Nov 02, 2022 Historic Landmark Commission on 2022-11-02 5:30 PM (SPECIAL CALLED)

Okay, taking note of a quorum, I'm also going to make note that the Historic Landmark Commission has now reconvened from the closed session and no official action was taken in the closed session. If I'm supposed to do that right. So let's start this meeting and I believe we start with the, if everyone please stand for the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance and then the text of the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honoring the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible. Thank you everyone and welcome. We have a relatively short agenda tonight, although it may be a little time to work our way through it. The first thing is we're going to consider agenda item A, which is consider approval of the September 12th, 2022 minutes, that's HLC 22-092. I believe they were emailed to everyone, so we need a motion to approve those. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No, the minister approves. Item B on our agenda is COA 22-0012, with a little a, hold a public meeting and consider an application for certificate of appropriateness in accordance with section 2.9.2 of the Denton Development Code to reconstruct the detached garage at 928 West Hickory Street, a local Denton landmark property and a recorded Texas landmark, a historic Texas landmark located in the Oak History Historic District. This site is located on the north side of West Hickory Street between North Welch Street and Bernard Street, and I will turn the discussion over to Ms. Robertson. Thank you, Chair. So as stated, the property is located at 928 West Hickory Street, it's on the north side highlighted by this red box right here of West Hickory Street between North Welch Street and Bernard Street. The owner is Jesse Jensen. The property was constructed in 1912, it's also known as the Razor Graham House. It was constructed, just a little bit of background, it was constructed for J. Fred Razor. It has the American Foursquare style with bungalow details, that's the main residence itself, but the garage is looking to have that kind of same kind of detailing. So it does have some of the defining features of that bungalow detailing, central dormer, wide porch, hip roof. I've stated it is a local historic landmark and recorded Texas historic landmark. And as you can see here on the tax photo, you do see that garage placement back there. So the request is to reconstruct the detached garage. The location is on that east side of the property, set back to the northeast corner. So it's highlighted here in red, as well as here by the arrow right there. The garage was not part of, is not part of the recorded Texas historic landmark designation, so it does not require a THC review. So this is the current conditions from the existing driveway of the property of where the proposed garage would be located. So you can see that it is ground, or it's dirt as of right now, and we have that existing driveway, but it would be placed as stated in that northeast corner. So this, looking at the proposed elevation and architectural drawings, the materials would be using reclaimed wood and new pine lumber and pine clad board to match that reclaimed wood. They would also be painted that light tan paint to match the main residence. This is the original garage from July 2022, and then this is the proposed. And the proposed would be approximately 20 feet and nine inches. This is proposed elevation architectural drawings from the left elevation, kind of that western edge. So you do see the windows in there from the original garage. And then looking at the architectural drawings, this shows the ground floor plan, this shows the first floor plan, and then the roof plan. So we do have three skylights that would be placed in the roof. So staff's analysis looks specifically at the standards for reconstruction, as that's what the COA was applied for. Meaning specifically, and you can see in your packet that AIS staff looked at one, three, four, and five. Five was the reconstruction will be clearly identified as contemporary recreation. Staff also looked at section 4.9.4C, which is specifically the design standard for the Oak Hickory Historic District. And staff focused specifically on the accessory buildings, architectural detail, new construction conditions, facade materials, and roof forms. So staff is recommending denial of the certificate of appropriateness for the reconstruction of the detached garage at 928 West Hickory Street, as it does not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for reconstruction, nor does it comply with sections 4.9.6C and 5.4.3C of the DDC. Also in my packet, I did have staff recommendations. So I did want to share those here, including a new site plan, height of the proposed detached garage being reduced to match the former detached garage roof line, as shown in that previous photo, as well as a new set of elevation architectural drawings to be resubmitted. So I did want to show those before we move on to questions. And the applicant is here if you do have any specific questions for him regarding the project. Okay. I have a question. Yes. In the data material you sent