So we're going to call to order for students.
All right, welcome, everyone, to our Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
Today is November 14th, Monday, and the time is 530.
Welcome, everyone.
Thank you all for coming.
And if we would stand up and do the punch.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Honor the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.
So we have a fairly busy meeting tonight.
We will start out with our public meeting.
And so I think our first item is to consider the minutes from November 12th, which I've
just put away.
Has anybody got any corrections or comments to add?
Minutes from, sorry, not November 12th, November 2nd.
Anybody have any updates for it?
Thank you.
Anybody want a second?
Second.
All those in favor, aye.
Anybody opposed?
I stand approved.
All right, so now we're going to take up COA 22-0014, we're going to hold a public
meeting and consider an application for a certificate of appropriateness in accordance
with Section 2.9.2 of the Denton Development Code to install solar panels on the roof of
an existing residence at 2101 West Oak Street within the West Oak Area Historic District.
This site is located on the southwest corner of West Oak Street and abouts.
And Cameron will give us a rundown.
Thank you, Chair.
So the address is 2101 West Oak Street as mentioned, it's on the southwest corner of
West Oak Street and Fouts Street.
The owners are Marybeth Butler and Kenneth Pritchett.
Its construction date is circa 1923, but it did have a second story addition added circa
1937.
So just a little bit of the building's history, it was constructed for a fair in Fouts.
Its architectural style is a bungalow style.
Some of its defining features are that square massing, the overhanging closed eaves as you
can see here, that curved portico supported by decorative brackets.
So as stated, the request is for the installation of 23 solar panels on the roof as you can
see here.
So you do see the house located here, a front view of the house from West Oak Street and
then that site plan.
It would be located both on the first and second story roofs.
So this is the current conditions of the property.
This is looking southwest from West Oak Street in front of the property and you can kind
of highlight it here at the proposed solar panel locations.
This is the current conditions looking southeast from West Oak Street.
And once again, the proposed solar panel locations here on the first story roof and then the
second story roof in the rear.
And then the current condition is looking west from Fouts Street.
So looking at the architectural drawings, this is looking west.
This is facing east and then this is facing south.
So on the west side, we're looking at eight solar panels on that first story, we're looking
at two solar panels on that rear second story towards the rear of the property.
Then there is proposed to be six solar panels on that south facing roof on the second story
as well.
An additional two solar panels on that east side facing Fouts Street and then five solar
panels on that first story facing Fouts Street as well.
This is a solar panel elevation, so it can be about 10 inches max off the roof.
So this shows the roof line right here with those shingles and then it would have a support
structure here with the solar panel located about approximately 10 inches off of the roof.
Additionally, this is the proposed system layout just showing where the utility meters
and some of the electrical wiring would be located.
It would be located on that western facade, but it would be located behind Davey Sistine
Properties Gate.
So you wouldn't be able to see it from the street.
So this is just delving into solar panel detailings.
I'm not going to go into high level.
I'm going to keep it really high level for you all, but this would be the solar panel
itself and then just some of the support systems that will support the solar panels to the
roof.
So we do have that cross rail, which is located here by number two.
So that's this system right here and then we also have this system, support system as
well, which goes to this cross rail and which is highlighted by number three.
And then this is just a breakdown of the actual solar panel system, which would be basically
what runs the solar panels and we'll see only a little bit of that on the exterior as I
stated, but once again, it would be behind the gate, but I just wanted to show you some
of that detailing.
So staff's analysis as part of the packet, it did look at the standards for rehabilitation,
specifically looking at numbers nine and 10 in regards to exterior alterations.
Additionally, staff did look at section 4.9.6C, which is in regards to the West Oak Area
Historic District.
And one of the relevant architectural requirements that applied to this specific project was
the roof forms, specifically looking at skylights and solar panels.
So as part of that, the Historic Landmark Commission may allow skylights and solar panels
on a building if their placement does not have an adverse effect on the architecture
of a building or the district as a whole.
So staff is recommending an approval of the COA request to install solar panels at 2101
West Oak Street as the proposed project meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation
and section 4.9.6C of the Debt and Development Code.
However, staff is doing this subject to conditions.
Staff is recommending that six proposed solar panels not being solved on the first story
roof.
This would include the five solar panels proposed for the east side of the roof and the northernmost
panel proposed for the west side of the roof.
So I'm just going to skip ahead real quick.
It would be these ones.
So it would be this solar panel that staff is recommending to not be implemented, nor
these on the east side due to the fact that it's on a corner lot.
Additionally, prior to any issuance of any building permits, a report would be provided
to the city to confirm that the solar panels are removed in the future, that the essential
form and integrity of the historic property is unimpaired, according to the Secretary
of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.
So any questions?
So the specific picture right here is showing this silver in terms of the actual details
that were provided.
It did state that it would be a darker aluminum, and I don't know what is necessarily meant
by darker, but I'm assuming closer to something like this, so it blends as one.
But the applicant is here.
Mary Beth Butler is here to answer any questions that you all have specifically about this
project.
And the roof color is a green, I thought.
It is a darker gray.
Oh, yes.
Oh, a green.
Thank you.
Yes.
I have a question.
Why so many?
Because typically, we don't see that many on it.
I don't know the whole size of the house, but is there a reason why there's so many?
I am not sure, I would have to hear that question towards the applicant, if they're willing
to answer.
I'm sorry that I'm not able to really answer it.
I know the solar company recommended it for us, so it looks like we're not going to get
what was actually recommended based on the recommendation for the conditions.
So I'm sorry I'm not a solar expert.
That's actually not so many, when you look at houses in our neighborhood, they have more.
Really?
How big are those panels, by the way?
Yeah, and it might have to do with size.
I think it may have to be the size is rather large.
Because I think they're getting bigger now, they've gotten better at the chemistry of
making panels.
I was just going to say, I would have to look at the specific details in the packet.
I didn't include that on here.
Yeah, it just...
But I think they are, because if this is three feet right here, we're looking probably at
six feet each, six feet by probably four feet.
How beneficial is it going to be in the summer when the tree, the leaf canopy is out?
I'm concerned about the health of the trees, if you know what I mean, in the long term,
somebody may buy it after you and just go whack, whack, we need our trees because we
know the tree where this is not enforced.
If I may, we bought that house because of the trees.
No, I know, not you, but after you, it means somebody will...
Our houses outlive us.
We only care to take them.
We only rent them.
We don't actually own them, and it costs a lot to rent them.
Yeah, because the picture you should is so many trees, I just can't see that this is
very beneficial.
We have consulted with two tree sergeants and we have a plan for the trimming that would
need to be done.
It would not be harmful to the trees.
So the six that are going to be removed, there was one, or the six that are recommended to
be not included in the approval?
Yes.
The one in the top left, what is the purpose for that one not being there?
That is to just reduce the visibility from West Oak.
So in my packet, and staff included, the fact that, yes, you would be see it from the pedestrian
level, but due to the vehicular traffic going from East to West, and also it facing a shared
drive as well as a neighboring property, and the fact that this is less than a foot from
the front, it would be highly visible, and so this was to just reduce that visibility.
So this is zoomed in a little bit, so it's close to that roof edge right here.
It would reduce it a little bit further in, about four or five feet in.
So just if someone's looking straight on at the property, you wouldn't be able to see
it as well, because it is, like I said, a maximum of about 10 inches off.
So they are going to be parallel to the roof.
That's the picture that worries me of the trees.
I love trees.
Well, you know, I have lots of trees on my lot, and it's so many trees, in fact, that
solar is not possible without cutting down some of the trees.
He said, "Well, we'd have somebody come in and pick out the trees."
No, no.
Yeah, I mean, my trees keep my house full.
I don't know the answer to a question about whether or not it's, we'll see.
We have spoken to Frenchies, and we have spoken to tree shepherds, and we have a plan in place
to work with tree shepherds to do the trimming that's needed to make those trees, to make
those solar panels allow to be effective.
And without the five, or is it six?
It would be five over here, and then it would be the reduction of one over here, but it
would leave seven.
Without those six, does it still work?
I don't know.
It may not.
It may very well not.
And I would find out that my neighbors across the street in the new house have solar panels
across the expanse of their porch roof that faces the street on the south side.
So if visibility is an issue, I'm not sure.
Yeah, that was a discussion before.
When did that come forward?
It was just before you came.
Okay.
Yeah.
So my understanding is that there's, it sounds like it's not a difference in the neighborhood
if there's other houses like that that have it.
I guess.
Is it really going to change?
It wasn't a historic house, though.
The house was a new house.
So that does matter somewhat if it's not a new house.
Is this going to be any kind of detriment to the, I mean, if any, I don't think that'll
help protect the roof and that sort of thing.
I guess I just don't see the issue with it.
Is it just purely aesthetic?
Which side is east and west?
Yes.
So this is facing north, this is facing west, this is facing east, this is south, and it
is a corner lot.
So this is West Oak right here, and then this is Valdez Street.
So that is why staff's argument is due to the fact that it's on a corner lot, and there
will have to be some trimming of trees.
There will be a higher visibility of seeing these versus these western edge ones.
Would you mind putting up the ordinance again that shows us how we're supposed to deal with?
Okay.
Are you asking for staff's recommendation or for-
That.
Yeah.
Thank you.
So what is the adverse effect?
Is it building?
If it is close to the color of the roof.
We don't know that.
We just saw a picture.
Let's assume that it is.
What is the adverse effect?
Yeah.
I mean, I've driven down Locust, and it's only a few blocks from here, and there was
one that faces the street, and it's quite visible and not at all in style with the architecture.
It doesn't look the same at all.
So it's not changing the building in any way.
But that's not what they said.
It's the overall architecture.
I mean, I have less of a concern about that one panel at the very edge, but the others
I absolutely positively can see.
I guess we don't define that adverse effect in that ordinance, do we?
No.
It's the subjective.
That's what we're here for.
Yeah.
