WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.200
 Okay, taking note of the fact that we have a quorum and it is 5/3, I'll note that Mr.

00:00:08.200 --> 00:00:14.160
 Kegel is temporarily stepped out, despite that we still have five.

00:00:14.160 --> 00:00:21.500
 So unless there's an objection, we'll head off with our, there he is, oh, and Ms. Berry

00:00:21.500 --> 00:00:30.400
 is here as well. Let's give just a second for these guys to get settled in. All right,

00:00:30.400 --> 00:00:35.600
 if you guys will rise with me, let's say the US flag and the Pledge of Allegiance to the

00:00:35.600 --> 00:00:42.400
 Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

00:00:42.400 --> 00:00:49.800
 Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

00:00:49.800 --> 00:00:51.940
 for all.

00:00:51.940 --> 00:00:59.600
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, for which it stands, one nation under God,

00:00:59.600 --> 00:01:10.000
 one nation under God, one nation under God, one nation under God, one nation under God.

00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:19.600
 Thanks everybody for showing up. Once again, if weather threatens, we'll pause the meeting,

00:01:19.600 --> 00:01:26.840
 so I think everybody's got in their packet. First up is consideration of our minutes from

00:01:26.840 --> 00:01:27.840
 the March 21 meeting.

00:01:27.840 --> 00:01:33.720
 I will move approval of those minutes.

00:01:33.720 --> 00:01:37.280
 Do we have a second?

00:01:37.280 --> 00:01:45.640
 We have a motion and a second. Any discussion or corrections? All those in favor, please

00:01:45.640 --> 00:01:54.900
 raise your hand. Aye, it's unanimous. Minutes are approved.

00:01:54.900 --> 00:02:04.320
 Next up is COA 22-0004, hold a public meeting and consider an application for Certificate

00:02:04.320 --> 00:02:10.080
 of Appropriateness in accordance with Section 2.9.2 of the Dent Development Code to replace

00:02:10.080 --> 00:02:16.840
 exterior windows at 2200 Houston Place within the West Oak Historic District. The site is

00:02:16.840 --> 00:02:22.200
 located on the north side of Houston Place between Thomas and Bradley Street.

00:02:22.200 --> 00:02:23.200
 Ms. Robertson?

00:02:23.200 --> 00:02:29.000
 Thank you, Chair. So as stated, this is on the north side of Houston Place between Thomas

00:02:29.000 --> 00:02:34.280
 Street and Bradley Street. The owners are Jennifer Aglio and Megan Morrissey. The construction

00:02:34.280 --> 00:02:41.960
 date is circa 1963. For the building's history, the architectural style is mid-century ranch.

00:02:41.960 --> 00:02:46.440
 The defining features are the sheltered entry, as you can see here, the low-pitched roof,

00:02:46.440 --> 00:02:54.840
 it is asymmetrical on the exterior, single-story, and large double-hung windows. So the request

00:02:54.840 --> 00:02:59.760
 is a replacement of 11 windows, those located primarily along the facade facing Houston

00:02:59.760 --> 00:03:08.240
 Place, but the main building's entire exterior. So these are the current conditions. So these

00:03:08.240 --> 00:03:15.120
 windows are visible from Houston Place. And as you can see, some of the framing is off-centered,

00:03:15.120 --> 00:03:25.360
 is a little deteriorated along the edge. Also more current conditions, broken window planes,

00:03:25.360 --> 00:03:29.040
 improper application of sealants. So you can see some of that water damage on the interior

00:03:29.040 --> 00:03:35.120
 right here. Regular condensation on the single-pane glass windows, as you can see here, which

00:03:35.120 --> 00:03:40.360
 is evidence of little to no insulation, as well as air leakage, which is resulting in

00:03:40.360 --> 00:03:48.000
 dust and dirt entering the home and increased road noise. So the proposed window design

00:03:48.000 --> 00:03:53.360
 would be a flat-style grills with wide double-hung windows and vinyl construction. So this is

00:03:53.360 --> 00:03:58.000
 the existing window design seen here. And this is the proposed window design, which

00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:07.560
 shows those grills in between the glass, which are flat, to end the product right here. So

00:04:07.560 --> 00:04:13.680
 staff's analysis, which was included in the packet, covered the standards for rehabilitation,

00:04:13.680 --> 00:04:23.200
 focusing on points 2, 3, 5, and 6, as well as 9. And just to kind of go into kind of

00:04:23.200 --> 00:04:27.920
 those details that were shown in the packet as well, here are some examples along Houston

00:04:27.920 --> 00:04:32.460
 Place that you can see in the historic district. So we do have some aluminum double-hung windows

00:04:32.460 --> 00:04:38.080
 with grills that are still existing. We have vinyl double-hung windows seen here, as well

00:04:38.080 --> 00:04:46.400
 as vinyl double-hung windows with grills seen here. These are some additional examples also

00:04:46.400 --> 00:04:50.640
 seen along Houston Place. We have that vinyl double-hung windows with grills seen on both

00:04:50.640 --> 00:04:55.320
 of these residences, as well as the vinyl double-hung windows seen on this, as well

00:04:55.320 --> 00:05:07.480
 as aluminum double-hung windows with grills. Staff's analysis also looked at section 4.9.6C,

00:05:07.480 --> 00:05:12.160
 which looks at the architectural requirements of the West Oak Area Historic District. So

00:05:12.160 --> 00:05:17.160
 some of the relevant architectural requirements that staff looked at was architectural detail,

00:05:17.160 --> 00:05:21.200
 the windows and doors. And underneath the window and doors, we focused on the front

00:05:21.200 --> 00:05:29.520
 facade openings, glass, style, size, frames, and openings themselves. So staff does recommend

00:05:29.520 --> 00:05:35.400
 approval as submitted of the COA request to replace the 11 main residence windows at 22

00:05:35.400 --> 00:05:40.160
 Underage Houston Place as a proposed project meets the Secretary of Interior Standards

00:05:40.160 --> 00:05:48.560
 for Rehabilitation in section 4.9.6C of the Denton Development Code. Any questions?

00:05:48.560 --> 00:05:53.600
 Okay. Floor's open. Just fire away. And I did want to mention real quick that the applicants

00:05:53.600 --> 00:06:00.880
 are here and they are able to address any questions that you may have. So it's going

00:06:00.880 --> 00:06:09.040
 from aluminum to vinyl, correct? Correct. And what about the shutters? I didn't see

00:06:09.040 --> 00:06:17.840
 that on the picture. I don't remember it being addressed. We don't plan to make any changes

00:06:17.840 --> 00:06:23.680
 to the shutters. It's just not written here. That's a trick. It has to be shown. So they're

00:06:23.680 --> 00:06:29.400
 just focusing on the windows themselves. They're not focusing on the shutters. Oh, this is

00:06:29.400 --> 00:06:34.320
 just an example. So this is just serving as an example. These are the actual window designs

00:06:34.320 --> 00:06:38.680
 that are being shown, as well as the grill in between the glass, which is that flat design

00:06:38.680 --> 00:06:44.600
 to match the mid-century modern branch style. But we're just focusing specifically on this.

00:06:44.600 --> 00:06:56.120
 They do not plan on touching the shutters. We'll clean them. They're impossible to get

00:06:56.120 --> 00:07:06.560
 back up. Any other questions? I'm going to warn everybody that I had a sinus infection

00:07:06.560 --> 00:07:14.760
 so my head is-- I'm not hearing it. My nose is at that rate, so it's even worse. OK, so

00:07:14.760 --> 00:07:24.080
 if no other questions, then this is our first topic. Obviously, the proof is submitted.

00:07:24.080 --> 00:07:30.240
 Approved subject conditions deny or continue the items or the normal options. Can I access

00:07:30.240 --> 00:07:36.920
 the camera in the question? Yes. I think you said this met the standards from-- oh, jeez,

00:07:36.920 --> 00:07:42.240
 the historic preservation thing. I'm trying to remember the standards as far as going

00:07:42.240 --> 00:07:49.240
 from aluminum to vinyl. We've had a lot of issues with going to vinyl. And so I thought

00:07:49.240 --> 00:07:55.400
 the material should have stayed the same as my recollection, but it's been a while. So

00:07:55.400 --> 00:08:02.960
 the materials is suggested to stay the same, but it is not required. And there are lots

00:08:02.960 --> 00:08:07.800
 of others, you point out, that's in the neighborhood. Yes. So these are all along Houston Place

00:08:07.800 --> 00:08:13.840
 within the same block, between Thomas and Bradley. And noise is not much of a consideration

00:08:13.840 --> 00:08:22.560
 on Houston Place, if you know what I mean. It's not like living on Oak or anything. OK,

00:08:22.560 --> 00:08:31.440
 I'll entertain a motion. I will move approval at staff's recommendation. So you have a second.

00:08:31.440 --> 00:08:39.880
 Yes, ma'am. Second. OK, Ms. Ferry seconded. Now we're open for discussion. I am kind of

00:08:39.880 --> 00:08:45.960
 curious. So last time we had an issue with wood versus aluminum, and there was a big discussion

00:08:45.960 --> 00:08:51.920
 about retaining the wood. Was it possible to save it, that sort of thing. It doesn't--

00:08:51.920 --> 00:08:56.800
 I'm not saying I necessarily disagree. I'm not a fan of vinyl, but this isn't a style

00:08:56.800 --> 00:09:02.640
 question. This is a historical question. If aluminum was the material used at the time,

00:09:02.640 --> 00:09:08.840
 I guess I just don't understand why we were so sticklers about the wood not the aluminum.

00:09:08.840 --> 00:09:13.040
 I think that's an excellent point. And that's kind of my issue. On some, if it's wood, we

00:09:13.040 --> 00:09:20.200
 say they need to stay wood. If it's something else, we've been here, we've been there. And

00:09:20.200 --> 00:09:27.240
 I'd just like to see us be consistent. Because I see that with-- that we've had in the past.

00:09:27.240 --> 00:09:33.040
 And if it was done in error, we're still saying, it's like, at that, we're being told, hey,

00:09:33.040 --> 00:09:38.240
 this is the great idea. Go ahead and pass it. And I would just like to see this board stay

00:09:38.240 --> 00:09:43.080
 consistent. What are our guidelines for them to be? Even though are we going to go with

00:09:43.080 --> 00:09:48.680
 what is recommended, or that it should stay that way? Are we OK with saying, oh, but it's

00:09:48.680 --> 00:09:55.640
 not required? Does that make sense? I mean, personally, I think it's a good move to go

00:09:55.640 --> 00:10:02.320
 to the vinyl. I think it's a better look. I'm not-- the aluminum is just inferior on

00:10:02.320 --> 00:10:07.240
 every level. I mean, I'm not a fan of it. But I think wood's kind of in the same position.

00:10:07.240 --> 00:10:13.280
 So I'm all for greater efficiency and trying to make the move to something that's just

00:10:13.280 --> 00:10:17.240
 generally better, that keeps the same, if not a better aesthetic. So I have no problem

00:10:17.240 --> 00:10:23.720
 with that. I guess I'm just confused of why the discrepancy. Like you said, as you recall,

00:10:23.720 --> 00:10:27.520
 I was for the change in windows, even when it was wood. But I know there was some resistance

00:10:27.520 --> 00:10:32.560
 to that. There seems to be a lot less resistance to this. But I'm, of course, in favor of the

00:10:32.560 --> 00:10:37.000
 change, because I was in favor of the change on the other.

00:10:37.000 --> 00:10:45.960
 It's not like you can't get aluminum windows. So they exist. I think the answer is cost.

00:10:45.960 --> 00:10:53.560
 They're much cheaper. And they're so recyclable when they wear out.

00:10:53.560 --> 00:10:59.960
 I look to-- and Cameron, maybe you can help, because I tend to look at preservation. If

00:10:59.960 --> 00:11:04.720
 that's what-- if we're here for historic preservation, to me, preservation is like-- let's look at

00:11:04.720 --> 00:11:10.040
 that definition. Is it to preserve what was already there for that era and what was already

00:11:10.040 --> 00:11:18.360
 built? And that's where I-- with the confusion.

00:11:18.360 --> 00:11:24.960
 I recognize your concerns, but it seems to me that when it is a product that is already

00:11:24.960 --> 00:11:32.120
 widely used in that area, and it's a better product, it doesn't really make sense to insist

00:11:32.120 --> 00:11:40.360
 that the homeowner buy something that's inferior. And it's not going to make a significant difference

00:11:40.360 --> 00:11:45.880
 in that neighborhood either way. I mean, I'm not sure that it's inferior to

00:11:45.880 --> 00:11:51.080
 put in aluminum windows. There are very high quality aluminum windows out there. The product

00:11:51.080 --> 00:11:56.040
 currently up there is inferior, probably because before these people bought it, it was poorly

00:11:56.040 --> 00:12:03.280
 maintained. But there are very nice aluminum windows out there. They're made and they're

00:12:03.280 --> 00:12:10.280
 very nice. Vinyl suffers similar defects. It won't last that long. It's not-- in fact,

00:12:10.280 --> 00:12:14.880
 it's not superior. It will, in fact, warp in the sun and need to be replaced. It's just

00:12:14.880 --> 00:12:19.920
 maybe not by them. But if the aluminum windows were-- I don't

00:12:19.920 --> 00:12:24.600
 know if they would be called deficient or inferior when they were installed, are we preserving

00:12:24.600 --> 00:12:31.320
 something that's inferior? If it's asbestos, we know to not use that anymore.

00:12:31.320 --> 00:12:38.240
 I'm not saying that's completely analogous. But would they have to upgrade to stay with

00:12:38.240 --> 00:12:41.720
 aluminum? I'm just asking.

00:12:41.720 --> 00:12:49.600
 There's plenty of asbestos in the old historic neighborhoods. You'll look at all the shakes

00:12:49.600 --> 00:12:53.640
 and shingles from the '50s. Right. But we wouldn't want to pump in new asbestos.

00:12:53.640 --> 00:12:56.840
 That's my point. It wasn't long ago before hardy board was

00:12:56.840 --> 00:13:00.240
 all out around here. That's interesting.

00:13:00.240 --> 00:13:05.840
 Hey, look, I had a garage not happy because I was not wanting to use hardy board. That's

00:13:05.840 --> 00:13:08.920
 sad. OK, we have a motion and a second. Any further

00:13:08.920 --> 00:13:16.680
 discussion? OK, so our motion is to approve as submitted.

