WEBVTT 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 00:00:09.480 --> 00:00:16.240 has now reconvened from the closed session and no official action was taken in the closed 00:00:16.240 --> 00:00:17.240 session. 00:00:17.240 --> 00:00:23.840 If I'm supposed to do that right. 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 00:00:30.320 --> 00:00:37.920 for the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance and then the text of the flag. 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 00:00:44.720 --> 00:00:53.720 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 00:00:53.720 --> 00:01:04.960 Honoring the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible. 00:01:04.960 --> 00:01:13.400 Thank you everyone and welcome. 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 00:01:24.200 --> 00:01:26.560 way through it. 00:01:26.560 --> 00:01:34.680 The first thing is we're going to consider agenda item A, which is consider approval 00:01:34.680 --> 00:01:41.160 of the September 12th, 2022 minutes, that's HLC 22-092. 00:01:41.160 --> 00:01:48.840 I believe they were emailed to everyone, so we need a motion to approve those. 00:01:48.840 --> 00:01:49.840 So moved. 00:01:49.840 --> 00:01:52.040 Do we have a second? 00:01:52.040 --> 00:01:53.040 Second. 00:01:53.040 --> 00:01:55.040 All those in favor? 00:01:55.040 --> 00:01:56.040 Aye. 00:01:56.040 --> 00:01:57.040 Any opposed? 00:01:57.040 --> 00:02:07.240 No, the minister approves. 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 00:02:19.360 --> 00:02:27.780 an application for certificate of appropriateness in accordance with section 2.9.2 of the Denton 00:02:27.780 --> 00:02:34.880 Development Code to reconstruct the detached garage at 928 West Hickory Street, a local 00:02:34.880 --> 00:02:43.320 Denton landmark property and a recorded Texas landmark, a historic Texas landmark located 00:02:43.320 --> 00:02:46.120 in the Oak History Historic District. 00:02:46.120 --> 00:02:52.040 This site is located on the north side of West Hickory Street between North Welch Street 00:02:52.040 --> 00:02:58.000 and Bernard Street, and I will turn the discussion over to Ms. Robertson. 00:02:58.000 --> 00:03:00.600 Thank you, Chair. 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 00:03:05.440 --> 00:03:11.000 highlighted by this red box right here of West Hickory Street between North Welch Street 00:03:11.000 --> 00:03:12.540 and Bernard Street. 00:03:12.540 --> 00:03:14.920 The owner is Jesse Jensen. 00:03:14.920 --> 00:03:21.360 The property was constructed in 1912, it's also known as the Razor Graham House. 00:03:21.360 --> 00:03:25.880 It was constructed, just a little bit of background, it was constructed for J. Fred Razor. 00:03:25.880 --> 00:03:30.680 It has the American Foursquare style with bungalow details, that's the main residence 00:03:30.680 --> 00:03:36.040 itself, but the garage is looking to have that kind of same kind of detailing. 00:03:36.040 --> 00:03:40.280 So it does have some of the defining features of that bungalow detailing, central dormer, 00:03:40.280 --> 00:03:41.920 wide porch, hip roof. 00:03:41.920 --> 00:03:47.480 I've stated it is a local historic landmark and recorded Texas historic landmark. 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. 00:03:54.620 --> 00:03:58.280 So the request is to reconstruct the detached garage. 00:03:58.280 --> 00:04:02.540 The location is on that east side of the property, set back to the northeast corner. 00:04:02.540 --> 00:04:08.960 So it's highlighted here in red, as well as here by the arrow right there. 00:04:08.960 --> 00:04:14.800 The garage was not part of, is not part of the recorded Texas historic landmark designation, 00:04:14.800 --> 00:04:18.640 so it does not require a THC review. 00:04:18.640 --> 00:04:23.840 So this is the current conditions from the existing driveway of the property of where 00:04:23.840 --> 00:04:25.580 the proposed garage would be located. 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 00:04:32.200 --> 00:04:39.160 driveway, but it would be placed as stated in that northeast corner. 00:04:39.160 --> 00:04:43.640 So this, looking at the proposed elevation and architectural drawings, the materials 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 00:04:49.240 --> 00:04:50.240 wood. 00:04:50.240 --> 00:04:54.600 They would also be painted that light tan paint to match the main residence. 