I think that's a good point, too, because I live in an older home, and anything that
we can do to help with energy efficiency, because if we stay where we don't change windows,
we don't have energy efficiency there.
So it's like, what can we do to help if it does?
So I look at it that way, too.
What is the adverse effect, or is it more of a better effect that they have that energy
source coming in now?
I think they're investing in the property in general, and not keeping it.
Right.
Well, I mean, I've been through, I guess this is the third one of these I've been through.
I don't know, Angie, have you been through the other two?
Oh, I've been through-- before you, Mary.
Really?
Okay.
I thought I was the oldest person here before.
No.
Yeah, I don't know.
The visibility is kind of an issue.
If you've driven down locusts, try to cross from Soho Salon.
That is in great detriment to what it looks like.
The whole character of the neighborhood changes when you see those solar panels.
And I'm all for saving money, by the way, because I live on West Oak Street.
And I don't mind the one panel that's there.
The others I really do agree with.
I might want to have an addition to the considerations that we don't harm the trees taking any out,
because that's my fear, is what Lenny said is that they would decide that we should take
them out.
I guess it's quite negative.
Do we have an authority to dictate what happens to trees?
It would change the architectural style, it would change the neighborhood.
And that is a bit of a concern, because trees seem to vanish on Friday nights at 5 o'clock
around Denton.
I'm just saying.
Well, there's no indication.
I mean, who knows what a future owner of the property would do, but there's no indication
that the present owner would be removing trees.
Well, and we, for the record, we do have our Tina Bergens, deputy director of the services,
we do have a tree preservation ordinance.
And so we have requirements in place with respect to removal of trees.
So property owners do have some rights under our tree preservation ordinance for being
able to remove trees, if it's so allowed under the ordinance, but also they have the ability
to provide for maintenance of the trees as well.
So we would work with the property owner that regardless this applicant or any other applicant
or property owner in the community to make sure that if any tree removal is done so it's
in accordance with our tree preservation ordinance that the city council has established.
Well, that's true, except at 5 o'clock suddenly the tree hackers come out and whack away.
I'm just saying that I live across the street from someone I, you know, there's no, there's
nobody to protect that tree at 5 o'clock on a Friday, I can assure you, and I'm not talking
about you, ma'am.
I'm just saying in general that I've seen this happen more than once, but I think we're
away from the point now.
I have another question.
Yes.
On the five that you, that staff is recommending, if that's because it's on Fout Street, not
because it's on Oak Street.
Correct.
But it's due to the fact that it's visible from both.
So say if you're at the corner of West Oak and Fouts, you'd be able to see it and due
to vehicular traffic going that way and being able to have vehicular and pedestrian traffic
on Fouts.
So that is why staff is recommending.
Is Fouts part of the Oak history, historic history?
Yes.
It does extend halfway down to Fouts.
And you would see it coming.
Hold on.
It only extends halfway down on Fouts Street?
Yes.
Let me go back to my aerial.
So it extends down to here, sorry, down to here.
So right here is still within the historic district.
So the fact that it's visible from West Oak and Fouts here, if you're vehicular or pedestrian
traffic and being able to see visible, especially due to the fact that it probably won't need
the trees.
I don't know what to extend.
They will be needed to be trimmed back a tiny bit that during the winter months you would
be able to see them.
Summer months, I'm not sure.
I don't know.
Yeah.
I was going to say, I doubt during the summer months.
So that is why staff is recommending the five trees be removed on that side.
So that Fouts, including part of that historic district, is it just that one property that
that encompasses right there on Fouts?
Also the neighboring property across the street.
Across the street though?
Yes.
Just those two?
Yes.
Just those two.
The line goes down very strangely.
Oh, I see that.
That's why I'm asking.
I just wanted...
I'm sorry.
If it helps to do Google, do you want me to do Google?
No.
No, no, no.
You answered it for me.
Okay.
And then I did just want to note, it is in the packet, but I just wanted to note in terms
of recommendations from the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation in regards to specifically
solar panels.
It does mention that installing solar panels horizontally, flat, or parallel, which these
would be parallel, and that was stated to reduce visibility as one of the recommendations.
Additionally, installing a solar device on the historic building in a manner that does
not damage historic roofing material, which this is not historic, but or does not negatively
impact the building's historic character and is reversible.
So that is why staff provided their second recommendation as just confirming that it
is reversible in the future if this property was to be sold and just to make sure that
there's no damage to the historic building as well.
But I just did want to add that from the standards.
Thank you.
That's all.
Yeah.
But...
Do the guidelines that they have have anything about visibility from pedestrian areas or
anything like that sort?
Yes, it does.
And I want to make sure I get the wording correct.
So hold on.
Let me just make sure.
Installing a low profile solar device on the historic building so that it is not visible
or only minimally visible from the public right of way is recommended.
For example, on a flat roof and set back to take advantage of a parapet or other roof
feature to screen solar panels for view or on a secondary slope of a roof out of view
from the public right of way.
So that is why staff recommended keeping these in the rear due to the fact that they were
a secondary roof.
Is there any more discussion?
And how much view do you get on that one up there where you're recommending taking out
the one?
In terms of...
Power or...
Visibility.
I'm not sure without an actual rendering, but due to the fact that it appears to be
less than three feet from the roof's edge towards this front and just staff felt that
it would be the most visible of the panels along that Western side.
So that's why staff is recommending the removal of that panel, but then leaving the remainder
of these panels, which would be seven panels.
I'm trying to wrap my head around why one side we're worried because it's on a street
that the ones across the street can see it.
On the other side, the neighbors were not worried about that.
The house across the street is not historical in that area.
No, no, no, no, no.
I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about on fouls.
Okay.
So we said because of maybe pedestrian, but we haven't said anything about the neighbors
next door.
So to me, it's not a saying either we're worried about it being visible or we're not.
So that, I cannot wrap my mind around why one side, we don't want it here because maybe
a vehicle could see it, but this side over here, these neighbors are going to see it
all the time.
Correct?
But we haven't heard from them.
Yeah.
I mean, maybe.
I mean, you can't, you can only limit, I think, Angie.
I wonder why we're limiting it at all, is my point.
Well, and you know, at a certain point you have to be flexible in the notion of technology
changes, these kinds of things.
I mean, how many houses in that neighborhood have gutters now that didn't originally?
I mean, you could see it from the street, all these things, they're not permanently
altering the structure and they serve a functional purpose and it's normalized now because everybody
has them.
And I'm wondering if this could be arguably the same thing where it may not be as normalized
now as it may be five or 10 years from now, but if we're stuck in the same mindset of
never going to be able to allow it or have it visible at all, then that evolution doesn't
happen.
Well, I mean, I would like to address the gutters.
Gutters usually match the existing trim on the house.
You cannot match this to the existing trim on the house, you cannot change the color
of those panels yet.
Change color of the trim.
That changes historic characteristics.
And secondly, the technology will advance such that, in fact, they actually exist except
Elon Musk hasn't let it out again as they were making solar roofs, real roofs, but he's
used it all up for Tesla.
So yeah, they were.
In fact, just before the last one that came about, there are these roof panels that would
just exist and they would blend right in, and I would say no problem.
So the technology is catching up, but these panels are really quite visible from the street.
And I have no problem with letting the seven over here, as I drive down the street, going
less all the time will show always, the eastern panels will always show.
And if you've ever driven north on Locust, you will see the couple of buildings that stand
out like a sore thumb.
They do not fit in.
So I would modify the one existing one facing west and let it be, because I don't think
you can see much with most of the traffic going from east to west.
You will see the east face.
If they just took out the two on here, how much would they still see?
The two that were street side.
So these are all street side, but taking out these closest ones to the street.
How high is that elevated, do you know?
So this would be, so this is the secondary roof and this is the first floor roof.
So you would still see all of those.
And the secondary, where were the secondaries going to go on this picture?
It would be on this roof line right here, it would be on that front roof line.
And then show me again on the secondary and the other page.
Where on this is the secondary?
You would see, you would still have two solar panels visible, but due to the fact that they're
on that secondary roof line, during the summer you wouldn't be able to have as high of visibility
as you do during the winter.
But due to the fact and based off the Secretary of Interior's standards, that's why staff
made the recommendation of keeping these.
Could you read the standards again, please?
Well, I didn't provide...
You have the other one you read.
So these were provided in the backup.
So in terms of the visibility, the standards recommends that they're not visible or only
minimally visible from the public right of way.
In terms of installing a solar device on the historic building, it should be done in a
manner that does not damage the historic roofing material or negatively impact the building's
historic character and is reversible.
Solar panels should be installed horizontally, flat or parallel to the roof to reduce visibility.
Who promulgated those?
These are Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation.
Do you know if there's any way to install those panels that would be a little bit lower?
Lower to the roof?
Yes.
How could I know of?
I'll do this.
There we go.
So this thing, I confirmed on the dimensions, I can't remember if you commented, it's 10
to 10 inches from the roof to the face, if that helps?
Correct.
Yes.
But it would be a maximum.
Usually like eight to 10 inches off the roof.
We've got some in our neighborhood.
I see them all the time as we drive by, but obviously I'm not in a historic neighborhood
and wouldn't be in one for that matter, but I just really would like, I'd like to be able
to put solar panels on the roof.
I appreciate them not trying to put them on the front and I think that goes without saying
that I think that could definitely change, you know, the look of the neighborhood.
But I actually think you'll see more driving west on Oak on the side than you will see
on the front because as you approach from that side, that's what you're going to see
because there's a street there.
You will see that face more than anything else as you go by, the front face, that will
show more.
I'm happy to leave all of them on the west side.
You know, people aren't driving the other way and most of our traffic is driving.
And that's still 17 solar panels, which is more than most people put on their house,
but I've counted in the past, so it's quite a good-sized panel, but something else.
So this is a solar company, they specialize in installation and this is the number that
they recommended?
Is that correct?
Exactly.