out, there are a few more details on why you were suggesting denial, and it had to do with the height of the garage, that it would be 10 feet higher, roughly 8 feet higher. Correct. The reclaimed wood was good, but that original door somehow disappears in the process. Yes. So it's not really like a reconstruction. Correct. It's a whole new design and garage, replacing the one that was there. Correct. So it is using bits and pieces of the original design, which you can see here, but based off the drawings that were received, it does not show the use of the original former garage door, and it does have an elevated first floor above the ground floor. So we do see a change in the height, as you can see from...that's the base level, and that's kind of directly the base level, and then we have an extension. Would the modern stairway that is not visible have been a problem for the staff? If it was implemented just on something that looked like...on a reconstruction that looked exactly like this, or a reconstruction as proposed? Let's assume you were not upset about the height. The stairway is okay to put as long as you can't see it. Correct. Okay. But can you see it? The stairway would not be visible from the street. How high does it go? It is proposed to go to the second story here, so approximately starting seven feet up. But the railing would go...the second floor starts...I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get the ceiling height and how high you have to go for the landing for the... Correct. So the second story itself from the base of the second floor to the roofline is 11 feet seven inches, but the actual section of the second floor in terms of walking height looks to be approximately six feet 11 inches. It's likely I can see the railing. From the side? Is it not in the back? It's in the rear, so it'd be back here. But I'm pretty sure you could probably see it from up street. Possibly. I mean, if I look at the site map, at least that's how I saw it, that's why I wasn't quite sure that I had it right. So you'd be able to see it from the neighboring properties, you would not be able to see it from the rear because this is the house right here, the stairs would be behind the property itself. Yes, but then on the other side, so I could see it on the other side of the...across the street from behind it, it would be high enough to see above the fence clearly, would it not? Potentially. So there would be a line of sight issue that you would have with Salty's property, which is the other Razor house, the one on Oak Street. Is that it? Yes. That's Salty or Shell's house. I do believe he's Walter, officially, but yes. What is the construction of the new garage door that would be? Did I miss that? So the garage door is proposed as being a modern design, but in the narrative it does state that it would be using the former garage. However, the elevation drawings did not show that, so that's why it was recommended by staff to submit new architectural drawings showing the use of the former garage door. So we don't know what the material would be for what they proposed. For the proposed garage door now. So it could be aluminum, it could be...we don't know. Is the angle of the roof similar, the same, it doesn't quite look the same, that's why I'm asking. The pitch looks taller. It doesn't look the same. Yes, this is a higher pitch than this roof line. That's kind of not the same at all. Correct. And when they say reclaimed wood, is it reclaimed from that structure, or what do they mean reclaimed wood? Reclaimed wood would be coming from this original structure. Do you have a percentage of how many... We do not have a percentage, no. I believe our applicant is here, correct? Yes. I don't know how I'm supposed to intervene as far as answering those questions, but I can certainly answer all of those. So with regards to the reclaimed wood, we have roughly, it should be about 50% of the new construction could be used for reclaimed. With regards to the pitch, the pitch is the same. The elevation difference you see there is the addition of, I think, two feet seven inches to the upper portion to make, essentially, that above garage section a usable space if we wanted to use it as usable space. As far as dimensionally, the unit actually matches entirely. The reason that the elevation drawing, as Cameron is calling out, does not show the particular door is because this was generated by my engineers, not by an MEP firm. So obviously, before I get the C of A, I don't want to commit money to going through architectural drawings, going through MEP, spend $5,000, $6,000 just to have it denied and kicked back. So I can use my own engineers and do it effectively at no cost. And then once I get through the approval, I can definitely make whatever types of accommodations are needed to make Beigel so happy. The architectural design, I've seen only a few hundred dollars, six, eight, six, eight hundred dollars. Maybe it's gone up in the past five years. So do you have a material at the garage door? So I actually have the original garage door. Now, what we plan on doing is using as much of that wood as we can and then duplicating that same design for the alternate size. So to Cameron's