Mar 17, 2022 Historic Landmark Commission on 2022-03-17 5:30 PM (SPECIAL CALLED MEETING)

>> Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. Noting that we have a quorum, we will call this meeting to order. Let's start by presiding the Pledge of Allegiance and then Texas. How could you eat through the TV monitoring of ours? >> We have our own rounds, don't we? >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. >> Thank you, everybody. This is an emergency special call meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission. Today is Thursday, March 17th. Our first item for consideration is approval of the minutes from the month of November. Those minutes were distributed in everyone's packet. So, assuming you've seen those, we need a motion for approval. >> I have a motion on my question. >> May I have a second? >> Yes. >> Motion and a second? All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. Any opposed? No, I don't think so. Okay, so the minutes are approved. And I will sign those for, I think, Ms. Monica. Here you go. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And second up this evening is COA 22-0001, to hold a public meeting and consider an application for certificate of appropriateness in accordance with section 2.9.2 of the DIN Development Code to construct a new rear addition at 906 West Hickory Street within the Oak History Historic District. The site is located on the north side of West Hickory Street between North Well Street and Barnard. And I think I'll turn it over to Cameron for the presentation. >> Good evening, everyone. As our Chair Roy stated, we have our COA 22-0001B for a new rear addition. So, this is located on the north side of West Hickory Street between North Welch and William Streets. The owners are David and Diane and Michelson, and the construction date of the home was made at circa 1919. So, just a little bit of background on the building's history. It was constructed by R.A. and F.E. McClerkins Sledge. The architectural style itself is a craftsman style. Some of the defining features, as you can kind of see from these pictures, it has the exposed roof rafters up here. We have our low-pitched front gabled roof with unenclosed eave overhangs, which you can see over here. We have decorative brackets, a covered front porch, and paired double-hung windows. So, the request is a rear building addition with a covered patio and window relocation, and this is on the north rear facade facing away from West Hickory Street, where the arrow is pointed back here. So, these are photos of the current condition. This is showing photo number one right here, that's showing that west facade, as you can see from the north arrow. We have our photo number two showing those north and west facades as well. We have our photo number three, which is right here, on that north end of the residence, and then we have photo number four, which is on the east side. I don't know if that's appropriate type of questions or not, regarding the presentation. I can take questions. I'm just a little bit confused, because the previous picture, when I was looking at it earlier, it looked like it was going to be on the west side, but everything else indicated it was going to be on the north side. So, this is showing the north arrow, right here, so this is, if you were ... No, no, I'm saying the picture there looks like it's pointing to the west side of the house. Oh, it's just because I'm trying to point to the rear of the facade, just for the photo, because it's technically not visible from the street, however, because it's over ... It's larger than a minor alteration or ordinary maintenance. That's why it's going in front of HLC. So the materials I propose, they plan on using the original or the new wooden clapboard siding, so if they're not able to get that original, they want to use new wooden clapboard siding. They are going to use the original windows. They are going to match the existing roof with the gray colored asphalt shingles, and then use wooden trim around the windows as well. So this is the existing elevations, as you can see. We have the rear that you saw in the photos. We have that western facade, and then we have that eastern facade right here. So this is the proposed elevation. Right now they show the spacing between the two windows. They show a spacing change. The two original windows have been relocated from the kitchen to the rear right here. The two original windows have been removed on that eastern facade, and then the proposed right elevation. Or I mean, sorry, this is the eastern facade, this is the western facade. So the two windows have been removed, and the eastern facade, the two original windows have remained. So these are the architectural drawings, this is just the foundation plan, showing how the foundation will match with the existing foundation. And then they show how the roof rafter plan and the ceiling joist plan as well, and how that will connect with the current ceiling and the roof. So this is going in front of the Texas Historical Commission for a historic tax exemption. So they are currently, they've already done their part A, which is the building's historic significance and its eligibility for the tax credit program, so they are eligible. And they received this letter on November 18, 2021. As stated, the determination was the property is a certified historic structure and can continue through the application process for that historic tax exemption. Currently, they are working on part B, which is showing their the existing conditions and the proposed project and how it meets the National