1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,480
 Okay, taking note of a quorum, I'm also going to make note that the Historic Landmark Commission

2
00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:16,240
 has now reconvened from the closed session and no official action was taken in the closed

3
00:00:16,240 --> 00:00:17,240
 session.

4
00:00:17,240 --> 00:00:23,840
 If I'm supposed to do that right.

5
00:00:23,840 --> 00:00:30,320
 So let's start this meeting and I believe we start with the, if everyone please stand

6
00:00:30,320 --> 00:00:37,920
 for the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance and then the text of the flag.

7
00:00:37,920 --> 00:00:44,720
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

8
00:00:44,720 --> 00:00:53,720
 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

9
00:00:53,720 --> 00:01:04,960
 Honoring the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible.

10
00:01:04,960 --> 00:01:13,400
 Thank you everyone and welcome.

11
00:01:13,400 --> 00:01:24,200
 We have a relatively short agenda tonight, although it may be a little time to work our

12
00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:26,560
 way through it.

13
00:01:26,560 --> 00:01:34,680
 The first thing is we're going to consider agenda item A, which is consider approval

14
00:01:34,680 --> 00:01:41,160
 of the September 12th, 2022 minutes, that's HLC 22-092.

15
00:01:41,160 --> 00:01:48,840
 I believe they were emailed to everyone, so we need a motion to approve those.

16
00:01:48,840 --> 00:01:49,840
 So moved.

17
00:01:49,840 --> 00:01:52,040
 Do we have a second?

18
00:01:52,040 --> 00:01:53,040
 Second.

19
00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:55,040
 All those in favor?

20
00:01:55,040 --> 00:01:56,040
 Aye.

21
00:01:56,040 --> 00:01:57,040
 Any opposed?

22
00:01:57,040 --> 00:02:07,240
 No, the minister approves.

23
00:02:07,240 --> 00:02:19,360
 Item B on our agenda is COA 22-0012, with a little a, hold a public meeting and consider

24
00:02:19,360 --> 00:02:27,780
 an application for certificate of appropriateness in accordance with section 2.9.2 of the Denton

25
00:02:27,780 --> 00:02:34,880
 Development Code to reconstruct the detached garage at 928 West Hickory Street, a local

26
00:02:34,880 --> 00:02:43,320
 Denton landmark property and a recorded Texas landmark, a historic Texas landmark located

27
00:02:43,320 --> 00:02:46,120
 in the Oak History Historic District.

28
00:02:46,120 --> 00:02:52,040
 This site is located on the north side of West Hickory Street between North Welch Street

29
00:02:52,040 --> 00:02:58,000
 and Bernard Street, and I will turn the discussion over to Ms. Robertson.

30
00:02:58,000 --> 00:03:00,600
 Thank you, Chair.

31
00:03:00,600 --> 00:03:05,440
 So as stated, the property is located at 928 West Hickory Street, it's on the north side

32
00:03:05,440 --> 00:03:11,000
 highlighted by this red box right here of West Hickory Street between North Welch Street

33
00:03:11,000 --> 00:03:12,540
 and Bernard Street.

34
00:03:12,540 --> 00:03:14,920
 The owner is Jesse Jensen.

35
00:03:14,920 --> 00:03:21,360
 The property was constructed in 1912, it's also known as the Razor Graham House.

36
00:03:21,360 --> 00:03:25,880
 It was constructed, just a little bit of background, it was constructed for J. Fred Razor.

37
00:03:25,880 --> 00:03:30,680
 It has the American Foursquare style with bungalow details, that's the main residence

38
00:03:30,680 --> 00:03:36,040
 itself, but the garage is looking to have that kind of same kind of detailing.

39
00:03:36,040 --> 00:03:40,280
 So it does have some of the defining features of that bungalow detailing, central dormer,

40
00:03:40,280 --> 00:03:41,920
 wide porch, hip roof.

41
00:03:41,920 --> 00:03:47,480
 I've stated it is a local historic landmark and recorded Texas historic landmark.

42
00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:54,620
 And as you can see here on the tax photo, you do see that garage placement back there.

43
00:03:54,620 --> 00:03:58,280
 So the request is to reconstruct the detached garage.

44
00:03:58,280 --> 00:04:02,540
 The location is on that east side of the property, set back to the northeast corner.

45
00:04:02,540 --> 00:04:08,960
 So it's highlighted here in red, as well as here by the arrow right there.

46
00:04:08,960 --> 00:04:14,800
 The garage was not part of, is not part of the recorded Texas historic landmark designation,

47
00:04:14,800 --> 00:04:18,640
 so it does not require a THC review.

48
00:04:18,640 --> 00:04:23,840
 So this is the current conditions from the existing driveway of the property of where

49
00:04:23,840 --> 00:04:25,580
 the proposed garage would be located.

50
00:04:25,580 --> 00:04:32,200
 So you can see that it is ground, or it's dirt as of right now, and we have that existing

51
00:04:32,200 --> 00:04:39,160
 driveway, but it would be placed as stated in that northeast corner.

52
00:04:39,160 --> 00:04:43,640
 So this, looking at the proposed elevation and architectural drawings, the materials

53
00:04:43,640 --> 00:04:49,240
 would be using reclaimed wood and new pine lumber and pine clad board to match that reclaimed

54
00:04:49,240 --> 00:04:50,240
 wood.

55
00:04:50,240 --> 00:04:54,600
 They would also be painted that light tan paint to match the main residence.

56
00:04:54,600 --> 00:05:01,400
 This is the original garage from July 2022, and then this is the proposed.

57
00:05:01,400 --> 00:05:09,200
 And the proposed would be approximately 20 feet and nine inches.

58
00:05:09,200 --> 00:05:14,320
 This is proposed elevation architectural drawings from the left elevation, kind of that western

59
00:05:14,320 --> 00:05:15,320
 edge.

60
00:05:15,320 --> 00:05:18,880
 So you do see the windows in there from the original garage.

61
00:05:18,880 --> 00:05:23,560
 And then looking at the architectural drawings, this shows the ground floor plan, this shows

62
00:05:23,560 --> 00:05:26,420
 the first floor plan, and then the roof plan.