point, this is no longer a sliding door. We wanted to utilize it via a jack shaft and we wanted to copy that same design that is existing there, mirror it so that it is effectively a two car garage. Also with the alignment of the existing driveway, this particular garage wouldn't fit or accommodate it. So that's part of the reason that it's scaled. So we basically took the initial dimensions of this building. We scaled it out, I think four feet, I can't remember off the top of my head, but basically took that to the back as well. So dimensionally from the plan, what do you mean by dimensions? I'm confused. Dimensions to me are length by width. You're telling me four more feet. So that's not quite the same. Yeah. So if you looked at the plan view of the drawings, you would see that dimensionally the aspect ratio grew similar. So if we were looking at the top and say it was 18 by 20 and it was scaled by four feet in one direction, it would scale about three something in the opposite direction. What's the footprint? I really want to hear a footprint. Sure. The footprint is listed on that set of drawings. I couldn't read them. Sorry. That's a little small in my eyes. I'll be out here. So it's 22 feet by approximately 15 feet, seven inches. Which is still pretty small by consideration of most garages. What car is going to fit in there? Not me. My wife's car. Builder's garages are 20 by 20. So what are you going to put in 15 by seven? So the 15 is the depth dimension. Right. And we believe we can fit two cars in there. Just two cars. And we'd like to have that space for our homes. Again, I don't know what car could fit in there. But a Mini Cooper. I'm sorry, Mini Cooper. It's a Mini Cooper. I'll bet your car is a Mini Cooper. What we have here is essentially a new garage and new design. It's going to be all in a historic landmark district. So I don't know how we constitute that, so you might be right. This particular design, we try to essentially match it as best as possible. I think the main alterations that were mentioned are we are trying to get a living space over top of the garage. So dimensionally that's the only thing that actually changed. As far as aesthetics, the garage door is essentially the only thing that changed. Now, correct me if I'm wrong about any of that, Cameron. Is there something that I missed aside from those two items? So we have the window materials or the design of the windows or anything? We do not have the design of the windows. I believe it's showing three current windows on either side. So to get a living space, you need to have egress for fire, it's part of RBC. So if there was going to be a living space up there, it would need to accommodate some access in case of a fire. Essentially that point. I think there was a separate point, which is the existing windows. And if you go back to that initial image, as far as I could tell, those were made sometime in the 80s from photos we were able to recreate, and that's actually plexiglass. So they framed it and put in plexiglass sheets on top of this former structure. Do we still have them? The plexiglass? The window frames. So when I said frame, as in they cut out part of the wall, framed it interior with some two-by-four studs, and then they put one-by-four boards around it and painted them. Well, we don't have a picture of what it is so that we know we're replicating what… I mean that picture. And I don't think we would want to replicate that. Those aren't necessarily consistent with the time of the structure, no more than the door would be, right? That was put in place probably sometime in the 80s, along with… You can see at the bottom there, there is a cement board that has replaced some of the clapboard that was original to the property. There was a runoff issue, it appears, and they filled that bottom section of the structure with cement and put a plastic liner on the inside. Some of which I sent photos to you on from the deconstruction. So yes, there's a large portion of this property that I would say lost its architectural integrity long before this part. I'm still confused on the garage door, hopefully I got an answer. So you said you want to use some of the materials on the garage door, but it's going to be a two-car garage. I want to duplicate what that is right there. But that's not what the plans show. It does show a solid garage, but yes, it doesn't show specifically that layout. This is just something that was generated so that we could dimensionally get started on the process. I can obviously change the elevation drawings to reflect that. Cameron, what was the original footprint? Because I don't know, this dimension thing is not what I think it is. So the original footprint was approximately 16 feet by 18 and a half feet. Thank you so much. So it's a little bit shorter in terms of depth that's being proposed, approximately about a foot. And then for 18 and a half, it's approximately four feet larger. And I can read the layout plans on this very well because it was small to me, but having considered doing a garage myself, isn't there a setback from the back fence and the right fence? And is that in the new plan picture? I didn't notice it, but there's many pictures I was looking at. So it