Register standards. So they're also going for the National Park Service review. So they've done, they're working on part one, as you can see, it's also that building's historic significance and its eligibility for the tax credit program. And they received their letter on September 17, 2021. As stated, the determination was that is, it is a certified historic property, and they have currently submitted their part two as well, which is also the proposed project and how it meets the standards. So staff's analysis, as you all saw in your packets, we're looking at the standards for rehabilitation and we're focusing specifically on these five standards right here. But we're also looking at our DEN development code, our section 4.9.4C, as it is located in the Oak Hickory Historic District. So what we focused on, what staff focused on was that architectural detail, new construction additions, additions themselves, facade materials, roof forms, and windows and doors. So staff is recommending approval subject to conditions of the COA request for the creation of the new building addition, including the covered porch and relocation of the four of the six existing windows along the west and north rear facades of the residence. However, staff is recommending that the two existing windows, which are shown here, remain in their current location as they match that original craftsman style and are not required for the new construction. Any questions? I have a question. Do you go back to staff's recommendation? Yes. On this, the other side, which side am I looking at? This is the north side. The north side. Yes. So on the west side? Yes. Are they moving windows on the west side or are they keeping those? So they are moving this window, which you can see right here. This window is being moved and this one is being moved. Those two windows are being moved. Yes. It's not on the other side. Correct. So that they can put the addition right here. Okay. Okay. And my other question for that was according to the building code, I know they said they're going to use the original ones. Is that allowed? The original windows? Yes. It is? Yes. Okay. Yes. I'm not sure how much it matters, but are they not going to have a back door at all? What's in new? They are. The door is proposed here. So it's on this wall. It's on that eastern wall right here. So it's right there. Yeah. So they'll have an exit towards the rear. Another question, if one of the windows that they're going to move is damaged in the process, do they have to reapply or anything to use with us? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. So if one of the windows is damaged in the process and they have to replace it with a new window, they will have to come to us. Any more additional questions? Can you scroll back to the slide that has the five standards that you guys consider? Yes. Okay, so we haven't done this in a while. So here's just a ... Well, what happens is the HLC has essentially four options. And the way it works is we need a motion and a second, and then we move into the discussion phase. Okay. After we've discussed it enough, then we call a vote and it'll get voted depending on the nature of the motion. If we do nothing, there's no motion, then this would be approved by default in about a week, right? Two weeks. It would go to the next ... Or if we don't approve it ... Back to city council. Well, if there's no motion coming forward. Hillary, do you know? This one works 75 days. Let's assume that ... Oh yes. So it would be, you just continue on at 75 day. Of course, sorry. Is it ... The option ... Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Would it be, when you say by default, would it be per the staff recommendations or per what they're applying for? So could they move those, for example, could they move those two windows on the north side? It just goes back to default. They wouldn't be able to do any work. Correct. Okay. I misunderstood. Thank you. Great. Okay. So the normal options are approved as submitted, approved subject to conditions that we set how we want things perhaps done. We can deny it, or we can continue the item to either indefinitely, which removes it permanently, or to a state specific. Okay. So we'll ... I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. I move to approve COA 22-001B with conditions, and that would be a staff recommendation with those windows as presented by staff. Perfect. Do we have a second? Second. We have two seconds. Okay. So let's roll it out without a discussion. So what you're primarily concerned about is the spacing of those two windows need to match the other one, the staff recommendation, right? Right. Now they're reusing two windows, but aren't there two new windows being put in as well? No. So they are removing ... Oh, I should have taken out two other windows. Yes. They've used those two there. Yes. Yes. Yes. That's what I was confused on originally, Roy. Right. Okay. Any other questions or comments or ... I mean chime in. Floor's open. I guess I'm curious about the necessity to change their plans on the windows. I mean, I'm not sure how necessary that is to preserve it, given the fact that, one, it's not visible by, you know, by anyone that's in there on the rear elevation of the building. I'm not sure how much of a difference that really makes. Okay. So I'll pose it like this. So in a house of this period, would always the windows be paired with the same spacing? I mean, I'm not driving around, it's a question for you guys, yes. Yes. So that spacing would look odd to someone who did. And so one of our standards is to make