63
00:05:26,420 --> 00:05:34,640
 So we do have three skylights that would be placed in the roof.

64
00:05:34,640 --> 00:05:39,280
 So staff's analysis looks specifically at the standards for reconstruction, as that's

65
00:05:39,280 --> 00:05:42,120
 what the COA was applied for.

66
00:05:42,120 --> 00:05:49,520
 Meaning specifically, and you can see in your packet that AIS staff looked at one, three,

67
00:05:49,520 --> 00:05:51,080
 four, and five.

68
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:57,160
 Five was the reconstruction will be clearly identified as contemporary recreation.

69
00:05:57,160 --> 00:06:03,200
 Staff also looked at section 4.9.4C, which is specifically the design standard for the

70
00:06:03,200 --> 00:06:05,640
 Oak Hickory Historic District.

71
00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:10,960
 And staff focused specifically on the accessory buildings, architectural detail, new construction

72
00:06:10,960 --> 00:06:16,280
 conditions, facade materials, and roof forms.

73
00:06:16,280 --> 00:06:21,240
 So staff is recommending denial of the certificate of appropriateness for the reconstruction

74
00:06:21,240 --> 00:06:26,240
 of the detached garage at 928 West Hickory Street, as it does not meet the Secretary

75
00:06:26,240 --> 00:06:34,080
 of Interior Standards for reconstruction, nor does it comply with sections 4.9.6C and

76
00:06:34,080 --> 00:06:41,880
 5.4.3C of the DDC.

77
00:06:41,880 --> 00:06:45,000
 Also in my packet, I did have staff recommendations.

78
00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:50,480
 So I did want to share those here, including a new site plan, height of the proposed detached

79
00:06:50,480 --> 00:06:54,960
 garage being reduced to match the former detached garage roof line, as shown in that previous

80
00:06:54,960 --> 00:06:59,760
 photo, as well as a new set of elevation architectural drawings to be resubmitted.

81
00:06:59,760 --> 00:07:02,400
 So I did want to show those before we move on to questions.

82
00:07:02,400 --> 00:07:08,120
 And the applicant is here if you do have any specific questions for him regarding the project.

83
00:07:08,120 --> 00:07:09,120
 Okay.

84
00:07:09,120 --> 00:07:12,040
 I have a question.

85
00:07:12,040 --> 00:07:13,040
 Yes.

86
00:07:13,040 --> 00:07:27,720
 In the data material you sent out, there are a few more details on why you were suggesting

87
00:07:27,720 --> 00:07:38,920
 denial, and it had to do with the height of the garage, that it would be 10 feet higher,

88
00:07:38,920 --> 00:07:43,520
 roughly 8 feet higher.

89
00:07:43,520 --> 00:07:44,520
 Correct.

90
00:07:44,520 --> 00:07:54,720
 The reclaimed wood was good, but that original door somehow disappears in the process.

91
00:07:54,720 --> 00:07:57,440
 Yes.

92
00:07:57,440 --> 00:08:00,000
 So it's not really like a reconstruction.

93
00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:01,000
 Correct.

94
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:07,840
 It's a whole new design and garage, replacing the one that was there.

95
00:08:07,840 --> 00:08:08,840
 Correct.

96
00:08:08,840 --> 00:08:13,520
 So it is using bits and pieces of the original design, which you can see here, but based

97
00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:18,360
 off the drawings that were received, it does not show the use of the original former garage

98
00:08:18,360 --> 00:08:24,120
 door, and it does have an elevated first floor above the ground floor.

99
00:08:24,120 --> 00:08:29,320
 So we do see a change in the height, as you can see from...that's the base level, and

100
00:08:29,320 --> 00:08:33,120
 that's kind of directly the base level, and then we have an extension.

101
00:08:33,120 --> 00:08:40,840
 Would the modern stairway that is not visible have been a problem for the staff?

102
00:08:40,840 --> 00:08:47,080
 If it was implemented just on something that looked like...on a reconstruction that looked

103
00:08:47,080 --> 00:08:53,040
 exactly like this, or a reconstruction as proposed?

104
00:08:53,040 --> 00:08:57,560
 Let's assume you were not upset about the height.

105
00:08:57,560 --> 00:09:01,600
 The stairway is okay to put as long as you can't see it.

106
00:09:01,600 --> 00:09:02,600
 Correct.

107
00:09:02,600 --> 00:09:03,600
 Okay.

108
00:09:03,600 --> 00:09:05,840
 But can you see it?

109
00:09:05,840 --> 00:09:08,120
 The stairway would not be visible from the street.

110
00:09:08,120 --> 00:09:10,760
 How high does it go?

111
00:09:10,760 --> 00:09:19,480
 It is proposed to go to the second story here, so approximately starting seven feet up.

112
00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:26,760
 But the railing would go...the second floor starts...I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get

113
00:09:26,760 --> 00:09:30,280
 the ceiling height and how high you have to go for the landing for the...

114
00:09:30,280 --> 00:09:31,280
 Correct.

115
00:09:31,280 --> 00:09:38,880
 So the second story itself from the base of the second floor to the roofline is 11 feet

116
00:09:38,880 --> 00:09:46,360
 seven inches, but the actual section of the second floor in terms of walking height looks

117
00:09:46,360 --> 00:09:49,800
 to be approximately six feet 11 inches.

118
00:09:49,800 --> 00:09:53,720
 It's likely I can see the railing.

119
00:09:53,720 --> 00:09:54,720
 From the side?

120
00:09:54,720 --> 00:09:55,720
 Is it not in the back?

121
00:09:55,720 --> 00:09:56,720
 It's in the rear, so it'd be back here.

122
00:09:56,720 --> 00:10:01,720
 But I'm pretty sure you could probably see it from up street.

123
00:10:01,720 --> 00:10:02,720
 Possibly.

124
00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:09,240
 I mean, if I look at the site map, at least that's how I saw it, that's why I wasn't quite

125
00:10:09,240 --> 00:10:11,280
 sure that I had it right.

126
00:10:11,280 --> 00:10:15,000
 So you'd be able to see it from the neighboring properties, you would not be able to see it

127
00:10:15,000 --> 00:10:19,480
 from the rear because this is the house right here, the stairs would be behind the property

128
00:10:19,480 --> 00:10:20,480
 itself.