Yeah, because we're not taking down all the trees to make a completely clear, you know,
path that we have to have that many panels to make it worthwhile.
So either taking down all the ones that are recommended, we may have to take some of the
tree cover away and make a plan without those.
You know, the trick is there is a tree ordinance, so taking them away is a little bit harder
than you and just cutting them down because you don't want them.
I'm not interested in taking them down.
I agree with you.
I mean, I actually said that before I believe you.
And they're just out to maximize how many panels they install, which is their business,
so that's fine.
Have we gone any further on discussion?
Is there anybody that wants to make a recommendation?
I just, I feel like if the people next door wanted to put it on the same side of the house,
we would say it's okay, because there's not a street there.
So it's almost like you're penalizing these people because there's a street.
I didn't tell them to buy it.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, but you can see it.
That's the problem.
As you drive down the street, it stands out.
And I know there's some trees there that are going to be trimmed down, and you can see
those panels that you can buy.
And if you're going to minimize them, I think getting 17 is a pretty good number.
I mean, I'm willing to take off the other west one and leave them half out.
I'm not excited about those facing east.
I'm ready to make a motion.
That's a weak count on you.
I mean, it helps with the energy.
But remember, these are all things that are mined and processed and stuff.
So it's not like it's greener here.
I mean, it's greener here, not necessarily elsewhere.
I'm not recommending that we approve the certificate of appropriateness request without conditions.
No conditions from cameras.
Okay.
Should we have a discussion now?
I just think maybe we need to look at the Historic Commission, no, Historic Properties
with an idea.
You know, in order to maintain these long term, they need to be feasible.
And when we have things that will maintain the property and still be able to reduce the
cost of living there, and all it would do is possibly offend somebody's eyes, I think
that's asking a lot.
I agree.
I will point out as I also live in the Historic District, and you know, in that case, we don't
need any regulations.
Let's have a free for all.
I love purple houses.
I like to paint mine purple.
There used to be one on Austin Street that was, or Oakland, Austin, it's very cute.
They painted it over.
But the regulations are put in here by the Secretary of the Interior.
And it's not going to, I mean, I live in the Historic District, I have a bunch of trees.
In fact, my house looks like yours from above.
If you look at the, if you look at it on GIS maps, it looks the same.
In fact, you can't find my roof in the summertime, it's covered over.
So my highest bill, and I like my house cold, my highest bill has never cracked for electricity
$350, ever.
And it's the same size house.
So I don't think the, yeah it is, it's 2,750 square feet, it's half the two story.
So I don't think that $350 for two months out of the summer, because that's all it is.
The rest of my timeline, 100 bucks.
I don't think that is a huge savings to ask to keep the historic neighborhood.
I mean, you didn't just buy it because of the trees, you bought it because you wanted
to live in a historic neighborhood.
Actually, ma'am, we had bought this house in 2001 before it was a historic neighborhood.
So these regulations, we didn't move into a house with the Homeowners Association specifically
because we didn't want this kind of oversight, this kind of regulation.
And so now that we're in the historic district, we want to do what we need to do to comply.
But we also want to be able to do things.
My New Balance billing amount for the city for my energy bills is $360.
And it's likely to go higher than that.
So maybe your experience is different than mine, but our energy is high and getting higher.
The electricity.
May I ask, is this part of the motivation was to save electricity and save on the bill?
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Oh, okay, that's just a discussion.
Yeah, we have to close off public comments now.
We're in the voting discussion.
Lance, did you have more?
No.
I have a question with regard to the tree ordinance.
Understand that the trees are being trimmed.
Is there within the ordinance that they, regardless if it happens on 5 o'clock on Friday, that
you're not supposed to cut down on the trees?
And does it impact anything about how we're moving towards this decision?
So in regards to the historic district, we do not have any regulation as a historic landmark
commission over the trees themselves.
That is a separate process that would be handled through the development services and through
our permitting technicians, as well as our code enforcement.
So that would be a separate if, say, if the trees were to be removed after hours and or
without a permit, that would be handled by code enforcement.
But under historic landmark commission, you all are not voting and do not have jurisdiction.
Okay, so you can't say that the only condition would be that there would be only a trim and
not removal of trees?
No.
Okay.
Correct.
Thank you.
Correct.
So is it possible to make an amendment to this or suggest an amendment?
Yes.
But Lynn, you would have to accept it.
Yes.
I would like to amend that we allow the panels, including the one that faces west, just not
the east panels.
Okay.
Hold on.
And so Leni would have to either accept or not.
Yes.
I know.
So these would, this would stay.
That would stay.
But these would be still removed.
No.
Okay.
So the amendment on the floor stands.
So it stands.
Sorry.
It's not amended.
Okay.
The motion on the floor stands.
The word that was supposed to come up.
Other discussion, comments?
Shall we have a vote?
Shall we signify by raising hands?
This is in support of Leni's proposal.
Yes.
Leni's proposal.
All those in favor, raise your hand.
Opposed?
Passes.
We need to take a break now?
Yes.
We'll take about a five minute break or so.
Oh.
Sorry.
I was finding my page.
No, you're totally fine.
Yes.
All right, everyone.
I think we've had a good break.
So hopefully we're all ready to get started on the second half of our agenda, which could
take a little while.
It is the work session and we'll open by discussing HLC 22-081A.
Discuss and provide direction regarding those sections of subchapter two of the Denton Development
Code pertaining to the historic landmark conditions, composition, operational procedures, and regulatory
responsibilities.
So I'm going to pull this up.
It's kind of a large one.
Is there a presentation?
No.
Is there a presentation?
Oh, okay.
Just here finally getting it here.
Okay.
So is this the section that you were talking about and break on the number of days or no?
I think there's several sections that just do that.
Yeah, kind of a little.
Is this so big that it's a little, you know, maybe we should start an order from just the
subchapter starting with like 2.2 and working our way down or just seeing if you have any
initial ideas and we can go around.
Hang on.
No worries.
Before we begin, I just wanted to reiterate what the purpose of this discussion is.
This discussion was for the commission as a whole to provide direction to our definitions
ad hoc committee, which is made up of Commissioner Cooper, Commissioner Cable, and Commissioner
Stripling.
And this is to help them start working on those edits and adjustments to subchapter
two in regards to the historic Landmark Commission and those historic procedures that you all
are encountering during staff's review and during these meetings.
So I just wanted to remind you all what the purpose of this discussion is about.
Looking for 2.2 table eventually.
So taking a look at this, wow, okay.
Ms. Hemingway.
There was nothing specific.
It was more just so I need to see if I specifically it would be on I guess the third page of the
table itself where it's listed historic preservation procedures.
Just make sure everything looks good there and then we're moving on to that next section,
which is listed as the 2.3.6, which is in regards to the historic Landmark Commission.
But I'm going to bring it up here in the meantime, just so that we have it online.
Oh yeah, that'd be great.
I actually don't think I have teams up, unless I can sign in here.
Oh, I hate teams.
I accidentally leave it like I did earlier.
Do we have it on the hand?
I don't know.
Teams hates me.
I'm not sure why.
I think I have teams someplace else that just won't work.
Do you know how to get to the home from here?
I can't.
So the three of you worked on this, right?
So I think this is more to get us to a point where we can't.
Yes.
I see.
So we had staff sent this prior to so that you all came with ideas that you could discuss
during this time rather than us working and trying to gather ideas right at this moment
during the meeting.
Because that could take potentially hours.
Are we in discussion at this point?
Oh, yes.
Yes, it's a work session.
Okay.
So I think one thing that prompted this is we have a lot of discussions about, for example,
windows, right?
And where are the guidelines for that?
And that's just one example of kind of mentally seeing like a window in a frame.
That's one item, but we have to build the frame.
That seems to be missing from this.
And I don't know, I'm looking really, I think we're looking really, if y'all let me know,
you know, Angelique, in case, at 2.9.1 and following.
And where do we want to, if we want to, put in more guidelines?
And so that's on page like 109.
Thank you.
Sure.
And then really, I would just point out, if folks are interested, on page 111, and this
is under 2.9.2, the certificate of appropriateness, kind of talking about some of the principles
that guide that.
And I don't know, I just sort of had frankly drawn, I mean, because I'm the newest guy
here, I don't really know where to start.
And that's one reason I wanted to get feedback from you guys.
I didn't know if we wanted to put in, if we wanted to edit, maybe condense a little bit
of the Secretary of Interior's guidelines, and put this in here, but in our own wording.
And before, while you're pondering that, Cameron, when you have a new, you know, application
for this, do you sort it into those four buckets that the Secretary of Interior provides?
You know, is this, is that the first thing you do?
No, that's the first thing I do when I receive an application, the applicant themselves do
not do that, myself as the HPO does that, and that's where I kind of break it down,
is it preservation, is it rehabilitation, is it reconstruction.
And so that's where I'm breaking it down to those four buckets.
Okay.
So I did wonder if maybe there would be value in us doing something similar in our own code.
I'll just put that out there.
I mean, one of the areas that we were stuck was what is preservation and what is like
preservation.
And did I just say that same thing, preservation, anyway, to me, they get intermingled.
Sure.
Oh, it's improvement.
Improvement, yes.
Rehabilitation.
That's it.
Rehabilitation and preservation, and we start looking at that, it's like, well, what are
the meanings of all of those when you start looking?
And to me, they just start really, it starts many in the water bit.
But if we created our own structure, if you will, then we can, as a group, figure that
out.
But I'm just right now, I'm trying to figure out, do we want that much of a structure within
our own?
I don't see anything wrong with having a little more structure, perhaps, because I admit that
the difference between preservation and rehabilitation, to me, is very, is sort of muddled.
I think there is a better definition than I have, mentally, but that'll be up to you.
Would it assist to, or would it be helpful to use the Secretary of Interior's standards
of what preservation and rehabilitation is, and just use specifically their definitions?
The problem is I don't think the city code uses those words.