00:04:54.600 --> 00:05:01.400 This is the original garage from July 2022, and then this is the proposed. 00:05:01.400 --> 00:05:09.200 And the proposed would be approximately 20 feet and nine inches. 00:05:09.200 --> 00:05:14.320 This is proposed elevation architectural drawings from the left elevation, kind of that western 00:05:14.320 --> 00:05:15.320 edge. 00:05:15.320 --> 00:05:18.880 So you do see the windows in there from the original garage. 00:05:18.880 --> 00:05:23.560 And then looking at the architectural drawings, this shows the ground floor plan, this shows 00:05:23.560 --> 00:05:26.420 the first floor plan, and then the roof plan. 00:05:26.420 --> 00:05:34.640 So we do have three skylights that would be placed in the roof. 00:05:34.640 --> 00:05:39.280 So staff's analysis looks specifically at the standards for reconstruction, as that's 00:05:39.280 --> 00:05:42.120 what the COA was applied for. 00:05:42.120 --> 00:05:49.520 Meaning specifically, and you can see in your packet that AIS staff looked at one, three, 00:05:49.520 --> 00:05:51.080 four, and five. 00:05:51.080 --> 00:05:57.160 Five was the reconstruction will be clearly identified as contemporary recreation. 00:05:57.160 --> 00:06:03.200 Staff also looked at section 4.9.4C, which is specifically the design standard for the 00:06:03.200 --> 00:06:05.640 Oak Hickory Historic District. 00:06:05.640 --> 00:06:10.960 And staff focused specifically on the accessory buildings, architectural detail, new construction 00:06:10.960 --> 00:06:16.280 conditions, facade materials, and roof forms. 00:06:16.280 --> 00:06:21.240 So staff is recommending denial of the certificate of appropriateness for the reconstruction 00:06:21.240 --> 00:06:26.240 of the detached garage at 928 West Hickory Street, as it does not meet the Secretary 00:06:26.240 --> 00:06:34.080 of Interior Standards for reconstruction, nor does it comply with sections 4.9.6C and 00:06:34.080 --> 00:06:41.880 5.4.3C of the DDC. 00:06:41.880 --> 00:06:45.000 Also in my packet, I did have staff recommendations. 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 00:06:50.480 --> 00:06:54.960 garage being reduced to match the former detached garage roof line, as shown in that previous 00:06:54.960 --> 00:06:59.760 photo, as well as a new set of elevation architectural drawings to be resubmitted. 00:06:59.760 --> 00:07:02.400 So I did want to show those before we move on to questions. 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. 00:07:08.120 --> 00:07:09.120 Okay. 00:07:09.120 --> 00:07:12.040 I have a question. 00:07:12.040 --> 00:07:13.040 Yes. 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 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, 00:07:38.920 --> 00:07:43.520 roughly 8 feet higher. 00:07:43.520 --> 00:07:44.520 Correct. 00:07:44.520 --> 00:07:54.720 The reclaimed wood was good, but that original door somehow disappears in the process. 00:07:54.720 --> 00:07:57.440 Yes. 00:07:57.440 --> 00:08:00.000 So it's not really like a reconstruction. 00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:01.000 Correct. 00:08:01.000 --> 00:08:07.840 It's a whole new design and garage, replacing the one that was there. 00:08:07.840 --> 00:08:08.840 Correct. 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 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 00:08:18.360 --> 00:08:24.120 door, and it does have an elevated first floor above the ground floor. 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 00:08:29.320 --> 00:08:33.120 that's kind of directly the base level, and then we have an extension. 00:08:33.120 --> 00:08:40.840 Would the modern stairway that is not visible have been a problem for the staff? 00:08:40.840 --> 00:08:47.080 If it was implemented just on something that looked like...on a reconstruction that looked 00:08:47.080 --> 00:08:53.040 exactly like this, or a reconstruction as proposed? 00:08:53.040 --> 00:08:57.560 Let's assume you were not upset about the height. 00:08:57.560 --> 00:09:01.600 The stairway is okay to put as long as you can't see it. 00:09:01.600 --> 00:09:02.600 Correct. 00:09:02.600 --> 00:09:03.600 Okay. 00:09:03.600 --> 00:09:05.840 But can you see it? 00:09:05.840 --> 00:09:08.120 The stairway would not be visible from the street. 00:09:08.120 --> 00:09:10.760 How high does it go? 00:09:10.760 --> 00:09:19.480 It is proposed to go to the second story here, so approximately starting seven feet up. 