129
00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:23,760
 Yes, but then on the other side, so I could see it on the other side of the...across the

130
00:10:23,760 --> 00:10:29,680
 street from behind it, it would be high enough to see above the fence clearly, would it not?

131
00:10:29,680 --> 00:10:30,680
 Potentially.

132
00:10:30,680 --> 00:10:34,680
 So there would be a line of sight issue that you would have with Salty's property, which

133
00:10:34,680 --> 00:10:38,480
 is the other Razor house, the one on Oak Street.

134
00:10:38,480 --> 00:10:39,600
 Is that it?

135
00:10:39,600 --> 00:10:40,600
 Yes.

136
00:10:40,600 --> 00:10:42,880
 That's Salty or Shell's house.

137
00:10:42,880 --> 00:10:47,180
 I do believe he's Walter, officially, but yes.

138
00:10:47,180 --> 00:10:52,120
 What is the construction of the new garage door that would be?

139
00:10:52,120 --> 00:10:53,520
 Did I miss that?

140
00:10:53,520 --> 00:10:58,800
 So the garage door is proposed as being a modern design, but in the narrative it does

141
00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:01,640
 state that it would be using the former garage.

142
00:11:01,640 --> 00:11:06,080
 However, the elevation drawings did not show that, so that's why it was recommended by

143
00:11:06,080 --> 00:11:12,440
 staff to submit new architectural drawings showing the use of the former garage door.

144
00:11:12,440 --> 00:11:16,640
 So we don't know what the material would be for what they proposed.

145
00:11:16,640 --> 00:11:18,360
 For the proposed garage door now.

146
00:11:18,360 --> 00:11:22,800
 So it could be aluminum, it could be...we don't know.

147
00:11:22,800 --> 00:11:28,040
 Is the angle of the roof similar, the same, it doesn't quite look the same, that's why

148
00:11:28,040 --> 00:11:29,040
 I'm asking.

149
00:11:29,040 --> 00:11:30,040
 The pitch looks taller.

150
00:11:30,040 --> 00:11:31,040
 It doesn't look the same.

151
00:11:31,040 --> 00:11:38,960
 Yes, this is a higher pitch than this roof line.

152
00:11:38,960 --> 00:11:43,600
 That's kind of not the same at all.

153
00:11:43,600 --> 00:11:44,600
 Correct.

154
00:11:44,600 --> 00:11:48,480
 And when they say reclaimed wood, is it reclaimed from that structure, or what do they mean

155
00:11:48,480 --> 00:11:49,480
 reclaimed wood?

156
00:11:49,480 --> 00:11:51,480
 Reclaimed wood would be coming from this original structure.

157
00:11:51,480 --> 00:11:54,480
 Do you have a percentage of how many...

158
00:11:54,480 --> 00:12:01,160
 We do not have a percentage, no.

159
00:12:01,160 --> 00:12:03,400
 I believe our applicant is here, correct?

160
00:12:03,400 --> 00:12:04,400
 Yes.

161
00:12:04,400 --> 00:12:08,080
 I don't know how I'm supposed to intervene as far as answering those questions, but I

162
00:12:08,080 --> 00:12:11,500
 can certainly answer all of those.

163
00:12:11,500 --> 00:12:17,000
 So with regards to the reclaimed wood, we have roughly, it should be about 50% of the

164
00:12:17,000 --> 00:12:19,000
 new construction could be used for reclaimed.

165
00:12:19,000 --> 00:12:23,320
 With regards to the pitch, the pitch is the same.

166
00:12:23,320 --> 00:12:30,840
 The elevation difference you see there is the addition of, I think, two feet seven inches

167
00:12:30,840 --> 00:12:41,920
 to the upper portion to make, essentially, that above garage section a usable space if

168
00:12:41,920 --> 00:12:45,120
 we wanted to use it as usable space.

169
00:12:45,120 --> 00:12:50,000
 As far as dimensionally, the unit actually matches entirely.

170
00:12:50,000 --> 00:12:57,240
 The reason that the elevation drawing, as Cameron is calling out, does not show the

171
00:12:57,240 --> 00:13:04,560
 particular door is because this was generated by my engineers, not by an MEP firm.

172
00:13:04,560 --> 00:13:11,040
 So obviously, before I get the C of A, I don't want to commit money to going through architectural

173
00:13:11,040 --> 00:13:17,780
 drawings, going through MEP, spend $5,000, $6,000 just to have it denied and kicked back.

174
00:13:17,780 --> 00:13:23,600
 So I can use my own engineers and do it effectively at no cost.

175
00:13:23,600 --> 00:13:30,720
 And then once I get through the approval, I can definitely make whatever types of accommodations

176
00:13:30,720 --> 00:13:35,280
 are needed to make Beigel so happy.

177
00:13:35,280 --> 00:13:39,920
 The architectural design, I've seen only a few hundred dollars, six, eight, six, eight

178
00:13:39,920 --> 00:13:40,920
 hundred dollars.

179
00:13:40,920 --> 00:13:41,920
 Maybe it's gone up in the past five years.

180
00:13:41,920 --> 00:13:44,440
 So do you have a material at the garage door?

181
00:13:44,440 --> 00:13:47,240
 So I actually have the original garage door.

182
00:13:47,240 --> 00:13:53,280
 Now, what we plan on doing is using as much of that wood as we can and then duplicating

183
00:13:53,280 --> 00:13:55,780
 that same design for the alternate size.

184
00:13:55,780 --> 00:14:00,080
 So to Cameron's point, this is no longer a sliding door.

185
00:14:00,080 --> 00:14:04,840
 We wanted to utilize it via a jack shaft and we wanted to copy that same design that is

186
00:14:04,840 --> 00:14:12,480
 existing there, mirror it so that it is effectively a two car garage.

187
00:14:12,480 --> 00:14:27,720
 Also with the alignment of the existing driveway, this particular garage wouldn't fit or accommodate

188
00:14:27,720 --> 00:14:28,720
 it.

189
00:14:28,720 --> 00:14:30,700
 So that's part of the reason that it's scaled.