I think that was the problem.
Correct, they do not.
I think that was the problem, the city code, and they didn't directly translate.
I'm sorry, is it an absence in the city code?
No, they use different words altogether.
They do.
Remember, when we get together, it's all together different.
Right, yeah.
And we all went, "Wait a second."
We could go from that, though.
Yeah.
But again, just to have an overarching framework, and then, as a group, we could put it up and
we could literally edit on the fly, you know.
But I think the one that stuck out in my mind was the improvement, the code, the city has
used the word improvement, and we didn't know which one of those fell under, is that revotation,
is that preservation?
You could argue any one of those.
Right, and if we do our due diligence here, and let's say that we deny something, and
we do it for one of those reasons, it goes to council, and council is looking at totally
different terminology, because that's what's in the code, city code, so it just gets real
confusing.
Sure.
We may have to bend the Secretary of the Interior's things to it, but you know, that's...
Oh, yeah.
I mean, there's something behind this, though, is those are recommendations?
Yeah, in some materials, the definitions are either at the front or back of words that
make a difference, that really make a difference in what you're doing, and so you can look
there and see how it's defined.
Maybe that is something we should do, so that when we see this word, we know what it means.
Even examples of an example of a rehabilitation or example, just to give a guideline, you
know, not inclusive, but just as a one example.
So Lenny, you mean in terms of, so say, in text, say it stated improvement, and then
it provided the definition of improvement in that sentence, as it talks about, you know,
as if you're going through a certificate of appropriateness, and you're looking into improvements,
as such an improvement is this, and then it continues kind of the sentence on.
Is that what you mean in terms of the text?
No.
I've seen it actually, there was a separate section in the, whatever it was, whatever
ordinance or whatever you would need in which they defined the words, they were just all
in a row, maybe two pages or something like that.
Oh, are you talking, okay, the, are you talking about the definitions chapter that we have
in our code?
If, then can we add these in there?
If there are terms that are not defined in the DDC that you feel need to be better addressed
where they are defined, then as part of this discussion, we could entertain amendments
to the DDC in the definitions section.
So we put all the definitions, when we have an ordinance like the DDC, we try to keep
all the like things in the like area, right, so all the definitions, we put in the definitions
chapter.
We try not to put standards in the, vary standards in the definitions subsection, we try to put
those standards in whatever applicable section they need to be within it.
So if there's, and then in another clue, and Ron, correct me if I'm wrong, Ron, you're
welcome to come up here.
Ron has been, I know y'all, some of you know Ron Mendita, our principal planner on our
planning team through past work with the Historic Clean Work Commission, but also he's worked
extensively on amendments to our DDC.
And so one of the things, typically you'll know if a term is capitalized, then it's defined
in the definition section.
So that's one technique that's used so that the reader of the ordinance sees, wait a minute,
this word is capitalized, so therefore, you know, I know to go look in the definition
section.
So we try to create those linkages if at all possible.
Right, and Tina's correct, we want to keep those definitions in one area so that if there
are changes to the definitions, they're not conflicting in the future.
So that's the purpose.
For the group that's putting together those suggested or recommended code amendments,
yeah, I would suggest I start identifying those terms that are not in the development
code, and then we can start to draft those definitions.
Again, the purpose is really to help not only the HLC, but also the applicants that are
also reviewing their applications through the development code as well.
The other thing I might offer also, as you're considering whether or not 10-min certain
components of the DEC as it relates to certificates of appropriateness, since that's 2.9, is so
if there are areas where you're thinking you may want flexibility as part of your decision-making
process, then either a separate policy might prove beneficial for evaluating certificates
of appropriateness or the preservation plan if there's guidance in there.
Also the standards provide the framework for the evaluation of certificates of appropriateness.
So that's generally where you get more of your flexibility, right?
When it's put into an ordinance, keep in mind ordinance is law, and so if someone is seeking
relief from the DEC, then typically that relief has to go through the Zoning Board of Adjustment
and they're subject to a different set of criteria for evaluation.
So I only put that out there so that as the committee works through and the commission
as a whole works through some potential amendment, you might keep that in mind that if there
are areas where you think you may want some flexibility, then it's better to have that
flexibility in the policy document or leaving that in the re-habilitation or the Secretary
of Standards for evaluating the various certificates of appropriateness.
Once it gets put into an ordinance and becomes law, then obviously it's much more stringent.
So there may be certain things that the commission is wanting to see that are part of the ordinance
because the criteria for relief under the ordinance is going to be much different than
other criteria or that you may have that you find in some of your other documents, if that
makes sense.
I know Mary, you're looking at me kind of strangely, so.
Yeah, that's the last bit kind of got me a little.
Right.
So keep in mind, so when regulations are put in the Denton Development Code or DDC, that's
law, right?
So they either meet or they don't.
When a property owner or an applicant needs relief from the DDC because of how it's structured,
that's considered a zoning regulation.
So it has to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for relief.
If you're finding as you're evaluating certificates of appropriateness that sometimes there is
some gray areas, whether or not it's appropriate or not, I mean, we had a good example of that
tonight, right?
And your flexibility comes from those applications being evaluated under the standards, right?
So and you have the opportunity to debate more of the standards and that offers you
more flexibility compared to what you get out of the DDC because the DDC is essentially
we try to make it as black or white as possible, right?
So it's either permitted or it's not.
So it's as you think about what amendments we might want to address or additional text
that we might want to include in the DDC, just think about that aspect also of, okay,
are we okay with having that true, a hard, hard, fast regulatory item that's provided
for in the DDC or is this something where we might want to be able to have more flexibility
for evaluating a request that the standards give us the opportunity for?
So that's why I put that out there because going through the Zoning Board of Adjustment
for Relief from the Debt and Development Code has a different set of criteria, one of which
is typically property hardship that has to be demonstrated and it's very difficult for
property owners to be, to demonstrate property hardships.
So that's why I put that out there.
So it's, I mean, there's probably still going to be some changes that you made in the code
itself, more generally.
Do you think it would be more useful to use the guidelines feature?
So what is it, it's 236(c)(1)(b) says that one of the powers and duties of the Historic
Landmark Commission is to establish guidelines to be used in determination whether to grant
or deny certificates of appropriate.
Oh, for demolition, you know, to finish reading that sentence.
Is there something similar, some kind of mechanism that's similar as far as making guidelines
that wouldn't have the same effect as a line in the code?
Yes, I mean, if the commission wanted to put forth a set of guidelines for evaluating certain
types of requests, you have the ability to be able to do so.
I kind of think of like a criteria manual, if you will.
Design guidelines.
Yeah.
Right.
So that, because then when it's guidelines, it still gives you some of that flexibility
that the ordinance tells you for evaluating certificate of appropriateness, the commission
shall consider the Secretary of Interior standards, and also this guidelines document that the
city has adopted.
Right?
So...
It actually says that.
Any applicable guidelines adopted by the city, and that is under 292 compliance required
number 9.
Number 9.
So as you were talking, Tina, it talks about guidelines as well.
Well, I can say 292.
292.
Under appeal.
I think it's under appeal.
292.
Under appeal.
I think it's under appeal.
292.
I thought the relief went through City Council.
That's what's happened in the past.
That's why I'm confused.
So it depends on what process they're going under.
There's kind of two options.
So there can appeal your decision to City Council, but if they're requesting zoning relief,
which would be either removing a landmark designation or asking to be removed from a
historic district, that would require to start at the ZBA process and then move through
that according link.
I see.
But in that sense, I think that's a good question.
That's a good question.
And that's specific to a landmark designation, but if there's a regulation that's included
elsewhere, regulating historic properties, depending upon how it's structured, that in
all likelihood that relief would have to go towards the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
So because the examples that Marcella cited, when it deals with designation of a property
or the district itself, she's correct because that's considered a rezoning action and HLC,
or excuse me, a certificate of appropriateness for, I guess it's not a certificate of appropriateness.
Just an action for designating a property is considered a zoning action.
So hence why it starts here, then it goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission, ultimately
the City Council.
But if there were some other provision that was written in the ordinance that is not tied
to the rezoning of a property, like an overlay designation, then normally that relief is
sent through the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
And again, it depends upon where it's occurring and how it's written within the ordinance
itself.
So it comes down to where do we wordsmith and as we wordsmith, we need to think about
if we want flexibility from that.
So if we're trying to provide criteria for evaluating certificates of appropriateness
and we want to set a guidelines, then like Skimmer, as you were case, when you asked
the question about would we be better off having a guidelines document to be able to
help us evaluate, yes, because that helps to give you some flexibility on the gray areas.
Guidelines sound kind of good because I guess Lance, you brought up the problem with windows
and doors and locks and things start to get a little on the fine points.
Well, you want to be consistent with everybody.
Well, that is a problem.
Yeah.
And we could try to hash that out in our guidelines.
Yeah.
I think you have a tough task.
Right.
You would agree.
As far as guidelines, would that need to be adopted by ordinance in New York, could be
something that the HLC.
So I think it depends on what effect the HLC wants them to have.
If they're kind of just a position statement of the HLC that exists to give guidance to
Cameron, but not necessarily direction, then that would be, that could be adopted just
by the HLC.
If it's something that you want to have more force, like a criteria manual, that would
need to go through the criteria manual process.
And the city council.
Yes.
Correct.
Which is ordinance.
The HLC review says as well.
Yes.
They provide a recommendation.
Yes.
So go through HLC, then PNC and then on the city council.
Okay.
So.
And we can talk about that further because especially if it's coming from the HLC, it
may just be able to go from HLC to council.
But if that was something, I mean, we can obviously research that.
Yes.
Yeah.
We have to look into the specific process for like a historic criteria manual.
But for other criteria manuals, they do go to PNC and then to council.
I think guys are asking us to do that instead of having to go through all the...
It does give residents an opportunity to come in and say, hey, mine's different because
it does.
And then it gives us a little way to be able to act on that.