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 00:09:26.760 --> 00:09:30.280 the ceiling height and how high you have to go for the landing for the... 00:09:30.280 --> 00:09:31.280 Correct. 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 00:09:38.880 --> 00:09:46.360 seven inches, but the actual section of the second floor in terms of walking height looks 00:09:46.360 --> 00:09:49.800 to be approximately six feet 11 inches. 00:09:49.800 --> 00:09:53.720 It's likely I can see the railing. 00:09:53.720 --> 00:09:54.720 From the side? 00:09:54.720 --> 00:09:55.720 Is it not in the back? 00:09:55.720 --> 00:09:56.720 It's in the rear, so it'd be back here. 00:09:56.720 --> 00:10:01.720 But I'm pretty sure you could probably see it from up street. 00:10:01.720 --> 00:10:02.720 Possibly. 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 00:10:09.240 --> 00:10:11.280 sure that I had it right. 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 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 00:10:19.480 --> 00:10:20.480 itself. 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 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? 00:10:29.680 --> 00:10:30.680 Potentially. 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 00:10:34.680 --> 00:10:38.480 is the other Razor house, the one on Oak Street. 00:10:38.480 --> 00:10:39.600 Is that it? 00:10:39.600 --> 00:10:40.600 Yes. 00:10:40.600 --> 00:10:42.880 That's Salty or Shell's house. 00:10:42.880 --> 00:10:47.180 I do believe he's Walter, officially, but yes. 00:10:47.180 --> 00:10:52.120 What is the construction of the new garage door that would be? 00:10:52.120 --> 00:10:53.520 Did I miss that? 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 00:10:58.800 --> 00:11:01.640 state that it would be using the former garage. 00:11:01.640 --> 00:11:06.080 However, the elevation drawings did not show that, so that's why it was recommended by 00:11:06.080 --> 00:11:12.440 staff to submit new architectural drawings showing the use of the former garage door. 00:11:12.440 --> 00:11:16.640 So we don't know what the material would be for what they proposed. 00:11:16.640 --> 00:11:18.360 For the proposed garage door now. 00:11:18.360 --> 00:11:22.800 So it could be aluminum, it could be...we don't know. 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 00:11:28.040 --> 00:11:29.040 I'm asking. 00:11:29.040 --> 00:11:30.040 The pitch looks taller. 00:11:30.040 --> 00:11:31.040 It doesn't look the same. 00:11:31.040 --> 00:11:38.960 Yes, this is a higher pitch than this roof line. 00:11:38.960 --> 00:11:43.600 That's kind of not the same at all. 00:11:43.600 --> 00:11:44.600 Correct. 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 00:11:48.480 --> 00:11:49.480 reclaimed wood? 00:11:49.480 --> 00:11:51.480 Reclaimed wood would be coming from this original structure. 00:11:51.480 --> 00:11:54.480 Do you have a percentage of how many... 00:11:54.480 --> 00:12:01.160 We do not have a percentage, no. 00:12:01.160 --> 00:12:03.400 I believe our applicant is here, correct? 00:12:03.400 --> 00:12:04.400 Yes. 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 00:12:08.080 --> 00:12:11.500 can certainly answer all of those. 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 00:12:17.000 --> 00:12:19.000 new construction could be used for reclaimed. 00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:23.320 With regards to the pitch, the pitch is the same. 00:12:23.320 --> 00:12:30.840 The elevation difference you see there is the addition of, I think, two feet seven inches 00:12:30.840 --> 00:12:41.920 to the upper portion to make, essentially, that above garage section a usable space if 00:12:41.920 --> 00:12:45.120 we wanted to use it as usable space. 00:12:45.120 --> 00:12:50.000 As far as dimensionally, the unit actually matches entirely. 00:12:50.000 --> 00:12:57.240 The reason that the elevation drawing, as Cameron is calling out, does not show the 00:12:57.240 --> 00:13:04.560 particular door is because this was generated by my engineers, not by an MEP firm. 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 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. 00:13:17.780 --> 00:13:23.600 So I can use my own engineers and do it effectively at no cost. 00:13:23.600 --> 00:13:30.720 And then once I get through the approval, I can definitely make whatever types of accommodations 00:13:30.720 --> 00:13:35.280 are needed to make Beigel so happy. 