190
00:14:30,700 --> 00:14:35,120
 So we basically took the initial dimensions of this building.

191
00:14:35,120 --> 00:14:40,520
 We scaled it out, I think four feet, I can't remember off the top of my head, but basically

192
00:14:40,520 --> 00:14:42,520
 took that to the back as well.

193
00:14:42,520 --> 00:14:46,680
 So dimensionally from the plan, what do you mean by dimensions?

194
00:14:46,680 --> 00:14:47,680
 I'm confused.

195
00:14:47,680 --> 00:14:49,300
 Dimensions to me are length by width.

196
00:14:49,300 --> 00:14:50,520
 You're telling me four more feet.

197
00:14:50,520 --> 00:14:52,520
 So that's not quite the same.

198
00:14:52,520 --> 00:14:53,520
 Yeah.

199
00:14:53,520 --> 00:15:00,840
 So if you looked at the plan view of the drawings, you would see that dimensionally the aspect

200
00:15:00,840 --> 00:15:03,640
 ratio grew similar.

201
00:15:03,640 --> 00:15:09,160
 So if we were looking at the top and say it was 18 by 20 and it was scaled by four feet

202
00:15:09,160 --> 00:15:13,920
 in one direction, it would scale about three something in the opposite direction.

203
00:15:13,920 --> 00:15:14,920
 What's the footprint?

204
00:15:14,920 --> 00:15:17,040
 I really want to hear a footprint.

205
00:15:17,040 --> 00:15:18,040
 Sure.

206
00:15:18,040 --> 00:15:20,040
 The footprint is listed on that set of drawings.

207
00:15:20,040 --> 00:15:21,040
 I couldn't read them.

208
00:15:21,040 --> 00:15:22,040
 Sorry.

209
00:15:22,040 --> 00:15:23,040
 That's a little small in my eyes.

210
00:15:23,040 --> 00:15:24,040
 I'll be out here.

211
00:15:24,040 --> 00:15:30,680
 So it's 22 feet by approximately 15 feet, seven inches.

212
00:15:30,680 --> 00:15:35,680
 Which is still pretty small by consideration of most garages.

213
00:15:35,680 --> 00:15:39,400
 What car is going to fit in there?

214
00:15:39,400 --> 00:15:40,400
 Not me.

215
00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:41,400
 My wife's car.

216
00:15:41,400 --> 00:15:42,400
 Builder's garages are 20 by 20.

217
00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:43,400
 So what are you going to put in 15 by seven?

218
00:15:43,400 --> 00:15:44,400
 So the 15 is the depth dimension.

219
00:15:44,400 --> 00:15:45,400
 Right.

220
00:15:45,400 --> 00:15:46,400
 And we believe we can fit two cars in there.

221
00:15:46,400 --> 00:15:47,400
 Just two cars.

222
00:15:47,400 --> 00:15:48,400
 And we'd like to have that space for our homes.

223
00:15:48,400 --> 00:15:49,400
 Again, I don't know what car could fit in there.

224
00:15:49,400 --> 00:15:50,400
 But a Mini Cooper.

225
00:15:50,400 --> 00:15:51,400
 I'm sorry, Mini Cooper.

226
00:15:51,400 --> 00:15:52,400
 It's a Mini Cooper.

227
00:15:52,400 --> 00:16:14,960
 I'll bet your car is a Mini Cooper.

228
00:16:14,960 --> 00:16:21,760
 What we have here is essentially a new garage and new design.

229
00:16:21,760 --> 00:16:27,240
 It's going to be all in a historic landmark district.

230
00:16:27,240 --> 00:16:31,880
 So I don't know how we constitute that, so you might be right.

231
00:16:31,880 --> 00:16:40,480
 This particular design, we try to essentially match it as best as possible.

232
00:16:40,480 --> 00:16:46,640
 I think the main alterations that were mentioned are we are trying to get a living space over

233
00:16:46,640 --> 00:16:49,820
 top of the garage.

234
00:16:49,820 --> 00:16:52,920
 So dimensionally that's the only thing that actually changed.

235
00:16:52,920 --> 00:16:57,720
 As far as aesthetics, the garage door is essentially the only thing that changed.

236
00:16:57,720 --> 00:17:00,040
 Now, correct me if I'm wrong about any of that, Cameron.

237
00:17:00,040 --> 00:17:02,920
 Is there something that I missed aside from those two items?

238
00:17:02,920 --> 00:17:08,200
 So we have the window materials or the design of the windows or anything?

239
00:17:08,200 --> 00:17:11,200
 We do not have the design of the windows.

240
00:17:11,200 --> 00:17:15,480
 I believe it's showing three current windows on either side.

241
00:17:15,480 --> 00:17:24,560
 So to get a living space, you need to have egress for fire, it's part of RBC.

242
00:17:24,560 --> 00:17:30,280
 So if there was going to be a living space up there, it would need to accommodate some

243
00:17:30,280 --> 00:17:35,720
 access in case of a fire.

244
00:17:35,720 --> 00:17:36,720
 Essentially that point.

245
00:17:36,720 --> 00:17:39,760
 I think there was a separate point, which is the existing windows.

246
00:17:39,760 --> 00:17:49,120
 And if you go back to that initial image, as far as I could tell, those were made sometime

247
00:17:49,120 --> 00:17:54,680
 in the 80s from photos we were able to recreate, and that's actually plexiglass.

248
00:17:54,680 --> 00:18:03,400
 So they framed it and put in plexiglass sheets on top of this former structure.

249
00:18:03,400 --> 00:18:05,960
 Do we still have them?

250
00:18:05,960 --> 00:18:06,960
 The plexiglass?

251
00:18:06,960 --> 00:18:09,160
 The window frames.

252
00:18:09,160 --> 00:18:19,640
 So when I said frame, as in they cut out part of the wall, framed it interior with some

253
00:18:19,640 --> 00:18:27,120
 two-by-four studs, and then they put one-by-four boards around it and painted them.

254
00:18:27,120 --> 00:18:30,680
 Well, we don't have a picture of what it is so that we know we're replicating what…

255
00:18:30,680 --> 00:18:31,680
 I mean that picture.