00:13:16.680 --> 00:13:22.120
 All those in favor, raise your hand. Wait, hold on. Let's get a clarification from staff.

00:13:22.120 --> 00:13:26.680
 With this number of people, does it take to pass? Because we have six tonight.

00:13:26.680 --> 00:13:30.960
 A simple majority. Four? I think we have seven, don't I?

00:13:30.960 --> 00:13:36.040
 So four, it has to be four to three. Yeah, because we have four to three.

00:13:36.040 --> 00:13:42.720
 OK. All those in favor, raise your hand. We have one, two, three, four, five, six.

00:13:42.720 --> 00:13:46.160
 I'm just going to be at the opposite end just because we can't have the minerals.

00:13:46.160 --> 00:13:51.560
 Seven. We have seven here. So we got five. No, six of our seven.

00:13:51.560 --> 00:13:54.640
 Let's revote. Everybody holds their hand up if you voted yes.

00:13:54.640 --> 00:13:58.840
 So one, two, three, four, five, six of our seven.

00:13:58.840 --> 00:14:04.400
 OK, I think that probably qualifies and passes as submitted.

00:14:04.400 --> 00:14:10.080
 I want to thank the homeowners for coming. And we know it seems boring, but it's important

00:14:10.080 --> 00:14:13.440
 to us to see you guys here. Because you're out there in the neighborhoods

00:14:13.440 --> 00:14:19.040
 doing things, trying to keep this thing nice. And it really makes our job seem like it matters

00:14:19.040 --> 00:14:22.080
 when you guys take the time to show up. So thank you very much.

00:14:22.080 --> 00:14:24.080
 Well, thank you for your consideration. We appreciate it.

00:14:24.080 --> 00:14:27.120
 And we thank the little one that you didn't introduce also.

00:14:27.120 --> 00:14:29.120
 [LAUGHTER]

00:14:29.120 --> 00:14:33.040
 You were very quiet. We're on borrowed time, though.

00:14:33.040 --> 00:14:36.520
 Thank you all very much. Thank you.

00:14:36.520 --> 00:14:38.920
 And you're welcome to stay, by the way. You know I'm going to leave.

00:14:38.920 --> 00:14:53.920
 [LAUGHTER]

00:14:53.920 --> 00:14:59.920
 OK, hold on one second. Our next item, this is one we've seen before.

00:14:59.920 --> 00:15:07.920
 COA 22-0003, hold a public meeting and consider an application for a certificate of appropriateness

00:15:07.920 --> 00:15:13.920
 in accordance with section 2.9.2 of the Dent Development Code and install a patio cover

00:15:13.920 --> 00:15:18.920
 over 2234 Alamo Place within the West Oak Historic District.

00:15:18.920 --> 00:15:27.920
 The site is located on the northeast corner of Thomas Street and Alamo Place, 2234 Alamo Place.

00:15:27.920 --> 00:15:36.920
 The Historic Landmark Commission considered this request on March 21st of '22 and voted 3-2 in favor of the request.

00:15:36.920 --> 00:15:43.920
 This is a reconsideration of the applicant's request.

00:15:43.920 --> 00:15:49.920
 Cameron? OK. Thank you, Chair.

00:15:49.920 --> 00:15:52.920
 There we go. OK, so I'm going to keep this brief.

00:15:52.920 --> 00:15:57.920
 I know the majority of you all sat through this a few weeks ago regarding this request.

00:15:57.920 --> 00:16:07.920
 The property is owned by Richard Lempied and it's a construction date of 1945.

00:16:07.920 --> 00:16:12.920
 The proposed project is a patio cover located between the main building and Detest Barrage,

00:16:12.920 --> 00:16:16.920
 which will be partially visible from Thomas Street.

00:16:16.920 --> 00:16:24.920
 So these are the current conditions showing that southbound lane on Thomas Street, as you all saw last meeting.

00:16:24.920 --> 00:16:31.920
 And then the northbound lane on Thomas Street showed right next to the property.

00:16:31.920 --> 00:16:36.920
 So this is the proposed elevation. The materials would be a shingle roof to match the existing.

00:16:36.920 --> 00:16:41.920
 All exposed wood would be stained with dark walnut.

00:16:41.920 --> 00:16:49.920
 And this is the proposed elevation showing the columns here and the roof coming down, the shoved roof coming down from here.

00:16:49.920 --> 00:16:54.920
 And that shows the existing backyard.

00:16:54.920 --> 00:17:02.920
 And these are architectural drawings, once again showing the proposed roofline from the top and an aerial of the location.

00:17:02.920 --> 00:17:08.920
 So this is the previous use from the January 11th, 2021 HLC meeting.

00:17:08.920 --> 00:17:12.920
 So you can see that a new fence has been added along Thomas Street.

00:17:12.920 --> 00:17:23.920
 Staff's analysis did remain the same, focusing on points 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10 of the Secretary of Interior Standards.

00:17:23.920 --> 00:17:28.920
 And then also looking at section 4.9.6(c) of the West Oak Area Historic District,

00:17:28.920 --> 00:17:35.920
 focusing specifically on the architectural detail, awnings, additions, color, and roof forms.

00:17:35.920 --> 00:17:45.920
 So staff still recommends approval of subject to conditions of the COA request for the installation of the patio cover as it meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation

00:17:45.920 --> 00:17:49.920
 and complies with section 4.9.6(c) of the DDC.

00:17:49.920 --> 00:17:56.920
 Staff still is recommending that the exposed wood of the proposed patio cover be painted to match the exterior finish of the main structure

00:17:56.920 --> 00:18:05.920
 to ensure the compatibility of the addition to the main structure consistent with sections 4.9.6(c)(3) and 7 of the DDC.

00:18:05.920 --> 00:18:07.920
 Any questions?

00:18:07.920 --> 00:18:09.920
 The floor is open.

00:18:09.920 --> 00:18:16.920
 Did we approve this last time, subject to staff's recommendations, or just approve it as lack? I don't recall.

00:18:16.920 --> 00:18:20.920
 Yes, it was approved to staff's recommendations.

00:18:20.920 --> 00:18:28.920
 The reason that it did not pass, as you all probably saw in the packet, is that we needed a vote of four to pass.

00:18:28.920 --> 00:18:31.920
 Because we had a four out of five at the time.

00:18:31.920 --> 00:18:35.920
 What was the dissent then last time since I wasn't here?

00:18:35.920 --> 00:18:39.920
 For those who dissented, I was going to say for those who dissented.

00:18:39.920 --> 00:18:44.920
 So the reason we need the staff's recommendation, sorry, I think the keyboard has died.

00:18:44.920 --> 00:18:52.920
 So staff's recommendation for subject to conditions was due to the fact that if that fence was ever removed,

00:18:52.920 --> 00:18:58.920
 the dark walnut stain would not match the rest of the exterior of the hull.

00:18:58.920 --> 00:19:04.920
 Okay, thank you.

00:19:04.920 --> 00:19:08.920
 Any other questions for staff?

00:19:08.920 --> 00:19:12.920
 You said the homeowner is okay with painting at that?

00:19:12.920 --> 00:19:18.920
 The homeowner, yes, he's been notified that this was staff's recommendation.

00:19:18.920 --> 00:19:28.920
 Staff has not actually heard from the homeowner to whether or not he is okay with the dark walnut or with painting it white.

00:19:28.920 --> 00:19:39.920
 However, as he was met, came here on January 11th of 2021 and made some changes to the roof based off of HLC's recommendations.

00:19:39.920 --> 00:19:50.920
 I'm assuming that he'd be more than willing, but once again, I haven't heard from the applicant.

00:19:50.920 --> 00:19:55.920
 Okay, any other questions?

00:19:55.920 --> 00:19:58.920
 Never mind. Thank you. Thank you very much, by the way.

00:19:58.920 --> 00:20:02.920
 Well, this is one that originally came with the metal roof that we said no to.

00:20:02.920 --> 00:20:10.920
 Right. And then he brought it back. And it also had stain back then if I'm memory serves me right.

00:20:10.920 --> 00:20:19.920
 Okay, so our options are normal, approve as submitted, approve subject to conditions, which is what the staff recommends.

00:20:19.920 --> 00:20:25.920
 Deny or continue the item. It takes four to pass this, I hope.

00:20:25.920 --> 00:20:32.920
 Well, we'll see how this goes. I'm going to move as submitted for COA 22-0003A.

00:20:32.920 --> 00:20:35.920
 Which one is, wait, wait, wait, wait, which is submitted, not with conditions?

00:20:35.920 --> 00:20:44.920
 Not with the recommendations. So keep the, whatever they choose as far as staining or painting or whatever they choose.

00:20:44.920 --> 00:20:47.920
 I guess it would be with staining.

00:20:47.920 --> 00:20:49.920
 I'll second the motion.

00:20:49.920 --> 00:21:00.920
 Okay, we have a motion to approve as submitted and a second, which means we move to discussion.

00:21:00.920 --> 00:21:04.920
 So I'll just throw it on the floor, chime in.

00:21:04.920 --> 00:21:18.920
 So I know in that area specifically there's a lot of dark stained wood, usually porch supports, right, where they'll have the painted and then they'll have the dark, usually four by four bigger porch supports going through.

00:21:18.920 --> 00:21:27.920
 And I don't see how it's in any way inconsistent with the neighborhood of the Thomas Street area and around.

00:21:27.920 --> 00:21:32.920
 I don't know that subjecting them to something that they wouldn't personally choose.

00:21:32.920 --> 00:21:40.920
 I mean, I know we do that a lot, but I don't see the benefit in forcing them to paint these supports the same color as the house.

00:21:40.920 --> 00:21:50.920
 It supports, but it's also the underpinnings, right? So it's the exposed raptor. If I'm correct, it's all the other stuff as well.

00:21:50.920 --> 00:21:55.920
 I find it hard to believe they really would stain up under there, but maybe they would.

00:21:55.920 --> 00:22:07.920
 Yeah, so that's my question. So if you have the house and you have the trim on the house, which is white, and then you burn, but up against the trim of the awning, it's going to be stained.

00:22:07.920 --> 00:22:17.920
 So you're going to have them together. That to me for a roof, different from what you're saying to me on pillars, I'm kind of with you.

00:22:17.920 --> 00:22:24.920
 But for the roof, if the roof trim was going to stay, I just can't see that being a darn stain.

00:22:24.920 --> 00:22:33.920
 If you drive the neighborhood and living in the neighborhood, I will tell you, I've lived there almost 20 years, not just that area, but the whole area I've walked, driven.

00:22:33.920 --> 00:22:41.920
 Most of them, in fact, are painted white. Almost all the pillars everywhere, or they match the color of the house. They're either white or the color of the house.

00:22:41.920 --> 00:22:47.920
 And I just don't see the point of wood stain. I mean, it's not a big deal. It's not the end of the world. So you got to throw some paint on it. Big deal.

00:22:47.920 --> 00:22:51.920
 It looks consistent. It keeps the look the same.

00:22:51.920 --> 00:23:01.920
 I think one of the things we discussed last time is, yes, they moved the fence, but the fence may not always be, because the idea was, well, you can't see it. Why would it matter?

00:23:01.920 --> 00:23:08.920
 This may not always be there. But you can see the awning. I mean, the picture you showed us, Cameron, you could see where the awning would be. Just the rooftop.

00:23:08.920 --> 00:23:16.920
 But you see the trim on it, which they don't paint. And that's a problem.

00:23:16.920 --> 00:23:19.920
 Any further discussion?

00:23:19.920 --> 00:23:24.920
 Okay, so we have a motion to approve as submitted.

00:23:24.920 --> 00:23:27.920
 All those in favor, raise your hand.

00:23:27.920 --> 00:23:31.920
 We have two, three, four.

00:23:31.920 --> 00:23:45.920
 That passes.

00:23:45.920 --> 00:23:58.920
 Okay.

00:23:58.920 --> 00:24:01.920
 The voted nay, that would be me as well.

00:24:01.920 --> 00:24:02.920
 You too?

00:24:02.920 --> 00:24:03.920
 I voted no.

00:24:03.920 --> 00:24:04.920
 Order three.

00:24:04.920 --> 00:24:13.920
 Thank you.

00:24:13.920 --> 00:24:22.920
 Okay, I believe that concludes the public meeting part of our agenda.

00:24:22.920 --> 00:24:28.920
 Although these are not closed, we'll move into item three, which is a work session.

00:24:28.920 --> 00:24:34.920
 And it is to receive a report with regard to the Secretary of the Interior's standards.

00:24:34.920 --> 00:24:39.920
 So, Ms. Robertson, I'll just turn it over to you.

00:24:39.920 --> 00:24:45.920
 Thank you, Chair.

00:24:45.920 --> 00:24:54.920
 So bear with me. This is pretty text heavy, but we're going to take it a little slow since this is something that we've been discussing over the last couple meetings.

00:24:54.920 --> 00:25:00.920
 So this is regarding the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties.

00:25:00.920 --> 00:25:07.920
 So table contents, I'm going to start kind of with the why of why we're covering this, how the standards are used.

00:25:07.920 --> 00:25:14.920
 And then we're going to break it down into the four different types of treatment that are within that Secretary of the Interior's standards.

00:25:14.920 --> 00:25:20.920
 And kind of basing them both on rules of thumb and what you're kind of looking for under each of those treatments.

00:25:20.920 --> 00:25:31.920
 And then looking at preservation examples throughout Denton, minus Idaho's territorial capital, because we don't have an example.

00:25:31.920 --> 00:25:49.920
 So the why. So we're really the reason that we're looking at our staff is using the Secretary of the Interior's standards, as well as you all as the commission, is that when we're looking at COAs, we have it based in our development code in Section 2.9.2A.9

00:25:49.920 --> 00:25:58.920
 that states that we need to review for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties, otherwise known as the standards.

00:25:58.920 --> 00:26:14.920
 And then we're also looking at applicable guidelines, such as our design overlays in the different historic districts, and then any other guidelines that might relate to the project.

00:26:14.920 --> 00:26:20.920
 Sorry, the keyboard is I think slowly dying.

00:26:20.920 --> 00:26:30.920
 So, next thing is how to use the standards. So, as the standards address four different types of treatment for historic properties.