Here's my issue though.
So, and maybe this is just me looking way too at this one thing.
When I look at the powers and duties list of the historic landmark commission, it's a
very specific itemized list of what the powers and duties of the HLC are.
Where is that?
First page.
236.
Yeah.
And so I'm not sure if there's another place that gives authority outside of that.
And if not, do we need to have the city council make some kind of amendment to provide authority
to promulgate guidelines and those kinds of things?
Because the way it's written, it's very specific and very limiting on what it is that we can
even do here.
And some of that may come from...
Exactly.
Besides not being clear on what things meant when written about our duties versus maybe
about council or planning the zoning, what was it that you all were coming up against?
The difficulty.
It's been a bit...
But if I remember correctly, it came down to, you know, when we first started talking about,
because windows were such a hot topic, it was like, okay, what does the HLC have authority
to even do on that?
Because if we want to have a policy on that, where does that authority come from in the
code and that sort of thing?
And then the code was using words that I guess the instructions weren't and that caused some
havoc because we were like, well, does this even apply?
Because the one that really sticks out to me was improvement, which wasn't really well
defined at all.
Yeah.
So I think just going back to when the ad hoc committee was created, city council specifically
delegated authority for the improvements discussion.
They also struggled with that.
And I'd have to go back and watch the council meeting to get more information because it
has been quite some time, but there was specific delegation to HLC to review kind of the components
of the code that we're discussing.
So I know improvements came up.
Improvements, rehabilitation, specifically in regards to our tax incentives and our tax
exemptions.
So where those words are coming up in terms of what is considered rehabbing or maintenance
and what's considered improvement.
And so that's where city council was having issues in terms of understanding exactly what
is an improvement, what is rehabilitation.
And so that is the reason as to why the definitions ad hoc was created.
But then once it was established, the subcommittee decided that we needed to look at subchapter
two as a whole in regards to historic preservation and historic preservation procedures and the
historic landmark commission and see if there needed to be any updates made based off our
experiences in the past and having these discussions not only with applicants, but amongst yourselves.
And I think going back to Keeson's specific question on where the authority lands, I think
it comes from the implied review of the certificates of appropriateness.
So because you are the entity who are reviewing those documents, if you want to create a standard
for what that review looks like just among your group that you'd review annually or that
you'd come up as a position statement to review bi-annually or every five years or something
like that, you can decide as a group kind of what you want your guidelines to look like.
But I think that would come from your power as the reviewers of the COA.
So they would either need to be directly tied to the review process of the COA and the guidelines
you'd use to make those decisions or it'd be related to this kind of separate discussion
that council directed HLC to look at, which was the improvements and rehabilitation definitions.
I think we had a discussion about how much money it actually was a year that you saved
by getting the HLC historic landmark thing.
It hardly, I think when you calculate, you did a calculation, didn't you?
It was pretty small, as I recall.
My husband said it was almost worth not doing.
There was, I mean, it depends on where it is.
There was a building downtown where it was going to save $20,000 or $30,000 a year.
That's a lot.
I mean, those are very high-value properties.
Well, you know, my support value.
And I think our discussion, too, was, you know, as a commission here,
I think we want people to upkeep their properties.
But are we giving them an incentive to be able to do it?
Are we constantly standing back and saying no, no, no, no, no?
Or what is, what's the give and take here?
So if we had a set of guidelines that they would know ahead of time,
because a lot of times people buy a property and then we want to blame a realtor.
Oh, you should have told them it's a historic district.
They didn't know that.
And they have all these grand ideas.
And then they come here and we say, we can't do it.
But we really want you to upkeep your property.
Yeah.
And that reminds me, there was something I was thinking about at the time.
And this was in the discussion of what kind of penalties there may or may not have been
and how to enforce things.
And I was trying to use the carrot.
Instead, since we do have some say into who to give the tax benefits to
and try to more formally figure out exactly how that should go.
You know, if we could put more stringent requirements on that to say, you know,
you haven't violated the historical board, you know,
you haven't done any work without getting pre-approval with the COA first or something like that,
at least some type of incentive to actually go through with it
instead of using the stick method which is punishable in afterwards.
Well, I mean, there's a lot of benefits for commercial entities, especially.
I mean, they're excellent benefits.
I think that should say some of the good buildings.
I think they're lesser for homeowners.
But I think a set of guidelines would help.
If I didn't live in the historic district and I wasn't on this,
I'm not sure I would know all of the rules and regulations before, you know,
before you wanted to do something.
Now, I don't know that I always know them because I think Tina gave me something new last time we met.
Boundary changed, right?
Between fence line and building.
Oh, okay.
Three feet.
Yes.
Larger.
I was impressed.
I was like, I was excited.
And I think if we, as we go through this, leaving some openness for a change,
is I think back when maybe I started on the HLC, solar panels weren't even a topic.
Right.
You know?
And you look at how technology grows and what other things might be,
and you don't want to just say this is it.
So I think that's why the guidelines would be nice with leeway for changes.
How many applications for solar panels are there even then?
I've counted three.
I'd say, yeah, about four or five, yeah.
I can remember seeing three come through.
I was saying this, I've been here almost two years,
and this is the first time I've seen solar panels come through.
I remember the first one was a pretty heated one.
That was the house across the street that we talked about today.
But it was a new house.
But it's not a historical house?
Oh, you just knew it?
It was a new construction.
Oh, because it's in the district.
It's in the district, yeah.
But I think it wasn't quite a district yet.
I think it was still a...
But I guess to get us back in terms of topic,
I was just saying, what is the subcommittee,
is this helpful conversation or do we need to have specific questions?
Or I guess...
I mean, I would like something a little bit more concrete in the code.
I mean, if we're getting a wish list here, things take shape.
City Council, something more concrete in the powers and duties
that specifically says that we have the authority to establish guidelines
or a policy statement or something regarding either definitions
that aren't laid out in the code
or policy for determination of different items.
I'm not real crazy about the idea that we just had this implied authority
because of the COA.
It just kind of says, if it's not against the rules,
you just kind of do whatever.
Okay, I hope you kind of stick close to the Secretary of the Interior standards.
At least they're somewhat defined.
I mean, they're not great, but...
I mean, they're kind of vague in many ways in a sense.
I mean, there's some...
There's some specificity to some of the aspects of the standards,
but yes, it is just a guideline.
It is recommendations.
I think to call yourselves historic, you do need to keep those in the code.
If you want to consider yourself a historic property
or a historic district, National Park Service,
they are what defines historic preservation and what is historic.
So I think if we were to remove those at any sense in any way,
I think we would do ourselves a disservice.
So I do think those need to be kept in there,
but I guess the way in which you are incorporating them into your review,
that can change, but I do think we need to keep those in there.
Can I ask a question, and that would be...
So, Kacen, what I'm hearing from you is you would like some sort of statement
in the DDC that basically acknowledges that the HLC has the authority
to adopt additional guidelines as it deems appropriate for evaluating...
As long as it doesn't conflict with the current code.
So if we need to get more into the minutiae of it that maybe the code can't do,
with a more flexible document that could be easily changed.
So that was my thought process, is that...
So you're looking for some sort of statement in the DDC that says the HLC
has the authority to adopt guidelines as it deems appropriate for evaluating X.
We can determine X, whether it's Certificates of Appropriateness,
the Tax Exemption Program, or any other program.
Demolition and designation.
Right, but at least it gives you that statement that says we can go in
and adopt these guidelines.
And then the group works on the guidelines for the particular topic, right?
And then we bring that back to the group for discussion to see,
okay, if these guidelines that we put together for evaluating this particular aspect,
if we feel like that meets our needs, great.
If not, make the adjustments we need to.
And if Marcella tells us it needs to go to council for formal adoption
by resolution versus ordinance, we can work that process.
But to me, that's, I think, what I'm hearing.
Is that a good summarization?
Yes, it absolutely is.
Now, if there's already something in here that I haven't seen that kind of does that already,
I'm just not real comfortable assuming that we have that power without seeing it.
Well, so that's something that Cameron and Marcella can take with them.
And so we can confirm, okay, does that language exist?
And Ron might need your assistance also.
But do we know if that language exists within the code?
If not, what would be some suggestions that we would add to the code
to be able to address that?
Including, you know, including if the code is not specific to evaluating requests
in accordance with the Secretary of Interior standards, pointing that out.
Or if there's any other regulatory guideline documents that we use for evaluation,
to me it's important to point those out.
But at least that's the starting point where we can confirm what's within our DDC or not.
Then we work on getting that statement or series of statements included in the code.
Ron's our expert on processing those.
But then to me it sounds really what the commission is needing is or finds beneficial is,
let's work on when we get a window request,
what are our guidelines for evaluating windows?
What is the commission deemed more appropriate versus not?
If we have another solar panel request come through,
what is the commission deemed as appropriate for a detonate
and being consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards?
If we get a request for replacing doors on properties or roofs,
you know, whatever those hot button items that we find are the ones that are more
of a struggle as we evaluate and we feel like we need some additional parameters to meet,
then I think it would be really good for the HLC to focus their efforts on those particular items.
If it's the tax exemption program, if we feel like that needs assistance,
then, you know, we can focus on that.
But it's to me, it's whatever the commission feels like are the more challenging items
where we need more guidance for evaluating it to maybe provide for some consistency
as commissioners roll off and new ones come on,
then I think, you know, you can create that framework document if you will.
So if that's what you're looking for, I think we break this down in smaller pieces and address it that way.
And if we run into an issue where it's like, oh, well, that's not intended consequence of this language,
it's something that we don't have to go to the City Council for,
well, we need to amend that, we've got an internal policy document that we can, you know, vote here and make changes to.
Tina, I just wanted to make it clear, if it's an internal document that the board is issuing for itself,
that doesn't have to go anywhere outside of this.
If it's anything that is supposed to be...
But do we need authority in order to make that?