256
00:18:31,680 --> 00:18:34,560
 And I don't think we would want to replicate that.

257
00:18:34,560 --> 00:18:43,400
 Those aren't necessarily consistent with the time of the structure, no more than the

258
00:18:43,400 --> 00:18:45,200
 door would be, right?

259
00:18:45,200 --> 00:18:48,920
 That was put in place probably sometime in the 80s, along with…

260
00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:55,200
 You can see at the bottom there, there is a cement board that has replaced some of the

261
00:18:55,200 --> 00:18:58,520
 clapboard that was original to the property.

262
00:18:58,520 --> 00:19:04,840
 There was a runoff issue, it appears, and they filled that bottom section of the structure

263
00:19:04,840 --> 00:19:09,720
 with cement and put a plastic liner on the inside.

264
00:19:09,720 --> 00:19:15,560
 Some of which I sent photos to you on from the deconstruction.

265
00:19:15,560 --> 00:19:25,680
 So yes, there's a large portion of this property that I would say lost its architectural

266
00:19:25,680 --> 00:19:30,680
 integrity long before this part.

267
00:19:30,680 --> 00:19:37,240
 I'm still confused on the garage door, hopefully I got an answer.

268
00:19:37,240 --> 00:19:42,560
 So you said you want to use some of the materials on the garage door, but it's going to be

269
00:19:42,560 --> 00:19:44,480
 a two-car garage.

270
00:19:44,480 --> 00:19:46,720
 I want to duplicate what that is right there.

271
00:19:46,720 --> 00:19:49,120
 But that's not what the plans show.

272
00:19:49,120 --> 00:19:57,000
 It does show a solid garage, but yes, it doesn't show specifically that layout.

273
00:19:57,000 --> 00:20:02,040
 This is just something that was generated so that we could dimensionally get started

274
00:20:02,040 --> 00:20:03,800
 on the process.

275
00:20:03,800 --> 00:20:07,520
 I can obviously change the elevation drawings to reflect that.

276
00:20:07,520 --> 00:20:10,200
 Cameron, what was the original footprint?

277
00:20:10,200 --> 00:20:12,880
 Because I don't know, this dimension thing is not what I think it is.

278
00:20:12,880 --> 00:20:20,000
 So the original footprint was approximately 16 feet by 18 and a half feet.

279
00:20:20,000 --> 00:20:22,000
 Thank you so much.

280
00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:26,400
 So it's a little bit shorter in terms of depth that's being proposed, approximately about

281
00:20:26,400 --> 00:20:27,400
 a foot.

282
00:20:27,400 --> 00:20:34,040
 And then for 18 and a half, it's approximately four feet larger.

283
00:20:34,040 --> 00:20:40,320
 And I can read the layout plans on this very well because it was small to me, but having

284
00:20:40,320 --> 00:20:44,440
 considered doing a garage myself, isn't there a setback from the back fence and the right

285
00:20:44,440 --> 00:20:45,440
 fence?

286
00:20:45,440 --> 00:20:47,120
 And is that in the new plan picture?

287
00:20:47,120 --> 00:20:50,240
 I didn't notice it, but there's many pictures I was looking at.

288
00:20:50,240 --> 00:20:55,920
 So it would have to be offset three feet from both the eastern property line as well as

289
00:20:55,920 --> 00:20:56,920
 the rear property line.

290
00:20:56,920 --> 00:21:02,220
 What I'm understanding from Ron was that it had to be a minimum of six feet if you were

291
00:21:02,220 --> 00:21:05,160
 going to have a supplemental dwelling.

292
00:21:05,160 --> 00:21:06,160
 It did change.

293
00:21:06,160 --> 00:21:07,160
 It did change.

294
00:21:07,160 --> 00:21:10,200
 So I talked to building permits and everyone.

295
00:21:10,200 --> 00:21:15,360
 And we did have a discussion because it is has an overlay, it is an overlay district,

296
00:21:15,360 --> 00:21:19,960
 but if it were to be used as an accessory dwelling unit in the future, it only requires

297
00:21:19,960 --> 00:21:22,000
 to be three feet from both the east.

298
00:21:22,000 --> 00:21:23,000
 That's right.

299
00:21:23,000 --> 00:21:24,000
 I have not heard that.

300
00:21:24,000 --> 00:21:25,240
 I had to look back at my email.

301
00:21:25,240 --> 00:21:26,240
 That's all right.

302
00:21:26,240 --> 00:21:29,240
 I have not heard that because I was interested in one.

303
00:21:29,240 --> 00:21:31,960
 Mary, I think it changed.

304
00:21:31,960 --> 00:21:39,000
 It changed at the time they adopted the current DDC, which is around 2019.

305
00:21:39,000 --> 00:21:43,040
 We've been having discussions on accessory structures, so I know that because with the

306
00:21:43,040 --> 00:21:49,040
 adoption of the current development code that was in 2019, there were some modifications

307
00:21:49,040 --> 00:21:51,720
 made to those standards from what I understand.

308
00:21:51,720 --> 00:21:54,520
 I can make my day.

309
00:21:54,520 --> 00:21:55,520
 For me personally.

310
00:21:55,520 --> 00:21:56,520
 Okay.

311
00:21:56,520 --> 00:21:59,560
 Do we have any other questions for Cameron or for our owner?

312
00:21:59,560 --> 00:22:06,560
 I just thought I was going to ask, do we know what the roof was going to be?

313
00:22:06,560 --> 00:22:09,320
 Is there any mention in there?

314
00:22:09,320 --> 00:22:12,560
 No, there's no mention of the roof material.

315
00:22:12,560 --> 00:22:18,400
 Before we move on, I just wanted to give a quick reminder of what the standard for reconstruction

316
00:22:18,400 --> 00:22:21,840
 is for the Secretary of Interior's standards.

317
00:22:21,840 --> 00:22:26,520
 Definition is, "Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting by means

318
00:22:26,520 --> 00:22:31,800
 of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape,

319
00:22:31,800 --> 00:22:36,680
 building structure, or object, for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific

320
00:22:36,680 --> 00:22:39,080
 period of time and in its historic location."

321
00:22:39,080 --> 00:22:50,480
 I just wanted to provide that for you.