00:13:35.280 --> 00:13:39.920 The architectural design, I've seen only a few hundred dollars, six, eight, six, eight 00:13:39.920 --> 00:13:40.920 hundred dollars. 00:13:40.920 --> 00:13:41.920 Maybe it's gone up in the past five years. 00:13:41.920 --> 00:13:44.440 So do you have a material at the garage door? 00:13:44.440 --> 00:13:47.240 So I actually have the original garage door. 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 00:13:53.280 --> 00:13:55.780 that same design for the alternate size. 00:13:55.780 --> 00:14:00.080 So to Cameron's point, this is no longer a sliding door. 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 00:14:04.840 --> 00:14:12.480 existing there, mirror it so that it is effectively a two car garage. 00:14:12.480 --> 00:14:27.720 Also with the alignment of the existing driveway, this particular garage wouldn't fit or accommodate 00:14:27.720 --> 00:14:28.720 it. 00:14:28.720 --> 00:14:30.700 So that's part of the reason that it's scaled. 00:14:30.700 --> 00:14:35.120 So we basically took the initial dimensions of this building. 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 00:14:40.520 --> 00:14:42.520 took that to the back as well. 00:14:42.520 --> 00:14:46.680 So dimensionally from the plan, what do you mean by dimensions? 00:14:46.680 --> 00:14:47.680 I'm confused. 00:14:47.680 --> 00:14:49.300 Dimensions to me are length by width. 00:14:49.300 --> 00:14:50.520 You're telling me four more feet. 00:14:50.520 --> 00:14:52.520 So that's not quite the same. 00:14:52.520 --> 00:14:53.520 Yeah. 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 00:15:00.840 --> 00:15:03.640 ratio grew similar. 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 00:15:09.160 --> 00:15:13.920 in one direction, it would scale about three something in the opposite direction. 00:15:13.920 --> 00:15:14.920 What's the footprint? 00:15:14.920 --> 00:15:17.040 I really want to hear a footprint. 00:15:17.040 --> 00:15:18.040 Sure. 00:15:18.040 --> 00:15:20.040 The footprint is listed on that set of drawings. 00:15:20.040 --> 00:15:21.040 I couldn't read them. 00:15:21.040 --> 00:15:22.040 Sorry. 00:15:22.040 --> 00:15:23.040 That's a little small in my eyes. 00:15:23.040 --> 00:15:24.040 I'll be out here. 00:15:24.040 --> 00:15:30.680 So it's 22 feet by approximately 15 feet, seven inches. 00:15:30.680 --> 00:15:35.680 Which is still pretty small by consideration of most garages. 00:15:35.680 --> 00:15:39.400 What car is going to fit in there? 00:15:39.400 --> 00:15:40.400 Not me. 00:15:40.400 --> 00:15:41.400 My wife's car. 00:15:41.400 --> 00:15:42.400 Builder's garages are 20 by 20. 00:15:42.400 --> 00:15:43.400 So what are you going to put in 15 by seven? 00:15:43.400 --> 00:15:44.400 So the 15 is the depth dimension. 00:15:44.400 --> 00:15:45.400 Right. 00:15:45.400 --> 00:15:46.400 And we believe we can fit two cars in there. 00:15:46.400 --> 00:15:47.400 Just two cars. 00:15:47.400 --> 00:15:48.400 And we'd like to have that space for our homes. 00:15:48.400 --> 00:15:49.400 Again, I don't know what car could fit in there. 00:15:49.400 --> 00:15:50.400 But a Mini Cooper. 00:15:50.400 --> 00:15:51.400 I'm sorry, Mini Cooper. 00:15:51.400 --> 00:15:52.400 It's a Mini Cooper. 00:15:52.400 --> 00:16:14.960 I'll bet your car is a Mini Cooper. 00:16:14.960 --> 00:16:21.760 What we have here is essentially a new garage and new design. 00:16:21.760 --> 00:16:27.240 It's going to be all in a historic landmark district. 00:16:27.240 --> 00:16:31.880 So I don't know how we constitute that, so you might be right. 00:16:31.880 --> 00:16:40.480 This particular design, we try to essentially match it as best as possible. 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 00:16:46.640 --> 00:16:49.820 top of the garage. 00:16:49.820 --> 00:16:52.920 So dimensionally that's the only thing that actually changed. 00:16:52.920 --> 00:16:57.720 As far as aesthetics, the garage door is essentially the only thing that changed. 00:16:57.720 --> 00:17:00.040 Now, correct me if I'm wrong about any of that, Cameron. 00:17:00.040 --> 00:17:02.920 Is there something that I missed aside from those two items? 00:17:02.920 --> 00:17:08.200 So we have the window materials or the design of the windows or anything? 00:17:08.200 --> 00:17:11.200 We do not have the design of the windows. 00:17:11.200 --> 00:17:15.480 I believe it's showing three current windows on either side. 