So if you're not comfortable with your implied authority, then yes.
I was talking about this for a different issue,
but I think we're on board from the city attorney's office with boards and commissions who want to make position statements.
This is kind of a position statement.
Here's our position on windows, and here's what we do when we review windows.
If that's what we want to do, I think city attorney's office is comfortable that within the board's guidelines
from our boards and commissions handbook and also the powers under the DVC,
there is an ability for the board to do that.
It would be an internal document that wouldn't have any kind of force outside of just your internal review process.
But if that's the kind of document you're looking to create, then I think there is the ability to do so.
For an example, if you wanted to write a position paper on enforcement,
if you wanted to take this means we want to, you know, recommend enforcement,
or in this situation, we don't recommend enforcement,
I think that would be something that you as a body could do without additional direction.
We would share this with the public.
Oh, no, no, it would be, it can be shared publicly. It just wouldn't have any force.
Like it wouldn't be like an ordinance that you could point to and say you're violating this, so we're going to find it.
It would be a set of guidelines with consistent language in it that people would understand the different definitions,
and then we would have certain protocols for certain things that we see on a regular basis.
Maybe with the caveat that says for anything outside of these,
then it would go back to that grid or discussion and maybe inclusion later in that guideline.
I don't know if what we're talking about is that rigid.
I don't think we would have a if this then that equals approval.
How we would address windows, how we would address solar panels.
So is that going to be included in that guideline or no?
Yes, so that would be the document we're talking about.
But I don't know that I guess and maybe I'm misunderstanding what we wanted to do is I don't think we would be wanting to say
if you provide these things, you're like automatically approved.
I think there would still need to be discussion process.
It's kind of similar to how the Secretary of Interior standards is set up.
I mean, this HLC has looked at it, but basically they'll provide a scenario.
They'll say if you're looking at solar panels and then they'll recommend a list of things like, Cameron shared tonight,
things that are do's and things that are don'ts.
But it's not saying if you do all the do's, you're definitely going to get approved.
It's just saying.
Yes, that's basically what I was saying and then the language is for the definitions.
We've gone back and forth about what's, I forgot the terms we use.
Reconstruction versus improvement.
To have maybe something more detailed about what that could mean that not only the city council,
the person submitting the certificate in this committee would be on one page about them.
Right, which says that could be done in terms of if we were looking specifically in this instance for guidelines for the tax incentives,
those would need to be defined in those guidelines so that that serves as kind of that guiding light for the HLC,
as well as staff when they're doing that kind of review.
But then what staff would be held to in terms of the review would be specifically the code that's listed because that is law.
But those would be kind of to help you guide you all in those gray areas.
So, for instance, where we did have that gray area with solar panels, you know, staff provided their recommendation based off what's in the code and what's provided the secretary into your standards.
But then you also would have that kind of guideline of talking about different circumstances and we can talk about different examples.
So, but yeah, it would not be law. I think you guys are heading in the right direction. I've got a draft here of the proposed code amendments that a previous staff member put together.
And what he noted, what was noted is established guidelines to be used in determination of whether to grant or deny certificates of appropriateness for maintenance,
rehab, restoration, new construction and demolition. You can also add, you know, the tax incentives as well. So I think that's what we're going.
That's already the direction that you guys are going for. I think establishing that duty and responsibility in the development code is we can do.
And then the formulation or drafting of those guidelines would then fall out.
Yeah. The only thing that I would like to see if I wish list would be specific authority to further define undefined improvements.
If there's something that's specifically outlined in the code, allowing us to come up with our own definitions list for things that are left undefined by the code.
So those definitions be changes that would go into the DDC.
No, I'm thinking just another thing for our own guidelines and that way we can remain consistent across the board and be like, OK, when we say this, this is what it means. I just want to make clear for Ron's notes. How is that different from the language that Ron was proposing?
The guidelines can include definitions. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. I assume if you have authority to make guidelines, you have authority to define that.
For purposes of evaluating X, improvement shall consider including but not limited to. And then you can give some examples, right?
And I purposely didn't come up with a specific example for that. Windows came to mind.
As you work on guidelines for evaluating, obviously anything that we can defer to that is defined or a common term would be most appropriate to use.
But if we're trying to provide some additional context, and I think that's where examples come into play, right? But to me, that's where this policy guideline document could really help benefit the commission in having it specific to certain items that you find challenging to review when making a decision.
I think it would also help the public that it's going to come forward, because I think it's really hard for people, for honest people that aren't just out for a quick buck, but people that live here to know.
Given, if you could just show an example of an application, I think some people have no clue what it should look like.
The biggest benefit is it will help staff from being like, well, is this going to get through? See how they feel.
Because with the guidelines being provided on the more challenging topics, it does hold you accountable.
So current commission, subsequent appointees to the commission, then if the commission finds that these guidelines are no longer working for the community and need to be reevaluated, then the commission has the ability to make those adjustments.
I think we have a conversation on a regular basis with city council sometimes on policies that they've adopted that guide some of the land use development that happens within the community, is that it is appropriate to review those policies from time to time to make sure that they're still relevant and appropriate for the community.
So just like any guideline documents that the HLC would establish for itself, that it is appropriate to review it from time to time, because especially in some of the requests that you all see, let's face it, new materials can be introduced on a regular basis that might be determined to be appropriate to be used for historic properties or possibly not appropriate.
And so being able to update those documents accordingly to be able to address their changes in technology would be important to keep current.
Now, Hardy board didn't used to be appropriate.
And just the point of clarification, the partial tax incentive that's in the code of ordinances. So, if there is definitions there that means clarification, I think that's what the council directed initially, that needs to be prepared in a different way and codified because that's part of the code of ordinances.
And I think what it was in that if I remember right in Lansing case and you'll keep me honest here, but I think it was the term improvement.
Because the term improvement in the code is very broad.
Other panels and not for debate, I'm using it for an example. That doesn't fit rehabilitation that doesn't fit any of that, but it's an improvement.
So that's why to me that term was so broad on that tax incentive there.
We'll look at the code ordinances to and see what definitions because there's a, you know, there's a definition section.
What is the Secretary of Interior to the average person? Are they really going to look these up? But if we, if it's ours and we present them, here are our guidelines, you know, maybe we can.
We're not trading for the property owner to come in and not know. Sure. Sure.
So are there any other things on? I think we were looking at 2.2. I only have a question and I guess it was composition. There used to be a composition limit.
A run of composition of the board. It was like, you had a story. You had an audit is that still there? I just didn't. So that's actually in the code of ordinances and it was removed at the direction.
Actually, in just to kind of add on that, I'm looking at it right now because I remember there was some language in here. So I was looking to see if your magic language was the most portion.
But we made it consistent with the state CLG program. Yeah. That's what we brought with it. So it doesn't reference the accountant anymore.
Right. Yeah, there were some weird, there were these weird. Yeah, it doesn't do that layout anymore. And specifically within the DDC, we just changed it to four members, presidential, constitutional, quorum for the transaction of business.
It's on here for one meeting. We take out the account. I guess my only concern is that somebody should live in the neighborhood in a historic district. There at least should be one representative. I don't see. I didn't know if that state or went away.
That is not a requirement of the certified local government. Yeah. For a historic commission, I think at least one person should live here. I really, I mean, how is that changeable?
That's a city council. And that actually that was approved by you all as the HLC and went through on March 22nd of this year.
Right. So what we have in the ordinance right now is the list of members whose qualifications or professions are architecture, history, architectural history, planning, prehistoric and historic archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation, or landscape architecture.
So there are still parameters provided and it's consistent with the certified local government program.
Correct. I don't recall us taking off someone living in a historic district. I don't either because that is something I think is important. Yeah, me too. And I recall taking something off of there, but that's not what I recall.
Did you say that it's their profession or did they have a background? What was the beginning of that? List of membership qualifications or professions are. Okay. Yes. I don't remember us taking off a resident.
So let me just say that it was a recommendation to council is ultimately city council's decision and this was the direction they went. So I think if we want to discuss this further, we'll need to put on the matrix to discuss.
That's part of this whole thing. So I'm just saying that I was like, a little more. I think we see this mission going off the matrix. Yes.
So there was one other thing I think it was related on. Is there anything else related to a two eighty one zero eight one a.
I would say does the subcommittee feel like they have some direction to move forward and to start making adjustments or this just complicated a little bit more and add more to your plate or how's everyone feeling?
Are we going to wait for council or are we going to go ahead and get cranking on the guidelines? What do we think we could have one ready that way? I mean, I mean, it's arguable that we can do it now. I mean, that's just kind of makes a little more implicit.
Could I offer suggestions so we can and I know Marcel has already advised that is the legal team's position that that you already have the ability to be able to develop guideline documents.
We can as part of working on futures code amendments, we can work on adding this concrete statement. I think Ron ran through a red line version. We can provide that to the committee.
We can make a look at it. You want to make formal recommendations for the commission as a whole to say, yes, we agree, disagree. We could bring that back as a separate item, Cameron.
But to me, then it sounds like probably the lion's share of the work that is going to be to identify those topics in which the commission feels that having some guidelines provide whatever those topics might be.
Right? So to me, I think if the commission, the subcommittee may have already identified a list of items that would be guidelines on, or maybe we bring that back at another meeting and have that conversation about what are some of the applications that have been really challenging for the commission to work through where it would have been nice to have some sort of guidelines and maybe have that discussion then to give you an opportunity to call through your memory banks and identifying some of those projects.
That's spot on what I was thinking. If we could have a top three, at least on the big, like you said, the largest challenges that we've had that are a place to start. And I know that council was, the reason we even started was because of the tax issue and diving into that, that was just way more.
Just way more. But it's hard when you don't have the guidelines to go by.
Go ahead, I'm sorry. No, no, no. I was thinking maybe for the work matrix, maybe for next time we could, you know, ask everyone what topics.