sure whatever we permit is consistent with the historic time period from this home, which is, I think, why they're making a recommendation. So given what I'm looking at there, if the recommendation is to move those close together, is it specifically to match the ones on the west side? It is to just remain as where they're located currently and not space them apart. So as to retain that. The two sets would still be different from one another, given that those pictures there. Correct. So it would basically, if you would take these windows and place them right here and just keep them. But they seem, even where they are now seems further apart than when they're proposed ones on the right. Right. So they are, yeah, the spacing does look a little off compared to what they are placed right there. And moving those two windows does not have to be part of the project. Correct. Okay. That's kind of what did it for me too. So these two windows are what staff is recommending, just stay the same instead of being spaced apart and just leaving them as is because they're not required as part of the construction of the addition. Well, it's probably smarter that they don't in case they get broken, they don't want to have to come back here again. Okay. Any other discussion or questions for staff, comments? So we're not putting any requirements on where those two windows that are being moved, where they are in relation to the spacing on those, correct? Correct. Staff is not making any recommendations on where they need to be located. Staff agrees with what is currently proposed except for this space change right here. All right. I wonder if that was just an issue with the plans, was there anything else? I wonder why they would completely redo that one, not necessarily. It would probably have to because of fire code. Well, so in the plans, I didn't see in the presentation, but they had a proposed wall removal of only that one wall. They didn't show that they were actually removing the wall that that window change was going to be in. So this wall right here? Right. Whereas the further north wall, they're not showing removing that wall at all or making any changes to it. So I'm wondering if those windows being further apart was just maybe a mistake on the design part. And I was to say, the applicant isn't here tonight and he did inform me that these windows weren't supposed to change. They were supposed to just stay as is, however, staff needed to continue with the recommendation because we were not provided any new drawings. And those are the windows on the lower left photo. Those are just. Yes. This is the north side. And they're just staying right where they're at? Correct. Yes. Got it. Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second and we've had discussion no further. I'll call a vote. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. All those in favor, raise your hand. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Next on our agenda. Is HAL 22-0001B hold a public meeting and determine whether the presented expenses resulted in a permanent improvement or restoration of a local historic landmark property located at 123 North Elm Street. The site is located on the south side of West Oak Street between Cedar and North Elm Street. Cameron's going to make her presentation. Thank you, Chair. So this is for 123 North Elm Street. This is for a historic tax exemption. So as stated, it's at 123 North Elm. It's on the south side of West Oak between Cedar Street and North Elm Street. The owners are Denton TriStar Investments LLC. So it is a local historic landmark. People know it as the scripture building and it was built circa 1882. The request is for a historic landmark tax exemption according to section 10-128. Some of the repairs and updates that were made are roof repairs and general maintenance of window seals, brick around door at front north side of building and general loose brick, hand painted distress signage, sealant of interior brick and updated flooring in suite 303. The total cost is $33,832.99. So this is just a photo of some of the roof repairs that were done to the building, the hand painted distress signage as you can see, the brick repair done around the door itself. So staff is in analysis as looking at section 10-128D, which is doing that it allows for additional 10-year exemption which requires a property owner to spend a minimum amount of $10,000 additional in terms of permanent improvements and/or restoration to the property. So staff recommends that they roll determination that the expenses presented with the exception of the hand painted distress signage resulted in permanent improvement and/or restoration of the landmark property located at 123 North Elm Street. With the exception of the signage, the applicant still needs that minimum $10,000 or more requirements stated in the city's code of ordinances, section 10-128D. Any questions? Okay questions? Do we need a motion first or? I'll ask for that, yeah technically, well let me see what our options are. Our options on this one are to make a favorable finding of improvement, make an unfavorable finding of improvement, deny the request or continue either indefinitely or to the time specific. So if we're done with questions for staff then yes we need a motion to move into discussion phase in a second. I move to accept HL 22-0001B as appropriate expenses. Second. Do we have a motion in a second? I'll throw the floor open for discussion, just help yourself. I am glad for the staff's recommendation because of the signage part there, because if we remember back when we had some other