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. 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 00:17:30.280 --> 00:17:35.720 access in case of a fire. 00:17:35.720 --> 00:17:36.720 Essentially that point. 00:17:36.720 --> 00:17:39.760 I think there was a separate point, which is the existing windows. 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 00:17:49.120 --> 00:17:54.680 in the 80s from photos we were able to recreate, and that's actually plexiglass. 00:17:54.680 --> 00:18:03.400 So they framed it and put in plexiglass sheets on top of this former structure. 00:18:03.400 --> 00:18:05.960 Do we still have them? 00:18:05.960 --> 00:18:06.960 The plexiglass? 00:18:06.960 --> 00:18:09.160 The window frames. 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 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. 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… 00:18:30.680 --> 00:18:31.680 I mean that picture. 00:18:31.680 --> 00:18:34.560 And I don't think we would want to replicate that. 00:18:34.560 --> 00:18:43.400 Those aren't necessarily consistent with the time of the structure, no more than the 00:18:43.400 --> 00:18:45.200 door would be, right? 00:18:45.200 --> 00:18:48.920 That was put in place probably sometime in the 80s, along with… 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 00:18:55.200 --> 00:18:58.520 clapboard that was original to the property. 00:18:58.520 --> 00:19:04.840 There was a runoff issue, it appears, and they filled that bottom section of the structure 00:19:04.840 --> 00:19:09.720 with cement and put a plastic liner on the inside. 00:19:09.720 --> 00:19:15.560 Some of which I sent photos to you on from the deconstruction. 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 00:19:25.680 --> 00:19:30.680 integrity long before this part. 00:19:30.680 --> 00:19:37.240 I'm still confused on the garage door, hopefully I got an answer. 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 00:19:42.560 --> 00:19:44.480 a two-car garage. 00:19:44.480 --> 00:19:46.720 I want to duplicate what that is right there. 00:19:46.720 --> 00:19:49.120 But that's not what the plans show. 00:19:49.120 --> 00:19:57.000 It does show a solid garage, but yes, it doesn't show specifically that layout. 00:19:57.000 --> 00:20:02.040 This is just something that was generated so that we could dimensionally get started 00:20:02.040 --> 00:20:03.800 on the process. 00:20:03.800 --> 00:20:07.520 I can obviously change the elevation drawings to reflect that. 00:20:07.520 --> 00:20:10.200 Cameron, what was the original footprint? 00:20:10.200 --> 00:20:12.880 Because I don't know, this dimension thing is not what I think it is. 00:20:12.880 --> 00:20:20.000 So the original footprint was approximately 16 feet by 18 and a half feet. 00:20:20.000 --> 00:20:22.000 Thank you so much. 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 00:20:26.400 --> 00:20:27.400 a foot. 00:20:27.400 --> 00:20:34.040 And then for 18 and a half, it's approximately four feet larger. 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 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 00:20:44.440 --> 00:20:45.440 fence? 00:20:45.440 --> 00:20:47.120 And is that in the new plan picture? 00:20:47.120 --> 00:20:50.240 I didn't notice it, but there's many pictures I was looking at. 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 00:20:55.920 --> 00:20:56.920 the rear property line. 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 00:21:02.220 --> 00:21:05.160 going to have a supplemental dwelling. 00:21:05.160 --> 00:21:06.160 It did change. 00:21:06.160 --> 00:21:07.160 It did change. 00:21:07.160 --> 00:21:10.200 So I talked to building permits and everyone. 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, 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 00:21:19.960 --> 00:21:22.000 to be three feet from both the east. 00:21:22.000 --> 00:21:23.000 That's right. 00:21:23.000 --> 00:21:24.000 I have not heard that. 00:21:24.000 --> 00:21:25.240 I had to look back at my email. 00:21:25.240 --> 00:21:26.240 That's all right. 00:21:26.240 --> 00:21:29.240 I have not heard that because I was interested in one. 00:21:29.240 --> 00:21:31.960 Mary, I think it changed. 00:21:31.960 --> 00:21:39.000 It changed at the time they adopted the current DDC, which is around 2019. 