would have to be offset three feet from both the eastern property line as well as the rear property line. What I'm understanding from Ron was that it had to be a minimum of six feet if you were going to have a supplemental dwelling. It did change. It did change. So I talked to building permits and everyone. And we did have a discussion because it is has an overlay, it is an overlay district, but if it were to be used as an accessory dwelling unit in the future, it only requires to be three feet from both the east. That's right. I have not heard that. I had to look back at my email. That's all right. I have not heard that because I was interested in one. Mary, I think it changed. It changed at the time they adopted the current DDC, which is around 2019. We've been having discussions on accessory structures, so I know that because with the adoption of the current development code that was in 2019, there were some modifications made to those standards from what I understand. I can make my day. For me personally. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Cameron or for our owner? I just thought I was going to ask, do we know what the roof was going to be? Is there any mention in there? No, there's no mention of the roof material. Before we move on, I just wanted to give a quick reminder of what the standard for reconstruction is for the Secretary of Interior's standards. Definition is, "Reconstruction is defined as 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 its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location." I just wanted to provide that for you. Okay. Thank you. To move to the next part, which would be a discussion by the commission, we would need a motion. As normal, we have four options, approve as submitted, approve subject to condition, deny or continue for a specific period of time. If there are no motions, I'll ask Cameron to explain what happened in that instance. So as this was placed on the agenda back in October, October 10th specifically, so that 75-day time clock has started, and if you all do not take any action on it tonight, that 75 days will continue, and at that 75 days, the COA will be approved if no action is taken before then. Go ahead, Lenny. Do you have another question? No. Then I move denial of this request. A second. Okay. Commissioner McAdams has moved for denial. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Okay. We have a motion and a second. I will just open the floor for discussion. Well, from my point of view, making the motion, it simply isn't a replacement of the structure that was there. It has a different footprint, it has a different height, much of the material is different. It's not the same structure for a historical district. And there's not enough information to assess even any of the materials, the roof, the windows. The windows, color, you know, so much is missing that I'm used to seeing on any other request to do building on the historic district. It's locking all of you down. I agree. Now, I believe the staff in their recommendation for denial suggested that certain things happen before it be brought back. Could you go through those? So staff did make recommendations, not as part of the actual denial recommendation. But if you all had decided to take a different action. So those are that a new site can be resubmitted confirming that the proposed detached garage meets the minimum three foot setback requirements for accessory structures, that the height of the proposed detached garage be reduced to match the former detached garage roofline seen in recently documented photos from July of 2022, as well as a new set of elevation and architectural drawings to be resubmitted depicting the proposed structure height change, as well as the use of the former garage door as stated by the applicant and their project narrative. Okay. If we're still open for discussion, chime in. If you're in no further discussion, let's do a show of hands on this one just so that they're all recorded. All those in favor of the motion to deny raise your right hand please. It is unanimous. Okay, the next item on our agenda is to hold a discussion it's HLC 22-079A, version one is to hold a discussion and consider approval of the 2023 HLC calendar and I believe we've all been handed these. Well spring break just can't be, it cannot be in spring break, sorry that has to go away. March 13th, I'm not going to be here just to show you, it's for sure. Can we move March 13th to March 17th? Any other day except that week, the week of spring break, the 20th would be fine. Yes, no. Are there restrictions that I don't know about other than planning and zoning or city council meetings where we should not have meetings? No, not that I know of, because city council's on Tuesdays, PNC's on Wednesdays and there's nothing that's on the calendar in terms of Monday evenings, so the 20th if you all decide is that if that's a better date the 20th is fine. Okay, so the March HLC meeting is moved from the 13th to the 20th. On a personal side, I may or may not be able to make the June 12th meeting, but that's just a personal, I've got a trip already booked out, so you know, it's not a universal thing. Okay, then we have April 10th, any objections