00:26:30.920 --> 00:26:36.920
 The first one is preservation, then we're looking at rehabilitation, restoration and then reconstruction.

00:26:36.920 --> 00:26:46.920
 So one of the quotes that I thought was really applicable to this that I wanted to share with you all is one set of standards will apply to property undergoing treatment.

00:26:46.920 --> 00:26:54.920
 And that's why when you're seeing me come forward as staff for the COA, I'm specifically only focusing on one type of treatment.

00:26:54.920 --> 00:27:02.920
 But depending upon the property significance, existing physical condition, the extent of the documentation available and interpretive goals, when applicable.

00:27:02.920 --> 00:27:08.920
 So the standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project.

00:27:08.920 --> 00:27:13.920
 So we do have to kind of look at those economics as well when it comes to a project.

00:27:13.920 --> 00:27:20.920
 And then when we're looking at also underneath those standards, we do have guidelines, which I'm going to go into detail in other slides.

00:27:20.920 --> 00:27:26.920
 But the guidelines are developed to help apply these standards for all different types of historic buildings.

00:27:26.920 --> 00:27:30.920
 But that doesn't mean they're going to be case specific. It's one size fits all.

00:27:30.920 --> 00:27:38.920
 And as stated, the purpose is to provide guidance to historic building owners, those working on preservation projects.

00:27:38.920 --> 00:27:55.920
 And then lastly, in the standards, which I'm sure you all flipped through the standards over time before this meeting, is that they do provide recommended and not recommended treatments and techniques for the projects.

00:27:55.920 --> 00:28:00.920
 I have batteries. Okay, I'll just do this.

00:28:00.920 --> 00:28:08.920
 I know I swapped out batteries last week on that. I opened the cabinet doors to see if it'll get a better signal to know where you are because it may also be some of the distance.

00:28:08.920 --> 00:28:16.920
 Okay, we'll try this for now. So the first treatment we're going to look at is preservation and guidelines for preserving buildings.

00:28:16.920 --> 00:28:34.920
 So, there's a lot of text so I kind of highlighted the one, the most important text in red. So, as we kind of discussed earlier, this is the actual process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity and materials of a historic property.

00:28:34.920 --> 00:28:47.920
 So you're really, what you're focusing on here is retaining the greatest amount of historical fabric that already currently exists on the property itself.

00:28:47.920 --> 00:29:04.920
 So the rules of thumb for preservation. So once again that goal is the retention of the building's existing form, features and materials, protection, maintenance and repair are emphasized while replacement is kind of minimized, that's kind of like your last resort, when it comes to preservation.

00:29:04.920 --> 00:29:16.920
 So these are the eight guidelines for preserving historic buildings, and there's kind of a hierarchy that we have here. So you're first trying to identify, retain and preserve historic materials and features when it comes to preservation.

00:29:16.920 --> 00:29:25.920
 That's your first goal. And if you can't do that, you're going to go to stabilizing deteriorated historic materials and features as preliminary measure.

00:29:25.920 --> 00:29:41.920
 So once we work through that, you also are looking at protecting and maintaining historic materials and features. So that could be the brackets on the corners, that could be window framing, you're doing everything you can to protect and maintain how it is.

00:29:41.920 --> 00:29:53.920
 Then we have guideline four, which is repair. So that includes our stabilization, consolidating and conservation of historic materials and features.

00:29:53.920 --> 00:30:04.920
 And then once again, we have that limited replacement in kind. So you're trying to really step away and keep from doing that when it comes to this preservation aspect of the standards.

00:30:04.920 --> 00:30:13.920
 And then we kind of have these last three guidelines here, which is code required work. So you're looking to do very sensitive updates in terms of code compliance.

00:30:13.920 --> 00:30:25.920
 And then resiliency to natural hazards, you know, flooding, raising your property if you need to do that, fire hazards, storm events, and then lastly sustainability.

00:30:25.920 --> 00:30:36.920
 And then as this is probably something that you all have seen throughout and so I stated this is frequently undertaken treatment.

00:30:36.920 --> 00:30:51.920
 So some preservation examples, looking at West Oak residences. So these are high integrity of original forms, features and materials. We have 811 West Oak Street, which has retained its cornice line, original roofing it looks like.

00:30:51.920 --> 00:31:02.920
 It's maintained a lot. The only thing that I see really missing from this photos are that they've gotten rid of the window shutters. But besides that, much of the residence has been retained.

00:31:02.920 --> 00:31:22.920
 Then right across the street we have 812 West Oak Street. We have that Tudor Revival look. We have similar design of the roofing itself. We have the windows, the original windows seem to be intact, and we have the designs along the gable.

00:31:22.920 --> 00:31:26.920
 Any questions before I move on?

00:31:26.920 --> 00:31:40.920
 So getting back to kind of what you asked Angie, how does this apply to our first owners in that we did not preserve anything? I just have to ask that because I don't understand, I keep getting mixed messages.

00:31:40.920 --> 00:31:44.920
 I mean the aluminum windows are all gone, so we didn't preserve anything left.

00:31:44.920 --> 00:31:53.920
 Correct. And so I'm just saying there was no preservation. So I guess I get a little confused based on the message that we seem to bend the rules depending on how it suits our fans.

00:31:53.920 --> 00:31:58.920
 When staff is looking at this as I stated previously, we're only looking at one set of standards.

00:31:58.920 --> 00:32:06.920
 So I'm specifically, for example in that example, I'm looking at rehabilitation because they're looking to replace the entire window itself.

00:32:06.920 --> 00:32:11.920
 So that's what I'm judging it off of based off those set of standards.

00:32:11.920 --> 00:32:26.920
 But if, you know, if it comes in front of HLC and you believe it needs to be looking at kind of the preservation aspect and how you preserve those windows, that's also part of the education kind of component of this is letting people know that, okay, here are your options.

00:32:26.920 --> 00:32:34.920
 These are different types of treatment. Let's start with preservation first. If we can't do that, then let's move on to the next step, which is rehabilitation.

00:32:34.920 --> 00:32:50.920
 But isn't it true under the preservation standards that your first job is to identify the parts of that structure that will make it historic? The features, identify, retain and preserve historic materials and features.

00:32:50.920 --> 00:32:53.920
 The house was 69 years old.

00:32:53.920 --> 00:33:04.920
 So that's historic based on our definition of historic 50 years old or more. And there was no real identification of 1963.

00:33:04.920 --> 00:33:11.920
 I mean, aluminum windows to me are a bit like cedar shingles.

00:33:11.920 --> 00:33:26.920
 You know, I'm not judging, you know, they're old. That's how they came. You know, are we not going to put out any preservation hack? You know, I think somewhere I just want to hear that where we're going to draw a line and preservation and stuff.

00:33:26.920 --> 00:33:32.920
 Because I feel a slippery slope coming that anything's okay as long as you come and ask for it. That's what I see.

00:33:32.920 --> 00:33:47.920
 And even if you don't, that's okay. We'll just slap our hands and say no to it again. Well, one of the things later on tonight is the recreation of our ad hoc committee where we actually give some guidance to staff about where our line is.

00:33:47.920 --> 00:34:00.920
 Because I think we all want a brighter line than we have today. And it doesn't do us any good. We need to make sure the community is aware this is where our line is and then we hold the line.

00:34:00.920 --> 00:34:06.920
 So I think that's coming up. It's great.

00:34:06.920 --> 00:34:17.920
 Well, that's where I struggle is because I think it's great that people are wanting the upkeep on these structures and we need that.

00:34:17.920 --> 00:34:36.920
 Personally, I don't want to make it hard on them. But what I struggle with is that preservation and also that like kind because it seems like sometimes some things of like kind is taken out and sometimes it's brought back in and there's not a consistency there.

00:34:36.920 --> 00:34:49.920
 On. Oh, you can do this with like kind here. But over here, we're not even going to mention like kind. Does that make sense? And I just and that's where I'm like for me to, you know, make votes on this.

00:34:49.920 --> 00:35:01.920
 It's like I'm with Roy. I want to know what is our line. And if it's preserved, I would have. It would have been nice to have seen some aluminum window options in their proposals.

00:35:01.920 --> 00:35:08.920
 But is that really our job is HLC to do? I don't know.

00:35:08.920 --> 00:35:21.920
 The standard that Cameron applied to the project you saw in the first item were not these standards because the president, they were not the project that they brought forward was not a preservation project.

00:35:21.920 --> 00:35:37.920
 It was a rehabilitation project. So it is up to you all right now where code works. There's no obligation on our one historic staff member to try to find alternatives for the homeowner to do.

00:35:37.920 --> 00:35:51.920
 Cameron's going to look at the project that comes in under this relevant standard related to that. You as a body, welcome to discuss all these options as an approval with conditions, a denial, a request that they come back with a different project.

00:35:51.920 --> 00:36:04.920
 That all is fine. But Cameron's job is to take the project she gets and review it under the relevant standards. And in the case where you're replacing an entire window, that's rehabilitation, not preservation.

00:36:04.920 --> 00:36:10.920
 Maybe they don't know they could preserve it. I'm just saying you could ask them how they thought about it, which you could have done today.

00:36:10.920 --> 00:36:15.920
 Right. So I guess that's my question. Would they make an application to make one for preservation or?

00:36:15.920 --> 00:36:37.920
 No. So our COA specifically states it's exterior, new addition, new construction, in-kind replacement. I know I'm forgetting one. Or demolition or other. So most of the time when you see windows, they're saying it's in-kind replacement.

00:36:37.920 --> 00:36:46.920
 Not technically in-kind replacement. But that's what they're tracking on the application because they're considering it in terms of style and design. So not the material.

00:36:46.920 --> 00:37:01.920
 So this was not preservation. This was rehabilitation. Was the previous one that we dealt with at the last meeting that with windows getting changed to vinyl, that the recommendation was to try to maintain the wood, was that preservation and not rehabilitation?

00:37:01.920 --> 00:37:08.920
 That was rehabilitation as well because he had already replaced the windows. Those were the windows that were already replaced, unfortunately.

00:37:08.920 --> 00:37:16.920
 Probably never would have agreed to that in advance, by the way. But the city gave them that permit.

00:37:16.920 --> 00:37:37.920
 The city did. And so with this, to me as a group, we have to stick with what our rules, even if the city messes up and gives something when they shouldn't have, because I felt like forced to give that to the homeowner because somebody at the city messed up.

00:37:37.920 --> 00:37:49.920
 And it's just that I don't see that this ward wants that type of reputation on being forced to do something. So if you go back and look in the minutes, will they approve it for this one? Why won't they approve it for me?

00:37:49.920 --> 00:37:58.920
 I think we've got to stay consistent. And that's why specifically I said, what's going to happen if we don't? I'd rather us not and nothing happened to them. Does that make sense?

00:37:58.920 --> 00:38:10.920
 But it would have been... Then we should consider denying when they just say, you know, we're not going to approve it. Right. Well, I think that's just asking too much of a homeowner. If he has gone to the city...

00:38:10.920 --> 00:38:17.920
 Nothing's going to happen to him. We're going to have a workshop session on that later to find that out, I think, correct?

00:38:17.920 --> 00:38:32.920
 I think we're starting to kind of get a little off topic. I think we need to... I can agree with the off topic. My question is who decides, the homeowner or Cameron, whether it's preservation or not when it comes in, if they should check, they should choose.

00:38:32.920 --> 00:38:40.920
 And making you choose then kind of dictates where we have to go. And that's the problem I'm bringing up. Do you see that fine line?

00:38:40.920 --> 00:38:54.920
 Correct. But as Marcella stated, you don't have to listen to what I say. I come with a recommendation. You guys are the final ones who vote on it. So I'm coming with a recommendation, but you can come up with an approval with conditions of deny.

00:38:54.920 --> 00:39:14.920
 So you don't have to take what I state as being, okay, this is what we have to follow. So for instance, Commissioner Cagle tonight, he said approve as submitted when it came to the patio cover, not dealing with what paint the columns white or the exposed wood.

00:39:14.920 --> 00:39:28.920
 He made that choice. He did not follow staff's recommendations. So that is you all's role as HLC as stated by Marcella. You know, I'm taking the application and I'm just working with what is provided to me.

00:39:28.920 --> 00:39:45.920
 For instance, in the windows, I actually, they came with single pane windows, sliding windows, and I asked them to do double hung grill windows so that they matched and were compatible with the neighborhood. So that was the second design that they turned into me.

00:39:45.920 --> 00:40:04.920
 Right. Cameron, is it fair to say when an applicant makes application, there are obviously certain criteria that the application qualifies. So we verify the criteria to make sure the application submitted is correct. So that way, if someone applied for the wrong application, then we're able to advise them, correct? Yes. Okay.

00:40:04.920 --> 00:40:18.920
 And then also is part of our working on the application with them. We're trying to evaluate the application in what's being requested of us and put the application in the best possible position for consideration by the commission.

00:40:18.920 --> 00:40:47.920
 So in the example she just gave is perfect, that the applicant originally came in with singles on sliding windows, right? So our single pane sliding windows should be hung and sliding at the same time, I guess. But because of that, you know, with our staff's professional expertise and with the evaluation criteria that we have to evaluate the application based upon, she was able to ask and inform the applicant, hey, would you consider doing why?

00:40:47.920 --> 00:41:02.920
 Because you proposed X, X is not consistent with the criteria, nor this time period for this particular structure. We recommend you consider why. You know, we were fortunate that the applicant agreed to option Y, obviously the item that was brought forth through your consideration.

00:41:02.920 --> 00:41:15.920
 So through Cameron's professional experience in evaluating on the criteria, she's tried to get the application in the best possible condition or best possible position for the HLC's recommendation or consideration for your final action.

00:41:15.920 --> 00:41:31.920
 So we do try to work with the applicants to try and get their application in the best possible position. There becomes a point in time where they're going to tell us no, that this is all we're willing to do, right? But that's where we bring that forth and allow you to be the final decision making authority on those.

00:41:31.920 --> 00:41:53.920
 >> Could I ask one question? I can appreciate all of that. I like it so. Why don't we have on the application itself, have you considered preservation before they can continue the application? I think we're a little off-coast. Talking about what goes on the application. That may be something that when the ad hoc committee meets, they can take up or we could place on a future work session.