322
00:22:50,480 --> 00:22:51,480
 Okay.

323
00:22:51,480 --> 00:22:52,480
 Thank you.

324
00:22:52,480 --> 00:23:00,040
 To move to the next part, which would be a discussion by the commission, we would need

325
00:23:00,040 --> 00:23:02,080
 a motion.

326
00:23:02,080 --> 00:23:09,600
 As normal, we have four options, approve as submitted, approve subject to condition, deny

327
00:23:09,600 --> 00:23:18,200
 or continue for a specific period of time.

328
00:23:18,200 --> 00:23:27,400
 If there are no motions, I'll ask Cameron to explain what happened in that instance.

329
00:23:27,400 --> 00:23:34,640
 So as this was placed on the agenda back in October, October 10th specifically, so that

330
00:23:34,640 --> 00:23:42,360
 75-day time clock has started, and if you all do not take any action on it tonight,

331
00:23:42,360 --> 00:23:47,360
 that 75 days will continue, and at that 75 days, the COA will be approved if no action

332
00:23:47,360 --> 00:23:48,760
 is taken before then.

333
00:23:48,760 --> 00:23:50,640
 Go ahead, Lenny.

334
00:23:50,640 --> 00:23:53,520
 Do you have another question?

335
00:23:53,520 --> 00:23:54,520
 No.

336
00:23:54,520 --> 00:23:59,360
 Then I move denial of this request.

337
00:23:59,360 --> 00:24:00,360
 A second.

338
00:24:00,360 --> 00:24:01,360
 Okay.

339
00:24:01,360 --> 00:24:04,360
 Commissioner McAdams has moved for denial.

340
00:24:04,360 --> 00:24:05,360
 Do we have a second?

341
00:24:05,360 --> 00:24:06,360
 I'll second it.

342
00:24:06,360 --> 00:24:07,360
 Okay.

343
00:24:07,360 --> 00:24:10,420
 We have a motion and a second.

344
00:24:10,420 --> 00:24:13,880
 I will just open the floor for discussion.

345
00:24:13,880 --> 00:24:24,280
 Well, from my point of view, making the motion, it simply isn't a replacement of the structure

346
00:24:24,280 --> 00:24:25,280
 that was there.

347
00:24:25,280 --> 00:24:33,720
 It has a different footprint, it has a different height, much of the material is different.

348
00:24:33,720 --> 00:24:37,360
 It's not the same structure for a historical district.

349
00:24:37,360 --> 00:24:44,520
 And there's not enough information to assess even any of the materials, the roof, the windows.

350
00:24:44,520 --> 00:24:53,360
 The windows, color, you know, so much is missing that I'm used to seeing on any other request

351
00:24:53,360 --> 00:24:55,360
 to do building on the historic district.

352
00:24:55,360 --> 00:24:59,640
 It's locking all of you down.

353
00:24:59,640 --> 00:25:01,280
 I agree.

354
00:25:01,280 --> 00:25:11,360
 Now, I believe the staff in their recommendation for denial suggested that certain things happen

355
00:25:11,360 --> 00:25:15,040
 before it be brought back.

356
00:25:15,040 --> 00:25:17,360
 Could you go through those?

357
00:25:17,360 --> 00:25:23,280
 So staff did make recommendations, not as part of the actual denial recommendation.

358
00:25:23,280 --> 00:25:28,160
 But if you all had decided to take a different action.

359
00:25:28,160 --> 00:25:33,120
 So those are that a new site can be resubmitted confirming that the proposed detached garage

360
00:25:33,120 --> 00:25:37,920
 meets the minimum three foot setback requirements for accessory structures, that the height of

361
00:25:37,920 --> 00:25:42,320
 the proposed detached garage be reduced to match the former detached garage roofline

362
00:25:42,320 --> 00:25:47,680
 seen in recently documented photos from July of 2022, as well as a new set of elevation

363
00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:51,840
 and architectural drawings to be resubmitted depicting the proposed structure height change,

364
00:25:51,840 --> 00:25:57,280
 as well as the use of the former garage door as stated by the applicant and their project

365
00:25:57,280 --> 00:25:58,280
 narrative.

366
00:25:58,280 --> 00:25:59,280
 Okay.

367
00:25:59,280 --> 00:26:05,720
 If we're still open for discussion, chime in.

368
00:26:05,720 --> 00:26:14,960
 If you're in no further discussion, let's do a show of hands on this one just so that

369
00:26:14,960 --> 00:26:16,760
 they're all recorded.

370
00:26:16,760 --> 00:26:23,040
 All those in favor of the motion to deny raise your right hand please.

371
00:26:23,040 --> 00:26:34,080
 It is unanimous.

372
00:26:34,080 --> 00:26:58,840
 Okay, the next item on our agenda is to hold a discussion it's HLC 22-079A, version one

373
00:26:58,840 --> 00:27:08,960
 is to hold a discussion and consider approval of the 2023 HLC calendar and I believe we've

374
00:27:08,960 --> 00:27:13,140
 all been handed these.

375
00:27:13,140 --> 00:27:18,800
 Well spring break just can't be, it cannot be in spring break, sorry that has to go away.

376
00:27:18,800 --> 00:27:27,240
 March 13th, I'm not going to be here just to show you, it's for sure.

377
00:27:27,240 --> 00:27:31,760
 Can we move March 13th to March 17th?

378
00:27:31,760 --> 00:27:39,840
 Any other day except that week, the week of spring break, the 20th would be fine.

379
00:27:39,840 --> 00:27:44,400
 Yes, no.

380
00:27:44,400 --> 00:27:52,000
 Are there restrictions that I don't know about other than planning and zoning or city council

381
00:27:52,000 --> 00:27:57,600
 meetings where we should not have meetings?

382
00:27:57,600 --> 00:28:04,960
 No, not that I know of, because city council's on Tuesdays, PNC's on Wednesdays and there's

383
00:28:04,960 --> 00:28:12,840
 nothing that's on the calendar in terms of Monday evenings, so the 20th if you all decide

384
00:28:12,840 --> 00:28:15,720
 is that if that's a better date the 20th is fine.

