building is representative of the community’s post- war growth, when new subdivisions were constructed and churches, shops, and parks were established in South Boulder. This period saw innovative mid-century designs in residential and commercial buildings. 03 Recognition by Authorities None identified04 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation 825 S Broadway, 1971. 37 Architectural Significance Recognized Period or Style Neo-mansard form with Rustic Modern elements Elaboration: The neo-mansard building includes some characteristics of the Rustic Modern style, including the use of traditional materials like stone and originally wood shingle (removed), the combination horizontals and verticals, deep overhanging eaves, no ornamentation. The neo-mansard roof is a prominent design feature, however alterations to the building diminish its architectural significance. 01 Architect or Builder of Prominence Architect unknown, constructed by Leach and Arnold Engineering and Construction 02 Artistic Merit Stacked stone is interspersed with larger organic geometric stone features on all elevations. 03 Indigenous Qualities Stone may be locally-sourced 04 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation Example of the Uncommon 05 Mid-Century Modern bank Elaboration: Boulder’s post-war period saw the construction of many mid-century modern banks, many of which have been demolished. The Atrium at 1300 Canyon Dr., designated as a local landmark in 2022, is an example of a bank that exemplifies modernist architecture. Other banks that were constructed in this style and have been demolished include National State Bank (demolished in 2018), First National Bank (demolished c.1973) and the replacement First National Bank (demolished c.1999). Due to alterations, this building is no longer a good example of Boulder’s Mid-Century commercial development. 38 Environmental Significance Site Characteristics None observed01 Compatibility with Site None observed02 Geographic Importance The building is prominently visible from Broadway. 03 Environmental Appropriateness None observed04 Area Integrity None observed. The property is not in an identified historic district. 05 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation 39 Relationship to Neighborhood Criterion 2: Relationship to the character of the neighborhood 40 Boulder (Colo.) aerial photographs. 1970. Photograph. 511-1-4. Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder, CO. Condition of Building Criteria 3 & 4: Condition of the Building and Projected Cost of Restoration or Repair Projected Cost Information on the condition of the building was not submitted as part of the application. Information on the cost of restoration or repair of the building was not submitted as part of the application. 41 I move the Landmarks Board adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated January 4, 2023, and approve the demolition application for the building at 825 S. Broadway, finding that the building to be demolished does not have significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation42 Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: A stay of demolition for the property at 825 S. Broadway is not appropriate based on the criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981 as the building does not retain the integrity of its character defining features. Proposed Findings Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation43 Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation44 Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Public Participation Applicant Response Board Deliberation **approx. 30 minutes scheduled for board deliberation** Does this building have historic significance? If yes, place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives to demolition If no, approve the demolition request Board Deliberation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation45 Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation46 PAGE 1 2505 Walnut Street,Suite 200 |Boulde r,CO 80302 |303.442.4422 |www.sophersparn.com I move the Landmarks Board adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated January 4, 2023, and approve the demolition application for the building at 825 S. Broadway, finding that the building to be demolished does not have significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation55 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 825 S. Broadway for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to partially demolishing the building, finding that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. Alternative Motion –Stay of Demolition 56 Agenda Item 5C Public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish a house and garage constructed c. 1940 at 2119 Mariposa Ave. (HIS2022-00271) a non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981. Owner: Vanessa Miles Applicant: Eric Barry and Nicole Eberle, Colorado Demolition & Deconstruction Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation57 1.All speaking are sworn in 2.Board members note any ex parte contacts 3.Staff presentation; Board may ask questions of staff 4.Applicant presentation; Board may ask questions of applicant 5.Public hearing opened for public comment; the Board may ask questions 6.Applicant response 7.Public hearing closed; Board discussion 8.A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. Motions must state findings, conclusions, and recommendation 9.A record of the hearing is available Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation58 Purpose for Review 1.Prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance. 2.Provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives for the building. 9-11-23 (a), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation59 Criteria for Review The Landmarks Board “shall consider and base its decision upon any of the following criteria”: 1.The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981; 2.The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area; 3.The reasonable condition of the building; and 4.The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) …, the board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. 9-11-23 (f), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation60 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation61 Legend Buildings Location Source: maplink+ Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation West elevation East elevation 62 Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation South elevation (facing Mariposa Ave.) North elevation (facing Columbine Alley) 63 Building History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 2119 Mariposa Ave, c.1949.2119 Mariposa Ave, 2022. 64 Criteria for Review 9-11-1 and 9-11-2 B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation65 Historic Significance Date of Construction c.1937-1947 Elaboration: Although the exact date of construction is unknown, 2119 Mariposa Ave. was one of a few post-Depression, pre-WWII houses constructed in the area. 01 Association with Persons or Events Cecil C. Cox and Donald McCormick Elaboration: Cecil Cox likely constructed 2119 Mariposa Ave. Cecil and his wife, Mary, are associated with multiple working-class businesses in Boulder. In addition, the McCormick family was connected to the house for more than 60 years. Donald was a farmer and gardener at NIST. 02 Distinction in Development of the Community Interurban Park, NIST Elaboration: Interurban Park was platted in 1908. However, the eastern part of the neighborhood remained rural until the 1950s. During the 1950s, the area was developed in response to the need for housing for returning service persons and the construction of the National Bureau of Standards Central Radio Propagation Laboratory— now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—in 1954 03 Recognition by Authorities Front Range Research Associates (1992) Elaboration: The Boulder Survey of Historic Places, 1992 considered the property significant as an example of vernacular architecture and notable for its stone construction. 