00:41:53.920 --> 00:42:12.920
 >> That's fine. And I think that would be good. And I know we had a conversation back in the fall earlier this year to that effect on terms of what we request to be submitted. But if we need to revisit that, we can do that also on the matrix. Thank you.

00:42:12.920 --> 00:42:32.920
 >> So now we're going to focus on the standards for rehabilitation and those guidelines. So once again focusing on the red text, this is defined as the act of process of making possible a compatible use through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.

00:42:32.920 --> 00:42:46.920
 So the rehabilitation standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building's historic character.

00:42:46.920 --> 00:43:03.920
 So the goals of rehabilitation are protect and maintain historic building materials and character-defining features. However, it does provide greater latitude to replace extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing features using either the same material or compatible substitute materials.

00:43:03.920 --> 00:43:22.920
 Once again, we have those 10 guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings, starting with first identifying, retain, and preserve historic materials and features. The next is protect and maintain historic materials and features, repair historic materials and features, and then looking at replacing deteriorated historic materials and features.

00:43:22.920 --> 00:43:42.920
 And then we're also looking at the design for the replacement of missing historic features, and then looking lastly at the last five points, which are alterations that code-required work, once again, sensitive to code requirements, resiliency to natural hazards, sustainability, and then new exterior additions and related new construction.

00:43:42.920 --> 00:44:07.920
 And then once again, this is a frequently undertaken treatment end-to-end. I know, it's not working with me. So this is the example that you all saw previously with 906 West Hickory Street, so that was maintaining historic building materials and character-defining features, but allowing for replacement of missing and damaged features and additions.

00:44:12.920 --> 00:44:33.920
 So the next treatment that we're looking at is restoration. So this is an after-process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in history and reconstruction of missing features from that restoration period.

00:44:33.920 --> 00:44:40.920
 So once again, highlighting that depiction of building at a particular period of time in its history.

00:44:40.920 --> 00:44:56.920
 So the rules of thumb when it comes to restoration, make the building appear as it did at a particular, as well as its most significant time in history. Only those designs that are documented as being built should be recreated.

00:44:56.920 --> 00:45:11.920
 And once again, this has nine guidelines for restoring historic buildings, identifying, retaining, preserving materials and features, protecting, maintain, repairing, which includes stabilization, consolidating, and conservation.

00:45:11.920 --> 00:45:27.920
 Then replacement of extensively deteriorated features, removing existing features from other historic periods, recreating missing features from the restoration period, and then lastly, that code required work, resilience to natural hazards, and sustainability.

00:45:27.920 --> 00:45:38.920
 And this is not really one that, at least in my time here, that we've really seen a lot of restoration work come in. The county does more of that work, as we can see from that historical park.

00:45:38.920 --> 00:45:52.920
 So this is an example from the county, the Taylor cabin, which I'm sure many of you have driven past or visited. So it was restored to its circa 1900, 1900 era at the period that the Taylor family moved in.

00:45:52.920 --> 00:46:06.920
 So you can see the cabin, original cabin here in the early 1900s, and then circa 2017, and then circa 2020 when it was finished, or almost finished.

00:46:06.920 --> 00:46:10.920
 And then lastly, we have standards for reconstruction.

00:46:10.920 --> 00:46:37.920
 So this is the act or process of depicting by means of new construction the form, features, and detailing of a non surviving site, landscape, building structure, or object for the purpose of replicating the appearance of a specific period of time and its historic location.

00:46:37.920 --> 00:46:51.920
 So what we've done here, once again, is recreating a historic building when it appears at a particular time and at its most significant time in history. And it does require sound physical evidence of what that building looked like at the time.

00:46:51.920 --> 00:47:06.920
 And once again, we have our five guidelines. These are a little bit different from our other ones, as it requires research and documentation, investigation, archaeologically, identify, protect, and preserve, reconstruct non surviving building and site.

00:47:06.920 --> 00:47:11.920
 And then lastly, we have the accessibility and life and safety natural hazards and sustainability.

00:47:11.920 --> 00:47:15.920
 And then this is the least frequently undertaken treatment and.

00:47:15.920 --> 00:47:20.920
 So, this is an example I had to grab from Idaho.

00:47:20.920 --> 00:47:34.920
 Yeah, so this is a recreation of historic building as shown during the 1860s. So they just rebuilt it and it's a museum right now that people can visit.

00:47:34.920 --> 00:47:38.920
 This is a city building.

00:47:38.920 --> 00:47:49.920
 I think you were still, you were coming here, that they went back in to put in windows, it was going to look more like it did then. What was, which building was that?

00:47:49.920 --> 00:48:07.920
 Bell Avenue, was it? No, no, this was a commercial building. I think it was that one, City Hall. Yes, that's exactly what it was. City Hall West, I think is what they call it. Yeah, so they, probably before you, they did come back to.

00:48:07.920 --> 00:48:20.920
 Change the windows. Well, and to put windows back in where they used to be. And they were changing it back. Somewhere in the 60s, they ripped out the original windows and did something to it.

00:48:20.920 --> 00:48:31.920
 There is an example you might be able to, well, when you say that almost is never used, is the building on the corner of Hickory and Elm on the northeast corner.

00:48:31.920 --> 00:48:45.920
 It looks, period, but it's certainly not. I mean, they took new, built it new. Oh, the night, it's just, I guess, east of the, east of Campus Theatre, I think.

00:48:45.920 --> 00:48:58.920
 Oh, okay. It was 1984, I think. The one that burned down? Before my time, so I don't know when it burned down. It burned down on the corner of Elm and Hickory. Can I ask one question? It didn't even used to look anything like that.

00:48:58.920 --> 00:49:02.920
 I was saying it didn't look the same. Why did that blank space there, was there either? That was also in the building.

00:49:02.920 --> 00:49:08.920
 Yes, I know. On this one, this is exactly the slide I wanted you to show.

00:49:08.920 --> 00:49:17.920
 I said, funny, because the limited and sensitive upgrading. That was the wording I thought actually that made a lot of sense. The limited and sensitive.

00:49:17.920 --> 00:49:27.920
 And this is only in regard to restoration. So, I mean, I'm going to ask the question in the room. Why does anybody want to restore? Let's just tear it down. Okay, I said it. That's just me and a book.

00:49:27.920 --> 00:49:35.920
 It seems like it's so hard to do to make everything happy. It's easier just to slap it all in and put in new windows or whatever.

00:49:35.920 --> 00:49:48.920
 I know. So, we went over the different guidelines. So, we went over preservation first, and then rehabilitation.

00:49:48.920 --> 00:49:58.920
 Rehabilitation. Can we look at the preservation standards one more time?

00:49:58.920 --> 00:50:20.920
 For number three? Okay, and then these are the. There it is. Yeah, sorry.

00:50:20.920 --> 00:50:32.920
 So, I guess what I'm wondering is, when a COA is brought forward to us, should the first thing we do an analysis on is what are the four standards we need to be applying, right?

00:50:32.920 --> 00:50:41.920
 And then once that's figured out, then move forward from there. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to get back to the basics. That's right.

00:50:41.920 --> 00:50:52.920
 So, I think that's probably the way, at least in my mind, we're going to start approaching it instead of just applying whatever that COA is to whatever guidelines we have in front of us.

00:50:52.920 --> 00:50:57.920
 Maybe think, okay, well, is this even the right set of guidelines we need to be using?

00:50:57.920 --> 00:51:06.920
 Like our ad hoc committee could come up with a checklist that we go through as a group. Check one is the appropriate standard being applied by staff.

00:51:06.920 --> 00:51:13.920
 You know, do we have all the information we need to approve or deny? Meaning the aluminum windows we didn't have.

00:51:13.920 --> 00:51:23.920
 So, we can postpone it and then ask to get more information. And that's when you would postpone. But if we postpone, what's the story on postponing?

00:51:23.920 --> 00:51:37.920
 Do it to postpone to a set date? Yes, otherwise it is automatically approved. Not anymore. Not anymore. Okay. Well, what happens now? I would say if it continues for certainly five days, then it is automatically approved.

00:51:37.920 --> 00:51:51.920
 I think though, and maybe this will come from the ad hoc committee, because I think it's important that anyone who begins this process should know what we are expecting before they get it.

00:51:51.920 --> 00:52:01.920
 They hire architects and all kinds of things and do research and spend money. They need to know what it is we'll approve or not approve.

00:52:01.920 --> 00:52:13.920
 Because it's unfair to have somebody spend a ton of money expecting one thing was what is acceptable guidance from the city. And then we turn them down.

00:52:13.920 --> 00:52:29.920
 And if they go by these guidelines on each one, like we are, and I'm going to refer to Cameron's experience and her professional training on if an applicant comes in for her to guide them on which one it is.

00:52:29.920 --> 00:52:35.920
 Because the average person coming in, I don't think is going to know that. Sure. That's going to create some uncertainty for her, I assume.

00:52:35.920 --> 00:52:46.920
 I mean, because if we can say, well, we don't like those standards, and that's the one she's been guiding them with and telling them with, that's going to be kind of a real situation.

00:52:46.920 --> 00:52:58.920
 So I don't want to undermine your work, and I don't want to undermine what you do at the preliminary level by saying, you know, I don't want you to have to say it every time and be like, here's the ones I think you should use, but it's really up to them.

00:52:58.920 --> 00:53:14.920
 Well, it's not unfair to ask Cameron, why do you think the preservation standards don't apply, the rehabilitations do, until we can, because we don't have the benefit of her knowledge and her experience, and maybe along the way we'll develop, I don't know.

00:53:14.920 --> 00:53:24.920
 Yeah, I just, I'm trying to think, is there a process that can be done that's not going to be hindering too many different people, whether it be Cameron, whether it be the homeowner or anyone else.

00:53:24.920 --> 00:53:36.920
 You know, we can know, all right, these, cut and paste, this is exactly what we're going to need on this, because I know I just brought up the fact that, you know, we need to take a look and see if these are even the right standards we need to use.

00:53:36.920 --> 00:53:41.920
 But if we're sending mixed messages to home, that's going to, that's not good either.

00:53:41.920 --> 00:53:44.920
 And if you build a wall and know where it could climb, no one will.

00:53:44.920 --> 00:53:45.920
 Right.

00:53:45.920 --> 00:53:48.920
 They'll just come in and ask for, for goodness after the fact.

00:53:48.920 --> 00:53:56.920
 But the point is that the fact there was no big deal, that's the, that's been my argument all along with HLC.

00:53:56.920 --> 00:54:00.920
 Nobody could do stuff to them, they just choose not to.

00:54:00.920 --> 00:54:03.920
 And they're going to continue to choose not to.

00:54:03.920 --> 00:54:06.920
 Because it's like a 200 buck a day fine until you fix it.

00:54:06.920 --> 00:54:09.920
 If they, if they decide to do anything that they've never done.

00:54:09.920 --> 00:54:11.920
 But that's not really our purview, that's.

00:54:11.920 --> 00:54:18.920
 Right, right, but they've never done it. But that also shouldn't dictate how we vote because of that.

00:54:18.920 --> 00:54:22.920
 Well, but I think we're a part of the city.

00:54:22.920 --> 00:54:32.920
 We're the city board, and as such, we need to be prepared in some ways to go along with what it is, they make the rules.

00:54:32.920 --> 00:54:41.920
 And it's unfair to have a homeowner subject subjected to our disagreeing with the rules the city is establishing.

00:54:41.920 --> 00:54:43.920
 I think we might be a little off topic.

00:54:43.920 --> 00:54:53.920
 Well, as I say, and to me, I guess that the rules are pertaining to whether or not this is preservation versus rehabilitation versus restoration versus reconstruction.

00:54:53.920 --> 00:55:03.920
 Then from time to time, if we believe the rules that are provided for in alignment with these 4 categories, then I'm trying to get us back on track here.

00:55:03.920 --> 00:55:09.920
 But then this group can make recommendations that the rules be changed.

00:55:09.920 --> 00:55:20.920
 And there is a process that can be done or undertaken in order to have the rules change because, and that's considered an amendment to the development code, which is basically a zoning change.

00:55:20.920 --> 00:55:34.920
 So, if the standards that are being applied here are consistent in alignment with the criteria that are provided for within the net and development code, if we're finding that there's a disconnect, then to me, that's where we need to go and look at what is in the ordinance.

00:55:34.920 --> 00:55:40.920
 Because at the end of the day, that's what we have to abide by is what's in the ordinance, but then also what these guidelines.

00:55:40.920 --> 00:55:54.920
 And I think that's the other challenge is because these guidelines are from the interior. Sorry, I was trying to, the secretary of the interior standards, since their guidelines, that's the challenge, their guidelines, their parameters that we're working within.

00:55:54.920 --> 00:56:05.920
 So, hence, I think the challenge with this group, and I've seen it with some other groups, is that it's that balance of is this preservation versus rehabilitation.

00:56:05.920 --> 00:56:32.920
 And so, if we need to come up with better guidance, whether it's in the net and development code, if there's something that we feel is not giving enough guidance coming out of these existing standards from the secretary of interior standards, then I think as part of that potential committee work, then that's where some additional refinement could be provided associated with it for us to be able to give applicants direction, but also our historic preservation officer, whether it's Cameron or future officers.

00:56:32.920 --> 00:56:47.920
 Yeah, and that's not my point. So Lenny, so it's not for us to change rules or anything. Mine was really for things that happen beforehand that are brought to us that make it, oh, it should have been restoration.

00:56:47.920 --> 00:56:56.920
 I mean, it should have been preservation. Now it's restoration because someone at the city didn't do their job. What I mean is they gave something they shouldn't have given.

00:56:56.920 --> 00:57:09.920
 And we've got processes in place to prevent that from happening. And we aren't getting off topic on that one, but I guess I go back to really not because it's talking about if it's preservation or rehabilitation.

00:57:09.920 --> 00:57:18.920
 I'm just saying that's what I was trying to say the distant and not really going against the guy with the windows had a permit. That's my point.

00:57:18.920 --> 00:57:33.920
 That's my point. I think that we back to what Lenny suggests as a checklist which goes up into the working group and if you can come up with a checklist so that Cameron doesn't have to be the final decider is what the applicant checks off.