385
00:28:15,720 --> 00:28:26,440
 Okay, so the March HLC meeting is moved from the 13th to the 20th.

386
00:28:26,440 --> 00:28:31,360
 On a personal side, I may or may not be able to make the June 12th meeting, but that's

387
00:28:31,360 --> 00:28:36,600
 just a personal, I've got a trip already booked out, so you know, it's not a universal thing.

388
00:28:36,600 --> 00:28:46,220
 Okay, then we have April 10th, any objections to that one?

389
00:28:46,220 --> 00:28:47,220
 Good.

390
00:28:47,220 --> 00:28:48,220
 May the 8th?

391
00:28:48,220 --> 00:28:52,400
 I'm not real sure I can make the March one, but.

392
00:28:52,400 --> 00:28:53,400
 The 20th?

393
00:28:53,400 --> 00:28:54,400
 Yes.

394
00:28:54,400 --> 00:28:55,400
 Oh.

395
00:28:55,400 --> 00:28:56,400
 We'll see.

396
00:28:56,400 --> 00:28:57,400
 I have to check.

397
00:28:57,400 --> 00:28:59,320
 Oh, say would the 6th work better?

398
00:28:59,320 --> 00:29:01,040
 I have to check.

399
00:29:01,040 --> 00:29:05,680
 The 6th is fine with me, I'm here on the 6th, it's just, that's a Thursday though, right?

400
00:29:05,680 --> 00:29:06,680
 It's a Monday.

401
00:29:06,680 --> 00:29:07,680
 It's a Monday, okay, yeah.

402
00:29:07,680 --> 00:29:08,680
 We can move it.

403
00:29:08,680 --> 00:29:09,680
 Well, let's crank it forward.

404
00:29:09,680 --> 00:29:10,680
 We're saying on Monday.

405
00:29:10,680 --> 00:29:11,680
 Yeah, that's fine.

406
00:29:11,680 --> 00:29:12,680
 So, let's go for March 6th.

407
00:29:12,680 --> 00:29:13,680
 Okay, that's right.

408
00:29:13,680 --> 00:29:18,560
 And the floor is open, just chime in, let's get this to where we can try and live with

409
00:29:18,560 --> 00:29:19,560
 it.

410
00:29:19,560 --> 00:29:20,560
 Right, I mean.

411
00:29:20,560 --> 00:29:21,560
 May the 8th?

412
00:29:21,560 --> 00:29:35,360
 Yeah, those are right before, that's my final exam week, but I, you know, I can manage.

413
00:29:35,360 --> 00:29:37,680
 I have only one, does anybody have any other trouble?

414
00:29:37,680 --> 00:29:42,880
 January the 9th, I mean the 23rd would work better for me.

415
00:29:42,880 --> 00:29:46,360
 Well, the 23rd would work better for me as well.

416
00:29:46,360 --> 00:29:53,160
 Because, yeah, it's just still part of break in my book, I'm still on holiday, I'd love

417
00:29:53,160 --> 00:29:56,800
 to enjoy my limited time off.

418
00:29:56,800 --> 00:30:00,360
 Is that too far?

419
00:30:00,360 --> 00:30:04,160
 I don't mind changing it to the 23rd.

420
00:30:04,160 --> 00:30:10,080
 Is that too big a gap from December's meeting to January, when we're looking at people?

421
00:30:10,080 --> 00:30:18,400
 I was to say, if we do have COAs coming through, it would be a big gap, but you know, it depends

422
00:30:18,400 --> 00:30:20,400
 on how quickly they're moving.

423
00:30:20,400 --> 00:30:23,720
 I may or may not be here, so the answer on that day is no.

424
00:30:23,720 --> 00:30:27,440
 I totally understand, but no, to your point, that's a good point.

425
00:30:27,440 --> 00:30:31,960
 Because our next meeting is December 12th, and if we weren't to meet until the 23rd,

426
00:30:31,960 --> 00:30:35,280
 so that would be over a month.

427
00:30:35,280 --> 00:30:42,120
 We anticipate, I mean in years past, I don't think we've probably had many COAs that were

428
00:30:42,120 --> 00:30:48,680
 submitted in late December, usually kind of settles down, so if anything, if we have a

429
00:30:48,680 --> 00:30:53,400
 published calendar, we can inform the public and as to where the meeting dates are, but

430
00:30:53,400 --> 00:30:57,080
 I'd like to think that there's not going to be much COA activity.

431
00:30:57,080 --> 00:30:58,080
 People are off holiday.

432
00:30:58,080 --> 00:30:59,080
 People are off holidays in December.

433
00:30:59,080 --> 00:31:00,880
 Right, no, I think it should be fine.

434
00:31:00,880 --> 00:31:06,680
 I don't mind the 23rd, either one, but if there is, we could do another special crowd.

435
00:31:06,680 --> 00:31:07,680
 Correct, yes.

436
00:31:07,680 --> 00:31:08,680
 That is possible.

437
00:31:08,680 --> 00:31:20,640
 So it's January 23rd, it's February 13th, it's March the 6th, it's April 10th, it is

438
00:31:20,640 --> 00:31:21,640
 May the 8th.

439
00:31:21,640 --> 00:31:22,640
 Anybody got heartburn over that?

440
00:31:22,640 --> 00:31:31,960
 No manage, because I don't care, I'm good in May until the 29th and then I'm gone, or

441
00:31:31,960 --> 00:31:35,160
 I'm gone about the 24th or something.

442
00:31:35,160 --> 00:31:36,480
 I just don't know if I'm making it.

443
00:31:36,480 --> 00:31:39,840
 I don't get back until the 8th or the 9th and I'm going to be in San Francisco getting

444
00:31:39,840 --> 00:31:46,840
 back, so I think driving back can be hard to make that, but I mean if you get a quorum

445
00:31:46,840 --> 00:31:47,840
 it's fine.

446
00:31:47,840 --> 00:31:48,840
 Right.

447
00:31:48,840 --> 00:31:58,280
 Well and remember with three absences you still make a quorum, so things should be flexible

448
00:31:58,280 --> 00:32:04,240
 enough to handle people routinely out on vacations or stuff like that.

