Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ldrc Rotation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landmarks Board debates LDRC schedule and volunteer burden; staff to circulate rotation
Summary
Board members discussed a proposed Landmarks Design Review Committee rotation and weekday morning meeting window; members raised equity and volunteer-burden concerns and asked staff to circulate a 12-month rotation and revisit start times in August.
Get email alerts on the Ldrc Rotation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Boulder Landmarks Board spent a substantive portion of its April 8 meeting discussing the Landmarks Design Review Committee (LDRC) schedule, volunteer time commitments and a proposed monthly rotation intended to ensure timely review of landmark alteration applications.
Staff outlined anticipated caseload increases and proposed canceling the first Wednesday of each month (the full board meeting day) while holding LDRC meetings on other Wednesdays in a 9–11 a.m. window. Staff said the rotation would be equally distributed across five board members, typically assigning each member one meeting per month and occasionally two, with an on-call substitute to cover last-minute conflicts. Mariah, the program coordinator, said the expectation is an annual time commitment of 20–30 hours per board member under the proposed rotation.
Board member Chelsea Castellano raised concerns that the schedule as proposed would exclude many candidates who work traditional 9–5 jobs and urged exploring alternatives to make participation more equitable: “This requirement basically means that people who have 9 to 5 jobs…can't be on this board and can't serve on this board,” she said. Chelsea proposed changing the start time to 8–10 a.m. or offering a 4–6 p.m. option for some meetings. Other members supported testing an earlier start time or retaining a mix of meeting times, while staff noted an 8 a.m. start could be difficult for administrative staff.
The board did not adopt a formal change at the meeting but asked staff to circulate a 12‑month draft rotation and collect members’ availability; members agreed to revisit the schedule in August to evaluate how it is working and to consider adjustments. Staff also agreed to prioritize predictability in scheduling and to post agendas in advance to help applicants and volunteer reviewers plan.