discussion on another building of signage it can come and go. And so I totally agree with that and I think they did meet it without that signage part, but I think we do need to put in there that the signage, if it was a historic sign I would go with that, but it's not, but they still meet it. That's why I was going to ask, is it an original signage or is it something contemporary? I went back and looked at the code on this because I'm kind of confused about the exemption in general. I don't know if we had a discussion about it before about how it seemed kind of insignificant, but it actually looks more significant than I think maybe some people thought. It looks like it's a 50% reduction in the City of Denton taxable value, which on this property is almost $1400 a year over 10 years, I mean it's significant, but I guess what I'm curious about is, is there any time backwards, how far back can they go? I don't know that the code was overly clear on how old the repairs can be because this is $33,000. Do they have to use all $33,000 on this or could they save $10,000 and use it again in 10 years? Because like I said, I don't think that's very clear. It sounds like it can go back indefinitely to 2009. I don't see what you're saying. So if it's 10 years now, I see what you're saying. I think it says 10,000 or more beyond those demonstrated for the initial or a subsequent exemption. So they could, yeah, if they do a $50,000 repair, they could use that for the next 50 years. I think that would be right. I mean, if I were them, I would, well, first of all, I would expect that if someone, that particular part of the code might be adjusted if we thought that was abusive somehow, but I don't know why you wouldn't. Yeah, I mean, it seemed to go in well in excess of it on this, so it's, you know, and I think the group work alone is, falls well within the things. Right. I don't see an issue with that. I just was kind of more curious about a little deeper on it. I'm just glad people are keeping them up. I think it's amazing. The incentive, I think, is amazing too, because it gets costly on older structures. We know that. Very much so. Okay. So, any other discussion, questions, comments? All right. We have a motion and a second to approve this tax exemption application. All those in favor signify by raising your right hand. Yes, ma'am. If I could just seek clarification to make sure we understand what the motion is. So, because what I heard from Commissioner Kegel was that it was a motion for a favorable determination, but was that as submitted by the applicant or as recommended by staff? Because I know some of the discussion. Signed. You're right. So, I just want to clarify what your motion is. Well, if I can amend my motion, I'll do it with staff recommendations. Yes. Let's go ahead and get another second on that. Second. Okay. We have, the motion is that we make a favorable finding of improvement subject to the staff's limitations that the expenditures for the signage do not qualify. Fairly stated. Yes. So, that is our motion. We've had any further discussion? All those in favor signify by raising and saying aye. Aye. So, unanimous. I'm getting rusty with this one. You're doing a great job. The final thing on, all right, so we are now moving out of the public section of our meeting and moving into a works session and what they would like us to do is they provided a copy of a calendar for everyone here in front of you, is to approve the remaining meetings for calendar 22. So, I don't know any, there really won't even necessarily be a motion coming out of this other than probably majority vote. Well, let's just roll through and I'll highlight the meetings. The next one is scheduled for this coming Monday, the 21st, assuming all meetings would be here in this location and at 530. I assume there's more to cover on Monday that's going to require that beyond what we did today. Yes. Yes, I think you said there were two COAs and two more tax exemptions and then we had a workshop, which I think will in detail go through some of the tax exemption stuff, right? That is not scheduled for, the 21st will be scheduled for April. The next meeting beyond that would be April the 11th. Now, as your resident CPA, I can't guarantee I'll be here for that one, but if we get enough fill-ins we should be fine. The next one after that is May the 9th. Okay, so as I roll through this, if someone has an objection and wants to move one, this is the time to scream out. Hey, I don't like that one, right? I'm just wondering, instead of going, they're all on the second Monday of every month except for July and September. And I think that was because there were holidays. My thought is it's just easier to keep up with the second Monday of every month because I get confused on those months, if that makes sense, because it's not the week of a holiday. So could we move those and just keep it the second Monday of every month? So July the 11th then would be our program? It would be July 11th and September 10th, 12th, yeah. July would be the 11th instead of the 18th and September would be the 12th instead of the 19th. Okay, so is there, do we know if this is shifted because of some other commitment for this room? Oh, I have no idea. That doesn't look good. Can I real quick? Which day did you prefer? The 11th? No, I just wonder. I can come either day, just to keep in my mind when I'm doing things, the second Monday of every month sticks, except it's just hard to remember, oh, July and September are changing and I don't know why they changed to the third Monday. Especially when planning and zoning