Well, I mean, I don't know if this is outside of our topic, but I was just thinking for guidelines that immediately come to mind are, you know, do we want to somehow say, at least take a closer look at windows, paint, and roofs, because I feel like that's going to probably
turn about 75% of the difficulty with we want to keep you busy for what you guys want to hear.
Just to also inform the commission, there are three districts, there are three historic districts, and they have each different requirements or standards. So once we develop these guidelines, we just have to be, you have to understand that there are different standards for those particular districts as well.
Thanks, Ron.
Okay, so it sounds like the items we'll bring back for a future meeting are reviewing the redline language that Ron had shared. I guess you all can decide, maybe give some direction, Mary, if it works for you, whether or not that just goes to the ad hoc committee first or if you want that brought back to the group as a whole.
And then the second item was developing that list of items that need, that the committee will need guidance on where to start focusing that effort. So to me it sounds like that one needs to come back to the group as a whole.
Or just make a list, make lists.
So are we ready to move on to HLC 22-082A, which is discuss and suggest eligible historic properties from a local historic landmark designation.
And that was where my list got very long.
Okay, so I believe we discussed this back in September 12, 2022. So I shown this to you all
back at that time at that meeting. And one of the things as the Historic Landmark Commission is you all have the ability to recommend to Planning and Zoning Commission properties that can be up for designation,
whether it's a landmark or even a historic district. So, similar to our matrix, one of the things that staff has now included is to have a reoccurring agenda item where you all come forward as individual commissioners or you can come as, you know, a group of two or what not.
And you bring forth properties that you feel should be designated within Den, or areas that you feel should be either a historic district or conservation overlay.
So this would be kind of the guiding light for you all. And in addition to this survey, we also additionally have the 1996, 2012, and 2015 surveys, which were included as exhibits, but those are online as well.
But these are all those properties within those past surveys from the last 30 plus years that were considered to be eligible properties worthy of designation within Den.
So as you can see, we have thousands of properties that could be designated, we're just not doing that at the moment.
So I thought if we had a reoccurring item where you all have the opportunity to get out there and see what properties that you feel that matter to you, or maybe to your communities, maybe it's your neighborhood in that instance,
that you feel should be designated, this would be not only something that is reflective of your powers and duties within the DDC, but is also part of the preservation plan that was implemented in 2019.
So obviously you all might not have anything that you're bringing forth this meeting, but as I said, it will be a reoccurring agenda item. We do have this resource and I'm happy to send this out, or we can include that in Monica's email every time that she sends out the agenda package
and just say, "Hey, reminder, here's your online resource." And you can also find those online as well under the historic preservation page, but just to provide you kind of that breakdown of what that will look like, if you all have watched city council,
they have their two minute pitches that they bring forward in terms of something that the council will cover at a later meeting, or that staff might be allowed to dedicate time to.
So just to kind of provide that breakdown, it'd be a similar breakdown, but the commissioners will have the opportunity to bring forward one to two properties from the Denton Historic Resource Survey map to discuss and vote on.
A commissioner proposing a property for local designation consideration will have a maximum of two minutes to justify the need for designation of the property.
Remaining commissioners will each have a maximum of one minute each to provide feedback and indicate their support for the designation, and after that each proposed property will need a minimum of four commissioner votes, which is four of them, to pursue designation of that property.
At that time, if a property does receive four or more votes, I will add that to an active designation list. So that list will just keep growing over the year, and that will kind of meet also what's said in the preservation plans of terms of the HLC keeping an annual list of properties that should be designated.
So this will be kind of that preliminary list that you all start to create, but also in terms of what we're, we've kind of talked in past meetings in terms of we're seeing a lot more demolitions coming forward and everything.
This will show that we're making an active, the commission's making an active go at potentially having these properties designated in the future and having, starting to have this conversation with the property owner to see if they have interest, and maybe that's, you know, kind of where we go into that sub chapter two and kind of maybe work on the incentives and all that kind of thing.
But don't want to get off topic, but just kind of, this is what this item will be. And as stated, it'll be similar to the matrix. So I just want to provide that.
I have a question.
So, there's a lot of beautiful buildings that are UNT, TWU. Do we have any jurisdiction there? So we can speak with UNT. We can have those conversations, but we can't just bring them up.
I would say, I don't know if we'll have them, but we don't have that authority just to say. So, I mean, they're within our city, but they would still have to have that sign off in terms of the owner sign off.
But yes, so we could designate those properties at the local level. I believe, I don't think that we, I would say, I don't know.
Okay, so we might need to look into that a little bit more because those are universities, but from my understanding, if they are willing to have those discussions with you all as the commission and say, you know what, we think that's a great idea.
They might be leaning more towards the national and state because they get more tax incentives there.
I'm sorry, they don't get taxes. They used to. They did. They did just remove public universities from that. So, not incorrect, but they did just change that this year. So, those were removed, but that's a discussion I think we can have. And we do have that authority. We do have that opportunity to have those discussions. But whether or not UNT and TWU would be willing to sign off on that is, we'll see.
Okay, I can say no, just generally.
On behalf of UNT, you said.
It raises an interesting point because normally from a land development zoning side of things, we cannot regulate the universities.
Because they're an entity of the state. So, a local government typically cannot regulate the state level. We get our powers from the state, right? So, but if there are some opportunities through historic preservation program and like Cameron said, it could be just, you know, they may be willing to do that on their own.
Good press, perhaps.
But I think that definitely under Marcella said she'd look into it. So, I'd be curious if there's anything under.
Brother, I've never come across anything in relation to that.
Because I've seen other universities do it, but it might have been because they were a private university versus a public university. So, we'll do some more research. We can come and bring that back.
Interesting. One past president of UNT famously said, I have no responsibility to that neighborhood that he was ruining at all.
My responsibility is solely to the Board of Trustees and Board of Regents and the school and to the legislature.
And it didn't include dent and saying anything.
I think your phrase that better.
I have only one comment related to this. I think that since the landowner has to agree to this, I would at least like to make a suggestion that our working group consider this when you talk about the word improvement because if it's not an advantage to a homeowner, businesses get a lot more benefits, and the homeowner is going to say,
you know, I don't care. So, if there's nothing there, I think it's going to be very hard to convince people to move on. And so, this argument about improvements, which is where you guys started, is a real concern in my book. If people see no benefit, they don't want to do it. In fact, they only see it as an impairment to their ability to improve anything.
So, please, let's be a little generous there. The only other question I have, Cameron, is there a way to put a distinction on the GIS map the city has so that it just pops up that it's a historic thing, instead of having to go look at the tax rolls of everything?
So, these are all highlighted as being the eligible properties.
No, but on GIS, for the city GIS. When you go to DentonCad.com.
We don't have these specifically listed. We do have our local historic districts and local landmarks. It doesn't pop up in each house? Correct. No, it does not pop up in each house.
That would be kind of cool because then when you go to kind of look around and go, wow, all these houses in this neighborhood have been historic. Right. Yeah, that's why we have to have the different GIS maps because I'm assuming there's only to a certain degree that we can have so much GIS data in one map.
So, we do have the historic resource survey one and then we also have our Denton landmarks map as well on the historic preservation page.
But these all highlighted are the eligible properties. So, that's already been chosen for you. It's just you going out to the site and saying, hey, is that integrity still intact? Do I think it's worthy?
How far back is it the age of the property or is it the age of the community around it?
So, when these surveys were completed, these were taken into the context of the National Register, so the Secretary of the Interior's standards.
So, they first were looking at, okay, is it over 50 years old? Yes. Then they were going into the different criteria of the National Register.
So, the first survey on here is from 1996 and then our 2012 Bolivar and then Idiot's Hill, which was 2015.
So, they all, their baseline is that 50 years and then from there they start to break it down into criteria in terms of, does it have historic significance?
Was there someone of importance who lived there or is the architectural integrity still intact? So, that's kind of where they break it down into those different categories from the National Register to determine whether it's eligible or not.
I don't think I've heard anybody call it Idiot's Hill in a long time.
Well, I've heard it a lot. Oh good, that's good. I think it would be exciting to get some new houses on.
Has anybody approached the city about wanting to become beyond?
I've been approached twice and probably the biggest factor that it came down to is that they didn't feel like the tax incentives were really there.
And they didn't feel that to be regulated to the extent that they would be, that they were being compensated.
But they did want to restore their properties to, you know, a historic period.
So, a lot of those people who came to me, the next direction I steered them in was state and federal.
So, all those people are now looking at getting both state and national. But the thing is it's not as much regulation at the state and the national as local.
So, or I guess as much as image teeth per se.
But the benefits are at least for businesses are much, much better for state or national. State and national.
Yeah, we don't have enough. Yeah, we don't because for state and national, those are for income producing properties.
And so, some of these property owners, they were talking about, oh, well, I might do that and become a rental property due to the incentives.
But they were like asking me at the local level what we had first to offer. And I presented to them and they just said, oh, that's not really what I was looking for to do all this kind of maintenance.
I mean, I almost want to say that as a commission, we have to think about what we can, what the city can offer.
Correct. So, that's something that we can discuss and, you know, put on the matrix or something that we can be discussed.
Because we had discussed a little bit in the subcommittee as well our discussions, but that's something that we can start to also kind of think about what are some better incentives.
But, yeah, I think it's worthy because I do have a lot of, I've had members of the public come and ask me, if I do this, what are my, I guess, my perks and I present what I present.
Is it possible to give us advice on what other cities do? Yes. Could you come back with that? I would like to know what McKinney might do because they have a pretty nice historic district and Grapevine has a very nice one.
What can we do? Because they seem to be very attractive to people. I mean, even Fort Worth, the people love the historic area. So, what do other cities do?
In terms of compensation? Yes, in terms of compensation because it actually builds business if you look at all of these areas where they've saved all the homes.
It's very big in the business area. Very, very, you know, people spend a lot of money downtown.
I think maybe if we can direct back to questions about the new process for designation. Yeah. In addition to my question about the universities.