449
00:32:04,240 --> 00:32:08,600
 Yeah, I just flipped that last week, Sam.

450
00:32:08,600 --> 00:32:14,240
 Roy, I see that the remainder are always on the second Monday of the month, it looks good

451
00:32:14,240 --> 00:32:15,240
 to me.

452
00:32:15,240 --> 00:32:18,880
 I don't see a problem other than that, I'm just looking carefully to see.

453
00:32:18,880 --> 00:32:21,720
 I was looking for September, that's perfect.

454
00:32:21,720 --> 00:32:25,320
 Yeah, I don't see anything.

455
00:32:25,320 --> 00:32:26,320
 Well, okay.

456
00:32:26,320 --> 00:32:32,240
 April, how about you went April, I just thought I'd ask that you were Mr. Tax Guy, or did

457
00:32:32,240 --> 00:32:35,240
 you retire finally?

458
00:32:35,240 --> 00:32:40,440
 April 10th is not bad, April 17th is bad.

459
00:32:40,440 --> 00:32:43,960
 Oh, is that when the tax came to you?

460
00:32:43,960 --> 00:32:44,960
 Oh, okay, gotcha.

461
00:32:44,960 --> 00:32:48,400
 Oh yeah, that's the Monday after, okay got it.

462
00:32:48,400 --> 00:33:00,560
 And just out of a sense of openness, at some point in the May-June time frame I won't be

463
00:33:00,560 --> 00:33:07,320
 eligible to be on the commission, having moved out of the city limits.

464
00:33:07,320 --> 00:33:09,040
 So I will remain quote-on-quote.

465
00:33:09,040 --> 00:33:16,560
 Well, we have to worry that his house won't get fixed in time, sorry, I'm just teasing

466
00:33:16,560 --> 00:33:17,560
 you.

467
00:33:17,560 --> 00:33:21,560
 Well, and I'm not going, I mean, our business is still there and it's just we're moving

468
00:33:21,560 --> 00:33:22,560
 to our farm.

469
00:33:22,560 --> 00:33:23,560
 Right, sounds exciting.

470
00:33:23,560 --> 00:33:24,560
 And...

471
00:33:24,560 --> 00:33:25,560
 Are you going to farm?

472
00:33:25,560 --> 00:33:26,560
 She's laughing at you.

473
00:33:26,560 --> 00:33:40,000
 You know what, my number one objective is, Leni, and I kid you not, I'm simply gonna

474
00:33:40,000 --> 00:33:43,680
 try and stay on this side of the garage.

475
00:33:43,680 --> 00:33:44,680
 I like that one.

476
00:33:44,680 --> 00:33:45,680
 Okay.

477
00:33:45,680 --> 00:33:46,680
 I like that one.

478
00:33:46,680 --> 00:33:51,920
 But we're still gonna work and I have an office there.

479
00:33:51,920 --> 00:33:56,840
 You're gonna relax a little bit.

480
00:33:56,840 --> 00:34:04,760
 Yeah, well, this is my 43rd tax season, but I started when I was 19 so, whatever.

481
00:34:04,760 --> 00:34:13,860
 I think if I saw another tax at that point I'd just go crazy.

482
00:34:13,860 --> 00:34:19,760
 So when you get to the tax deadlines in the fall, for me, it isn't really probably gonna

483
00:34:19,760 --> 00:34:22,200
 matter, so make it easy on yourself.

484
00:34:22,200 --> 00:34:28,040
 In fact, for the remainder of the discussion, Mary, why don't I turn the chair over to you?

485
00:34:28,040 --> 00:34:33,280
 I'm fine with everything except that two dates, so, but you can't go away then because, well,

486
00:34:33,280 --> 00:34:34,280
 you know.

487
00:34:34,280 --> 00:34:41,120
 So we talked about a change in January to the 23rd and March to the 6th.

488
00:34:41,120 --> 00:34:42,120
 Yes, correct.

489
00:34:42,120 --> 00:34:43,120
 Did I make a motion?

490
00:34:43,120 --> 00:34:44,120
 Yep.

491
00:34:44,120 --> 00:34:45,120
 To approve the calendar?

492
00:34:45,120 --> 00:34:46,120
 So moved.

493
00:34:46,120 --> 00:34:51,240
 Any other changes of January to the 23rd and March to the 6th?

494
00:34:51,240 --> 00:34:55,040
 Maybe we have a motion, is there a second?

495
00:34:55,040 --> 00:34:56,040
 All those in favor say aye.

496
00:34:56,040 --> 00:34:57,040
 Aye.

497
00:34:57,040 --> 00:34:58,040
 Chair, who did you recognize as the second?

498
00:34:58,040 --> 00:34:59,040
 Whoever you want, it doesn't matter.

499
00:34:59,040 --> 00:35:00,040
 Well, you have to write it in the minutes.

500
00:35:00,040 --> 00:35:01,040
 Chair, who did you recognize as the second on that motion?

501
00:35:01,040 --> 00:35:02,040
 Who did I do what now?

502
00:35:02,040 --> 00:35:03,040
 Recognize as the second.

503
00:35:03,040 --> 00:35:04,040
 The second motion.

504
00:35:04,040 --> 00:35:05,040
 Everyone except Angie moved.

505
00:35:05,040 --> 00:35:17,080
 So just pick someone.

506
00:35:17,080 --> 00:35:22,120
 Don't pick someone.

507
00:35:22,120 --> 00:35:30,320
 Oh, oh, Mary is the second.

508
00:35:30,320 --> 00:35:34,480
 Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that closes our agenda.

509
00:35:34,480 --> 00:35:37,600
 We need a motion to adjourn.

510
00:35:37,600 --> 00:35:42,600
 I always move to adjourn.

511
00:35:42,600 --> 00:35:43,600
 A second.

512
00:35:43,600 --> 00:35:44,600
 Second.

513
00:35:44,600 --> 00:35:45,600
 Any opposed?

514
00:35:45,600 --> 00:35:46,600
 They can stay here.

515
00:35:46,600 --> 00:35:47,600
 They can stay yours.

516
00:35:47,600 --> 00:35:48,600
 You're right.

517
00:35:48,600 --> 00:35:49,600
 Thank you.