LB Retreat Notes 10.20.23
Attendees
• Abby Daniels
• John Decker
• Chelsea Castellano
• Renee Golobic
• Ronnie Pelusio
• Mark McIntyre
• Brad Mueller
• Kristofer Johnson
• Marcy Gerwing
• Clare Brandt
• Aubrey Noble
• Olivia Simard
Intention
• Get to know each other
• Share the vision of the program
• Brainstorm ideas for adjustments to the LDRC
• Get familiar with Council Chambers in advance of first hybrid meeting (11/1/2023)
Introductions
• Board members and staff introductions
Program Vision
• Acknowledging transition from James Hewat’s leadership of the program for 17 years
• Marcy shared the program vision, including remarks on the legacy of planning in Boulder, the
importance of historic preservation to Boulder’s unique sense of place, and that the team aims
for the program to be credible, welcoming and practical.
• Future “wish list” in 5 years:
o Sustainable workload
o Steady number of new designations
o Historic preservation valued by the community
o Grant funded documentation of underrepresented histories, from the perspective of each
community
o Updated significance criteria
o Code revisions to streamline process, increase efficacy
LDRC Brainstorm
• This discussion is intended to be a starting point to discuss potential changes to the LDRC to
improve the process for board members, staff, applicants and the public, and make the
Landmarks Board 5-year volunteer commitment sustainable.
• It is a time to discuss what ideas we would like to explore further.
• We do not have the capacity to make any changes to LDRC or LB while the Civic Area Historic
District process is going on (through April). We might be able to make minor changes, but we do
not have the capacity to make any administrative rules or code changes.
• Brad shared that a consultant has been hired to assess boards and commissions across the city
and recently completed a report.
LANDMARKS BOARD RETREAT
DATE: Friday, October 20, 2023
TIME: 12 – 2:30 pm
PLACE: Penfield Tate II Municipal Building – Room N101
Board members and staff discussed the following ideas:
1. Idea #1: LDRC meetings every other week
a. All the board members supported the idea, with the hope of reducing the number of
meetings each month.
i. Chelsea’s support is contingent on implementing idea #4 along with this idea
b. Abby raised the concern that if LDRC was held every other week, each meeting would be
longer.
i. Exploring other ideas that could be done in conjunction could solve this problem.
c. John proposed a hybrid version of the idea: LDRC every other week, with a flex week at
the end of every month to avoid getting behind on applications.
2. Idea #2: LDRC meetings on Fridays
a. John and Chelsea support the idea.
b. Marcy shared that there are a number of deadlines and pre and post LDRC work that
would be challenging if moved to Friday.
3. Idea #3: Demolition approvals expire after 1 (or 2) year(s)
a. All board members supported the idea.
4. Idea #4 Staff level review of more items
a. All board members supported the idea.
b. Renee asked, “if staff reviewed more items, would each case take less time for the staff to
review it compared to LDRC review?” Yes, because we would not be creating a
powerpoint slide or facilitating a meeting.
c. John questioned whether review of tax credit applications are a good use of LDRC’s time.
5. Idea #5: LDRC for staff referrals only
a. Neither staff nor board members supported the idea, as the perception could be that
LDRC is a penalty.
6. Idea #6: More than 14 days to review applications
a. All the board members supported the idea.
b. No further comments were made due to time constraints.
7. Idea #7: Staff refer straight to LB if they intend to call it up during the LDRC, skip LDRC
a. All board members supported the idea.
b. No further comments were made due to time constraints.
8. Idea #8: LDRC rotation reflects LB members availability
a. Concerns were raised about how implementing this idea would hinder inclusivity.
9. Idea #9: No LDRC during the workday
a. Chelsea proposed the idea during the retreat. All the board members supported it.
b. Chelsea gave the following comments:
i. The level of service we provide is very high, but it comes at a significant cost, it is
hard for our community to serve on the board.
ii. We must weigh the balance between what we offer to the applicants and what
we do as a board to make sure the future of the board is inclusive and
represents the community.
iii. Think about a world where there is no LDRC during the workday. No other
boards have meetings during the day. Why are we the only ones?
iv. Ronnie clarified that Chelsea is not asking for the elimination of the LDRC, but
for the timing to change.
v. She would like to explore times outside of Wednesday mornings or explore any
other day 9 am - 5 pm.
c. John mentioned that city employees do not want to work in the evenings, and many cities
do reviews during the workday.
• The board members took a straw pool and supported further exploring ideas 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9.
Follow Up Items
• There are other alternatives that we may not be aware of yet. Continue to brainstorm ideas for
adjustments to LDRC.
• Staff will further study ideas 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 and provide an update to the Landmarks Board in
the next few months.