So does this show if a university owns a structure? And I don't mean just on their campus. Oh, I see where you're going with that.
Oh, in terms. Oh, if they own it in terms of who's the ownership and what you would find on DeKalb. Does it show? No, we do not have that.
But you have a neighbor that is owned by CWU. I do that. I'm just wondering about some other structures.
I'm sure we can pull probably the data. And that's why I just wonder, because there's some that I think are gorgeous that are close to a campus.
And I wonder in my mind, I'm thinking back in the day, it was used for this. I can think of all kinds of stories, you know.
So that's what I was going to say. That's something I actually I'll talk to our GIS and see if we can connect it to DeKalb just because I think that would be helpful even just for staff and any everyday user who might want to use it.
But thank you for that. I'll take that to GIS.
I'm sorry. I'm just making notes to myself. All right. So any more discussion on 082A?
Okay, we have a little bit more. HLC 22-093 Discussion Determine Opportunities for Public Outreach and Education by Historic Landmark Commission.
And so I mean, I guess when I saw this, I wasn't sure whether you meant for just educating the general population or the people that are already in the historic district, you know, sort of outreach to like anything from elementary schools.
It's whatever you all want it to be. It's very broad. It's more of just because we've had those discussions and it's been brought up in past meetings that the HLC wants to put more of a,
I guess, a face to a name and kind of get more outreach and educate not only realtors could be discussed in the past, educating realtors in the area, whether or not they have a historic property.
We've talked about, you know, talking to contractors potentially. So this could be something it's really in terms of, for instance, preservation month. You know, that is in the midst of kind of in the preliminary stages of coming back for a second annual in May 2020.
Yeah, you know, that is something that maybe you all as a commission want to participate in. You had talked about block parties in the past and having a block party where you guys get the community together, but also, you know, celebrate preservation, talk about preservation.
So this really is kind of that larger discussion of how do you all want to do that public outreach staff right now currently has, you know, the preserved and Instagram.
You know, I'm going out to different functions and talking about
Historic Preservation in Denton, doing speaking sessions, interviews. So that's, for instance, I guess, two weeks ago regarding the UNT journalism student who had interest in talking to an HLC member.
I don't know if anyone volunteered for that, but that was an opportunity to kind of put, you know, once again, a face to a name of who's on the commission. What does the commission do? What is your role? Why is of importance to the community?
In terms of preserving a sense of place as well as observing Denton's historic structures and built environment. So those kind of opportunities that you all have as a commission and, you know, we don't have to hash it all out tonight.
I know it's been a long meeting so far, but kind of just getting kind of those preliminary ideas. But I did want to mention that Preservation Month 2023 is going to come back for me.
I would suggest putting this in the matrix for next time.
I kind of agree.
So then, okay, so we have two or three different things that we want to add to the matrix, but we'll bring it back.
Exactly. So then, Mary, do you want to move on? Yes. Now we'll move on to item D, which is HLC 22-094. Hold the discussion. We're currently in the Historic Landmark Commission project matrix.
So we have the initial one for public outreach and education, which was brought on the agenda, but maybe it's kind of a recurring item similar to our designation.
But additionally, we have discussion about the potential for window standards. I don't know if we want to keep that on there based off the kind of guideline discussion we just had so that if you all want to remove that, you all just need to have a minimum of four votes.
We have that quorum number, minimum of four votes to remove that. Additionally, just wanted to note that you will see some changes. Staff is now going to have a section under the matrix, items for Historic Landmark Commission consideration.
We do actually have a number of items that are in consideration right now. This is something, as you can see from the HPO from staff, a walking tour of historic districts and landmarks to review current property maintenance.
A mixer with Denton County Historical Commission. So this would be kind of to see what the County Commission is working on. What are kind of, they do a lot of public outreach, kind of just seeing, you know, are they working on markers or anything like that.
And maybe you all can share some ideas or things that you've learned about over the last year being on the commission.
Vice Chair Anderson brought forward on 9/26 the regulation of fencing in all local historic districts. So that's another item for consideration. Additionally, discussion of potential updates to the demolition code of historic properties.
So that is something that's being discussed amongst other cities in Texas in terms of putting a more stringent, I guess, demolition code forward in terms of eligible historic properties.
So in terms of that map, say we're looking at that map and there's a property that is eligible that is going to be, has come in for a demolition permit.
You all as the HLC would have the authority to put a stop work order on that for 60, 30 days, 60 days, whatever it may be until you have a chance to review it as a commission.
That is something that was just implemented in San Marcos. I've talked to that HPO and some other cities are trying to kind of see how that would work. But that's something I wanted to bring forward.
Additionally, discussion about an HLC event during Preservation Month 2023. And then lastly, discuss enforcement action and give recommendation for HPO to work with city prosecutor, which we discussed in that special call meeting from November 2.
So just want to let you all know that that's kind of that's going to be kind of the considerations breakdown now on the matrix.
And then additionally, we are going to have an annual update from myself as staff where I just provide annual updates of what I've been working on, such as, you know, whether it be marketing, social media, different things.
Maybe I've gone out and done some speaking sessions or I've worked on some policies and ordinances, but that's where I'll provide that annual update.
So just want to run through that. But I will take you all back to I just wonder whether we want to remove two of these since you guys are working so much on standards.
Well, see, I was thinking about moving into the consideration section because that seems less of an action item and more of a this is something we need to be thinking about keeping in our minds unless I'm understanding.
So the Historic Landmark Commission consideration, these would be items that we put under request and that we would bring forward to in a future.
Okay, so it's just a future request. Yes, yes.
Because I think like the fencing thing is actually under what you guys are talking about. And as far as standards, it would be on my list, right? Fencing.
Right. Yeah. So if we want to discuss about those two other items that we had discussed back in or I guess on item 3B, which was the eligible historic properties, as well as 3C, which was public outreach and education.
So I guess if you see anything that you all feel like needs to be removed, then we just need a minimum of four commissioner votes to remove it from the matrix.
But if there's items that you all want to add in terms of requests or consideration, then we need to have the minimum of four votes.
Or if there's anything that you need, you want to move from consideration up to request. I'm kind of thinking the windows can be removed since it is a subcommittee working on that.
And can we add to that the fencing so that you guys would be able to have that on there in a sense?
Well that, I was going to say that was something that you all discussed maybe having as a future agenda item that people bring back their topics.
So if you all want to bring that back as a request for a future agenda item, then we need you all, someone to present that and give me the statement so I can write that down and then we need the four votes.
I would request that we do what you just said, that we maintain a list of items that we want to consider if we got one.
That was easy.
We had a wave going.
We'll start over there.
Who's paying attention?
Lance, I just want to clarify, did you want the window and the fence item moved under that discussion or do you want to leave those on the agenda?
I think we should move them under that discussion. You're my recommendation.
Okay.
Is there, we had two other items that were kind of being discussed during?
Well, I have one about the composition of HLC to add to this because certified local governments are fine. HLC is a historic landmark commission.
I think some representative from a historic district should certainly be on the commission since they intimately understand the charms and the costs of living there.
I agree.
And the benefits.
We'll stop for a discussion right now. That's something to put at the top, right?
Right, yeah. So this would be put as a request for a later decision.
No, it would be a request to make a recommendation to city council because it would have to go before city council.
Yes, it has to go before city council.
I think we were talking to add on the matrix under the process for designation. I mean, what benefits? Oh, sorry.
Sorry, we need a vote on that.
Oh, we have to vote on that. Okay.
Yeah, we have two people.
Sorry, there's a lot going on.
Well, it's getting tight. It's getting late.
Yeah.
Okay, so are we done on that one? We got it. Do you have that camera?
Yes, yes, I do. Sorry. My brain is finally wearing out.
We talked about a new process for designation of what benefits there are to the homeowner. It kind of was related to, you know, improvements and why should we have any more historic properties?
So it was sort of something, I don't know whether you want to call it educational or under you guys talking about incentive, the incentive part you were talking about. I wasn't sure where it would wind up.
But how can we get more people to come if we have nothing, if there's no benefit to them?
So a discussion regarding incentives for historic property owners.
Right, and mainly homeowners because commercial entities have a much bigger, you know, place to go than us.
So do you want to include information from other similar situations?
Yes, from other areas around the state. What do they do, like New Brunsworth or San Marcos or Grapevine or McKinney, San Antonio?
Vote to have that added to their list.
I have one other, but it's mainly I think to encourage just, I think it may be under education.
The part on education was that I don't know that every business owner actually appreciates how much benefit they can get from having a city that has a lot of historic buildings.
So the same cities that we just rattled off, it would be behooving them to know not just personally can they get a tax deduction, but how much business does it bring into other cities like Grapevine has the wine fest, people are charmed by it, McKinney has both the old days and McKinney have something like that.
So you're looking for the economic development.
Yeah, how much does it bring to the city to have a historic district? So that would help increase the quantify it.
I know that's hard or something, but I think it could have a real benefit.
So he's a palooza.
I'm done. I promise I'm done.
Did you guys want to vote on that one? Yeah.
Okay. And then just real quick before we move on, sorry, before we close, did you all want to have put on there a discussion about education and outreach since we didn't really discuss that tonight, but we said that we want people to bring ideas.
Do we need to, do you all want to add that as a request saying bring at a future meeting ideas for Historic Landmark Commission specifically? Yes. Okay, Republic Outreach.
As Cameron said, yes.
So that was for us to talk about tonight, but no one, we didn't have anything, I think we've reached the end.
It's like 738 and I'm a little gaga. Yeah. Okay.
Is there anything else that we want to add?
No. All right. Well, given that we have completed this, I don't have much of a point.
And I'll make the motion after I ask the question. When did Roy go in the hospital and what do we all know?
Monica?
Or do you want to close up? Yes. Let's close the meeting first. Yes.
He might be watching right now.
We're on tape. All right. Thank you all. We've adjourned at 739.