00:57:33.920 --> 00:57:46.920
 Then it makes it easier on Cameron and it makes it easier on us and can be defined correctly because we argue about preservation and restoration. I think we can move this discussion to the ad hoc committee discussion and maybe wrap up this topic if we're more interested

00:57:46.920 --> 00:57:59.920
 in talking about direction for the ad hoc committee and do our tax exemption presentation, and then move forward. But if there's any other comments that are on the topic of the standards.

00:57:59.920 --> 00:58:20.920
 One last one. I feel like I asked this I just want to make sure to clear my mind. The difference between the two window projects being two different standards was the fact that it was the other windows were gone so then it became a, not a reconstruction, a rehabilitation versus ones that were still in there but were asking to be replaced, that was a restoration.

00:58:20.920 --> 00:58:38.920
 Is that what the significant difference was that they'd already done it. They were both rehabilitation so I staff had already done the analysis and then I guess two days prior, found out that they had already been changed, and this has already been noticed.

00:58:38.920 --> 00:58:53.920
 So, it was still rehabilitation for those existing windows on Austin Street, or that have been replaced and then this one was also rehabilitation due to the fact that they were replacing the entire window and putting in new windows, but continuing that same use.

00:58:53.920 --> 00:59:10.920
 Yeah, but before you found out they had changed them out, you were going to recommend approval of the project. Yes. Yeah, so I think that's where, you know, maybe have some work to do is the standards, allow for an economic exception to using the same material.

00:59:10.920 --> 00:59:24.920
 So I would ask you to consider economic as well as other kind of local issues. And again, we're in kind of this guideline universe where that's something that you guys can consider so I think I've heard numbers as much as like $40,000 in difference between

00:59:24.920 --> 00:59:39.920
 different window materials. So I think that's a line that we can potentially draw but it is not in the guidelines, the guidelines say for rehabilitation, to use the original material, if available or if allowable it doesn't

00:59:39.920 --> 00:59:46.920
 require it in the same way that maybe some previous HLC boards have have used as a rationale.

00:59:46.920 --> 00:59:56.920
 And then also just to piggyback up on that is that the 520 Austin Street, that also did not fall within a historic district so that didn't have any design overlays.

00:59:56.920 --> 01:00:10.920
 So, in terms of the most recent one that we saw earlier today, 2200 Houston Place, that had not only the Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Interior.

01:00:10.920 --> 01:00:19.920
 Thank you, the standards, they had the standards as well as the historic overlay in which it was required to meet other architectural requirements.

01:00:19.920 --> 01:00:33.920
 So you will have some of those instances that come in front of HLC, where they're only being guided by these guidelines specifically, and there are no historic overlay designs tied to them.

01:00:33.920 --> 01:00:39.920
 So, was this one rehabbed because of how bad some of the windows were versus preservation?

01:00:39.920 --> 01:00:47.920
 Yes, because they did not plan on preserving the windows they wanted to replace them so stuff was looking at specifically as rehabilitation.

01:00:47.920 --> 01:00:53.920
 Also, our overlays, how many different overlays do we have in the city of Denton?

01:00:53.920 --> 01:01:04.920
 Well, currently we have three historic district overlays and then we also have the Denton Square District, which HLC does see those buildings that are locally designated come forward.

01:01:04.920 --> 01:01:18.920
 So, that was going to be another question of mine. Do we, we don't have different standards based on the age, so for example, this one we had earlier that was 1963, is significantly newer than a lot of the homes in Denton.

01:01:18.920 --> 01:01:24.920
 Do we hold everything to the same standard regardless of age, as long as it falls within these parameters, I assume?

01:01:24.920 --> 01:01:25.920
 Yes, correct.

01:01:25.920 --> 01:01:26.920
 Okay.

01:01:26.920 --> 01:01:36.920
 Are you seeing that the local architectural community is clueling in on these four standards that they're working with you and advising their clients about?

01:01:36.920 --> 01:01:48.920
 So, from what I've seen so far, I've only been in this position for about, or a little over a year, most of the architects that are coming forward are not local.

01:01:48.920 --> 01:01:56.920
 And along those same lines with the applications that we receive, are we typically dealing with the homeowners or are we dealing with architects?

01:01:56.920 --> 01:01:57.920
 The homeowners.

01:01:57.920 --> 01:02:12.920
 And I think that's a challenge there because not every project is necessitating the use of an architect and you have property owners that are coming forward, just like yourselves, where you would be doing work to your structures in accordance with these guidelines that are provided.

01:02:12.920 --> 01:02:19.920
 Thank you.

01:02:19.920 --> 01:02:26.920
 Any other questions?

01:02:26.920 --> 01:02:29.920
 So, moving on to historic tax exemptions.

01:02:29.920 --> 01:02:31.920
 So, we're kind of going opposite.

01:02:31.920 --> 01:02:33.920
 We'll come back to the standards later on.

01:02:33.920 --> 01:02:36.920
 I know everyone has a lot of interest in this.

01:02:36.920 --> 01:02:39.920
 So, focusing on historic tax exemptions.

01:02:39.920 --> 01:02:47.920
 So, looking at the table of contents, once again focusing on the why, why are these historic tax exemptions important to the HLC?

01:02:47.920 --> 01:02:56.920
 Looking at local historic tax exemptions, which we currently have, our designated historic sites as well as our historically significant sites.

01:02:56.920 --> 01:03:04.920
 Then we'll be looking at the Texas Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program as well as the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program.

01:03:04.920 --> 01:03:10.920
 And then next I'll take you all through kind of a comparison between the two and those requirements and eligibility.

01:03:10.920 --> 01:03:17.920
 And then lastly, just some examples of other types of historic tax exemptions seen in Texas.

01:03:17.920 --> 01:03:18.920
 So, the why.

01:03:18.920 --> 01:03:32.920
 So, the first of all, you know, as the commission, it's very important that you all are educated on these different tax exemptions so that not only you can share with the community, but, you know, you can utilize them yourself and you live in historic property.

01:03:32.920 --> 01:03:45.920
 But also promotion of the program itself. It's not only education. That's not the only role that this commission has. It's also promoting the program that exists currently at the city level that can be used, but also the state and federal.

01:03:45.920 --> 01:03:57.920
 And then lastly, HLC as reviewers, you all have jurisdiction over those designated historic sites, which we saw a few last time on the 21st come forward, as well as historically significant sites.

01:03:57.920 --> 01:04:02.920
 I have not seen one of those yet. I'd be interested to see one of those come through.

01:04:02.920 --> 01:04:12.920
 And then obviously HLC does not have jurisdiction over the Texas or the federal tax exemption program.

01:04:12.920 --> 01:04:28.920
 So local historic tax exceptions. So this is the one we often see staff as well as HLC. You will see this as our designated historic sites. So these are designated as historically or archaeologically significant sites in need of tax relief to encourage its preservation.

01:04:28.920 --> 01:04:45.920
 So what we're seeing a lot of right now is that subsequent exemption, which is that additional 10 years of success, maximum 10 years successive years with that minimum of $10,000 spent or more for permanent improvements and/or restoration to the property.

01:04:45.920 --> 01:04:50.920
 So I have a question about that.

01:04:50.920 --> 01:04:58.920
 When we approve these, is there a question over how many years they can have? Because it says maximum 10 successive years.

01:04:58.920 --> 01:05:08.920
 So they have all gone through the county and the county chooses whether or not it will be 10, but I've always seen 10 come through.

01:05:08.920 --> 01:05:11.920
 And then if you do a new improvement, you get 10 more years.

01:05:11.920 --> 01:05:13.920
 Yes, if you all approve it.

01:05:13.920 --> 01:05:22.920
 So they can have to be new. No, no, no, no, because we do it. I mean, I know my husband says it's hardly worth the effort for the 10,000 exemption.

01:05:22.920 --> 01:05:30.920
 But every time we put ours in, we've had to put 10,000 new. But it's not a 10,000 exemption. It's 50% of the value.

01:05:30.920 --> 01:05:34.920
 Yes, so it's 50% of the historic site assessed value.

01:05:34.920 --> 01:05:44.920
 So you just have to have a minimum of $10,000 spent over that 10 years in terms of permanent improvements and restoration to the property.

01:05:44.920 --> 01:05:48.920
 Well, I don't think it has to be over those 10 years. You could use it the way I read the law.

01:05:48.920 --> 01:05:55.920
 Anytime after that 2009 cutoff date, if you spend $40,000 that next week, you use 10,000 for this chunk.

01:05:55.920 --> 01:06:00.920
 And then 10 years later, you spent the next 10,000 you spent 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

01:06:00.920 --> 01:06:06.920
 Yeah, for 100 years, that's even what I spent. That's the way I read it.

01:06:06.920 --> 01:06:11.920
 Okay, that I read it differently. I like that even better, my husband.

01:06:11.920 --> 01:06:15.920
 50% of your city didn't assess value.

01:06:15.920 --> 01:06:19.920
 Well, it made me a good idea not to turn in everything.

01:06:19.920 --> 01:06:25.920
 Because some of these receipts will show expenses for 50 or $100,000. It's like, you can save a lot.

01:06:25.920 --> 01:06:31.920
 You can save receipts from 15 years ago and put them in later. I'm confused because I never do that.

01:06:31.920 --> 01:06:34.920
 I just learned a really valuable lesson.

01:06:34.920 --> 01:06:36.920
 That's not how the city has interpreted it.

01:06:36.920 --> 01:06:39.920
 Yes, that's right. That's not how I understood it.

01:06:39.920 --> 01:06:44.920
 Yeah, I think historically we've required a showing of 10,000 every 10 years.

01:06:44.920 --> 01:06:52.920
 And I believe we have additional ordinances that go on top of the Texas tax code that kind of incorporate that.

01:06:52.920 --> 01:06:56.920
 That's great. Thank you, Marcella.

01:06:56.920 --> 01:07:00.920
 So it's the city code that I was referring to, not this.

01:07:00.920 --> 01:07:06.920
 This may actually have something different. I don't think I looked at the Texas tax code. I was looking at the city dentin codes.

01:07:06.920 --> 01:07:12.920
 Okay, but it's permanent improvements or restoration. So it's not repairs.

01:07:12.920 --> 01:07:23.920
 This is all we can come back to when it comes to the ad hoc committee, because this is the larger discussion that we have.

01:07:23.920 --> 01:07:35.920
 And there was someone here, I don't think he's here now, that calculated like I did, like my husband did, that it's not worth more than like 80 cents to you to do it when you finally do it.

01:07:35.920 --> 01:07:41.920
 That was me when I actually looked at it. So it actually ends up being pretty significant when I went back and actually looked at it.

01:07:41.920 --> 01:07:50.920
 Yeah, that's different. Yeah. Yeah. So it's, I mean, 50% of the city taxes, city tax, I think is 1% or something like that, if I recall, somewhere around there.

01:07:50.920 --> 01:07:57.920
 I think five cents per thousand or something. Yeah. And so when you cut that in half, it could add up.

01:07:57.920 --> 01:08:01.920
 No, this is exciting.

01:08:01.920 --> 01:08:16.920
 $1,200 bucks or so. I did the math before our last meeting. Yes, you told me and I forgot.

01:08:16.920 --> 01:08:34.920
 It's $500 a year for 10 years. Well, that one that we had, it was significantly higher than that. But you got to be careful, not DISD and not county, just the city.

01:08:34.920 --> 01:08:37.920
 Sorry. No, it's okay.

01:08:37.920 --> 01:08:52.920
 So the next one that we also have the city level is our historically significant sites. So these are all structures, residential and commercial, that are 50 years or older, that are located within our downtown commercial district, which is outlined here.

01:08:52.920 --> 01:08:58.920
 Historic districts, historic conservation districts, and are deemed historic or in need of preservation by city council.

01:08:58.920 --> 01:09:18.920
 So this is the length of the extension is up to 10 years. It does not require a cost requirement. But this cannot be implemented until the completion of the renovation itself.

01:09:18.920 --> 01:09:30.920
 So then this is just the application review process. So we have both of these at the local level. Both of these are currently on our historic preservation page. And then that will come through the HPO to review.

01:09:30.920 --> 01:09:37.920
 They come under HLC for review and then city council for final review and approval.

01:09:37.920 --> 01:09:50.920
 Are there any potential ones that are being reviewed now? So the ones that are going forward to city council are 805 Boulevard, 607 Pearl, and 123 North Elm.

01:09:50.920 --> 01:09:58.920
 Those are both, all three of those are going on April 19th to city council. Did they ever say no?

01:09:58.920 --> 01:10:07.920
 Did city council ever say no? They have the kind of the same discussion and are the ones who are interested in kind of defining what's an improvement and a restoration to a property.

01:10:07.920 --> 01:10:13.920
 Who's more difficult to deal with, us or them? Them.

01:10:13.920 --> 01:10:33.920
 I'm not going to say anything. They are aware that we're considering, I mean that we're in the same quadrant they are, right? Yes, they are.

01:10:33.920 --> 01:10:43.920
 So next moving on to Texas Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program.

01:10:43.920 --> 01:10:53.920
 So highlighting this, this is a state tax credit which is 25% and this is applied to either the Texas franchise tax or insurance premium tax.

01:10:53.920 --> 01:11:03.920
 So buildings that are eligible, these are ones that currently have a historic designation. They're listed individually or are contributing to a national registered historic district.

01:11:03.920 --> 01:11:12.920
 They're a recorded Texas historic landmark, a state antiquities landmark, or contributing to another certified historic district at the state level.

01:11:12.920 --> 01:11:22.920
 If the building is eligible, the nomination process can be undertaken while work is underway, but it has to be listed by the time you get the credit.

01:11:22.920 --> 01:11:30.920
 Properties that are eligible are income producing and nonprofit, and they must be returned to prior use after rehabilitation.

01:11:30.920 --> 01:11:40.920
 So, and then once again, it must meet the Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation.

01:11:40.920 --> 01:11:47.920
 Nonprofits actually have to pay tax. That's kind of a dumb question, but I thought they didn't.

01:11:47.920 --> 01:11:57.920
 I've been doing taxes for 40 years, and I've never claimed that credit. I mean, I know it's out there, but so few people actually pay franchise tax in Texas.

01:11:57.920 --> 01:12:04.920
 It's only franchise tax, is that all? Or insurance premium tax. I've never seen one of those.