04 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation 66 Architectural Significance Recognized Period or Style Vernacular with elements of Bungalow form Elaboration: Some elements of the Bungalow form are present, including the moderately-pitched front gable roof, overhanging eaves (originally with exposed rafter tails), simple horizontal lines, and Craftsman elements like the shingle gable end. The vernacular form of the Bungalow was popularized post World War I by companies offering self-build house plans and kits. 01 Architect or Builder of Prominence Unknown 02 Artistic Merit Polygonal stone facing Elaboration: Stone facing was a popular addition to vernacular small houses of the period as the material was cheap or freely available. This type of application demonstrates the builder’s artistic abilities. 03 Indigenous Qualities Polygonal stone facing was probably locally-sourced 04 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation Example of the Uncommon 05 Stone-faced Vernacular Bungalow Elaboration: Although there are examples of stone-faced Bungalows throughout Boulder, the style is becoming increasingly uncommon. 67 Environmental Significance Site CharacteristicsLevel lot with mature vegetation. House sits back from front of lot, creating a front garden in addition to the rear yard between the house and garage. 01 Compatibility with Site None observed02 Geographic Importance Remnant of the area’s rural origins before development in the 1950s. Elaboration: The location of the house in the context of Boulder’s rural origins is significant. Interurban Park was platted in 1908. However, the eastern part of the neighborhood remained rural until the 1950s. During the 1950s, the area was developed in response to the need for housing for returning service persons and the construction of the National Bureau of Standards Central Radio Propagation Laboratory—now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—in 1954. 03 Environmental Appropriateness Some observed Elaboration: The property is not located in an identified potential historic district. Although the area has not retained the rural feel of the 1940s, it remains residential in character. Some features of the 1950s development remain. 04 Area Integrity Some observed. Elaboration: The property is not located in an identified potential historic district. Although the area has not retained the rural feel of the 1940s, it remains residential in character. Some features of the 1950s development remain. 05 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation 68 Relationship to Neighborhood Relationship and Character The surrounding areas has an eclectic character and a wide range of building ages, mostly post WWII buildings many of which have been heavily modified. The vernacular construction and use of polygonal stone facing identifies this house as one of the older properties in the area and adds to the character of this block and area in general. Criterion 2: Relationship to the character of the neighborhood 69 Condition of Building Criterion 3 & 4: Condition of the Building and Projected Cost of Restoration or Repair Projected Cost The owner has submitted information related to the to the projected cost of restoration/repair of the building. The owner has submitted information related to the to the projected cost of restoration/repair of the building. 70 I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay-of-demolition for the building located at 2119 Mariposa Ave. for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the buildings and adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated January 4, 2023. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation71 Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: A stay-of-demolition for the property at 2119 Mariposa Ave. is appropriate based on the criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981 in that: 1.The property may be eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its historic associations with Cecil Cox and Donald McCormick, and for its architectural significance as a stone-faced vernacular Bungalow with craftsman elements; 2.The property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of the area’s past; 3.It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the buildings. Proposed Findings Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation72 Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation73 Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Public Participation Applicant Response Board Deliberation **approx. 30 minutes scheduled for board deliberation** Does this building have historic significance? If yes, place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives to demolition If no, approve the demolition request Board Deliberation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation74 Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation75 Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation76 I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay-of-demolition for the building located at 2119 Mariposa Ave. for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the buildings and adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated January 4, 2023. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation77 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation I move the Landmarks Board approve the demolition application for the buildings at 2119 Mariposa Ave., finding that the buildings to be demolished do not have significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981. Alternative Motion –Stay of Demolition 78 Matters Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation •Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Training for Board Members •Historic Places Plan (HiPP) public open house –January 25 from 4 –6pm •2023 Saving Places (Colorado Preservation Inc) Conference –February 8 –10 79 Diversity Equity and Inclusion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation A.Members can join a session of the New Employee Orientation II: •Training duration:4 hrs •When:third Thursday of every month •Location: alternating months between virtual and in-person, starting with virtual session in January and alternating months thereafter. B. The City can offer the training during their board-specific monthly meeting: •Training duration:3.5 hrs (1 hour of viewing film on their own time and 2.5 hrs live training). Link to film will be made available to members •When:During a Landmarks Board meeting •Location: TBD depending on the current meeting format C.The city can select days and times and board members can sign up on their own: •Training duration:3.5 hrs (1 hour of viewing film on their own time and 2.5 hrs live training). Link to film will be made available to members •When:Tuesdays or Wednesdays evening 6-8:30pm OR Saturdays 9am-11:30am •Location: virtual or in-person depending on training month is offered* •Training would combine various participants from different Boards & Commissions 80