00:21:39.000 --> 00:21:43.040 We've been having discussions on accessory structures, so I know that because with the 00:21:43.040 --> 00:21:49.040 adoption of the current development code that was in 2019, there were some modifications 00:21:49.040 --> 00:21:51.720 made to those standards from what I understand. 00:21:51.720 --> 00:21:54.520 I can make my day. 00:21:54.520 --> 00:21:55.520 For me personally. 00:21:55.520 --> 00:21:56.520 Okay. 00:21:56.520 --> 00:21:59.560 Do we have any other questions for Cameron or for our owner? 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? 00:22:06.560 --> 00:22:09.320 Is there any mention in there? 00:22:09.320 --> 00:22:12.560 No, there's no mention of the roof material. 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 00:22:18.400 --> 00:22:21.840 is for the Secretary of Interior's standards. 00:22:21.840 --> 00:22:26.520 Definition is, "Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting by means 00:22:26.520 --> 00:22:31.800 of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, 00:22:31.800 --> 00:22:36.680 building structure, or object, for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific 00:22:36.680 --> 00:22:39.080 period of time and in its historic location." 00:22:39.080 --> 00:22:50.480 I just wanted to provide that for you. 00:22:50.480 --> 00:22:51.480 Okay. 00:22:51.480 --> 00:22:52.480 Thank you. 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 00:23:00.040 --> 00:23:02.080 a motion. 00:23:02.080 --> 00:23:09.600 As normal, we have four options, approve as submitted, approve subject to condition, deny 00:23:09.600 --> 00:23:18.200 or continue for a specific period of time. 00:23:18.200 --> 00:23:27.400 If there are no motions, I'll ask Cameron to explain what happened in that instance. 00:23:27.400 --> 00:23:34.640 So as this was placed on the agenda back in October, October 10th specifically, so that 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, 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 00:23:47.360 --> 00:23:48.760 is taken before then. 00:23:48.760 --> 00:23:50.640 Go ahead, Lenny. 00:23:50.640 --> 00:23:53.520 Do you have another question? 00:23:53.520 --> 00:23:54.520 No. 00:23:54.520 --> 00:23:59.360 Then I move denial of this request. 00:23:59.360 --> 00:24:00.360 A second. 00:24:00.360 --> 00:24:01.360 Okay. 00:24:01.360 --> 00:24:04.360 Commissioner McAdams has moved for denial. 00:24:04.360 --> 00:24:05.360 Do we have a second? 00:24:05.360 --> 00:24:06.360 I'll second it. 00:24:06.360 --> 00:24:07.360 Okay. 00:24:07.360 --> 00:24:10.420 We have a motion and a second. 00:24:10.420 --> 00:24:13.880 I will just open the floor for discussion. 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 00:24:24.280 --> 00:24:25.280 that was there. 00:24:25.280 --> 00:24:33.720 It has a different footprint, it has a different height, much of the material is different. 00:24:33.720 --> 00:24:37.360 It's not the same structure for a historical district. 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. 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 00:24:53.360 --> 00:24:55.360 to do building on the historic district. 00:24:55.360 --> 00:24:59.640 It's locking all of you down. 00:24:59.640 --> 00:25:01.280 I agree. 00:25:01.280 --> 00:25:11.360 Now, I believe the staff in their recommendation for denial suggested that certain things happen 00:25:11.360 --> 00:25:15.040 before it be brought back. 00:25:15.040 --> 00:25:17.360 Could you go through those? 00:25:17.360 --> 00:25:23.280 So staff did make recommendations, not as part of the actual denial recommendation. 00:25:23.280 --> 00:25:28.160 But if you all had decided to take a different action. 00:25:28.160 --> 00:25:33.120 So those are that a new site can be resubmitted confirming that the proposed detached garage 00:25:33.120 --> 00:25:37.920 meets the minimum three foot setback requirements for accessory structures, that the height of 00:25:37.920 --> 00:25:42.320 the proposed detached garage be reduced to match the former detached garage roofline 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 00:25:47.680 --> 00:25:51.840 and architectural drawings to be resubmitted depicting the proposed structure height change, 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 00:25:57.280 --> 00:25:58.280 narrative. 00:25:58.280 --> 00:25:59.280 Okay. 00:25:59.280 --> 00:26:05.720 If we're still open for discussion, chime in. 