01:12:04.920 --> 01:12:18.920
 I mean, we used to do a return for companies every year, but the insurance premium tax is if you have a not Texas underwriter.

01:12:18.920 --> 01:12:25.920
 So just to go briefly through that application process. So these all must be submitted before the project is completed.

01:12:25.920 --> 01:12:31.920
 So we have that Part A, which is that evaluation of significance, whether it's eligible or if it's already a designated landmark.

01:12:31.920 --> 01:12:41.920
 That Part B, description of rehabilitation. So that's related to what is your proposed project? Does it meet the Secretary of Interior's standards in making and confirming that that works?

01:12:41.920 --> 01:12:54.920
 And then Part C is the request for certification of completed work. And both at the state level, they do require application fees that are nonrefundable.

01:12:54.920 --> 01:13:02.920
 So moving on to the federal rehabilitation tax credit program. So these buildings are listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places.

01:13:02.920 --> 01:13:09.920
 They're contributing to a historic district or deemed determined eligible for listing on the National Register.

01:13:09.920 --> 01:13:15.920
 These are related to income producing properties only, and it does include rental units.

01:13:15.920 --> 01:13:25.920
 They must be returned to prior use after rehabilitation and once again must meet the standards. And that federal tax credit is 20 percent. And that's for federal federal income tax.

01:13:25.920 --> 01:13:35.920
 That's a biggie. You have to be. It can't be for homes. It can't be for homes like on Hickory, the rental houses, rental houses.

01:13:35.920 --> 01:13:40.920
 Yeah, it just can't be for homeowners. We're kind of not there. Okay. But that can be a big deal.

01:13:40.920 --> 01:13:47.920
 So just similar application process to the state. They're just named differently and there's no application fees.

01:13:47.920 --> 01:13:58.920
 But you have that part one, which is that evaluation of significance, part two description of rehabilitation and part three request for certification of completed work.

01:13:58.920 --> 01:14:06.920
 So looking at the Texas versus federal tax credit. So focusing kind of on these blue boxes, there's lots of information here.

01:14:06.920 --> 01:14:13.920
 But once again, we have that 20 percent for federal 25 percent for state eligible building uses.

01:14:13.920 --> 01:14:28.920
 We have that income producing for including residential rental and income producing a nonprofit and then required historic designation has to be National Register of Historic Places within 30 months of project completion.

01:14:28.920 --> 01:14:33.920
 And then the project must be designated before the product can be certified at the state.

01:14:33.920 --> 01:14:38.920
 And then application deadline. You must apply before the project is completed.

01:14:38.920 --> 01:14:46.920
 And unless the building is individually listed already for the federal and then once again must apply before project completion for the state.

01:14:46.920 --> 01:14:50.920
 But you have to double your money. You have to equal your cost basis.

01:14:50.920 --> 01:14:59.920
 In other words, if you look under the federal credit, it has to be the greater of five grand or your current adjusted basis when you start.

01:14:59.920 --> 01:15:05.920
 So if you buy a house for a hundred grand, you have to spend more than a hundred grand to be eligible for credit.

01:15:05.920 --> 01:15:17.920
 It's been used on what was the place over there. Thank you. It's been used for that. I know I thought for the theater or thinking about using it for the theater during the process of it for the theater.

01:15:17.920 --> 01:15:23.920
 So that has a pretty good benefit, I think.

01:15:23.920 --> 01:15:33.920
 And then this is just the review process kind of breaking down those parts one and a two and be complete rehabilitation project part three and see.

01:15:33.920 --> 01:15:43.920
 And then obviously with the state, they have an additional step, which requires the submitting certificate of eligibility to the Texas Comptroller's Office.

01:15:43.920 --> 01:15:48.920
 How long does it really take to part one? You said 30 days.

01:15:48.920 --> 01:15:54.920
 Does it is it really happening that fast? So they are required to do it within 30 days to get you a response.

01:15:54.920 --> 01:15:59.920
 So they're held to that.

01:15:59.920 --> 01:16:07.920
 But it can take up to obviously that additional 30 days for National Park Service, so it could be a total of two months.

01:16:07.920 --> 01:16:11.920
 So just moving on to some examples of other types of historic tax incentives.

01:16:11.920 --> 01:16:21.920
 So these are two tax incentives seen elsewhere in Texas. San Antonio is our first example. This is owner occupied residences and new historic districts.

01:16:21.920 --> 01:16:26.920
 So these are residential properties occupied by the property owner at the time of the destination.

01:16:26.920 --> 01:16:37.920
 They received 20% exemption on their city property taxes for 10 years. And if they are remained in that same house, they get an additional five years.

01:16:37.920 --> 01:16:41.920
 And then heritage properties, which is in McAllen, Texas.

01:16:41.920 --> 01:16:53.920
 This is a tax incentive for 10 years equal to 100% of any increase in the assessed value of the building or structure and land at the time the designation application was filed or at the time the property was designated.

01:16:53.920 --> 01:17:01.920
 And their definitions does require at least 50 years old, but they don't have to be necessarily designated.

01:17:01.920 --> 01:17:12.920
 But they have had all the facades facing any streeted buds for storm rehabilitated or preserved, and they also do allow structures under 50 years old.

01:17:12.920 --> 01:17:28.920
 And then just to recap, once again, it's great for educational purposes, just promotion of the program itself, preservation in Denton, and then also HLC as the reviewers.

01:17:28.920 --> 01:17:35.920
 Any questions or discussion is great find you because I thought they had a very generous program and McKinney.

01:17:35.920 --> 01:17:42.920
 They have really elevated themselves as far as your areas and destinations, which would bring in tax revenue.

01:17:42.920 --> 01:17:49.920
 So I might understand this great plan does an awful lot to keep people keeping their houses and their things.

01:17:49.920 --> 01:17:53.920
 I'd love to know what they do, because I mean, McAllen's doesn't sound that exciting.

01:17:53.920 --> 01:18:00.920
 I don't mean to be blunt. San Antonio maybe, but you know, great plan has done well and McKinney has done very well.

01:18:00.920 --> 01:18:08.920
 Think about how beneficial it would be to hit that even that the credit we're giving applied to your DISD taxes.

01:18:08.920 --> 01:18:11.920
 OK, but I need the kids to learn something, you know.

01:18:11.920 --> 01:18:13.920
 Yeah, do we really want to take money out of it?

01:18:13.920 --> 01:18:14.920
 No, we don't.

01:18:14.920 --> 01:18:21.920
 Exactly. It's hard enough as it is. I'm willing to pay that because I have to teach them when they get to college, right?

01:18:21.920 --> 01:18:25.920
 And hopefully they're teachable from having learned something.

01:18:25.920 --> 01:18:26.920
 Sometimes.

01:18:26.920 --> 01:18:27.920
 Sometimes.

01:18:27.920 --> 01:18:40.920
 Go ahead. The next topic is regarding, and you don't need to stand up. You can do that.

01:18:40.920 --> 01:18:42.920
 You can sit. We can hear you.

01:18:42.920 --> 01:18:49.920
 Well, this is for you all to discuss. This is not me presenting this time around. So this is a discussion amongst the committee.

01:18:49.920 --> 01:19:01.920
 Nomination of two commissioners. Oh, it's a definition of ad hoc committee because we have Angie that's still honored and she's willing to continue.

01:19:01.920 --> 01:19:03.920
 We don't give her a choice.

01:19:03.920 --> 01:19:04.920
 Excuse me?

01:19:04.920 --> 01:19:06.920
 She got to stay.

01:19:06.920 --> 01:19:08.920
 What?

01:19:08.920 --> 01:19:09.920
 Here's the thing.

01:19:09.920 --> 01:19:12.920
 And your chairperson probably can't be on it.

01:19:12.920 --> 01:19:14.920
 I know, I know.

01:19:14.920 --> 01:19:16.920
 But it'll come back to you when you start again.

01:19:16.920 --> 01:19:23.920
 Instead of calling it ad hoc, call it a working group. That's the new thing that we're, you know, we call things working groups.

01:19:23.920 --> 01:19:25.920
 You're right.

01:19:25.920 --> 01:19:28.920
 And then we don't have to define it.

01:19:28.920 --> 01:19:31.920
 We'll send that to another ad hoc committee.

01:19:31.920 --> 01:19:38.920
 But it would make sense, Casey, if you were willing to.

01:19:38.920 --> 01:19:40.920
 The floor is open. Just discuss.

01:19:40.920 --> 01:19:48.920
 I think it'd be a great benefit to have a lawyer and an architect on for those things.

01:19:48.920 --> 01:19:52.920
 And a resident of the area of the historic district. So there you go, Angie.

01:19:52.920 --> 01:19:56.920
 Don't get too excited. Y'all can only have three.

01:19:56.920 --> 01:19:58.920
 See, there you go. See, she's one.

01:19:58.920 --> 01:20:00.920
 I wouldn't be interested in.

01:20:00.920 --> 01:20:06.920
 It's really great. And the reason I say that is just the little work that we did.

01:20:06.920 --> 01:20:13.920
 It is like, oh, my goodness, how do you interpret this and how it's it's not a small thing.

01:20:13.920 --> 01:20:16.920
 How's this going to have impacts down the road?

01:20:16.920 --> 01:20:18.920
 Yeah.

01:20:18.920 --> 01:20:31.920
 And we've even talked about however long ago that was, you know, with regard to those expenses, that they had to be with regards to repairs and stuff that were integral to the historic nature of the home.

01:20:31.920 --> 01:20:36.920
 But start trying to quantify that. I just think that's a lot of trouble.

01:20:36.920 --> 01:20:42.920
 I mean, you know, to do it for us to decide that we have enough trouble deciding whether it's preservation or restoration.

01:20:42.920 --> 01:20:46.920
 I know what a split airs. I just don't.

01:20:46.920 --> 01:20:50.920
 Ten thousand dollars goes like that. And it's not that much money.

01:20:50.920 --> 01:21:05.920
 All right.

01:21:05.920 --> 01:21:15.920
 So the chair, having solicited volunteers, Angie and Lance and Cason have agreed to show up over the.

01:21:15.920 --> 01:21:25.920
 So now this is the time if you guys want to give direction as to what they need to look into, other than the definitions of improvement and restoration.

01:21:25.920 --> 01:21:31.920
 But we really need to keep it at the ten thousand foot level, maybe even higher with you all, maybe thirty thousand.

01:21:31.920 --> 01:21:38.920
 And I'm in first class, so I want free drinks.

01:21:38.920 --> 01:21:42.920
 Yeah, we talk about what we want them to do in the fourth paragraph of the AIS.

01:21:42.920 --> 01:21:47.920
 Now, that committee can work without open meetings, correct?

01:21:47.920 --> 01:21:50.920
 Correct. Yes, that's why we keep it to three, because then you all.

01:21:50.920 --> 01:21:53.920
 And we can meet with city as well.

01:21:53.920 --> 01:22:02.920
 And just any time you guys have a report, be sure to schedule a meeting through Cameron at an open meeting because there's a concern for walking quorums.

01:22:02.920 --> 01:22:10.920
 So even if you three meet and then you're really excited and want to talk to Mary or Roy about what you were talking about, that can accidentally create a quorum.

01:22:10.920 --> 01:22:17.920
 So you three kind of in your own little bubble until we scheduled open meeting or we can all talk about it together.

01:22:17.920 --> 01:22:21.920
 So it has to be open. It would have to be open. Not the three of them.

01:22:21.920 --> 01:22:26.920
 No, but when it comes to that, you have to be open. I get confused on some of those.

01:22:26.920 --> 01:22:30.920
 And so we're talking about charging this ad hoc committee with two responsibilities, right?

01:22:30.920 --> 01:22:42.920
 First one being the definition of what qualifies as $10,000 of expense for the 50 percent valuation thing.

01:22:42.920 --> 01:22:58.920
 City only. And the second thing would be a checklist or guidelines for the HLC with regard to the restoration versus the rehab versus preservation.

01:22:58.920 --> 01:23:02.920
 But I think it should be available to the general public that are going to come through, right?

01:23:02.920 --> 01:23:10.920
 Well, everything that we do will have that checklist. They will see also come up with a checklist that we say, you know, but staff would have to approve it before they write.

01:23:10.920 --> 01:23:22.920
 It's just something that makes it easy. If we if we adopt standard or don't, we adopt standards and we just say this is how we think the rules tell us it should be.

01:23:22.920 --> 01:23:27.920
 And then we just let people know this is what we're going to do. And then it's fair.

01:23:27.920 --> 01:23:37.920
 And it's not this ad hoc job to recommend if we increase the 10,000 or not.

01:23:37.920 --> 01:23:41.920
 OK, good. Because I wasn't there discussion about that a few months back.

01:23:41.920 --> 01:23:51.920
 Council was upset about something. That was a bit. Yes, I probably said that.

01:23:51.920 --> 01:23:58.920
 If I could just summarize to just to make sure I understood the guidelines or parameters.

01:23:58.920 --> 01:24:08.920
 In addition for the HLC in regard to preservation versus rehabilitation, I presume versus restoration versus reconstruction, all for those different levels.

01:24:08.920 --> 01:24:16.920
 But is it specific for the HLC or were you interested as it relates to COA, the certificate of appropriateness applications?

01:24:16.920 --> 01:24:21.920
 Yes. Oh, sorry. Was I not loud enough?

01:24:21.920 --> 01:24:27.920
 No, he got it. Yes, I'll agree about it.

01:24:27.920 --> 01:24:34.920
 Is what what I heard from the discussion earlier was more specific to the applications themselves.

01:24:34.920 --> 01:24:44.920
 And so presumably that if the applications themselves were better defined as into their categories, then that would then presumably help you all in making your decision.

01:24:44.920 --> 01:24:47.920
 But did I misunderstand that? I think so.

01:24:47.920 --> 01:25:03.920
 Well, I think the first thing if I was I think the ad hoc committee should consider a meeting with Cameron and talk about what happens when the COA comes in and what factors are they looking at in trying to figure out what of these standards will apply and why so that we can.

01:25:03.920 --> 01:25:08.920
 We can't all do that without having a public meeting, but the three of you guys can do that.

01:25:08.920 --> 01:25:14.920
 You can say, you know what, that's pretty thorough and we don't need to do anything. That's perfectly acceptable answer.