to that one? Good. May the 8th? I'm not real sure I can make the March one, but. The 20th? Yes. Oh. We'll see. I have to check. Oh, say would the 6th work better? I have to check. The 6th is fine with me, I'm here on the 6th, it's just, that's a Thursday though, right? It's a Monday. It's a Monday, okay, yeah. We can move it. Well, let's crank it forward. We're saying on Monday. Yeah, that's fine. So, let's go for March 6th. Okay, that's right. And the floor is open, just chime in, let's get this to where we can try and live with it. Right, I mean. May the 8th? Yeah, those are right before, that's my final exam week, but I, you know, I can manage. I have only one, does anybody have any other trouble? January the 9th, I mean the 23rd would work better for me. Well, the 23rd would work better for me as well. Because, yeah, it's just still part of break in my book, I'm still on holiday, I'd love to enjoy my limited time off. Is that too far? I don't mind changing it to the 23rd. Is that too big a gap from December's meeting to January, when we're looking at people? I was to say, if we do have COAs coming through, it would be a big gap, but you know, it depends on how quickly they're moving. I may or may not be here, so the answer on that day is no. I totally understand, but no, to your point, that's a good point. Because our next meeting is December 12th, and if we weren't to meet until the 23rd, so that would be over a month. We anticipate, I mean in years past, I don't think we've probably had many COAs that were submitted in late December, usually kind of settles down, so if anything, if we have a published calendar, we can inform the public and as to where the meeting dates are, but I'd like to think that there's not going to be much COA activity. People are off holiday. People are off holidays in December. Right, no, I think it should be fine. I don't mind the 23rd, either one, but if there is, we could do another special crowd. Correct, yes. That is possible. So it's January 23rd, it's February 13th, it's March the 6th, it's April 10th, it is May the 8th. Anybody got heartburn over that? No manage, because I don't care, I'm good in May until the 29th and then I'm gone, or I'm gone about the 24th or something. I just don't know if I'm making it. I don't get back until the 8th or the 9th and I'm going to be in San Francisco getting back, so I think driving back can be hard to make that, but I mean if you get a quorum it's fine. Right. Well and remember with three absences you still make a quorum, so things should be flexible enough to handle people routinely out on vacations or stuff like that. Yeah, I just flipped that last week, Sam. Roy, I see that the remainder are always on the second Monday of the month, it looks good to me. I don't see a problem other than that, I'm just looking carefully to see. I was looking for September, that's perfect. Yeah, I don't see anything. Well, okay. April, how about you went April, I just thought I'd ask that you were Mr. Tax Guy, or did you retire finally? April 10th is not bad, April 17th is bad. Oh, is that when the tax came to you? Oh, okay, gotcha. Oh yeah, that's the Monday after, okay got it. And just out of a sense of openness, at some point in the May-June time frame I won't be eligible to be on the commission, having moved out of the city limits. So I will remain quote-on-quote. Well, we have to worry that his house won't get fixed in time, sorry, I'm just teasing you. Well, and I'm not going, I mean, our business is still there and it's just we're moving to our farm. Right, sounds exciting. And... Are you going to farm? She's laughing at you. You know what, my number one objective is, Leni, and I kid you not, I'm simply gonna try and stay on this side of the garage. I like that one. Okay. I like that one. But we're still gonna work and I have an office there. You're gonna relax a little bit. Yeah, well, this is my 43rd tax season, but I started when I was 19 so, whatever. I think if I saw another tax at that point I'd just go crazy. So when you get to the tax deadlines in the fall, for me, it isn't really probably gonna matter, so make it easy on yourself. In fact, for the remainder of the discussion, Mary, why don't I turn the chair over to you? I'm fine with everything except that two dates, so, but you can't go away then because, well, you know. So we talked about a change in January to the 23rd and March to the 6th. Yes, correct. Did I make a motion? Yep. To approve the calendar? So moved. Any other changes of January to the 23rd and March to the 6th? Maybe we have a motion, is there a second? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Chair, who did you recognize as the second? Whoever you want, it doesn't matter. Well, you have to write it in the minutes. Chair, who did you recognize as the second on that motion? Who did I do what now? Recognize as the second. The second motion. Everyone except Angie moved. So just pick someone. Don't pick someone. Oh, oh, Mary is the second. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that closes our agenda. We need a motion to adjourn. I always move to adjourn. A second. Second. Any opposed? They can stay here. They can stay yours. You're right. Thank you.