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 00:26:14.960 --> 00:26:16.760 they're all recorded. 00:26:16.760 --> 00:26:23.040 All those in favor of the motion to deny raise your right hand please. 00:26:23.040 --> 00:26:34.080 It is unanimous. 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 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 00:27:08.960 --> 00:27:13.140 all been handed these. 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. 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. 00:27:27.240 --> 00:27:31.760 Can we move March 13th to March 17th? 00:27:31.760 --> 00:27:39.840 Any other day except that week, the week of spring break, the 20th would be fine. 00:27:39.840 --> 00:27:44.400 Yes, no. 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 00:27:52.000 --> 00:27:57.600 meetings where we should not have meetings? 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 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 00:28:12.840 --> 00:28:15.720 is that if that's a better date the 20th is fine. 00:28:15.720 --> 00:28:26.440 Okay, so the March HLC meeting is moved from the 13th to the 20th. 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 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. 00:28:36.600 --> 00:28:46.220 Okay, then we have April 10th, any objections to that one? 00:28:46.220 --> 00:28:47.220 Good. 00:28:47.220 --> 00:28:48.220 May the 8th? 00:28:48.220 --> 00:28:52.400 I'm not real sure I can make the March one, but. 00:28:52.400 --> 00:28:53.400 The 20th? 00:28:53.400 --> 00:28:54.400 Yes. 00:28:54.400 --> 00:28:55.400 Oh. 00:28:55.400 --> 00:28:56.400 We'll see. 00:28:56.400 --> 00:28:57.400 I have to check. 00:28:57.400 --> 00:28:59.320 Oh, say would the 6th work better? 00:28:59.320 --> 00:29:01.040 I have to check. 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? 00:29:05.680 --> 00:29:06.680 It's a Monday. 00:29:06.680 --> 00:29:07.680 It's a Monday, okay, yeah. 00:29:07.680 --> 00:29:08.680 We can move it. 00:29:08.680 --> 00:29:09.680 Well, let's crank it forward. 00:29:09.680 --> 00:29:10.680 We're saying on Monday. 00:29:10.680 --> 00:29:11.680 Yeah, that's fine. 00:29:11.680 --> 00:29:12.680 So, let's go for March 6th. 00:29:12.680 --> 00:29:13.680 Okay, that's right. 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 00:29:18.560 --> 00:29:19.560 it. 00:29:19.560 --> 00:29:20.560 Right, I mean. 00:29:20.560 --> 00:29:21.560 May the 8th? 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. 00:29:35.360 --> 00:29:37.680 I have only one, does anybody have any other trouble? 00:29:37.680 --> 00:29:42.880 January the 9th, I mean the 23rd would work better for me. 00:29:42.880 --> 00:29:46.360 Well, the 23rd would work better for me as well. 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 00:29:53.160 --> 00:29:56.800 to enjoy my limited time off. 00:29:56.800 --> 00:30:00.360 Is that too far? 00:30:00.360 --> 00:30:04.160 I don't mind changing it to the 23rd. 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? 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 00:30:18.400 --> 00:30:20.400 on how quickly they're moving. 00:30:20.400 --> 00:30:23.720 I may or may not be here, so the answer on that day is no. 00:30:23.720 --> 00:30:27.440 I totally understand, but no, to your point, that's a good point. 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, 00:30:31.960 --> 00:30:35.280 so that would be over a month. 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 00:30:42.120 --> 00:30:48.680 submitted in late December, usually kind of settles down, so if anything, if we have a 00:30:48.680 --> 00:30:53.400 published calendar, we can inform the public and as to where the meeting dates are, but 00:30:53.400 --> 00:30:57.080 I'd like to think that there's not going to be much COA activity. 00:30:57.080 --> 00:30:58.080 People are off holiday. 00:30:58.080 --> 00:30:59.080 People are off holidays in December. 00:30:59.080 --> 00:31:00.880 Right, no, I think it should be fine. 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. 00:31:06.680 --> 00:31:07.680 Correct, yes. 00:31:07.680 --> 00:31:08.680 That is possible. 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 00:31:20.640 --> 00:31:21.640 May the 8th. 00:31:21.640 --> 00:31:22.640 Anybody got heartburn over that? 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 00:31:31.960 --> 00:31:35.160 I'm gone about the 24th or something. 