01:25:14.920 --> 01:25:26.920
 I would like the homeowners to answer some of these questions even ahead of time so they are made aware and educated as to what the options they're going to face that they should in fact know what's there.

01:25:26.920 --> 01:25:33.920
 I mean, how many people have submitted to this before? How many people have ever submitted HLC for permission? Angie, maybe only you?

01:25:33.920 --> 01:25:42.920
 I have. For us? Oh, I have, yes. You and I both have, so we know what we're talking about when you say you do it. It's quicksand because you don't know what you're going to hit.

01:25:42.920 --> 01:25:57.920
 No, so I'll disagree there because at the time the preservation officer was not Cameron, but I think she does an excellent job of this, but they guided us through it and told us what we needed to have.

01:25:57.920 --> 01:26:08.920
 Well, I went back further than you, Angie. I went back much before when it was very nasty and you came in and had all these weird things thrown at you. You had no information in front of you.

01:26:08.920 --> 01:26:15.920
 So I think that the homeowner needs to know these are what is going to be considered. See what it is. And ours was that way.

01:26:15.920 --> 01:26:22.920
 But see how mine wasn't. It was just you walked in and if I hadn't brought the shingles with me, they wouldn't have approved the roof shingles. Come on already. You know, they don't say that.

01:26:22.920 --> 01:26:34.920
 Well, and I think that in the interest of this discussion, though, let's start to where we currently are in the improvements that have been made since the time period that you applied, Mary, for a C of A so that we have, we're starting from today and not previous ways that we're doing things.

01:26:34.920 --> 01:26:41.920
 Because I think if we've made advancements in our application process, then we can move forward.

01:26:41.920 --> 01:26:52.920
 My point is the homeowner needs to know what is going to be expected on there. I'm just saying it was really that bad because we had no idea what was going to be you were going to walk into a meeting for.

01:26:52.920 --> 01:27:00.920
 So if people have checklists, how do you define preservation? How do we know whether it's a preservation or a restoration? What are some of the items that will be considered?

01:27:00.920 --> 01:27:08.920
 And let the homeowner go through it with a little guidance from Cameron so that we don't sit here and have to grill Cameron or split hairs.

01:27:08.920 --> 01:27:12.920
 And it makes her life easier. It makes her life easier. The homeowner is not swung away.

01:27:12.920 --> 01:27:23.920
 So just so I'm clear. So basically, so for our development review, they go through a pre-application conference is basically what we do on the development side of things.

01:27:23.920 --> 01:27:34.920
 So are you recommending that potentially that homeowners go kind of through a similar process when they turn into see where prior before they meet with you?

01:27:34.920 --> 01:27:43.920
 They have they see what what they need to look at just so they can answer questions and get guidance, because it's hard if you have never seen what it is you're supposed to deal with.

01:27:43.920 --> 01:27:48.920
 I mean, the rules are a little bit easier. But look, if we're struggling, how does a homeowner not struggle?

01:27:48.920 --> 01:27:56.920
 I do look forward to meeting with you, Cameron, and talking about this process. So I think we know what our brief is.

01:27:56.920 --> 01:28:05.920
 And and legally, well, these have to go before the city council for approval before we can institute.

01:28:05.920 --> 01:28:16.920
 So there's actually a pre-step. So if you're depending on what you're amending, if it goes all the way to making a change to the debt and development code, that would actually require a public hearing.

01:28:16.920 --> 01:28:37.920
 So that's one of the things that is listed on the AIS is to see if as the definition ad hoc committee, if you want to expand the role and look at that subchapter two of the development code, which really focuses on the powers and duties of the historic landmark commission and kind of those processes and procedures that you will take as a commission.

01:28:37.920 --> 01:28:47.920
 So that is part of the AIS that I presented or staff presented to you all in seeing if you have any interest in expanding the committee to undertake that as well.

01:28:47.920 --> 01:28:54.920
 What kind of timeframe? You guys sort of have a broad remit here.

01:28:54.920 --> 01:29:13.920
 I mean, you know what we're struggling with? See what you find. Report back. How long on a report back? 120 days? So if it comes to the subchapter two, we are looking to bring some amendments forward to planning and zoning commission.

01:29:13.920 --> 01:29:30.920
 And I just talked to Ron Mangita. He is a principal planner with the city. Some of you all know him. He's kind of spearheading the subchapter two amendments and changes, and they're looking at a June discussion with PNC.

01:29:30.920 --> 01:29:31.920
 That's pretty thin.

01:29:31.920 --> 01:29:44.920
 I would say we can still do it separately, but I know for other amendments that are going forward in subchapter two, those are moving forward probably in May and June.

01:29:44.920 --> 01:29:46.920
 Do we know what those are?

01:29:46.920 --> 01:29:51.920
 Those are changes to other portions of subchapter two that are not related to historic landmark commission.

01:29:51.920 --> 01:30:01.920
 Yeah, I asked you to hold off. I believe the changes being proposed as it relates to HLC are fairly minor. They're just word changes.

01:30:01.920 --> 01:30:23.920
 One is a result of your board, I was going to say compensation, but you all are being compensated. The makeup of the board. The makeup of the board, yes. The makeup of the board. And one is with respect to, I think, a reference to an article or subsection. I mean, they're very minor.

01:30:23.920 --> 01:30:32.920
 So, I'm here. So, three roles associated with this committee. So, we'll likely have to maybe change today, but one is to address the definition of what qualifies as $10,000 in expenses.

01:30:32.920 --> 01:30:52.920
 The second one was with respect to the guidelines or parameters for HLC as it relates to COA applications regarding preservation versus rehabilitation versus restoration versus reconstruction to assist with our application types to help not only educate the homeowner, but also taking into consideration what happens when a certificate of appropriateness comes in.

01:30:52.920 --> 01:31:10.920
 How is it determined that the application complies with which application type, i.e. one of those four? And then also, and then lastly, the third item was the updates to subchapter two. So, to me, this sounds more like more than a definition to ad hoc committee.

01:31:10.920 --> 01:31:35.920
 What is the preservation ad hoc committee? Subchapter two is in the Dunn Development Code, and that's specifically, let me make sure I'm saying this. So, it'd be specifically looking at section 2.3.6, which is the Historic Landmark Commission, as well as section 2.9, which is the historic preservation procedures.

01:31:35.920 --> 01:31:42.920
 And she has that side in the AIS on your packet.

01:31:42.920 --> 01:31:45.920
 Do we have to give a presentation like you do?

01:31:45.920 --> 01:31:48.920
 Yeah, exactly.

01:31:48.920 --> 01:32:08.920
 I would gear it towards the commission, but either the May or June meeting, some type of update.

01:32:08.920 --> 01:32:18.920
 120 days might not be as relevant as if we get into the process of changing it now, which is they're discussing in May and changing in June?

01:32:18.920 --> 01:32:25.920
 They're discussing it in May, yes, and they're hoping to bring it to PNC in June, and then it would have to go to city council after that.

01:32:25.920 --> 01:32:45.920
 I would recommend bifurcating the processes. The subchapter two work that's being done is a lot more things that they've kind of noticed since 2019 that have been accumulating and they've kind of prepared a cumulative change to the DVC to reflect certain kind of things people have been noticing since it was promulgated.

01:32:45.920 --> 01:32:51.920
 So I think maybe just separating it from that process, there's no rush on y'all's review.

01:32:51.920 --> 01:33:00.920
 Yeah, there's no rush. I just wanted to give you just the timeline of when other things are starting to go forward from subchapter two.

01:33:00.920 --> 01:33:03.920
 It is hard if we communicate electronically as well, correct?

01:33:03.920 --> 01:33:04.920
 Yes.

01:33:04.920 --> 01:33:12.920
 As long as you keep it to y'all three and don't like forward your messages to people, except for Cameron.

01:33:12.920 --> 01:33:18.920
 Recommended, yes, please.

01:33:18.920 --> 01:33:22.920
 Thank you.

01:33:22.920 --> 01:33:33.920
 But that sort of is also this next agenda item as well.

01:33:33.920 --> 01:33:55.920
 Okay, next up on the agenda is HLC 22-037. Hold a discussion regarding identifying questions for the legal department related to the Historic Landmark Commission duties, powers, and evaluation criteria for applications.

01:33:55.920 --> 01:34:04.920
 Okay, so you did not let Hilary off easy. I had pulled her, she was so nice, easy to work with, wouldn't have to answer any crazy questions.

01:34:04.920 --> 01:34:15.920
 All of a sudden, not only was there a tornado warning, but there was also some of the most difficult questions y'all have asked since my tenure, which I love it. I love the questions.

01:34:15.920 --> 01:34:17.920
 We were holding, we didn't want to do it.

01:34:17.920 --> 01:34:19.920
 You're waiting.

01:34:19.920 --> 01:34:28.920
 I've been doing this for a year, a little over a year.

01:34:28.920 --> 01:34:47.920
 But yeah, so I was listening to the meeting on my drive back through a tornado, but I made it, I could hear y'all talking so I heard kind of the gist of where things were going, but I didn't kind of want to move anything forward because I think we do want anything that goes to a more formal

01:34:47.920 --> 01:35:01.920
 legal opinion, legal question, would need to have a quorum of officers who are interested in that staff work, just because we want to make sure that we're gearing staff time towards the substantive questions that you guys care the most about.

01:35:01.920 --> 01:35:18.920
 If we get kind of this system set out and it's working well and we have enough questions to kind of keep fueling a legal status report, similar to what council and PUB gets, then we can kind of maybe have more ad hoc questions from your committee or things like that, that we can do more frequently.

01:35:18.920 --> 01:35:25.920
 But it's kind of for the first get around. We don't want to have 30 questions to try to answer for you guys to come back with.

01:35:25.920 --> 01:35:34.920
 No, I think we want to try to, you know, really focus on, yeah, I could hear two major issues.

01:35:34.920 --> 01:35:42.920
 I know you're talking about what happens when work has already been done and it comes forward.

01:35:42.920 --> 01:35:51.920
 And if you would deny it, what happens there? Just like quite simply the answer is that there's nothing in the code that explains what's going to happen.

01:35:51.920 --> 01:35:55.920
 That just isn't a situation contemplated by the way the code is written right now.

01:35:55.920 --> 01:36:10.920
 We can do some research to see if there's gap fillers either in the other parts of the DDC or kind of Texas law generally to see if there's something that gets relied on if the code is silent.

01:36:10.920 --> 01:36:21.920
 But y'all gave Hillary a really hard time when she gave y'all that answer. You kept pressing her. I was like, "Hillary, I'm so sorry." I wasn't there.

01:36:21.920 --> 01:36:26.920
 But yes, so that is the short answer to that question is that our code is silent.

01:36:26.920 --> 01:36:35.920
 However, if we're still interested in kind of if there's, I guess, potentially anything else that was impacted by that,

01:36:35.920 --> 01:36:42.920
 we can take that question back and see if there's anywhere we would go when the code doesn't give us direction.

01:36:42.920 --> 01:36:52.920
 And then I think kind of the second part was the interpretation of the standards and who gets to make that interpretation.

01:36:52.920 --> 01:37:07.920
 And just quickly the research I did ahead of time, it's not an often litigated issue. A lot of people are not bringing the Secretary of the Interior into court.

01:37:07.920 --> 01:37:21.920
 Most historic preservation lawsuits relate actually to constitutional taking issues to whether or not the city is in effect taking your property and needs to provide compensation for that.

01:37:21.920 --> 01:37:28.920
 So there isn't a lot in the realm of historic preservation law as to how these standards are interpreted.

01:37:28.920 --> 01:37:39.920
 You kind of rely back on things people maybe don't think about since law school, like statutory interpretation and reading the CFR, which most lawyers don't have to do in their day-to-day life.

01:37:39.920 --> 01:37:48.920
 So there's kind of places like a federal regulation.

01:37:48.920 --> 01:37:52.920
 Oh, I was thinking the reporter.

01:37:52.920 --> 01:38:02.920
 So the name of it's the reporter is the Code of Federal Regulations and they'll publish the amendments to any decision that's been made by Congress.

01:38:02.920 --> 01:38:07.920
 And then they'll actually have all the notes of decision and reports they make on those items.

01:38:07.920 --> 01:38:15.920
 So there's legislative history we can look at to kind of give us advice as to how the legislature may be intended certain things to come about.

01:38:15.920 --> 01:38:24.920
 There's notes and comments we can look at for some of the items that come before a Secretary of the Interior because that's not quite the same as a legislative process.

01:38:24.920 --> 01:38:28.920
 That's an administrative rulemaking process.

01:38:28.920 --> 01:38:37.920
 So there's two separate kind of ways laws are made at the federal level and the Secretary of Interior is an agency.

01:38:37.920 --> 01:38:42.920
 So they act under kind of an administrative executive role as opposed to a legislative role.

01:38:42.920 --> 01:38:49.920
 So anyways, long story short, not a lot of clear guidance on your two questions that you asked.

01:38:49.920 --> 01:38:54.920
 If they are still burning, you would like a write-up and a legal opinion, happy to provide.

01:38:54.920 --> 01:39:04.920
 But it might look a lot like here's things we can look at that are instructive, but there's no there's some guideposts, but there's no bright line rule.

01:39:04.920 --> 01:39:09.920
 But like I said, happy to take any questions you guys have.

01:39:09.920 --> 01:39:16.920
 We as a legal department are now able to kind of provide like on the fly legal opinions.

01:39:16.920 --> 01:39:25.920
 So I know people were kind of talking about a Q&A with the legal department is just the way everyone's kind of structured and all our research processes work.

01:39:25.920 --> 01:39:34.920
 It's better if we can get questions ahead of time and then we can provide a written report to you guys that we can discuss.

01:39:34.920 --> 01:39:43.920
 And if it does, most things have to be discussed in open session just because of the way the Open Meetings Act worked.

01:39:43.920 --> 01:39:51.920
 The exception is kind of related to very specific lawyer advice, not just general client lawyer interactions.

01:39:51.920 --> 01:39:57.920
 So there are things we would have to talk about in open session if you guys want to bring questions.

01:39:57.920 --> 01:40:06.920
 But if you want to just ask questions of the material provided or kind of additional routes you want to go down, those can be handled by like an email to me.

01:40:06.920 --> 01:40:13.920
 And then I can kind of add them to the matrix and we can make sure that we have a quorum to kind of get those questions answered.