didn't do the same thing. Right. And if I can offer some insight, it's my understanding that from a scheduling standpoint that I think there's been some precedent in the past when there's been, I know at least with Council's meetings, when Monday is a holiday, then they normally would not meet that week and then because they typically meet on Tuesdays, right? The planning and zoning commission, we meet on Wednesdays so we've got a little more flexibility because we're not coming back into a meeting right after a holiday weekend. But I think it's my understanding though that when we've had a Monday holiday, then that's when we've shifted our meetings. But if it's the desire of the commission to keep it, for example, on the second Monday of every month, we should be able to make that happen from a staff's perspective. I think Monica might be checking the room availability but otherwise I would think we could make that happen and then because it does provide some normalcy to that schedule and you're not having to keep up with which holiday or which months have a Monday holiday that first Monday of the month. But just to let you know, from a staff's perspective, we would be amenable to that change provided that we have the room available. Yes, it looks like it works. On the 11th of July, what about September 12th? We have the, the only thing is that we have like PNZ and Council on the same week. And which day do you prefer for September? The 12th. Yeah, Monday the 12th of September. This will be more predictable for our best viewership. There's a bit of a bailing for that room. Okay. All right. So I'm just going to roll through these quickly and then we'll have a vote to approve. March the 21st, next Monday, April the 11th. May the 9th, June the 13th, July the 11th, August the 8th, September the 12th, October the 10th, November the 14th and December the 12th. Okay. All those who are in favor of approving this calendar signify by raising your right hand. I unfortunately don't know what I would be in town. I don't have my calendar with me and I don't know whether my calendar fits with this. So okay. I can only vote yes. Well, what I would ask of the commission is that when you have an opportunity to look at your calendar or if you have something come up, the sooner you let us know in advance the better off we are because obviously achieving quorum is extremely important to us and we're working on looking to try and reduce our quorum from five down to four because of the fact that we've had some vacancies in the past. So but just the key thing for us is communication because when we're not able to achieve quorum then that impacts us not being able to review applications because there are some things we can approve administratively but there are several things that we cannot approve administratively. So I would just ask that you reach out to Monica or Cameron if you've got something that's coming up with a schedule conflict because if we're not able to achieve quorum then we've got to be able to pivot accordingly and we might reach out to you to see if there's an alternate date in the month that would work best but so like I said just communicate with us frequently and of course we also have the city email addresses that we would ask that you make sure you keep up with correspondence on that as well. Okay, I believe that concludes our agenda. Yes, ma'am. I was just gonna say I really appreciate the note that came to my regular email. Those are nice because it just goes oh yeah I gotta go check it. So that's a nice touch. But just a friendly reminder that we have to stop emailing that for the city secretary's office. The reminders? No, not the reminder but like emailing your personal emails. The reminder. The reminder that I sent to your personal email is gonna stop and I'm only gonna be sending it to your city email. Okay, well we kind of, all right, we're asking you not to stop that because that helps us make a quorum and so whatever we need to do to the city secretary's office or the city council to waive that let's do that. Is there anybody that checks their email frequently that can just email them? Well, I don't know why this is so because the whole thing is posted anyway so it's not a secret. So it's to protect you and to not get too off-topic since we're posted for the calendar and not so much the email but I would just say that the reason why those email addresses have been set up is to offer protection to you because your personal email addresses would otherwise be subject to open records and so by having a city email address we're able to push all that communication to you that way and so it's for your protection as a volunteer. But for her, the notification email. I understand and we're more than happy to revisit with the city secretary's office and if we need to have a future item on the agenda posted to have more in-depth discussion on this, happy to do so but we can follow up with them and see if anything's changed but I know the message has been that we need to utilize the city email addresses. Okay. Would a text notification likewise be subject to an open records act? That's a good question. We can follow up with the commission and maybe follow up with an email again because we're starting to deviate from our posting on the agenda. Is we've actually, I mean, this year we've already had two meetings that haven't happened because of a lack of corn and I really wouldn't want that to be because somehow we're not getting the message out. If we can, right? If we can. Okay. I believe that concludes our agenda so we stay in the journey. Thank you.