00:31:35.160 --> 00:31:36.480 I just don't know if I'm making it. 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 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 00:31:46.840 --> 00:31:47.840 it's fine. 00:31:47.840 --> 00:31:48.840 Right. 00:31:48.840 --> 00:31:58.280 Well and remember with three absences you still make a quorum, so things should be flexible 00:31:58.280 --> 00:32:04.240 enough to handle people routinely out on vacations or stuff like that. 00:32:04.240 --> 00:32:08.600 Yeah, I just flipped that last week, Sam. 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 00:32:14.240 --> 00:32:15.240 to me. 00:32:15.240 --> 00:32:18.880 I don't see a problem other than that, I'm just looking carefully to see. 00:32:18.880 --> 00:32:21.720 I was looking for September, that's perfect. 00:32:21.720 --> 00:32:25.320 Yeah, I don't see anything. 00:32:25.320 --> 00:32:26.320 Well, okay. 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 00:32:32.240 --> 00:32:35.240 you retire finally? 00:32:35.240 --> 00:32:40.440 April 10th is not bad, April 17th is bad. 00:32:40.440 --> 00:32:43.960 Oh, is that when the tax came to you? 00:32:43.960 --> 00:32:44.960 Oh, okay, gotcha. 00:32:44.960 --> 00:32:48.400 Oh yeah, that's the Monday after, okay got it. 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 00:33:00.560 --> 00:33:07.320 eligible to be on the commission, having moved out of the city limits. 00:33:07.320 --> 00:33:09.040 So I will remain quote-on-quote. 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 00:33:16.560 --> 00:33:17.560 you. 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 00:33:21.560 --> 00:33:22.560 to our farm. 00:33:22.560 --> 00:33:23.560 Right, sounds exciting. 00:33:23.560 --> 00:33:24.560 And... 00:33:24.560 --> 00:33:25.560 Are you going to farm? 00:33:25.560 --> 00:33:26.560 She's laughing at you. 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 00:33:40.000 --> 00:33:43.680 try and stay on this side of the garage. 00:33:43.680 --> 00:33:44.680 I like that one. 00:33:44.680 --> 00:33:45.680 Okay. 00:33:45.680 --> 00:33:46.680 I like that one. 00:33:46.680 --> 00:33:51.920 But we're still gonna work and I have an office there. 00:33:51.920 --> 00:33:56.840 You're gonna relax a little bit. 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. 00:34:04.760 --> 00:34:13.860 I think if I saw another tax at that point I'd just go crazy. 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 00:34:19.760 --> 00:34:22.200 matter, so make it easy on yourself. 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? 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, 00:34:33.280 --> 00:34:34.280 you know. 00:34:34.280 --> 00:34:41.120 So we talked about a change in January to the 23rd and March to the 6th. 00:34:41.120 --> 00:34:42.120 Yes, correct. 00:34:42.120 --> 00:34:43.120 Did I make a motion? 00:34:43.120 --> 00:34:44.120 Yep. 00:34:44.120 --> 00:34:45.120 To approve the calendar? 00:34:45.120 --> 00:34:46.120 So moved. 00:34:46.120 --> 00:34:51.240 Any other changes of January to the 23rd and March to the 6th? 00:34:51.240 --> 00:34:55.040 Maybe we have a motion, is there a second? 00:34:55.040 --> 00:34:56.040 All those in favor say aye. 00:34:56.040 --> 00:34:57.040 Aye. 00:34:57.040 --> 00:34:58.040 Chair, who did you recognize as the second? 00:34:58.040 --> 00:34:59.040 Whoever you want, it doesn't matter. 00:34:59.040 --> 00:35:00.040 Well, you have to write it in the minutes. 00:35:00.040 --> 00:35:01.040 Chair, who did you recognize as the second on that motion? 00:35:01.040 --> 00:35:02.040 Who did I do what now? 00:35:02.040 --> 00:35:03.040 Recognize as the second. 00:35:03.040 --> 00:35:04.040 The second motion. 00:35:04.040 --> 00:35:05.040 Everyone except Angie moved. 00:35:05.040 --> 00:35:17.080 So just pick someone. 00:35:17.080 --> 00:35:22.120 Don't pick someone. 00:35:22.120 --> 00:35:30.320 Oh, oh, Mary is the second. 00:35:30.320 --> 00:35:34.480 Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that closes our agenda. 00:35:34.480 --> 00:35:37.600 We need a motion to adjourn. 00:35:37.600 --> 00:35:42.600 I always move to adjourn. 00:35:42.600 --> 00:35:43.600 A second. 00:35:43.600 --> 00:35:44.600 Second. 00:35:44.600 --> 00:35:45.600 Any opposed? 00:35:45.600 --> 00:35:46.600 They can stay here. 00:35:46.600 --> 00:35:47.600 They can stay yours. 00:35:47.600 --> 00:35:48.600 You're right. 00:35:48.600 --> 00:35:49.600 Thank you.