01:40:13.920 --> 01:40:17.920
 But if there's not a whole lot of questions, the quorum issue is not as big of a deal.

01:40:17.920 --> 01:40:30.920
 I was more just wanting to head off, you know, I am the only legal staff on y'all's committee, but we have a great land use attorney named Hillary who you guys met last time, except for Mary.

01:40:30.920 --> 01:40:36.920
 And also, our city attorney has great land use background as well.

01:40:36.920 --> 01:40:43.920
 So you have a wealth of resources. It's just to get all those resources together takes a little bit of time.

01:40:43.920 --> 01:40:50.920
 So I have a question. The development code is being redone as we speak, right?

01:40:50.920 --> 01:40:56.920
 There's clarification that there are just updates that are being made to it's not being completely redone.

01:40:56.920 --> 01:41:11.920
 Okay. So for how would someone go about simply having an application fee for the people that come in to get approval after the fact?

01:41:11.920 --> 01:41:17.920
 So if you did it and you screwed up and you're here, fine, you can file that and you need to.

01:41:17.920 --> 01:41:20.920
 But what if there's a two hundred fifty dollar application to that?

01:41:20.920 --> 01:41:25.920
 That would probably be punitive and that's going to cause all kinds of issues.

01:41:25.920 --> 01:41:29.920
 It's not speeding tickets, not paying your taxes.

01:41:29.920 --> 01:41:34.920
 So there's two different structures. There's, you know, civil and criminal structures.

01:41:34.920 --> 01:41:38.920
 So when you get into the punitive world, you are kind of in a criminal situation.

01:41:38.920 --> 01:41:40.920
 It's an application fee.

01:41:40.920 --> 01:41:43.920
 If you did it late, you pay more.

01:41:43.920 --> 01:41:47.920
 The law looks at form over substance.

01:41:47.920 --> 01:41:51.920
 And if it looks like a punitive action, then it will be treated as such.

01:41:51.920 --> 01:41:53.920
 So you just need to be careful.

01:41:53.920 --> 01:41:58.920
 And again, that's something that maybe the ad hoc committee can explore if that's a route you guys want to go.

01:41:58.920 --> 01:42:02.920
 But if you do want a full answer as to what happens, if you have a.

01:42:02.920 --> 01:42:10.920
 I feel like that's getting loud a little too much. Just turn to the ad hoc committee.

01:42:10.920 --> 01:42:16.920
 I guess the purpose of this is to identify any additional questions that Marcella may need to be able to address.

01:42:16.920 --> 01:42:21.920
 So if the question is, can we have a fine for people who don't.

01:42:21.920 --> 01:42:26.920
 Well, it's a theoretical question about why would you bother coming here first?

01:42:26.920 --> 01:42:30.920
 If you if there are no repercussions, I would never come here.

01:42:30.920 --> 01:42:32.920
 Yeah. You're not going to find me.

01:42:32.920 --> 01:42:34.920
 You're not going to make me take it out.

01:42:34.920 --> 01:42:37.920
 Why would I bother? We might turn down what you've done.

01:42:37.920 --> 01:42:39.920
 And then what? Then what? Nothing happens.

01:42:39.920 --> 01:42:43.920
 Well, they didn't get the discount they were looking for.

01:42:43.920 --> 01:42:45.920
 It's not enough money.

01:42:45.920 --> 01:42:48.920
 Well, for some people it may be.

01:42:48.920 --> 01:42:51.920
 Well, and I pose that as a question.

01:42:51.920 --> 01:42:55.920
 And that is, well, we're sort of a toothless tiger.

01:42:55.920 --> 01:42:57.920
 We've always been a toothless tiger.

01:42:57.920 --> 01:43:01.920
 Well, I mean, because if we deny someone, they can always appeal and go to city council.

01:43:01.920 --> 01:43:03.920
 And go right around us.

01:43:03.920 --> 01:43:04.920
 And that's happened.

01:43:04.920 --> 01:43:05.920
 Yes, recently.

01:43:05.920 --> 01:43:07.920
 I was on, I was.

01:43:07.920 --> 01:43:20.920
 So could the question be, if the HLC is to deny an application, what are the applicant's next available options?

01:43:20.920 --> 01:43:22.920
 Well, we know that they can go to city council.

01:43:22.920 --> 01:43:30.920
 You said the code is silent or? So the code is silent if a denial happens after the action was already taken.

01:43:30.920 --> 01:43:32.920
 So they didn't ever come to us.

01:43:32.920 --> 01:43:42.920
 So, for example, the windows, if they had done a denial, their code is silent as to what would happen as a result of that denial.

01:43:42.920 --> 01:43:47.920
 Because the code is presupposing that you came to HLC first.

01:43:47.920 --> 01:43:52.920
 With a mural right on that building that came after the fact.

01:43:52.920 --> 01:43:58.920
 They went to city council and they at least followed the route because they knew they could do it.

01:43:58.920 --> 01:44:04.920
 I guess we need to get back to what are the questions that we want to address for you at a future meeting.

01:44:04.920 --> 01:44:10.920
 Yeah, my question is, what teeth do we have of people either one, never come, or two, just do it anyway.

01:44:10.920 --> 01:44:14.920
 Why are we here if there is no repercussion?

01:44:14.920 --> 01:44:16.920
 There's the question.

01:44:16.920 --> 01:44:21.920
 Why are we here? I don't know if it's a good question.

01:44:21.920 --> 01:44:27.920
 In some ways, that's the question that I just answered.

01:44:27.920 --> 01:44:29.920
 The code is silent on a lot of these things.

01:44:29.920 --> 01:44:31.920
 What can we do to change that?

01:44:31.920 --> 01:44:38.920
 Work with your ad hoc committee and recommend that they review your procedures because that's kind of the answer.

01:44:38.920 --> 01:44:45.920
 There's not a procedure right now other than our enforcement, which we're scheduled to talk about in May, I believe.

01:44:45.920 --> 01:44:48.920
 Our next meeting, we'll be talking about enforcement.

01:44:48.920 --> 01:44:56.920
 We're actually going to have the city prosecutor here to be ready to talk about how enforcement on her side works.

01:44:56.920 --> 01:45:00.920
 That's kind of the only existing teeth.

01:45:00.920 --> 01:45:06.920
 If you want different ones, that would be a code amendment that you guys could prepare, propose.

01:45:06.920 --> 01:45:10.920
 It would go through the public hearing process and then eventually be approved by council.

01:45:10.920 --> 01:45:16.920
 Is there anything in code? I know if it's done and then before the fact, there's nothing.

01:45:16.920 --> 01:45:20.920
 If it's a repeat offender.

01:45:20.920 --> 01:45:22.920
 So that's something I can look into?

01:45:22.920 --> 01:45:27.920
 Yeah. That's my question there. What about repeat?

01:45:27.920 --> 01:45:29.920
 There are a lot of flippers that just don't care.

01:45:29.920 --> 01:45:39.920
 But I also want to know what happens if they have followed the process and were given wrong information by the city staff.

01:45:39.920 --> 01:45:43.920
 Good point.

01:45:43.920 --> 01:45:49.920
 So what you're saying is our ad hoc committees should deal with those and bring recommendations back?

01:45:49.920 --> 01:45:55.920
 So to the extent that the code doesn't already provide for it, there's very little illegal opinion.

01:45:55.920 --> 01:46:00.920
 I know how it feels. I went someplace and they gave me specific instructions, which I followed.

01:46:00.920 --> 01:46:06.920
 And then the next person said, oh, no, he was wrong. That's not right.

01:46:06.920 --> 01:46:09.920
 I think we need to turn it back around to a question.

01:46:09.920 --> 01:46:19.920
 So is the question what happens if city staff incorrectly apprises a homeowner of the steps to get a permit or to work with HLC?

01:46:19.920 --> 01:46:21.920
 You guys would like to hear an answer?

01:46:21.920 --> 01:46:25.920
 We don't have that structure yet. We would be building out that structure.

01:46:25.920 --> 01:46:33.920
 So there's a potential that we have something elsewhere in the DGC where there's so many applications that come through the city process.

01:46:33.920 --> 01:46:41.920
 I haven't done a full review if there is an overlying kind of process for if you're at a step and something goes wrong.

01:46:41.920 --> 01:46:44.920
 There might be somewhere that addresses it more generally.

01:46:44.920 --> 01:46:52.920
 But within just the universe of the Section 2 HLC provisions, there's really nothing specific on what if you get denied more than once.

01:46:52.920 --> 01:46:58.920
 What how many like there's some information about how appeals work and how many times you can appeal.

01:46:58.920 --> 01:47:03.920
 There is a thing about how long you wait. I thought it was a year of your time now.

01:47:03.920 --> 01:47:15.920
 If your COA is denied, you have to wait a year unless you significantly change your proposed product or HPO or HLC apprises.

01:47:15.920 --> 01:47:17.920
 There's a lot of wheel rooms.

01:47:17.920 --> 01:47:23.920
 So Marcella, so then for purposes of your next steps, I guess I've heard a couple of different questions.

01:47:23.920 --> 01:47:28.920
 Are you needing concurrence on these are the questions that you're meaning to provide a response to?

01:47:28.920 --> 01:47:30.920
 Yes, I've heard two questions.

01:47:30.920 --> 01:47:38.920
 I guess so far is that we kind of haven't gotten a resolution on is what happens with repeat offenders.

01:47:38.920 --> 01:47:46.920
 And then the second one was what happens if someone is misled during the development process.

01:47:46.920 --> 01:47:53.920
 So I think one of the first things that was kind of not really well defined is what we're looking for.

01:47:53.920 --> 01:47:59.920
 And I think we're all kind of thinking is what she said is what kind of incentives anyone have to work with this.

01:47:59.920 --> 01:48:05.920
 It sounds like enforcement may have a mechanism for that or something like that, or maybe it's something we should ask them.

01:48:05.920 --> 01:48:13.920
 And then if they don't have anything, I guess it's my lack of understanding of how the application process works.

01:48:13.920 --> 01:48:21.920
 You know, if somebody even if somebody hasn't done something yet and they don't get the approval from HLC, do they not get their permit at that point?

01:48:21.920 --> 01:48:26.920
 And if they do work anyway without the permit, then I'm assuming it's trigger some enforcement actions.

01:48:26.920 --> 01:48:31.920
 Yes, I think that's something that we can talk about in our enforcement meeting in May.

01:48:31.920 --> 01:48:33.920
 So there's kind of two separate sections.

01:48:33.920 --> 01:48:44.920
 Cameron's working with our court enforcement officers that do kind of non court related code enforcement, kind of an initial step sometimes.

01:48:44.920 --> 01:48:50.920
 So we have code enforcement that will go out and say, you know, X, Y, Z is against code.

01:48:50.920 --> 01:49:02.920
 And then we have the prosecution step, which is separate and can be implemented by anyone in the city of Denton generally through working with our prosecutor who would then bring the case before the municipal judge.

01:49:02.920 --> 01:49:05.920
 So that's something we have slated for our discussion in May.

01:49:05.920 --> 01:49:08.920
 And then if it makes sense, maybe we can have that discussion.

01:49:08.920 --> 01:49:15.920
 And if you there's any remaining questions of that, you know, Stephanie has been able to answer for you guys.

01:49:15.920 --> 01:49:18.920
 We can be very serious.

01:49:18.920 --> 01:49:23.920
 Yeah, she's been spent with the city for 26 years.

01:49:23.920 --> 01:49:37.920
 So she is very knowledgeable about didn't she has some history because as far as I know from my 19 years living in the historic district, nobody has ever gotten into trouble for doing stuff and then getting forgiveness afterwards.

01:49:37.920 --> 01:49:39.920
 Nobody has ever been made to fix it.

01:49:39.920 --> 01:49:43.920
 Nobody has ever done anything to stop people have done it wrong.

01:49:43.920 --> 01:49:46.920
 So I just I just want to know what's our purpose.

01:49:46.920 --> 01:49:47.920
 My question is, what's our purpose?

01:49:47.920 --> 01:49:53.920
 If there are no teeth, that is not a legal question that I can answer for you.

01:49:53.920 --> 01:49:57.920
 But I think you'll hear a lot from Stephanie on how the code works.

01:49:57.920 --> 01:50:21.920
 Cameron and I were in discussions to kind of answer some of the initial questions that came up, and she kind of has a procedure that can be followed to do some enforcement as a private citizen.

01:50:21.920 --> 01:50:27.920
 And then she kind of provides on its citizens to help us know what's going on.

01:50:27.920 --> 01:50:31.920
 So, yes, and then they do nothing about it.

01:50:31.920 --> 01:50:40.920
 Maybe maybe a feature question that staff can assist with kind of very long your lines of what are the benefits of having the HLC and how that supports the program.

01:50:40.920 --> 01:50:47.920
 You know, I like that idea, you know, I think there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just.

01:50:47.920 --> 01:51:11.920
 I think there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it and so I just think that there's a lot of benefits to it.

01:51:11.920 --> 01:51:21.920
 Commission is to be added to the matrix is what are the benefits of having the historic landmark commission and how that supports to you overall here just preservation program.

01:51:21.920 --> 01:51:31.920
 If there's concurrence amongst the group that you're wanting to have that conversation if not, then we don't have to add it but that's what I heard coming out of the last item.

01:51:31.920 --> 01:51:33.920
 That is correct.

01:51:33.920 --> 01:51:38.920
 Do you agree? So we will have that yes.

01:51:38.920 --> 01:51:41.920
 You know why don't we see what our ad hoc committee comes back.

01:51:41.920 --> 01:51:43.920
 Yeah, that's fine.

01:51:43.920 --> 01:51:46.920
 Yeah, one last thing to do.

01:51:46.920 --> 01:51:48.920
 Well, I think it'll be important to talk to you.

01:51:48.920 --> 01:51:52.920
 Unfortunately, as well, so I think that's a lot of questions.

01:51:52.920 --> 01:51:53.920
 Excuse me.

01:51:53.920 --> 01:51:59.920
 I say if no one wants, so if no one's interested in adding anything to the matrix, then we can, no.

01:51:59.920 --> 01:52:00.920
 No? Okay.

01:52:00.920 --> 01:52:02.920
 Then we stand adjourned. Thank you.

01:52:02.920 --> 01:52:03.920
 Thank you.